EPTAh the first amendment, the way in which Americans interpret and contextualize it makes my brain hurt sometimes.
UK Soldier beheaded in London - Page 56
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
cozzE
Australia357 Posts
Ah the first amendment, the way in which Americans interpret and contextualize it makes my brain hurt sometimes. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 28 2013 22:32 cozzE wrote: I laughed so hard at the bible-bashing/racist southerners that started abusing Piers Morgan, trying to spout rubbish like: gun control laws are a bad idea and it would've never happened if the solider was armed. They failed to note that he got hit by a car being driven by the two men. He was likely close to death.. Ah the first amendment, the way in which Americans interpret and contextualize it makes my brain hurt sometimes. Well saying if he is armed wouldn't really mean much but if one of the people near him were maybe he wouldn't have been butchered at least. Likely close to death? Do you know how fast the car was going? Do you even know what the first amendment is? I think you meant second amendment.. Piers Morgan probably makes those "bible-bashing/racist southerners" look smart. | ||
|
s_side
United States700 Posts
On May 28 2013 22:32 cozzE wrote: I laughed so hard at the bible-bashing/racist southerners that started abusing Piers Morgan, trying to spout rubbish like: gun control laws are a bad idea and it would've never happened if the solider was armed. They failed to note that he got hit by a car being driven by the two men. He was likely close to death.. Ah the first amendment, the way in which Americans interpret and contextualize it makes my brain hurt sometimes. There's nothing quite like the combination of ignorance and arrogance. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On May 23 2013 13:58 KwarK wrote: Nothing he said was related to religious fundamentalism. There was a degree of pan-Islamism in his Muslim brothers vs the west but he didn't suggest he wanted Sharia law, either over there or over here, or complain about insults to Islam or anything else. It was literally "stop killing Muslims", "I'm killing this soldier because it's an eye for an eye", "protest your government". He didn't even do a "the western non Muslim government is illegitimate because it's not Muslim" speech. He just objected to government policy foreign policy and called on the people to object to it. That's really, really non fundie. Probably the least zealous terrorist ever. On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote: Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance. On May 23 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote: You're arguing that he had religious reasons for feeling the way he did. I agree. But that does not change the fact that his objectives were expressly, unequivocably political. He was trying to impact government policy and public political dialogue. He was not trying to convert people or argue a religious case or promote his religion, he was trying to get British soldiers to withdraw from Afghanistan. He was trying to make that happen because he's a Muslim but it is still a political cause. Here is the complete transcript of what he said to the camera, which is more informative than the edited version (like the one in the OP) that news stations aired: 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." Source. As you can see, you are wrong on a number of points. He does, in fact, make an explicit statement of preference for Sharia law in Muslim countries. He also justifies his murder by means of the Qur'an. He goes so far as to say that, although he is naturally a kind person, he is nevertheless "forced by the Qur'an" to commit atrocities like the Woolwich murder. He even cites the specific chapter of the Qur'an that he feels most strongly supports his position. Trying to separate Islam (or trying to create some functional religious/political dichotomy) from either his motives or his justifications is silly, and, to borrow your phrase, directly contradicted by the information we have. As far as the bigger picture of what he said, I can empathize with him a good deal. On principle, of course, I would put him down like dog, but I can even empathize with his chosen method of protest, which is simply war by another name. Even if a concept as ridiculous as "Islamophobia" were not some lurid, newspeak fantasy, I wouldn't consider myself afflicted by it. I don't fear his type. I don't hate him. Not nearly as much, at any rate, as I hate all the dissembling, utopian multiculturalists out there promising some forthcoming golden age wherein all creeds and colors and civilizations will see the light and begin coexisting in some wet-dream world of equality, "human rights," and government-subsidized birth control. They're the ones invested in an anti-reality crusade to import people of all walks and worldviews into our Western welfare states in order to hasten the arrival of said devoutly-wished consummation. And also maybe to permanently skew voting demographics in their favor, who knows? The smart move, of course, would be to recognize the war for what it is and take measures to end it: we get (for the most part) out of their countries and they get (for the most part) out of ours. The comfortable move, however, is to continue insisting that we're all one the same side, all part of the same happy, human family, and that, regardless of a few "psychos" here and the close-quarters that modern life forces such diverse worldviews to cohabit, we're all going to get along together just fine in the future—despite the testimony of our eyes, our news, and the entirety of human history. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind. In this case, he has stated that he was forced to commit atrocities by the Qu'ran. If your beliefs force you to brutally decapitate an innocent person (a government's "sins" aren't the soldier's unless the soldier explicitly went after civilians as it has sometimes been the case), then your beliefs are, pardon the expression, complete horseshit. He's right that war is atrocious and that the situation in Afghanistan is really, really bad for the people who live there. But the government isn't there shooting people for fun, there are actual objectives there (unlike Iraq). | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
That's neither here nor there. I just like to keep it in mind when people start talking about Islamic war on women burka oppression blah blah blah. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On May 29 2013 15:40 Slaughter wrote: What guys like these two don't get is that doing things like this they simply motivate further action against them. No one is going to be all "yay for peace and leaving them alone" when they brutally murder some random guy who happens to be a member of the military in the street. Its that kind of attitude that makes peace impossible. ... theyre not going to be all "yay for peace and leaving them alone" when dronestrikes kill children and soldiers torture their kin. Its that kind of attitude that makes peace impossible. its a vicious circle, no point to go into who started what, because there is no end to that discussion either. unless the moderate people on both "sides" step up there will be only more bloodshed. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
Their religion is getting a lot of hate for good reason. When you do something in the name of a cause you are representing that cause, I'm honestly surprised islamic communities aren't starting to police themselves because it isn't long before they drag their image through the mud more than they already have. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On May 29 2013 16:15 HULKAMANIA wrote: Here's a fun fact: despite Islam's tendency to "suppress anything that is a woman," women convert to it at high rates. And presumably, in the West, they're doing it of their own, liberated, grrrl-power wills. In America, some reports put the ratio of female-to-male converts to Islam at 4:1. In the UK, the ratio is a still-substantial 2:1. These ratios seem representative across the West according to Women Embracing Islam, published by the University of Texas Press. But I can't find a place to link to that text online, unfortunately. That's neither here nor there. I just like to keep it in mind when people start talking about Islamic war on women burka oppression blah blah blah. You're missing the point. Women convert to Islam in the West because they aren't treated like shit when they do so. There are no real problems with Islam in the west, that's pretty obvious. I know a couple of Muslim girls myself who are quite religious; good for them. In the west, Islam doesn't disrespect women. That is NOT the case in Afghanistan. Ever since the Taliban came to power, women have been completely mistreated. Islam in the west and Islam interpreted by Talibans are two very different things. http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/war-on-women-islamist-taliban-kill-20-more-women-and-girls/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/6185.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250051/Taliban-kill-women-polio-aid-workers-Pakistan-administer-vaccines-children.html Get it? | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On May 29 2013 16:48 Incognoto wrote: You're missing the point. Women convert to Islam in the West because they aren't treated like shit when they do so. There are no real problems with Islam in the west, that's pretty obvious. I know a couple of Muslim girls myself who are quite religious; good for them. In the west, Islam doesn't disrespect women. That is NOT the case in Afghanistan. Ever since the Taliban came to power, women have been completely mistreated. Islam in the west and Islam interpreted by Talibans are two very different things. http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/war-on-women-islamist-taliban-kill-20-more-women-and-girls/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/6185.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250051/Taliban-kill-women-polio-aid-workers-Pakistan-administer-vaccines-children.html Get it? I don't "get it." On the contrary, I suspect that a great deal of Western women convert to Islam precisely because they are "treated like shit" when they do. Katherine Russell seemed to have quite a thing for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and evidently converted even after he had started to beat her. But we're probably unlikely to convince one another on these points in the absence of evidence. Do you happen to have numbers on, say, domestic violence rates in Western Muslims vs. Western non-Muslims? We should probably have some sort of evidence before we start generalizing wildly. And I don't even know what to say about the notion that "there are no real problems with Islam in the West," considering that a Muslim atrocity committed in Britain is the raison d'etre for this entire thread... | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On May 29 2013 17:12 HULKAMANIA wrote: I don't "get it." On the contrary, I suspect that a great deal of Western women convert to Islam precisely because they are "treated like shit" when they do. Katherine Russell seemed to have quite a thing for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and evidently converted even after he had started to beat her. But we're probably unlikely to convince one another on these points in the absence of evidence. Do you happen to have numbers on, say, domestic violence rates in Western Muslims vs. Western non-Muslims? We should probably have some sort of evidence before we start generalizing wildly. And I don't even know what to say about the notion that "there are no real problems with Islam in the West," considering that a Muslim atrocity committed in Britain is the raison d'etre for this entire thread... I'm not really sure women in the west are treated the same way as women in Afghanistan. I don't have numbers of domestic violence though so I can't be certain. But women certainly aren't brutally executed and raped in the west as the Taliban have done in Afghanistan. "There are no real problems with Islam in the West" is a relative statement I guess. There are definitely some social issues, at least in European countries. But those issues definitely pale in comparison to the often brutal incidents that happen in Afghanistan or other countries (suicide attacks, women executions, etc). I would almost consider this terror attack as a problem of Islam in Afghanistan as opposed to Britain, but I'm not going to stand too firmly behind that statement. I think I misunderstood your post, I thought you were implying that defending women in Afghanistan wasn't a viable reason to invade there. My real point is that there's definitely a problem in Afghanistan, where Taliban nutters go around killing women for no good reason. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
whether or not they should embrace western ideology is another matter. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On May 29 2013 17:42 TSORG wrote: imo its not a religious issue, but a cultural one. but with religion so deeply embedded into the culture it is hard to distinguish them. however since it is possible and the western way to seperate state from religion (aka to take religion out of the public sphere) it is easier to blame religion than culture, it is impossible to just "seperate" that, it takes decades of emancipation. it is something that cannot be forced by outsiders. in fact the fundamentalist mindset is pretty much the reaction towards this (percieved) enforcement. whether or not they should embrace western ideology is another matter. Agreed its a theological cultural problem more than a religious problem specifically, however most people posting in this topic seem to be American and the state and religion are far from separate over there. Many religions have died out due to being forced by outsiders, but doing so would make us no better than the fundamentalists. Also I disagree on its easier to blame religion than culture - most racism is born from hatred/distrust from the culture associated with the specific race rather than the race itself. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
Is it problematic that people use the Qu'ran to justify some of their excesses and that it seems suitable for it? Perhaps, but in that case it would also be a problem for the evolutiontheory if some group of maniacs would interpret it as giving them the right to go on a mass rape/kill spree because they are the "fittest" (and I dont think i have to remind people that it already happened). | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On May 29 2013 14:18 HULKAMANIA wrote: The smart move, of course, would be to recognize the war for what it is and take measures to end it: we get (for the most part) out of their countries and they get (for the most part) out of ours. The comfortable move, however, is to continue insisting that we're all one the same side, all part of the same happy, human family, and that, regardless of a few "psychos" here and the close-quarters that modern life forces such diverse worldviews to cohabit, we're all going to get along together just fine in the future—despite the testimony of our eyes, our news, and the entirety of human history. If you think those testimonies back up your argument, then your eyes are staring into a tunnel you built for yourself. The testimony of our eyes and the human history is the one of overall progress and an iterative process of eliminating historical flaws. History isn't studied so you could point at it and say - this is how our collective species behaved for thousands of years, therefore it is only natural that we continue to do so. History teaches us to tweak and fix things that our predecessors did wrong - so that we are motivated to deviate from the ways things were done in the past. This tweaking process isn't part of anyone's master plan or idealistic vision, and it is neither comfortable nor uncomfortable. It Is simply the natural course of social evolution (as is globalization in general). We are most certainly all going to "get along" in the future, one way or another. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
clementdudu
France819 Posts
On May 27 2013 08:22 s_side wrote: First, just let me say thanks for actually reading my post and making an informed, well written response even though we may disagree. I was with you, even if I disagreed, until this part. I hate to keep bringing up 9/11, but since it was the most influential (on a world scale) terrorist action perhaps ever, I'll do it begrudgingly. Those attacks did the absolute polar opposite of dissuading an enemy (the US in this case) from doing harm. They set into motion events that plunged millions and millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan into massive violent conflict, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of them. Going back to the attack this thread is about, what enemy were the two assailants dissuading and from doing what? not relevant at all to this thread,but id just like to point out that the assassination of franz ferdinand led to WWI,id say thats pretty influential.and thats just going back 100 years.theres been pogroms due to terror acts for centuries | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
the assassination of ferdinand triggered the conflict to escalate and take global dimensions, but its pretty black and white to say (not claiming here that you do) that the assassin created the conflict with his deed, the conflict was already going on (in this case serbians being surpressed and treated as second rank citizens (in their eyes) for generations). that would be just as black and white to claim that the germans caused ww1 because they were the first to attack a major nation. it is interesting that you bring it up tho, because i think some of the forces at work are pretty similar. however AH declared war on a nation triggering russia to give support. The usa did not declare war on a nation (thus no allies could openly lend support) this avoided a big conflict i think but it also makes the "war" very vague in every way. | ||
|
aTcho
France18 Posts
| ||
| ||
