|
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 04:33 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:15 Zealously wrote:On May 23 2013 04:05 AnomalySC2 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:41 Lycaeus wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. Does nothing but show your own degree of inhumanity. They deserve to be shown humanity after brutally stabbing and decapitating a random soldier in the middle of a street for no apparent reason? Having someone film it makes it just that much more disgusting to me. I don't think executing someone in the most painful manner possible is "showing humanity", but that might just be me. That was my point...why show people whom are as evil as it gets compassion?
because youre not as evil as it gets?
|
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.
and.....the argument ends here
|
Can Islam be judged by its believers?
Absolutely not, this is utter nonsense.
These killers can easily find verses in the Qoran which would support actions like this. People are not inherently evil but Islam is.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Can anyone tell me how NSFW the video is? I can deal with bloody hands but if it's the actual attack or anything...
|
On May 23 2013 05:09 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:05 soon.Cloak wrote: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.
The public can think whatever they please, and if they're jihadis then that's what should be reported. Are you suggesting it should be hidden that they're jihadis or that contributing factors should also be discussed and shown clearly? If so, I agree completely.
|
On May 23 2013 05:25 darthfoley wrote:
Can anyone tell me how NSFW the video is? I can deal with bloody hands but if it's the actual attack or anything...
Guy talks a bit with bloodied hands + cleaver in one of them. In the background lies the body, can't really see what's happened to it. Basically it's just blood, no real gore in sight.
|
On May 23 2013 05:25 darthfoley wrote:
Can anyone tell me how NSFW the video is? I can deal with bloody hands but if it's the actual attack or anything...
It's just the guy talking to the camera with bloody hands.
|
On May 23 2013 05:26 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:09 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2013 05:05 soon.Cloak wrote: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. The public can think whatever they please, and if they're jihadis then that's what should be reported. Are you suggesting it should be hidden that they're jihadis or that contributing factors should also be discussed and shown clearly? If so, I agree completely.
Definitely the latter.
|
I really can't believe this, it just sounds so unreal, but it has happened. Things like this really need to stop happening.
My thoughts go to the family of the solider that was attacked.
|
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.
I actually appreciate people coming out saying that these brutes should be sawed up.. There is value in expressing the anger we all feel when these things happen.
I might go off track if I start discussing this much further, but I think it's very important negative feelings are expressed in democratic societies.. so as to not rush headlong into wars like Afghanistan, in the name of freedom, and human rights, and all that jazz, when the populace is actually mostly interested in expressing it's negative side.
|
Why was the UK put on terror alert?
|
On May 23 2013 05:09 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:05 soon.Cloak wrote: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.
Farv, beheading people in the street and ranting about it to bystanders while you're carrying bloody blades and your hands are soaked with blood is what encourages poor thinking on the part of the public.
Besides, it has been standard government / media policy since September 11th (and a good policy too) to strenuously differentiate between jihadis and regular Muslims, and to speak out against Islamophobia almost immediately. It is not like there are not major efforts every time there is a jihadi attack to get out a clean, neat, consumable message of 'not all Muslims are like this' and 'Islamophobia is bad.' That happens every single time.
|
On May 23 2013 05:26 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 05:09 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2013 05:05 soon.Cloak wrote: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. The public can think whatever they please, and if they're jihadis then that's what should be reported. Are you suggesting it should be hidden that they're jihadis or that contributing factors should also be discussed and shown clearly? If so, I agree completely.
Not to mention the difference between us and them (extremists) being that we won't take the information and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities. I agree. How the fuck can we ignore the fact that they're screaming "God is great" while hacking a human being to pieces? It's obviously a heavy influence to them and is likely their primary source of moral accountability.
Oversimplifying things is exactly what the media has to do, because over-complicating simple things leads to more confusion. Listening to the attacker in the video's accent, he was obviously in the UK for a fairly long time, meaning associates of his and members of his community in the UK contributed to his beliefs and those of his accomplice. Pretending this isn't a Muslim problem won't help moderate Muslims in dealing with it.
|
What a strange and horrible thing to happen. Take care UK.
|
random question...
is allahu akbar only used in part of jihad and some people here say or is it more akin to "oh my god" that people use often?
when watching liveleak videos, if anything crazy happens people seem to howl "allahu akbar"
|
Allah weeps.
Edit: This really has nothing to do with the word Jihad. If you think that it just means "holy war" do your self a favor and do some research.
from the Jihad wiki
Jihad means "to struggle in the way of Allah". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God"
|
the bit that makes me most sad about this whole thing is; the guy who apparently did it (the idiot who stayed around to talk to the camera) wore british clothes, and had a london accent. he had clearly been born and raised here. he saw himself as an outsider and decided to kill a man for reasons we can only assume at this point are (extremist but still) religious in nature.
hes never known a life that wasnt protected. even if he had nothing he has all the services and benefits being a UK citizen gives you, and he was so angry at who he sees as different people to himself. really senseless stuff.
On May 23 2013 05:36 jinorazi wrote:
random question...
is allahu akbar only used in part of jihad and some people here say or is it more akin to "oh my god" that people use often?
when watching liveleak videos, if anything crazy happens people seem to howl "allahu akbar"
it can mean oh my god as both an expression of shock and praise depending on the context.
|
On May 23 2013 05:36 jinorazi wrote:
random question...
is allahu akbar only used in part of jihad and some people here say or is it more akin to "oh my god" that people use often?
when watching liveleak videos, if anything crazy happens people seem to howl "allahu akbar"
It is a very common expression for arab muslims, it is not exclusive to jihadists.
Amazingly there is a wikipedia page for it.
|
On May 23 2013 05:24 ImperialFist wrote:
Can Islam be judged by its believers?
Absolutely not, this is utter nonsense.
These killers can easily find verses in the Qoran which would support actions like this. People are not inherently evil but Islam is.
User was temp banned for this post.
Actually by the most accepted interpretation of Qur'an it is actually stated that Allah will never forgive you if you kill another man and jihad is interpreted as a battle with yourself and your bad side to become better as a person.
Yet some demagogues explain the words in Qur'an differently to naive uneducated people of the 3rd world countries, mainly not because they would believe so but because of their own economical interests and they train young man to become extremists and do crazy shit like this.
What happened was indeed extremely shameful and all extremists are a disgrace for the religion.
|
On May 23 2013 05:36 jinorazi wrote:
random question...
is allahu akbar only used in part of jihad and some people here say or is it more akin to "oh my god" that people use often?
when watching liveleak videos, if anything crazy happens people seem to howl "allahu akbar"
nah, muslim people use that all the time, mostly as a positive reaction. for example when i was in a rollercoaster a little while ago some muslims yelled it out of joy. oO
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
