|
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 |
Ofcourse it's bad when these things happen. But maybe, just maybe we should stop screwing the rest of the world up ourselves.
|
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.
These actions will not do anything to change our foreign policy. The sad truth is that the British public have no say in it anyway as both of the main political parties have agendas in the middle east. Even if the majority of the British public agreed with the political views of the killers we would not be able to change anything.
On changing the mentality of citizens the most successful would probably be debate rather than killings. British people do watch a lot of TV so having some prominent muslim clerics debating with politicians on TV would be more likely to change public opinion than killing people.
|
On May 23 2013 14:48 TheToaster wrote:
I can't even understand the pedestrian witnesses at all. They clearly see the dead guy and the murderer walking about, so they just keep standing on the sidewalk like a flock of sheep, staring at both the murderer(s) and the body? Wouldn't they either want to call and go get help, run away, or even try to beat up the murderer? Instead they stand around like a flock of sheep.
I'm talking about before the police arrived, during the OP's Youtube video. From watching another interview online, apparently the murderers were even telling witnesses to call the police. What the fuck, did they honestly need to be told to call the police?
You watch too many movies. Who would rush knife wielding dudes by themselves? How could strangers convince the entire group to charge at the same time?
|
On May 23 2013 22:37 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:28 qrs wrote: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. [examples omitted]
Literalism derives its meaning entirely from the text. Literalism is as textual as you get, barring a private defintion of textual. Interpreting in any other way than literally requires you to either bring in other texts (still textual), or personal intuition (less textual) or religious tradition (generally less textual).
|
On May 23 2013 22:20 Crushinator 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. I don't think this is so obviously true. Western soldiers have no problems killing ''enemy combatants'' in their homes, or walking down the street, and the war on terror is supposedly global. If you consider yourself a soldier of islam, it is easy to see why killing a British soldier could be considered a simple act of war. I don't want to seem like I am defending this horrible, barbaric act, but I am not so sure if this is so clear as you make it out to be.
Oh it's perfectly clear alright. The "enemy combatants" can't fight western military power head on. Thus they hide among civilians and resort to terrorism. Crying about their enemies' overwhelming power doesn't make it not be terrorism. All hail the glory and honor of islam's finest warriors. Terrorism is the only thing they have, but it's still just terrorism. Declaring it honorable and commendable does not make it so.
Western (mainly American) intelligence organizations have responded with some fairly brutal paramilitary tactics, but that sure justifies terrorism huh.. This time the chicken was there before the egg: The glorious soldiers of the Islamic world never cared about justification, they just wanted to kill people from the get go. I would like you to remember this. It implies the roots of their anger had nothing to do with us, it was all about them and their inability to feed their inclinations in the ash desert that is their underdeveloped uncivilized world.
|
On May 23 2013 23:02 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:37 docvoc wrote:On May 23 2013 22:28 qrs wrote: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. [examples omitted] Literalism derives its meaning entirely from the text. Literalism is as textual as you get, barring a private defintion of textual. Interpreting in any other way than literally requires you to either bring in other texts (still textual), or personal intuition (less textual) or religious tradition (generally less textual).
I would like an example of why literalism is more dogmatic or atextual? I don't get it, if something literally happened or was literally written exactly as it happened, where is there room for dogma?
|
Is there any response or message from the U.S or Obama at least?
|
On May 23 2013 22:36 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:32 Kontys wrote: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.
There exist (or have existed) resistance fighters that can be identified as terrorist according to my definition of difference there, as there exist resistance fighters who would identify as soldiers. I don't see how this is relevant. A resistance fighter, if you would allow me, is someone who fights against an oppressive organization dominating his own sphere of life. I have never heard of muslimic terrorists post 9/11 being identified as resistance fighters. Resistance fighter was a useful tag during the cold war when there were foreign influenced communist and fascist juntas all over central and south America, Africa and Asia..
I mean, yes, there now exists a whole network of paramilitary intelligence organizations around the Arabian gulf dedicated to the destruction of Islamic militant and terrorist groups. But the chicken came before the egg, the roots of muslim radicalism is in the things wrong about the muslim countries. Westerners became targets out of convenience, and now subjugating Islamic terror is a matter of pragmatism in which the west has unfortunately become heavily involved. Thanks to all the hard work put into it however, we aren't as bad at it as the founders of Al-Qaida envisioned.
Apart from this network aimed at subjugating terror, there never was anything real for Islamic militants to be "resistance fighters" against. And you know what would work really well in getting rid of this network? Denouncing violent extremism and long term commitment to promoting peaceful Islam in the region.
Edit: The struggles of resistance fighters during the cold war were about basic rights, freedom and survival. The struggle unfolding between the Civilized World and radical Islam is about power, the ability to do violence upon one another because of irreconcilable differences in each other's state of being. A struggle brought to confrontation by the Islamists.
|
On May 23 2013 22:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:53 NoobSkills 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:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:25 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:
[quote]
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.
Agreed. I think the real issue and I think you agree too is that the common person is content in the UK and in the USA. So, instead of risking what you currently have for something better we instead let our governments do as the please while at most talking about our issues with their actions. Why rally against the machine or even rebel against the government when your current life while not as perfect as it could be is still good. Maybe that is my negative way of looking at things, but I'm also not outside the White House with a sign conveying my issues with the government, so I can't judge the populous for not being out there as well.
|
On May 23 2013 23:00 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:53 NoobSkills 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:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:25 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 21:22 Asymmetric wrote:
[quote]
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. These actions will not do anything to change our foreign policy. The sad truth is that the British public have no say in it anyway as both of the main political parties have agendas in the middle east. Even if the majority of the British public agreed with the political views of the killers we would not be able to change anything. On changing the mentality of citizens the most successful would probably be debate rather than killings. British people do watch a lot of TV so having some prominent muslim clerics debating with politicians on TV would be more likely to change public opinion than killing people.
We do have an agenda in the Middle East... to install a stable and sustainable democratic government so that Afghanistan does not get overrun by terrorists who plot to bomb and attack us after we leave.
|
|
|
On May 23 2013 23:31 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 23:00 hzflank wrote:On May 23 2013 22:53 NoobSkills 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:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 21:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. These actions will not do anything to change our foreign policy. The sad truth is that the British public have no say in it anyway as both of the main political parties have agendas in the middle east. Even if the majority of the British public agreed with the political views of the killers we would not be able to change anything. On changing the mentality of citizens the most successful would probably be debate rather than killings. British people do watch a lot of TV so having some prominent muslim clerics debating with politicians on TV would be more likely to change public opinion than killing people. We do have an agenda in the Middle East... to install a stable and sustainable government so that Afghanistan does not get overrun by terrorists who plot to bomb and attack us after we leave.
That's oxymoronic. The reason that terrorists keep wanting to bomb us is because we keep install governments in their countries.
But did Occupy London actually achieve anything? Did they really even know what they were specifically trying to achieve?
|
What sins are being committed by the UK government that this guy was against? This is what's confusing me the most here really.
|
On May 23 2013 23:41 Incognoto wrote:
What sins are being committed by the UK government that this guy was against? This is what's confusing me the most here really.
The invasion of muslim countries.
To be more specific it is probably Afghanistan. I doubt that the extremist groups who told him what to believe minded us too much in Libya or potentially Syria.
|
On May 23 2013 23:03 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:20 Crushinator wrote: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. I don't think this is so obviously true. Western soldiers have no problems killing ''enemy combatants'' in their homes, or walking down the street, and the war on terror is supposedly global. If you consider yourself a soldier of islam, it is easy to see why killing a British soldier could be considered a simple act of war. I don't want to seem like I am defending this horrible, barbaric act, but I am not so sure if this is so clear as you make it out to be. Oh it's perfectly clear alright. The "enemy combatants" can't fight western military power head on. Thus they hide among civilians and resort to terrorism. Crying about their enemies' overwhelming power doesn't make it not be terrorism. All hail the glory and honor of islam's finest warriors. Terrorism is the only thing they have, but it's still just terrorism. Declaring it honorable and commendable does not make it so. Western (mainly American) intelligence organizations have responded with some fairly brutal paramilitary tactics, but that sure justifies terrorism huh.. This time the chicken was there before the egg: The glorious soldiers of the Islamic world never cared about justification, they just wanted to kill people from the get go. I would like you to remember this. It implies the roots of their anger had nothing to do with us, it was all about them and their inability to feed their inclinations in the ash desert that is their underdeveloped uncivilized world.
have responded with? what terrorist actions prompted the counter insurgency tactics used in el salvador? or iraq?
edit: sorry, el salvador is irrelevant in the context of islamist extremism, but it's certainly a practice dates back at least to the aftermath of ww2 (greece).
dbl edit: if you are talking about afghanistan specifically you might be right. i have no insight.
|
On May 23 2013 23:03 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:20 Crushinator wrote: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. I don't think this is so obviously true. Western soldiers have no problems killing ''enemy combatants'' in their homes, or walking down the street, and the war on terror is supposedly global. If you consider yourself a soldier of islam, it is easy to see why killing a British soldier could be considered a simple act of war. I don't want to seem like I am defending this horrible, barbaric act, but I am not so sure if this is so clear as you make it out to be. Oh it's perfectly clear alright. The "enemy combatants" can't fight western military power head on. Thus they hide among civilians and resort to terrorism. Crying about their enemies' overwhelming power doesn't make it not be terrorism. All hail the glory and honor of islam's finest warriors. Terrorism is the only thing they have, but it's still just terrorism. Declaring it honorable and commendable does not make it so. Western (mainly American) intelligence organizations have responded with some fairly brutal paramilitary tactics, but that sure justifies terrorism huh.. This time the chicken was there before the egg: The glorious soldiers of the Islamic world never cared about justification, they just wanted to kill people from the get go. I would like you to remember this. It implies the roots of their anger had nothing to do with us, it was all about them and their inability to feed their inclinations in the ash desert that is their underdeveloped uncivilized world.
Yes they should just do the honorable thing and charge some machine gun position with a shovel or something.
That sounds rational.
|
On May 23 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:35 Maenander wrote: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.
The west wont intervene, its too late. Iran with the help of Hezbollah and russian weapons means that the civil war is coming to an end unless the unexpected happens.
|
On May 23 2013 23:35 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 23:26 NoobSkills wrote:On May 23 2013 22:57 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:53 NoobSkills 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:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:
[quote]
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. Agreed. I think the real issue and I think you agree too is that the common person is content in the UK and in the USA. So, instead of risking what you currently have for something better we instead let our governments do as the please while at most talking about our issues with their actions. Why rally against the machine or even rebel against the government when your current life while not as perfect as it could be is still good. Maybe that is my negative way of looking at things, but I'm also not outside the White House with a sign conveying my issues with the government, so I can't judge the populous for not being out there as well. I don't know about America, but there are plenty of rallies, strikes and such in this country. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_London
My point wasn't that there are no rallies because there are rallies. My point was how many people show up to them and how pissed are they? In the middle east when there are rallies EVERYBODY is in the street and they don't stop for days weeks until they're heard. Now, they're fighting for civil liberties while the US had occupy wall street which was laudable in comparison for many reasons. My point is that unless the people really want change and make moves towards that change then nothing will be done.
|
On May 23 2013 23:41 Incognoto wrote:
What sins are being committed by the UK government that this guy was against? This is what's confusing me the most here really.
I doubt these sick bastards even know themselves nor care. They just used religion as an excuse to murder someone and spread fear.
|
On May 23 2013 23:38 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 23:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 23 2013 23:00 hzflank wrote:On May 23 2013 22:53 NoobSkills 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:On May 23 2013 21:26 Asymmetric wrote:
[quote]
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. These actions will not do anything to change our foreign policy. The sad truth is that the British public have no say in it anyway as both of the main political parties have agendas in the middle east. Even if the majority of the British public agreed with the political views of the killers we would not be able to change anything. On changing the mentality of citizens the most successful would probably be debate rather than killings. British people do watch a lot of TV so having some prominent muslim clerics debating with politicians on TV would be more likely to change public opinion than killing people. We do have an agenda in the Middle East... to install a stable and sustainable government so that Afghanistan does not get overrun by terrorists who plot to bomb and attack us after we leave. That's oxymoronic. The reason that terrorists keep wanting to bomb us is because we keep install governments in their countries.
Oh that's horseshit.
Islamo-Fascism doesn't recognize borders. There's conflict everywhere it exists not just with the west, be it in sub-Saharan Africa in Mali, Sudan or Somalia, or in Caucasus's with Russia or against India.
It should be crushed, not appeased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
