|
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 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You're not being prudent and intelligent in your judgment Deb, you're pushing a certain storyline first to prove your intellectual superiority and second because of your irrational fear of Islam. Just what about saying that saying "Allahu Ackbar" does not necessitate Islamic adherence is anti-Islamaphobia, by the way? Did I say Islamaphobia is a joke faith based on moon worship or something? Just where is this irrational fear of Islam? I'm one of the least Islam-scared people around. What exactly is scary about Muslims farv? Put me on the chair Dr. Farv, let's find this non-existent fear of Muslims I have. I just want to know how, exactly, pointing out jihadis are jihadis is "anti-Islam." Are not jihadis a stain on Islam? Isn't pointing out they're jihadis separating them from the rest of the Muslims who aren't jihadis? Show nested quote +At the end of the day Deb, we both know that waiting more than 12 hours before proclaiming that these men are jihadis is not a PC nor illogical decision, you're just politically posturing because of your intense need to feel intellectually superior through knee jerk, prescriptive thinking. I'm making the obvious conclusion based on the obvious facts, and everyone knows that those of us saying they're jihadis are right. You're the one making it political by bringing in Islamophobia as part of your knee-jerk, prescriptive thinking farv. What is our crime farv, that we were right too soon? Or that you're just afraid that since we're right, Islamophobia will rise? So we must deny reality to avoid an unpleasant outcome? That may or may not happen anyway? It's not set in stone, this "they are jihadis so Islamophobia will rise" concern. I made no political implications about them being jihadis. I just said they were jihadis. Which is obvious no matter how much smoke you blow with non-sequitirs about "anti-Islam." Go read that post implying Muhammad was a child raper, now that's "anti-Islam." You created the political football of "Islamophobia" out of thin air and proceeded to run with it. Not me.
The media consuming public is, by and large, stupid and quick to make associations that are immediately spurious in the eyes of those with the proper background knowledge/education. You yourself said that there is a distinct possibility that previous psychological issues led these men to co-opt Islam in their search for some sort of outlet (I'd add socioeconomic factors in myself). In this sense, while it is technically correct to label these men jihadis, it is damaging to the notion of correctly identifying the factors that give these actions rise to immediately and loudly associate Islam with the aforementioned violent acts, particularly when the perpetrators have made it so clear that this is exactly what they want. It is a media simplification of a phenomena that is far more complex than "radical Islam=bad", and it is along these lines that a public encouragement of tempered judgment and a comfort with complexity ought to take center stage. I need not point to evidence that anti-Islamic sentiments run strong, both in Europe and the United States, for you've provided such things in previous threads.
All in all, I'm not arguing that calling these men Jihadi's is wrong, I'm arguing that it is irresponsible given what we know about how the public consumes media and forms ideas relative to the contours and shape of the media's information.
|
On May 23 2013 04:39 SiroKO 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. Aren't you trying to twist things around ? Why Muhammed behavior and actions couldn't be reproduced today considering he is referred to as : 1). being a "perfect man" 2). the last prophet of an eternal religion which is all about absolutes and intemporal truths, morals etc.... Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:30 AeroGear wrote:
Meh
Another episode in the vicious circle of violence
Mass media coverage will encourage more persecution to muslims/arabs, fueling the rise of more extremists (0.000000001% of muslims/arabs? altough the world will certainly not perceive it that way) who might participate in more extreme acts of this kind...
As if the economic crisis did'nt create enough tensions amongst poor communities already.
Gotta sell the news!
The killers are actually an extremly tiny minority, which is to be expected regarding murderers, but the ones who support or at least no condemn these actions are far from being a tiny minotiry, at least in France. After Muhammed Merrah murders in France, his page rapidly got tens of thousands of French muslim Facebook supporters, a lot of them under the age of 18.
this is the actual problem, we still don't know if muslims support or condemn this sort of things
"silence is consent"
|
It's not Islamaphobia to address the issue at hand here that Radical Islamists are the predominate perpetrators of terrorism in the past decade at least, and are clearly the problem here. What's Islamaphobia is to say "GIT EM OUTTA HERE FUCKIN TERRORISTS THE LOT OF THEM" -- of course all Muslims aren't. There's over a billion of them and this is a few ten or hundred thousand that are the issue here. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address this issue.
On May 23 2013 04:51 xDaunt wrote:
Wait, people are saying we shouldn't rush to judgment that the perpetrators are jihadists? That's like a woman finding her husband balls deep in someone else and saying that he is not an adulterer. Good lord.
Basically this. Unless this was some kind of false flag attack against Islamists (which I highly, highly doubt) it's pretty clear. We don't fix an issue by dancing around it.
|
Ah, the backflips of the ethnomasochists.
My only comfort is that, probably sooner rather than later, the time for words will have passed, and then we'll finally be free from all these tedious exercises in peer-imposed sensitivity training.
|
Pretty shocking. Give the guys who did this life in prison with minimal food and water to save the British their tax dollars.
|
On May 23 2013 04:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:You're not being prudent and intelligent in your judgment Deb, you're pushing a certain storyline first to prove your intellectual superiority and second because of your irrational fear of Islam. Just what about saying that saying "Allahu Ackbar" does not necessitate Islamic adherence is anti-Islamaphobia, by the way? Did I say Islamaphobia is a joke faith based on moon worship or something? Just where is this irrational fear of Islam? I'm one of the least Islam-scared people around. What exactly is scary about Muslims farv? Put me on the chair Dr. Farv, let's find this non-existent fear of Muslims I have. I just want to know how, exactly, pointing out jihadis are jihadis is "anti-Islam." Are not jihadis a stain on Islam? Isn't pointing out they're jihadis separating them from the rest of the Muslims who aren't jihadis? At the end of the day Deb, we both know that waiting more than 12 hours before proclaiming that these men are jihadis is not a PC nor illogical decision, you're just politically posturing because of your intense need to feel intellectually superior through knee jerk, prescriptive thinking. I'm making the obvious conclusion based on the obvious facts, and everyone knows that those of us saying they're jihadis are right. You're the one making it political by bringing in Islamophobia as part of your knee-jerk, prescriptive thinking farv. What is our crime farv, that we were right too soon? Or that you're just afraid that since we're right, Islamophobia will rise? So we must deny reality to avoid an unpleasant outcome? That may or may not happen anyway? It's not set in stone, this "they are jihadis so Islamophobia will rise" concern. I made no political implications about them being jihadis. I just said they were jihadis. Which is obvious no matter how much smoke you blow with non-sequitirs about "anti-Islam." Go read that post implying Muhammad was a child raper, now that's "anti-Islam." You created the political football of "Islamophobia" out of thin air and proceeded to run with it. Not me. The media consuming public is, by and large, stupid and quick to make associations that are immediately spurious in the eyes of those with the proper background knowledge/education. You yourself said that there is a distinct possibility that previous psychological issues led these men to co-opt Islam in their search for some sort of outlet (I'd add socioeconomic factors in myself). In this sense, while it is technically correct to label these men jihadis, it is damaging to the notion of correctly identifying the factors that give these actions rise to immediately and loudly associate Islam with the aforementioned violent acts, particularly when the perpetrators have made it so clear that this is exactly what they want. It is a media simplification of a phenomena that is far more complex than "radical Islam=bad", and it is along these lines that a public encouragement of tempered judgment and a comfort with complexity ought to take center stage. I need not point to evidence that anti-Islamic sentiments run strong, both in Europe and the United States, for you've provided such things in previous threads. All in all, I'm not arguing that calling these men Jihadi's is wrong, I'm arguing that it is irresponsible given what we know about how the public consumes media and forms ideas relative to the contours and shape of the media's information.
So...you're saying that what he said wasn't wrong, but was irresponsible, because people would misinterpret it...
Or am I misinterpreting you?
|
RIP, sickening barbaric attack.
shocking it took 20 minutes in a major city to get any police there...
|
United States43817 Posts
On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible.
They should be given a fair trial and lose their liberty if found guilty. That is how we win.
|
On May 23 2013 04:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:59 Sovano wrote:On May 23 2013 03:58 Slaughter wrote:
I wonder why bystanders were just hanging out at this crazy scene and people were doing what they were told. "Oh hold this camera for us please, so we can get extra good shots of us butchering this guy". Threatened maybe? Shock. What would you do if you saw two guys try to run over someone then cut his head off? I'd be so shocked I wouldn't even try to run I'd think.
No, I am pretty confident your instincts would say to run.
|
Man I have a feeling these sickos are just trying to make things harder for muslims.. or maybe they really are stereotypical insane islamic terrorists, who knows. All that's sure is that these guys are losers who are fcked in the head.
|
Since lots of people have changed this thread about Islam extremists..
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151574755733459&set=vb.513028458&type=2&theater
I honestly believe people like these, and sure I might sound inhuman, in fact I am in certain ways, should be put against a wall and get shot and then displayed towards the direction of where these people came from. (Though I'm well aware they're not all immigrants, but still.)
I guess this is one of the downsides with religion (not just Islam), some people take it to such an extent they're completely irrational, brainwashed & delusional to the extent they think they're above everyone who doesn't follow their ways.. It's disgusting and such people should be dealt with in the hardest way a government could think of.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 23 2013 05:05 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:53 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2013 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:You're not being prudent and intelligent in your judgment Deb, you're pushing a certain storyline first to prove your intellectual superiority and second because of your irrational fear of Islam. Just what about saying that saying "Allahu Ackbar" does not necessitate Islamic adherence is anti-Islamaphobia, by the way? Did I say Islamaphobia is a joke faith based on moon worship or something? Just where is this irrational fear of Islam? I'm one of the least Islam-scared people around. What exactly is scary about Muslims farv? Put me on the chair Dr. Farv, let's find this non-existent fear of Muslims I have. I just want to know how, exactly, pointing out jihadis are jihadis is "anti-Islam." Are not jihadis a stain on Islam? Isn't pointing out they're jihadis separating them from the rest of the Muslims who aren't jihadis? At the end of the day Deb, we both know that waiting more than 12 hours before proclaiming that these men are jihadis is not a PC nor illogical decision, you're just politically posturing because of your intense need to feel intellectually superior through knee jerk, prescriptive thinking. I'm making the obvious conclusion based on the obvious facts, and everyone knows that those of us saying they're jihadis are right. You're the one making it political by bringing in Islamophobia as part of your knee-jerk, prescriptive thinking farv. What is our crime farv, that we were right too soon? Or that you're just afraid that since we're right, Islamophobia will rise? So we must deny reality to avoid an unpleasant outcome? That may or may not happen anyway? It's not set in stone, this "they are jihadis so Islamophobia will rise" concern. I made no political implications about them being jihadis. I just said they were jihadis. Which is obvious no matter how much smoke you blow with non-sequitirs about "anti-Islam." Go read that post implying Muhammad was a child raper, now that's "anti-Islam." You created the political football of "Islamophobia" out of thin air and proceeded to run with it. Not me. The media consuming public is, by and large, stupid and quick to make associations that are immediately spurious in the eyes of those with the proper background knowledge/education. You yourself said that there is a distinct possibility that previous psychological issues led these men to co-opt Islam in their search for some sort of outlet (I'd add socioeconomic factors in myself). In this sense, while it is technically correct to label these men jihadis, it is damaging to the notion of correctly identifying the factors that give these actions rise to immediately and loudly associate Islam with the aforementioned violent acts, particularly when the perpetrators have made it so clear that this is exactly what they want. It is a media simplification of a phenomena that is far more complex than "radical Islam=bad", and it is along these lines that a public encouragement of tempered judgment and a comfort with complexity ought to take center stage. I need not point to evidence that anti-Islamic sentiments run strong, both in Europe and the United States, for you've provided such things in previous threads. All in all, I'm not arguing that calling these men Jihadi's is wrong, I'm arguing that it is irresponsible given what we know about how the public consumes media and forms ideas relative to the contours and shape of the media's information. So...you're saying that what he said wasn't wrong, but was irresponsible, because people would misinterpret it... Or am I misinterpreting you?
I'm saying that oversimplifying these things in favor of getting out a clean, neat, consumable message encourages poor thinking on the part of the public.
|
On May 23 2013 05:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. They should be given a fair trial and lose their liberty if found guilty. That is how we win.
Agreed. Eye for an eye is what Islamists preach, we shouldn't let them win. Enlightenment will save us, not lowering our morals to their level.
I hope this will at least stir up some debate about how to deal with radical Islam. We've had it in our country with Theo van Gogh, and whilst I hate Geert Wilders and his PVV, it overall has been a good thing that certain problems with an overrepresentation of muslims are talked about.
|
On May 23 2013 05:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. They should be given a fair trial and lose their liberty if found guilty. That is how we win.
I know I'm in the minority with that viewpoint, but such a pointless and heinous atrocity deserves no moral punishment.
|
On May 23 2013 05:09 Doctorbeat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:06 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. They should be given a fair trial and lose their liberty if found guilty. That is how we win. Agreed. Eye for an eye is what Islamists preach, we shouldn't let them win. Enlightenment will save us, not lowering our morals to their level. I hope this will at least stir up some debate about how to deal with radical Islam. We've had it in our country with Theo van Gogh, and whilst I hate Geert Wilders and his PVV, it overall has been a good thing that certain problems with an overrepresentation of muslims are talked about.
Healthy expressions of anger ought not to be looked down on.
|
United States43817 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:10 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:06 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. They should be given a fair trial and lose their liberty if found guilty. That is how we win. I know I'm in the minority with that viewpoint, but such a pointless and heinous atrocity deserves no moral punishment.
And I'm sure their extremists think that non-Muslims deserve no protection. We're not better because we think what we think is right, we're better because we protect people including those we think are wrong. It's easy to be a dick to people you disagree with, everyone thinks they're right and other people are wrong, we win because we don't use that judgement to commit injustices.
|
On May 23 2013 05:10 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:06 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. They should be given a fair trial and lose their liberty if found guilty. That is how we win. I know I'm in the minority with that viewpoint, but such a pointless and heinous atrocity deserves no moral punishment.
Remember this is for our own benefit, our own morality, that is whats at stake.
|
There needs to be a term to distinguish between violence which is advocated, endorsed, and facilitated by a politcial group and individuals who commit violence on their own in the name of an ideology who don't actually have an affiliation with a group.
|
Islam shows its face again it seems
|
On May 23 2013 04:54 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:39 SiroKO 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. Aren't you trying to twist things around ? Why Muhammed behavior and actions couldn't be reproduced today considering he is referred to as : 1). being a "perfect man" 2). the last prophet of an eternal religion which is all about absolutes and intemporal truths, morals etc.... On May 23 2013 04:30 AeroGear wrote:
Meh
Another episode in the vicious circle of violence
Mass media coverage will encourage more persecution to muslims/arabs, fueling the rise of more extremists (0.000000001% of muslims/arabs? altough the world will certainly not perceive it that way) who might participate in more extreme acts of this kind...
As if the economic crisis did'nt create enough tensions amongst poor communities already.
Gotta sell the news!
The killers are actually an extremly tiny minority, which is to be expected regarding murderers, but the ones who support or at least no condemn these actions are far from being a tiny minotiry, at least in France. After Muhammed Merrah murders in France, his page rapidly got tens of thousands of French muslim Facebook supporters, a lot of them under the age of 18. this is the actual problem, we still don't know if muslims support or condemn this sort of things "silence is consent"
Well, except the multiple Muslim groups in the UK that have uniformly come out condemning it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
