|
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 21:00 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +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."
Yeah, but a extremist wouldn't think that it sucks that a woman had to see that. Extremists stone women for dressing wrong, i'm not sure that they would care. But i don't have "proof" or something for that, that's just me thinking.
|
This is a horrible act of 1 insane person.
It might have been terrorism but it definatly was not organised terrorism.
It is not something specific for the islam, england has had its share of christian terrorism/war in the past as well with the ira as some older people might remember. And the brits themselves also have done some dubious things.
Just google bloody sunday.
The worst of this is not the act itself i think, but the influence it has on the whole of society (becoming more intollerant)
|
On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me.
It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own.
|
Where does it say the soldier has been beheaded, by the way?
Try as I might, all the sources talk only about stabbing and cutting his throat...
|
On May 23 2013 21:04 Meow-Meow wrote:Show nested quote +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...
It is indeed rather sad but it also shed some light on why these things happen in the first place. If Afghanistan were to bomb a western country in their hunt for foreign terrorism and accidentally killed children and civilians instead, it is clear that that there will be people who could react this way, regardless of cultural and religious background.
|
On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own.
You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures".
|
Just heard about this, what the hell?! These guys are insane! Disgusting 
|
On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures".
Biased?
I suppose if you define bias by not prescribing irrationally to organised religion then I suppose I am.
Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children.
But please educate me where I am wrong.
|
On May 23 2013 21:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 23 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:22 paralleluniverse 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. 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.
Chances are this lunatic doesn't know any more about the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan than a random tl.net member, and he probably has no connection to the culture or the way of life in those countries beyond religion. Why should anyone care about his political manifesto?
|
United States41942 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. But please educate me where I am wrong.
The guy in question wasn't shouting at the women for shaming themselves and corrupting men by showing their hair, he was apologising for giving them PTSD. Domestic terrorism man, what you gonna do. Things would be so much easier if he'd been shouting at them about not wearing veils.
|
On May 23 2013 21:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. But please educate me where I am wrong. The guy in question wasn't shouting at the women for shaming themselves and corrupting men by showing their hair, he was apologising for giving them PTSD. Domestic terrorism man, what you gonna do. Things would be so much easier if he'd been shouting at them about not wearing veils.
Why did he single out women?
|
On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children.
Actually i meant something else. I'm not religious myself, let's get that out of the way first. Your first posting reaked of "he talked about the koran, so he clearly has to be a religious motivated terrorist". After that you tell Kwark that he should not jump the gun with assumptions and let the police do the work, while still talking about the "terrorist" as an extremist, neglecting that he even talked about politicians directly.
So yeah, your're biased. You made up your mind, he = religious terrorist, and further it seems to me as if you think koran = bad. That's bias.
About the women: they're treated as "things". Not as children. A young son has more "rights" than a wife.
|
If there is no evidence that these men are part of a larger organisation, I wonder if it's really appropriate to call this terrorism as opposed to "just" a particularly brazen murder.
|
United States41942 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:23 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:00 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 23 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:22 paralleluniverse 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. 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. Chances are this lunatic doesn't know any more about the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan than a random tl.net member, and he probably has no connection to the culture or the way of life in those countries beyond religion. Why should anyone care about his political manifesto?
Two reasons that I can see. Firstly, because the guy actually has a point. Nobody really cares about the human impact of our foreign policy because we don't see it, it's far away and the people it happens to aren't really people, not people like us at least. That's irresponsible in a democracy, we ought to either hold our government to account for its sins or accept responsibility for the sins it does in our name. Secondly, because it happened and could happen again. Maybe it won't in which case ignoring him would be fine but I doubt he's the only person who feels that way.
If someone kills an agent of the government because he's pissed off that the government did a thing it is at least worth knowing and understanding what that thing was, even if you mean to keep doing it.
|
On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:25 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. But please educate me where I am wrong. The guy in question wasn't shouting at the women for shaming themselves and corrupting men by showing their hair, he was apologising for giving them PTSD. Domestic terrorism man, what you gonna do. Things would be so much easier if he'd been shouting at them about not wearing veils. Why did he single out women?
Regardless of culture it is rather widespread that most men try to "protect" women. Its just simple biology and group dynamic.
|
United States41942 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:25 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. But please educate me where I am wrong. The guy in question wasn't shouting at the women for shaming themselves and corrupting men by showing their hair, he was apologising for giving them PTSD. Domestic terrorism man, what you gonna do. Things would be so much easier if he'd been shouting at them about not wearing veils. Why did he single out women?
Cause his mother brought him up to be polite. I offer my seat to women on public transport, doesn't make me an Islamic fundamentalist.
|
On May 23 2013 21:27 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. Actually i meant something else. I'm not religious myself, let's get that out of the way first. Your first posting reaked of "he talked about the koran, so he clearly has to be a religious motivated terrorist". After that you tell Kwark that he should not jump the gun with assumptions and let the police do the work, while still talking about the "terrorist" as an extremist, neglecting that he even talked about politicians directly. So yeah, your're biased. You made up your mind, he = religious terrorist, and further it seems to me as if you think koran = bad. That's bias. About the women: they're treated as "things". Not as children. A young son has more "rights" than a wife.
It wasn't just because he talked about the Quran, though that was certainly a nice fat hint, it was his religiously and politically motivated words. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Your government isn't going to protect you, you have to overthrow it. Things of that nature..and weren't there reports of them yelling "Allah Akbar" during this ordeal? Call me biased if you want but it seems to me that it's just putting 2 and 2 together.
|
On May 23 2013 21:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:27 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. Actually i meant something else. I'm not religious myself, let's get that out of the way first. Your first posting reaked of "he talked about the koran, so he clearly has to be a religious motivated terrorist". After that you tell Kwark that he should not jump the gun with assumptions and let the police do the work, while still talking about the "terrorist" as an extremist, neglecting that he even talked about politicians directly. So yeah, your're biased. You made up your mind, he = religious terrorist, and further it seems to me as if you think koran = bad. That's bias. About the women: they're treated as "things". Not as children. A young son has more "rights" than a wife. It wasn't just because he talked about the Quran, though that was certainly a nice fat hint, it was his religiously and politically motivated words. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Your government isn't going to protect you, you have to overthrow it. Things of that nature..and weren't there reports of them yelling "Allah Akbar" during this ordeal? Call me biased if you want but it seems to me that it's just putting 2 and 2 together.
As i said. There's a difference between a religously motivated crime and a crime done by a religious person.
|
On May 23 2013 21:33 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:32 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 21:27 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. Actually i meant something else. I'm not religious myself, let's get that out of the way first. Your first posting reaked of "he talked about the koran, so he clearly has to be a religious motivated terrorist". After that you tell Kwark that he should not jump the gun with assumptions and let the police do the work, while still talking about the "terrorist" as an extremist, neglecting that he even talked about politicians directly. So yeah, your're biased. You made up your mind, he = religious terrorist, and further it seems to me as if you think koran = bad. That's bias. About the women: they're treated as "things". Not as children. A young son has more "rights" than a wife. It wasn't just because he talked about the Quran, though that was certainly a nice fat hint, it was his religiously and politically motivated words. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Your government isn't going to protect you, you have to overthrow it. Things of that nature..and weren't there reports of them yelling "Allah Akbar" during this ordeal? Call me biased if you want but it seems to me that it's just putting 2 and 2 together. As i said. There's a difference between a religously motivated crime and a crime done by a religious person.
So screaming "Allah (God) is great" in arabic while hacking someone to pieces was just them being religious people doing a crime, not people motivated by their religion to carry out the crime? That doesn't make sense to me, but please explain.
The guys obviously wanted attention, put up no fight whatsoever AND waited 30 minutes for the police to show up. They weren't just doing a random crime, they were sending a message.
|
United States41942 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:33 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:32 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 21:27 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:14 m4inbrain wrote:On May 23 2013 21:08 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me. It would actually seem quite consistent to me for an Islamist to treat women as fragile creatures incapable of making adult decisions on there own. You're clearly not biased. You're not even correct with your assumption that they think they're "fragile creatures". Biased? I suppose if you define bias by not being irrationally religious then I suppose I am. Sharia law often requires a female's male relatives consent in order to undergo certain acts. I would regard this as treating women as children. Actually i meant something else. I'm not religious myself, let's get that out of the way first. Your first posting reaked of "he talked about the koran, so he clearly has to be a religious motivated terrorist". After that you tell Kwark that he should not jump the gun with assumptions and let the police do the work, while still talking about the "terrorist" as an extremist, neglecting that he even talked about politicians directly. So yeah, your're biased. You made up your mind, he = religious terrorist, and further it seems to me as if you think koran = bad. That's bias. About the women: they're treated as "things". Not as children. A young son has more "rights" than a wife. It wasn't just because he talked about the Quran, though that was certainly a nice fat hint, it was his religiously and politically motivated words. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Your government isn't going to protect you, you have to overthrow it. Things of that nature..and weren't there reports of them yelling "Allah Akbar" during this ordeal? Call me biased if you want but it seems to me that it's just putting 2 and 2 together. As i said. There's a difference between a religously motivated crime and a crime done by a religious person. So screaming "Allah (God) is great" in arabic while hacking someone to pieces was just them being religious people doing a crime, not people motivated by their religion to carry out the crime? That doesn't make sense to me, but please explain.
We had this exact argument three pages ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
