|
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 |
+ Show Spoiler +On May 23 2013 21:00 Pandemona wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Latest News] +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.
- 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 04:10 hzflank wrote:
If I had to guess it would be that they did this due to islamic extremism. Unfortunately there are rare cases of muslims in the UK being groomed for terrorism. Some go out to fight in the middle east. A few try to make and use explosives etc in the UK but are generally caught before they act.
I know quoting myself is a bit silly, but it was pretty easy to call. The police knew that they were being groomed by extremists and had been watching them. In this instance the police did not intervene in time.
|
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. 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.
Shouting "burn in hell" when killing someone doesnt (in itself) make it religiously motivated. They did send a message, and it was mainly political.
|
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.
Your simply throwing a tantrum over semantics, where politics begin and where religions starts or whether women are treated as children or objects. As a secularist I see little divide on the former, and the latter I will say either attitude is appalling.
I believe anyone who takes religious scripture literally, be it from the Qur'an, Bible, or anywhere is committing a disservice to rational thought.
|
On May 23 2013 20:38 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not somebody's head. A soldiers head. How in the world can an attack on a militant be considered terror. Does that mean every act of war is an act of terrorism? After all wars are religiously and politically motivated, involve killing soldiers and definitely involve putting on a display.
I find it odd to see the British being so shocked about this but still continue to protect Altaf Hussain, a real terrorist who just happens to be British and secular. But hey, he is killing Pakistanis not Brits. Gotta mean something right?
|
On May 23 2013 21:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote: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.
K just went back and read it, still haven't found anything that made sense other than what other people said that came to the same, obvious, conclusion I did. They are killing people to get revenge for muslims being killed. Not Sudanese people. Not Egyptians. Not Iraqis. Not Syrians. Muslims. It's religious.
|
On May 23 2013 21:29 Meiya wrote:
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.
You do know one of them (or both?) yelled out allahu akbar as they did it, and then proceeded to say to the person who approached them with a camera, that they carried out the attack due to the what's happening in "their country".
A religious/politically motivated attack on civilians with intent to spread panic/fear is what most countries define terrorism as so there's really no two ways about it.
|
United States43505 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:36 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote: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. K just went back and read it, still haven't found anything that made sense other than what other people said that came to the same, obvious, conclusion I did. They are killing people to get revenge for muslims being killed. Not Sudanese people. Not Egyptians. Not Iraqis. Not Syrians. Muslims. It's religious.
His ideology is strongly influenced by his religious world view. The things he is bitching about because of his ideology are British foreign policy. It's an important distinction in my opinion (also explained in the last few pages).
|
On May 23 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:40 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 21:36 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. K just went back and read it, still haven't found anything that made sense other than what other people said that came to the same, obvious, conclusion I did. They are killing people to get revenge for muslims being killed. Not Sudanese people. Not Egyptians. Not Iraqis. Not Syrians. Muslims. It's religious. His ideology is strongly influenced by his religious world view. The things he is bitching about because of his ideology are British foreign policy. It's an important distinction in my opinion (also explained in the last few pages).
Because Muslims are dying. British foreign policy is what results in that, but the reason he is mad is because people of his religion are being killed. If it was "people from my country are dying" it would political. He only gives a crap that they are killing Muslims.
|
United States43505 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:40 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:29 Meiya wrote:
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. You do know one of them (or both?) yelled out allahu akbar as they did it, and then proceeded to say to the person who approached them with a camera, that they carried out the attack due to the what's happening in "their country". A religious/politically motivated attack on civilians with intent to spread panic/fear is what most countries define terrorism as so there's really no two ways about it.
The guy was a soldier. Doesn't make it especially better because while soldiers might be technically complicit in British foreign policy your average squaddie never sat down and thought "Can I morally be a part of this? Is what my government is doing right?". Still, again their target was not a random civilian, it was someone linked to the foreign policy they objected to.
|
On May 23 2013 21:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote: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.
You are seriously arguing that this guy is not an Islamic fundamentalist, and that this was not religiously motivated? Erm, wat? I dont even know what to say.
It is like you leave behind all rationality just because of some strange political bias.
|
United States43505 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:44 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:40 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 21:36 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. K just went back and read it, still haven't found anything that made sense other than what other people said that came to the same, obvious, conclusion I did. They are killing people to get revenge for muslims being killed. Not Sudanese people. Not Egyptians. Not Iraqis. Not Syrians. Muslims. It's religious. His ideology is strongly influenced by his religious world view. The things he is bitching about because of his ideology are British foreign policy. It's an important distinction in my opinion (also explained in the last few pages). Because Muslims are dying. British foreign policy is what results in that, but the reason he is mad is because people of his religion are being killed. If it was "people from my country are dying" it would political. He only gives a crap that they are killing Muslims.
No, if it was "people from my country are dying" it would be a nationalistic political agenda. It's still political, even if he objects to the policies based on his Islamic world view.
|
On May 23 2013 21:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:40 Phenny wrote:On May 23 2013 21:29 Meiya wrote:
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. You do know one of them (or both?) yelled out allahu akbar as they did it, and then proceeded to say to the person who approached them with a camera, that they carried out the attack due to the what's happening in "their country". A religious/politically motivated attack on civilians with intent to spread panic/fear is what most countries define terrorism as so there's really no two ways about it. The guy was a soldier. Doesn't make it especially better because while soldiers might be technically complicit in British foreign policy your average squaddie never sat down and thought "Can I morally be a part of this? Is what my government is doing right?". Still, again their target was not a random civilian, it was someone linked to the foreign policy they objected to.
I could be wrong about this, but from what I heard he was targeted for his shirt. I doubt they did much research on the guy but his shirt said something good for the British troops. He could just as easily have been a family member of someone in the British military who got killed.
|
Full video is now out.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4939124/Woolwich-terror-suspect-revealed-sources-name-man-as-Michael-Adebolajo.html
Transcript.
The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting 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 can all live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace. That’s all I have to say. [in Arabic Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.
|
United States43505 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:45 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:31 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote: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. You are seriously arguing that this guy is not an Islamic fundamentalist, and that this was not religiously motivated? Erm, wat? I dont even know what to say. It is like you leave behind all rationality just because of some strange political bias.
I'm saying that apologising to women for the horrific thing he just did in front of them doesn't prove that he is an Islamic fundamentalist. I didn't say he was not an Islamic fundamentalist. Read the words.
|
On May 23 2013 21:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:36 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote: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. K just went back and read it, still haven't found anything that made sense other than what other people said that came to the same, obvious, conclusion I did. They are killing people to get revenge for muslims being killed. Not Sudanese people. Not Egyptians. Not Iraqis. Not Syrians. Muslims. It's religious.
Have to agree here. "Allahu Ahkbar" is pretty specific as well. Can't think of another religion where that somehow lends itself to being ambiguous. I actually can't understand how many excuses are being made in this thread, it's kind of insane. Living in Abu Dhabi right now, I can tell you that everybody immediately knew what happened here and was extremely disappointed in the results for a reason.
|
On May 23 2013 21:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:36 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:35 kmillz wrote: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. K just went back and read it, still haven't found anything that made sense other than what other people said that came to the same, obvious, conclusion I did. They are killing people to get revenge for muslims being killed. Not Sudanese people. Not Egyptians. Not Iraqis. Not Syrians. Muslims. It's religious.
I feel it's both religious and political. It's religious because there's no other way for those guys with the butcher's knife to feel connected to people in Afghanistan other than by their religion. It's political because they demand a policy change.
Kwark is btw. right about that "allah akbar" stuff. It's apparently used in all kinds of situations when people are overwhelmed by their emotions. It's sometimes used when people are happy or shocked or panicking or sad etc. It's pretty similar to crying "Jesus! Oh God!" etc.
|
United States43505 Posts
On May 23 2013 21:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:45 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:40 Phenny wrote:On May 23 2013 21:29 Meiya wrote:
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. You do know one of them (or both?) yelled out allahu akbar as they did it, and then proceeded to say to the person who approached them with a camera, that they carried out the attack due to the what's happening in "their country". A religious/politically motivated attack on civilians with intent to spread panic/fear is what most countries define terrorism as so there's really no two ways about it. The guy was a soldier. Doesn't make it especially better because while soldiers might be technically complicit in British foreign policy your average squaddie never sat down and thought "Can I morally be a part of this? Is what my government is doing right?". Still, again their target was not a random civilian, it was someone linked to the foreign policy they objected to. I could be wrong about this, but from what I heard he was targeted for his shirt. I doubt they did much research on the guy but his shirt said something good for the British troops. He could just as easily have been a family member of someone in the British military who got killed.
He was right outside the barracks. You're right that they could have fucked up and killed a member of the cleaning staff or whatever and he wasn't in uniform at the time but there was clear intent to go after a non civilian. The post I was responding to defined terrorism as an attack on a civilian and then claimed that it was a terrorist act, I was merely pointing out that that post was inconsistent with the facts of the atrocity.
|
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. 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.
Not to take a side in this exchange, but having an opinion, even a misguided one, is not the same as being biased. Being biased generally means that you have an unusually personal involvement in the topic under discussion which prevents you from being as neutral and objective as most people. In the extremely wide sense you are using bias, everyone is biased.
|
On May 23 2013 21:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:45 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 21:31 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote: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. You are seriously arguing that this guy is not an Islamic fundamentalist, and that this was not religiously motivated? Erm, wat? I dont even know what to say. It is like you leave behind all rationality just because of some strange political bias. I'm saying that apologising to women for the horrific thing he just did in front of them doesn't prove that he is an Islamic fundamentalist. I didn't say he was not an Islamic fundamentalist. Read the words.
Ok, so why are we arguing about such a petty thing? And whats with all your other posts that in some way or the other try to negate the religious aspect to this. I dont quite get what you are aiming at then if you agree that hes an Islamic fundamentalist.
|
I am also shocked that people think this isn't due to this guy being Muslim. Ofcourse this is because of Islam.The attacks motivation were religious/political, as Islam is both religious and political. But no way is an attack on a soldier an act of terror. That's just such a vast expansion of the term of terrorism. By the same criteria the French resistance against the Nazis was terror, and I doubt there is a politician in the UK with the balls to say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
