|
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 22:31 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:24 Grimmyman123 wrote:
OK... I might be wrong on this....
But why is Kwark trolling this thread? Being critical of religion does not mean you automatically blame religion for every single problem in the world.
That, and if we are going to critique religion, we must do so in a manner that is fair, or we lose credibility.
On May 23 2013 22:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:29 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 22:27 Asymmetric wrote:
His very reasons are illogical if all they are is for British soldiers to go home, it's a mere skeleton crew that is there now.
We've already withdrawn forces from Iraq and NATO is pulling completely out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
He requests we respect sharia law states yet Saudi Arabia, despite it's vile domestic policy, is among our biggest allies in the region. I'm gonna go on a limb and say the dude may not be very educated and/or he is very brainwashed into whatever it is he thinks. The day of the attack our foreign secretary was pressing for us to intervene more in the Syrian civil war. We're not on the way out of the Middle East any time soon.
I agree, I'm just saying that his motivations may not seem logical from an outside standpoint but we only have a few words from him and that there is his whole life story for why and how he got there. Clearly he was convinced that what he was doing was important enough to throw his whole life away for.
|
On May 23 2013 22:14 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't know if resistance fighter is a tag we want to throw around here.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
On May 23 2013 22:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:31 Shiragaku wrote:On May 23 2013 22:24 Grimmyman123 wrote:
OK... I might be wrong on this....
But why is Kwark trolling this thread? Being critical of religion does not mean you automatically blame religion for every single problem in the world. That, and if we are going to critique religion, we must do so in a manner that is fair, or we lose credibility.
Well i could quite easily list a bunch of reasons about EVERY religion and its flaws. But this is not the thread to do so as we are discussing the beheading of a UK Soldier just yards away from his barracks.
|
On May 23 2013 22:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:29 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 22:27 Asymmetric wrote:
His very reasons are illogical if all they are is for British soldiers to go home, it's a mere skeleton crew that is there now.
We've already withdrawn forces from Iraq and NATO is pulling completely out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
He requests we respect sharia law states yet Saudi Arabia, despite it's vile domestic policy, is among our biggest allies in the region. I'm gonna go on a limb and say the dude may not be very educated and/or he is very brainwashed into whatever it is he thinks. The day of the attack our foreign secretary was pressing for us to intervene more in the Syrian civil war. We're not on the way out of the Middle East any time soon.
Did you quote the wrong post there? What does Syria have to do with the intelligence of this guy? You are still showering us with your general polital views instead of sticking to the point.
|
On May 23 2013 22:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:29 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 22:27 Asymmetric wrote:
His very reasons are illogical if all they are is for British soldiers to go home, it's a mere skeleton crew that is there now.
We've already withdrawn forces from Iraq and NATO is pulling completely out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
He requests we respect sharia law states yet Saudi Arabia, despite it's vile domestic policy, is among our biggest allies in the region. I'm gonna go on a limb and say the dude may not be very educated and/or he is very brainwashed into whatever it is he thinks. The day of the attack our foreign secretary was pressing for us to intervene more in the Syrian civil war. We're not on the way out of the Middle East any time soon.
The irony is that the West won't intervene, the civil war will go on for years and many more muslims will die as a result.
|
On May 23 2013 22:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:29 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 22:27 Asymmetric wrote:
His very reasons are illogical if all they are is for British soldiers to go home, it's a mere skeleton crew that is there now.
We've already withdrawn forces from Iraq and NATO is pulling completely out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
He requests we respect sharia law states yet Saudi Arabia, despite it's vile domestic policy, is among our biggest allies in the region. I'm gonna go on a limb and say the dude may not be very educated and/or he is very brainwashed into whatever it is he thinks. The day of the attack our foreign secretary was pressing for us to intervene more in the Syrian civil war. We're not on the way out of the Middle East any time soon.
Call me when we have troops on the ground Syria.
(which we bloody should of done in the first place, but that's another discussion)
|
|
|
On May 23 2013 22:32 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:14 nunez wrote: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. I don't know if resistance fighter is a tag we want to throw around here.
i was hoping you would provide the distinction.
|
United States41938 Posts
On May 23 2013 22:31 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:24 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:19 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 22:11 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:04 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 21:53 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:51 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 21:48 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:45 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 21:31 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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 was under the impression you thought his main agenda was "British troops go home". And I am pretty sure that mirrors your own. At least taht is the only reason I see why you constantly try to tell us what a good point this guy actually makes and that we should listen to him. It's a point that is pretty much universal regarding any war since WWII. Your average civilian when confronted by his government suggesting a war will not understand the reality of it because they won't have to live with that reality. It's not so much "troops go home" as it is a complaint about the complete lack of perspective they have when their country engages in asymmetrical warfare somewhere far away. If people understood what the government wanted to do when it suggested invading places and, fully conscious of the implications, decided that they had the moral authority to do that and accept the consequences then that'd be another matter. But it doesn't happen. It's kinda comparable to the awareness in the US during Vietnam that people you knew might actually get killed in this war. It takes a while and a lot of casualties to sink in and that hasn't happened in the UK. Lol now you are even expanding what his alleged point was. And you still dont get why I was inferring that you are interpreting (overinterpreting) his political thoughts by using your own?
The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers... 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...I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same...So get rid of them (your governments). Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace.
I think what I was saying about British people not understanding the reality of the war and the call for them to understand what is being done in their name and to hold the government to account is all there in his rant.
|
On May 23 2013 22:28 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2013 04:23 SiroKO wrote:On May 23 2013 04:10 GeneticToss wrote:
I don't know how you can call it Islamic fundamentalism when there is nothing in the Qu'ran that justifies killing innocent people. It just doesn't make sense to me. Call it a radical political sect of Islam if you want but not Islamic fundamentalism.
More importantly though, I'm sorry for this soldier's death and I hope justice is done. Islamic faith is not only based on the Qu'ran, besides Takfiri would disagree with you. Takfiri actually believes in a litteral interpretation of the Qu'ran and Sunna, which lead them to murders. So you actually couldn't be more wrong, you are in fact at the exact opposite of the truth. Litteral interpretation of the old testament+talmud and qu'ran+sunna justify murders in all sort of circumstances. Where in any of the religious works you've described is a prescription for literal interpretation? There are none, and therein lies the problem in your reasoning. Literalism is an atextual dogmatic mode of religious thought that seeks to subvert the vast majority of established scholastic religious tradition, meaning it, in itself, amounts to an extremist and fringe perspective, both in Christianity and Islam. When people start packing their sentences with big words, I start wondering whether they're trying to cover a lack of substance. Literalism is atextual? Seriously? I hope you can explain what you mean, because as far as I can see, it's as textual as it gets. And for that matter, what makes literalism more "dogmatic" than any other system of interpreting a text?
None of what Farva said was that big worded. Literalism is atextual in many cases. The reason why literalism is more dogmatic can be seen pretty simply. I'll use the abrahamic religions to make my point a bit closer to home. In christianity, Christians believe that the bread and the wine is the blood and flesh of christ (they are eating christ when they take communion), if they are literalists; one need not learn anything about those verses, but only read them aloud to see that literal take on the issue. Of course, many Catholics do believe this still, but most christian sects do not, and only the most orthodox catholics take the phrase literally. In judaism, Genesis begins with the creation of the world. If one reads it literally (which is incorrect) then the world was created in 7 days. However, this is atextual because anyone can read that and see this, but really, the commentary by scholars like R'ashi make significant strides to give context to the issue, the issue is deeply complex and requires the reading of other sources which completely change what one gets our of reading the beginning of Genesis. In Islam, the idea of the holy war is still another. In the Koran, if one were to take it literally, it asks muslims to take up arms against those that don't comply with the islamic way of life; militants do this, but if anyone read this they could get that out of it. Just like in Judaism, Islamic scholars have read the line and created nuances in it that lead to completely different conclusions. So in this case I have to agree with Farva. I see your point, but what Farva is saying is correct, at least in my opinion on the matter.
|
Zurich15312 Posts
On May 23 2013 22:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:11 Kontys wrote:On May 23 2013 21:39 redviper wrote:On May 23 2013 20:38 thezanursic wrote: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 confusing a terrorist with a guerilla and generally being unfair. A terrorist goes after civilians to create a climate of fear in which civilians do not feel safe. A soldier targets the military and executive elements of the enemy nation because he distinguishes between the parts of the nation with which he is at war and the parts with which he is not. Of course it all becomes much more complicated when it is a domestic civilian attacking one of their own soldiers.
Targeting (exclusively) civilians is not a necessary requirement for being legitimately called a terrorist. By that logic the RAF were not terrorists, which everyone but supporters of their actions will most likely disagree with.
|
United States41938 Posts
On May 23 2013 22:35 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:30 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:29 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 22:27 Asymmetric wrote:
His very reasons are illogical if all they are is for British soldiers to go home, it's a mere skeleton crew that is there now.
We've already withdrawn forces from Iraq and NATO is pulling completely out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
He requests we respect sharia law states yet Saudi Arabia, despite it's vile domestic policy, is among our biggest allies in the region. I'm gonna go on a limb and say the dude may not be very educated and/or he is very brainwashed into whatever it is he thinks. The day of the attack our foreign secretary was pressing for us to intervene more in the Syrian civil war. We're not on the way out of the Middle East any time soon. The irony is that the West won't intervene, the civil war will go on for years and many more muslims will die as a result.
Hence the problem. The ongoing white man's burden. The flipside of cultural relativism is moral responsibility to help lesser cultures.
|
On May 23 2013 22:33 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:32 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 22:31 Shiragaku wrote:On May 23 2013 22:24 Grimmyman123 wrote:
OK... I might be wrong on this....
But why is Kwark trolling this thread? Being critical of religion does not mean you automatically blame religion for every single problem in the world. That, and if we are going to critique religion, we must do so in a manner that is fair, or we lose credibility. Well i could quite easily list a bunch of reasons about EVERY religion and its flaws. But this is not the thread to do so as we are discussing the beheading of a UK Soldier just yards away from his barracks.
That's exactly the point. The big discussion that's been going on was "was this religiously motivated" however. If it's not, we should not unfairly impose our assumptions. I personally think that it was both a religiously and a politically motivated attack based on him saying that the Qu'ran forced his hand in carrying out the deed and that the UK soldiers are killing Muslims. I didn't mean I (or anybody) is in this thread to critique religion, only that religion has already been brought up and some of us discussing it have pointed out its flaws in the past.
|
On May 23 2013 22:31 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:24 Grimmyman123 wrote:
OK... I might be wrong on this....
But why is Kwark trolling this thread? Being critical of religion does not mean you automatically blame religion for every single problem in the world. And what Kwark is saying is pretty relieving. This proves that he is not a bigot like many people in this thread.
Sorry what? Of course you can state that this was religiously motivated without being critical of Islam or bigotted or whatever. You can even be a follower of Islam and say this was religiously motivated, simply because it was.
He was just following a different (failed) interpretation of Islam. Many terrorist acts (including 9/11) can actually be interpreted as part of an intra-religious struggle of extremists against the mainstream. It is all about trying to radicalize the mainstream by provoking a response. And the main victims of Islamist terror have been Muslims anyway.
|
Well what did you expect from religion of peace honestly? Religion created by person who was bandit, murderer, rapist, pedophile, and did not even follow his own restrictions?
Thats what you get when you call cultic brainwashing ideology religion. Learn to differ these two. Ask any exmuslim, and they all will tell you same. You really cannot call islam religion - because it claims to be above laws of country.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
*Sigh* Religious talk within politics is the junk food of political discourse. This is just as bad as talking North Korea with my friends.
|
On May 23 2013 22:19 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:16 Nausea wrote:On May 23 2013 22:06 Stol wrote:On May 23 2013 22:02 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 21:55 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:53 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 21:47 TheRealArtemis wrote:Full video is now out. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4939124/Woolwich-terror-suspect-revealed-sources-name-man-as-Michael-Adebolajo.htmlTranscript. 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. 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. On May 23 2013 22:02 Nausea wrote:On May 23 2013 21:59 Stol wrote:On May 23 2013 21:56 DonKey_ wrote:On May 23 2013 21:38 Stol 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:
[quote]
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. Talk about not wanting to see the truth. Do you seriously believe that someone not doing something in the name of islam would yell "God almighty" while beheading a person? Do you seriously think this is just a term he uses in this case to show "stress" or "excitement"? This is hilarious. I live among muslims and I have never heard one of them yell "Allahu akbar!" so I take it they are not easily excited or stressed. And btw you could just see the stress he felt during that interview he decided to have with bloody hands and weapon in his hand. No, I believe he shouted that because of his religious conviction, but I do not believe his actions were mainly motivated by religion.
My issue with your view here is that you are basically ignoring all the occurrences where the term "god is great" was used in the past to show a religious motivation for an attack on "non-believers" and then say his use "god was great" was just conviction. The entire while you provide no proof for your stance as to why you would know this individual better than anyone else in this thread.
|
On May 23 2013 21:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:51 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 21:48 KwarK wrote: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:
[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. 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.
Are these actions the actions required for change though? And I'm not just talking about political change, but perhaps change in the citizens mentality to want more out of their government. Or do these types of actions overall do nothing to advance our way of life, cause hate, and wind up having no political effect.
|
|
|
United States41938 Posts
On May 23 2013 22:53 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 21:53 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:51 Redox wrote:On May 23 2013 21:48 KwarK wrote: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:
[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. 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. Are these actions the actions required for change though? And I'm not just talking about political change, but perhaps change in the citizens mentality to want more out of their government. Or do these types of actions overall do nothing to advance our way of life, cause hate, and wind up having no political effect.
No, of course what he did was utterly futile. So were the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Fear doesn't encourage introspection, it encourages hate and the dark side of the force. I find it a little amusing that Cameron immediately ignored the fact that the guy laid personal blame upon him and instead focussed on coming together and not being divided by terrorism. The media response had literally nothing to do with what the guy said and everything to do with what we want him to have said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
