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.
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.
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.
Is this enough to squash the "was it religiously motivated" debate? o.O
Particularly the bolded part. I think it was both politically and religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can distinguish between this and other religiously motivated attacks.
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 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.
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 an 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.
In german, bias is translated to "Vorurteil", which also means prejudice. Maybe i used it wrong, prejudice might have been the better word then.
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.
Is this enough to squash the "was it religiously motivated" debate? o.O
Particularly the bolded part. I think it was both politically and religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can distinguish between this and other religiously motivated attacks.
What about the part I bolded? Obviously the guy was high as a kite on adrenaline and the excitement of finally getting his moment so his manifesto isn't the most rational thing ever but it starts off as an impassioned plea for isolationism and self determination.
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.
Shouting "burn in hell" can be seen culturally as just an insult. However this is not what the man said. In fact why try and compare a statement that has historically and recently been used to show religious motivation to one that has been euthanized to the point of a simple insult, also put into context what he was doing while he screamed "god is great".
This was very much intended to be seen as a religiously motivated crime by the attacker.
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 tried to initially justify feelings of rage and demands for summary sawing of the perpetrators. Then I realized just how far above the UK is of these mooks.
The negatively inclined among us can take solace in that the rain of hellfire missiles goes on unabated and due process will take care of these barbarians in the properly emotionally detached manner.
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.
Shouting "burn in hell" can be seen culturally as just an insult. However this is not what the man said. In fact why try and compare a statement that has historically and recently been used to show religious motivation to one that has been euthanized to the point of a simple insult, also put into context what he was doing while he screamed "god is great".
This was very much intended to be seen as a religiously motivated crime by the attacker.
Because it has already been thoroughly discussed that the term "god is great" can be used in more ways than one. The simple point is that people shouldnt make assumptions without enough information.
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.
Shouting "burn in hell" can be seen culturally as just an insult. However this is not what the man said. In fact why try and compare a statement that has historically and recently been used to show religious motivation to one that has been euthanized to the point of a simple insult, also put into context what he was doing while he screamed "god is great".
This was very much intended to be seen as a religiously motivated crime by the attacker.
Because it has already been thoroughly discussed that the term "god is great" can be used in more ways than one. The simple point is that people shouldnt make assumptions without enough information.
Just like you can say "I will rape you!". Well if you say it when you just chased a woman and now youre trying to take of her pants then I guess it's pretty easy to see the meaning of it. The term can also be used (in bad taste) during a game of starcraft to tell the other person you will dominate him in the game.
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.
Is this enough to squash the "was it religiously motivated" debate? o.O
Particularly the bolded part. I think it was both politically and religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can distinguish between this and other religiously motivated attacks.
What about the part I bolded? Obviously the guy was high as a kite on adrenaline and the excitement of finally getting his moment so his manifesto isn't the most rational thing ever but it starts off as an impassioned plea for isolationism and self determination.
How about we include both of them?
The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers
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.
The only reason they are here is because British soldiers are killing Muslims. I'm not denying his political motivations, but it is his religion that forces his hand in doing the deeds. How can you not agree that it is both? You haven't denied it, but I really don't know what more evidence you need to say that its both. What distinguishes this from other religiously motivated attacks? That's what I really want to know.
To put this in perspective, if someone did all of this in the name of God. They said country X is killing Christians. I have to get revenge for them. Christianity compelled me to kill this man who fights for country X, how could you not agree that person would be religiously motivated?
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 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.
You are vastly overestimating this guys poltical thinking. And that is probably because his assumed agenda somewhat mirrors your own. This is just some convert to islam that retells a few phrases that his preachers have told him before. Hes probably stupid as fuck. Let him say a few more phrases and he will also come with the whole "dont insult Islam" stuff etc. Its the whole classic extremist agenda, they have that on their posters all the time.
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.
Is this enough to squash the "was it religiously motivated" debate? o.O
Particularly the bolded part. I think it was both politically and religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can distinguish between this and other religiously motivated attacks.
What about the part I bolded? Obviously the guy was high as a kite on adrenaline and the excitement of finally getting his moment so his manifesto isn't the most rational thing ever but it starts off as an impassioned plea for isolationism and self determination.
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.
The only reason they are here is because British soldiers are killing Muslims. I'm not denying his political motivations, but it is his religion that forces his hand in doing the deeds. How can you not agree that it is both? You haven't denied it, but I really don't know what more evidence you need to say that its both. What distinguishes this from other religiously motivated attacks? That's what I really want to know.
Other religiously motivated attacks almost always comment on the decadence of western society as a whole, most of what he mentions is actually happening, not just an opinion.
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.
Shouting "burn in hell" can be seen culturally as just an insult. However this is not what the man said. In fact why try and compare a statement that has historically and recently been used to show religious motivation to one that has been euthanized to the point of a simple insult, also put into context what he was doing while he screamed "god is great".
This was very much intended to be seen as a religiously motivated crime by the attacker.
Because it has already been thoroughly discussed that the term "god is great" can be used in more ways than one. The simple point is that people shouldnt make assumptions without enough information.
Just like you can say "I will rape you!". Well if you say it when you just chased a woman and now youre trying to take of her pants then I guess it's pretty easy to see the meaning of it. The term can also be used (in bad taste) during a game of starcraft to tell the other person you will dominate him in the game.
And by saying that you've missed the point of the whole discussion. If "I will rape you!" was a in any way considered a general expression of stress and/or excitement, then saying that alone would not necessarily mean you had any intentions of actually doing so when running after someone.
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.
Shouting "burn in hell" can be seen culturally as just an insult. However this is not what the man said. In fact why try and compare a statement that has historically and recently been used to show religious motivation to one that has been euthanized to the point of a simple insult, also put into context what he was doing while he screamed "god is great".
This was very much intended to be seen as a religiously motivated crime by the attacker.
Because it has already been thoroughly discussed that the term "god is great" can be used in more ways than one. The simple point is that people shouldnt make assumptions without enough information.
Potentially, but obviously this particular chant was meant to religious fervor. Actually when I think about it, I can imagine a single other viable reason for saying allahuakbar.
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.
Is this enough to squash the "was it religiously motivated" debate? o.O
Particularly the bolded part. I think it was both politically and religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can distinguish between this and other religiously motivated attacks.
What about the part I bolded? Obviously the guy was high as a kite on adrenaline and the excitement of finally getting his moment so his manifesto isn't the most rational thing ever but it starts off as an impassioned plea for isolationism and self determination.
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.
The only reason they are here is because British soldiers are killing Muslims. I'm not denying his political motivations, but it is his religion that forces his hand in doing the deeds. How can you not agree that it is both? You haven't denied it, but I really don't know what more evidence you need to say that its both. What distinguishes this from other religiously motivated attacks? That's what I really want to know.
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 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.
You are vastly overestimating this guys poltical thinking. And that is probably because his assumed agenda somewhat mirrors your own. This is just some convert to islam that retells a few phrases that his preachers have told him before. Hes probably stupid as fuck. Let him say a few more phrases and he will also come with the whole "dont insult Islam" stuff etc. Its the whole classic extremist agenda, they have that on their posters all the time.
I doubt I could be half as coherent as he was if I'd just done something that batshit crazy after however long of psyching myself up and had just a few minutes to record my manifesto. His political points made sense, there is no reason to ignore them, likewise there was none of the "convert the unbeliever by the sword" stuff in there and until he adds some there is no reason to assume there would be.
Also I'm a fairly hardcore atheist with some pretty strong views on the Arab world being pretty much shit so please don't tell me his agenda mirrors my own.
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.
Is this enough to squash the "was it religiously motivated" debate? o.O
Particularly the bolded part. I think it was both politically and religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can distinguish between this and other religiously motivated attacks.
What about the part I bolded? Obviously the guy was high as a kite on adrenaline and the excitement of finally getting his moment so his manifesto isn't the most rational thing ever but it starts off as an impassioned plea for isolationism and self determination.
How about we include both of them?
The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers
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.
The only reason they are here is because British soldiers are killing Muslims. I'm not denying his political motivations, but it is his religion that forces his hand in doing the deeds. How can you not agree that it is both? You haven't denied it, but I really don't know what more evidence you need to say that its both. What distinguishes this from other religiously motivated attacks? That's what I really want to know.
I'll concede that one.
I agree with your message that we should not be saying "oh fuck its the muslims again" or whatever because that is what a lot of people are going to say. There are crazy people in this world, and when the crazies happen to be Muslims it gets more attention and draws more scrutiny on their religion. If some atheist went on a rampage and murdered a bunch of people, there wouldn't be this outrage at the atheist community. It just happens that the Islamic faith catches a bad rap for their crazies because they are more outspoken about their beliefs.
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 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.
You are vastly overestimating this guys poltical thinking. And that is probably because his assumed agenda somewhat mirrors your own. This is just some convert to islam that retells a few phrases that his preachers have told him before. Hes probably stupid as fuck. Let him say a few more phrases and he will also come with the whole "dont insult Islam" stuff etc. Its the whole classic extremist agenda, they have that on their posters all the time.
I doubt I could be half as coherent as he was if I'd just done something that batshit crazy after however long of psyching myself up and had just a few minutes to record my manifesto. His political points made sense, there is no reason to ignore them, likewise there was none of the "convert the unbeliever by the sword" stuff in there and until he adds some there is no reason to assume there would be.
Also I'm a fairly hardcore atheist with some pretty strong views on the Arab world being pretty much shit so please don't tell me his agenda mirrors my own.
I agree that his political points did make sense. Can't say I agree with his atrocity, but his message was clear.
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?
A soldier outside of a war zone is no more a legitimate target than a civilian. Killing a soldier on a battlefield, and killing a soldier in his home town, where he carries out non-combat duties are two completely different things: Entering a battlefield a soldier stares down his enemies, daring them to try and take him down, fully aware of how dangerous what he is doing is. That is the essence of the sacrifice of being a warrior.
Attacking servicemen outside of a conflict zone is obviously an act of terror. That the terrorist makes it clear that he is attacking only servicemen, and is not a danger to civilians, is no excuse. A terrorist does not, ex ante, present himself to his enemies and declare his belligerency, daring his enemies to try and take him down. A terrorist hides among civilians like a coward, and relies entirely on his opponent's unawareness and unpreparedness.
You see the difference? The difference between being a terrorist and being a soldier.
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.
Shouting "burn in hell" can be seen culturally as just an insult. However this is not what the man said. In fact why try and compare a statement that has historically and recently been used to show religious motivation to one that has been euthanized to the point of a simple insult, also put into context what he was doing while he screamed "god is great".
This was very much intended to be seen as a religiously motivated crime by the attacker.
Because it has already been thoroughly discussed that the term "god is great" can be used in more ways than one. The simple point is that people shouldnt make assumptions without enough information.
Potentially, but obviously this particular chant was meant to religious fervor. Actually when I think about it, I can imagine a single other viable reason for saying allahuakbar.
I'm assuming you mean you cant imagine another viable reason. But still, someone strengthening themselves by religious chants when committing acts generally frowned upon doesnt mean the act itself was motivated by religion alone.
On May 23 2013 22:11 Kontys wrote: That the terrorist makes it clear that he is attacking only servicemen, and is not a danger to civilians, is no excuse. A terrorist does not, ex ante, present himself to his enemies and declare his belligerency, daring his enemies to try and take him down. A terrorist hides among civilians like a coward, and relies entirely on his opponent's unawareness and unpreparedness.
You see the difference? The difference between being a terrorist and being a soldier.
that description makes it sound an awful lot like a resistance fighter.
EPT
Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.
