Printable View
"Ait Bboulahcen detonates a suicide belt as she pretends to give herself up, screaming 'Help me, help me!' at police. In doing so, she becomes Europe's first woman suicide bomber. Her head and spine were found in the street after being blasted through a window."Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-revealed.html
I know, the video isn't very pleasant to watch so I'm not going to post it. What got me sceptical is that she was obviously really scared. The police asked where her friend was, and she replied 'he is not my friend'. I would at least consider that she might have been an innocent victiim, and that her name should be cleared should it be that way. I of course possibly can't know it, it's nothing but a bit of a hunch I have, I am also naturally guilty of having a soft spot for women so feel free to redicule me for considering that she might have been completily innocentQuote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Untrained people usually panic in stressful situations.
Videos like this are awful and the mindset they breed are part of the problem. The people who commit these atrocities do not care about French culture nor do they think it's the way of the future. I can't for the life of me figure out who those videos are for? Is this supposed to make me take heart at because France has given so much to the world? I know that, it's one of the reasons I am so upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
This is Europe ffs we are used to atrocities. I saw a video of a plane flying over NY, people were actually running towards the most dangerous spot they could be. Bombing warnings are very normal in big Europian citiies, can count five on my personal list from Londen and Paris, nobody panics we are used to that it sometimes happens. As for this, I don't think she's guilty but I could be wrong, but I am usually rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I fail to see what that has to do with her being unstained? Or are you talking about the video? In any event, No one in the west is "used to" atrocities. There are bomb warnings constantly here too, it doesn't make anyone hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
live in itQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Not that it counts for anything, I may be an idiot but I can recognise what I see. Times are changing mia muca, and you live in it
chinese proverb: may you live in interesting times
Chinese proverb: Tofu is better than centralized socialist economy
Coincidentally, that's my favourite Einstein quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Maybe he is just venting and I for one also agree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
As for the woman being innocent or not, her neighbors described her as a very nice and kind person. You may say that's how they described every school shooter as well, but I'm not sure if school shooters and islamists can be compared like that. So Fragony may have a point, but I guess the experts will have to find out. If she was not a suicide bomber then I guess someone else must have had the trigger, if not then she probably blew herself up and cried to attract the policemen to take them with her...
As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
On the other hand, if there was a live agent (someone as of yet unknown to security or intelligence forces) waiting to trigger the explosion, then why get the fall gal into a situation in which police evacuate an area and approach her with extreme caution? Why not just move her into some crowded place and take another 10 or 20 civilians out. It would definitely exacerbate tensions coming so soon after the main attack.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
I am just starting to realise what kind of seriously radical people I am surrounding myself with here - thinking the unthinkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Ironically, women like that spot as hard as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I assume the surprise, but I was more thinking of the other terrorist guy who died rather than some secret mastermind. The explosion may have blown the trigger out of the window or so. Seems more likely that she triggered it herself though, no argument from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The radicals are everywhere, even talking about other radicals. I suggest you migrate to the US, that country is boringly average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Also: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...fc930c5bc78829
It's the Popes fault.
http://wonkette.com/596232/pope-fran...r-on-christmas
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?:book2:
Isn't it a bit premature to be asking for a prosopography?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I think the correct quote was "Remember - France was run over by a non-aristocratic elite rugby team 62-13"Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
A rather surprising number of French Presidents and other senior politicians are members of either the class of landed gentry or the lower aristocracy. Mostly recently Sarkozy, though in his case the aristocrats were Hungarians. Even in the case of Hollande, though hardly nobles or gentry his parents were wealthy and he has a privileged background.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I'll grant you these are not the sons of Kings, even their illegitimate ones, but they're not bastards born out of wedlock of the sons of school teachers, or members of an ethnic minority subject to prejudicial linguistic legislation either.
So, when I said "aristocratic elite" I did not mean they were all blue blooded, perhaps "intellectual and social elite" would have been more apt.
Isn't that the case for most countries though? Among the post-war UK PMs, I can only think of Major who wasn't from the traditional academic (and thus social, cf. Cameron) powerhouses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I wouldnt trade 20 Stfts from single frags.Frags is a real man with his flaws, while strike is just a coward with his issues.When did you exactly got under bomb threat Strike?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not calling anyone a coward as I don't know anyone here but Frag is definitely a gentleman. I actually feel for his "Islamophobia," unlike others...
Yes but Assad has been receiving aid from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, I doubt the aid the rebels receive from the US has been enough to prevent Assad from ending the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Climate change may have been a factor but the brutality and corruption of the Syrian government shouldn't be discounted either. And if Assad hadn't chosen to try quelling the uprising by shooting unarmed protesters the civil war might never have happened.
Recently they've lost Shingal in Iraq, and al-Hasakah and al-Hawl in Syria. I think they've lost their momentum and are now on the defensive, their last major gain that I remember/heard about was Palmyra which was clear back in May. I've heard that most of the tanks and heavy weaponry they captured from the Iraqi Army have already been destroyed and I don't think they could ever take on the likes of Turkey or Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Some people have been calling them Daesh already for a while now, it's the transliteration of their Arabic acronym.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Thanks but Strike really doesn't deserves to be called a coward. I am not a real man I am a total softyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
This is as close to "mission accomplished" since PVC [sorry, I keep forgetting your new name]. Look, if you want to reclaim the vast majority of ISIS territory, you will need a large force. The West cannot do it because it simply fuels more ISIS fighters and disorder. To be frank, even after Paris, the US does not have the will to tackle Iraq again for a long time. Russia and Iran cannot do it because the West wouldn't accept such a presence in the region. The only solution to ISIS that is permanent is for the Arab countries to get their hands dirty. And they won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
I have not read any convincing argument in this thread that gives a long term solution for deescalating and deradicalizing the region. Hence why the person that makes the most sense is Monty and his assertion that the only way it will get better is for the area to turn into even more of a bloodbath.
I'm coming round to a boots on the ground solution. In Iraq, Western forces always had the toughest time in the big cities like Baghdad and Basra, neither of which are controlled by IS. Raqqa and Mosul are the only big urban areas they control (afaik) and would be much more manageable. Only about 20% of Iraq's population is Sunni and corresponds largely with the IS-controlled areas, and I remember reading there's about 8-10 million people in the IS across Iraq and Syria, compared to about 40m in Iraq or 18m in Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam, but that appetite is there for taking down IS. Plus even the Sunnis are less happy with IS than they were with Saddam.
Well, they also control Ramadi and Falloujah. Also, I disagree with Basra and Baghdad being the most difficult to control Iraqi cities. Basra is clearly located in a Shia majority region and the only opposition were Shia partisans, like the Sadr Army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Baghdad was the site of really lethal attacks, but it was mostly bombing against the Shias.
On the Contrary, Ramadi, the capital of Anbar is full of sunni extremists, while the US army paid a really big price to manage to control Falloujah, which was the first to be captured by ISIL.
From a friend in Facebook:
In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east. ��
President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm, might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
Welcome to (Middle East) politics!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
What he forgot to mention was that the NWO (good) has planned all of this.
Oh, yeah, he did forget a lot of things, i.e. Saudis (good) having links with IS (bad) bombing Yemen insurgents (bad) allied with Iran (new good). Turkey (good) sells oil from IS (bad) to Europe (good) and US (good) market.
France (good) is now going to Russia (bad becoming good) to put boots on the grounds (if not yet done) and French (good) fleet is now co-operating with Russian (bad becoming good). This of course cannot be achieved with Assad (lesser bad becoming relatively good) agreement...
Hezbollah (the one that blew-up Marines and French Paratroopers and executed hostages in Lebanon) is becoming good, following Iran. Well, history is marching...
That's absolutely false, 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...vasion_of_Iraq
Even I thought at the time that taking out Saddam was not a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now. ~;)
Fair enough, I guess I was just thinking of the protests over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You are lucky I just got older.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Might become a busy day if anominous's is right
Just for caution http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-say...sunday-2194926
"You are talking about single cases of high born men reaching high rank in the military":laugh4: I missed this one during my week of the org. The General Dumas was slave, as he was the child of a slave and the father being the owner of his mother. When the father having no son with the regular wife, he decided to take his son out of slavery (there were soooo nice this slavers, weren't they!)... High born indeed...
Kinda funny, the alledged brain of the attacks was apparently a frequent guest at gay-bars. Could be nonsense of course.
A bit of sarcasm mixed with reality... I echo this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Turkey Shoots down Russian plane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Possibly with F-16's.
And probably not in Turkish airspace, bit of a problem then if soQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
edit, comfirmed that two Turkish F16 shot it down, and that they knew it was a Russian plane. Oh my. Russian pilot is ok by the way before you ask.
extra edit, one pilot certainly isn't ok
Steven Pinker's opinion on how attacks like this one fit with the supposed general decline in violence:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...-yes-actually/Quote:
Certain categories of violence could continue to see statistical declines, Pinker said, including homicide, domestic violence, and rape. But others, notably the use of “cheap, low-depth, high-publicity violence such as terrorism and rampage shootings,” may hold to current levels far into the future.
Reflecting on overall historical trends, Pinker said, “Violence reduction might be like other types of technological progress — that is, not linear and not exorable, but highly likely over the long run.”
Something happened in California. The motive isn't determined yet. Whatever the motive is, it's terrorism for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXVDqmCEdX0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUbz0w02EQI
Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA
I predict that it could count for as much as 0.2%% of the traffic deaths each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sure, but it does have a greater impact, there is a difference, an accident is just that, but this is senseless murder. Not implying anything yet but you probably know what I expect it to be. For now only RIP victims and condolences to their family and friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Edit, more is known by now, it was indeed a radicalised muslim, one at least. Know what you welcome I'd say, not just for us but also for your Turkish baker.
Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.
Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.
Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.
I don't understand the need to relativate an obvious kick in the nuts. How many do you need before you understand that someone is kicking you in the nuts. Radical islam is just a threat, and more attacks like in Paris (and possibly this one) are just going to happen, especially after that eastblock-workhorse Merkel with her messias-complex welcomed them to travel alongQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Funny that's how I see conventional vs atomic weapons. You are dead either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Ok - I'll run with that analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So it's like this:
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch - OMG! End of the world! Bomb everything! Catastrophe!
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
You are only singling out one particular kick in the nuts because it's high on the news agenda, and because it segways neatly into your pre-existing discourse.
What makes you think I want to bomb everything, I just want a problem to be acknowledged. Better than relativating everything noQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I want it to be acknowledged too. People believe crazy crap all the time. The attackers, however, when their lives are examined, are rarely what you would term "devout". In fact the best description is usually "disaffected".
Indeed I bet the actual ISIS soldiers probably talk a lot of religious sounding talk, but in reality are the same raping, intoxicated, mixed up bunch who are the usual people who find comradeship and purpose in a war.
Perhaps 'determinent'? If you let go the idea that islam is a religion of peace it all makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.
Was there any point during the creation of your post at which you thought about the actual information contained in your videos or did you just want to waste my time? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...larly-ha-51938Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
While Islamic violence is indeed a subset of violence, it would be strange to suggest that any other subset of violence should have its individual characteristics and contributing factors ignored because 'violence is violence, and one sort is not of more concern than another'. What I am getting at is that when studying a subset of violence, you need both the broad and common analysis as well as the deep and comparative analysis.
Otherwise, you simply get the inverted image of the "War on Drugs".
In this case, it's yet another instance of someone going abroad to one of the radicalisation hotspots, and returning to wreak havok in their host country having been converted to violence. The US are free to draw their own conclusions. But I wish Europe, or at the very least UK, should bar anyone who goes to these areas from returning. If they want to be devout and radical, let them live in devout and radical countries. I prefer the UK and Europe to remain largely secular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I siimply don'f know the nuances, all I got is what other people sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
they usually plan to die in their attacks.
They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.
They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.
Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.
The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.
Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.
Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.
So you should think about Islam.
They have absolutely no intention of engaging politically with us. The hyperbole has been used in the past to say that Communists and other westernised oppositional organisations want to destroy us, but they always had a political organisation that maintained a voice in the (sort of) mainstream. Not so Islamism, for whom our very being is anathema to them. And while I count myself as a liberal where such norms are reciprocated, I see no point in tolerating people who game the system to destroy our liberal democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
A comparison to Communists would be sort of like if, instead of taking both violent and non-violent action to foment and enable the revolution of the proletariat state-by-state and across the world, Communist terrorists were looking to cause destruction such that enemy states would collapse with maximum internal damage, with the Select moving in through the rubble under the leadership of Zombie Lenin to absorb fragmented communities and enforce proper Communist rule over humanity.
Another way to put it is that Islamism is the opposite of Communism in terms of parochiality. Islamism is only "international" in the most technical sense of our terminology.
Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state. The only way that ordinary individuals would be affected was if the opposing blocs flared into formal war. Other than that, the Communist states kept to themselves, and the capitalist states kept to themselves. Unlike Islamists, who view western civilisation as something against their creed, who hold westernised individuals as representative of the state that they live in, and who randomly but actively target individuals and try to maximise civilian damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'll ask this question: how do we keep from being targets of Islamist militants? If we don't have an answer, and we don't know how to get a definitive answer, that is indicative of the difference between Communism and Islamism.
When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.Quote:
Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state.
So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).
With the Communist MO, while the capitalist state was still in being (and we now know there wasn't ever any danger of them collapsing), individuals in capitalist states were not individually in danger, other than maybe the odd terrorist attack independent of the Communist institutions (who had open channels with us throughout). Contrast with the Islamist MO, which is to cause as much damage to the softest targets possible. There are some Communist ideals and achievements that I will readily laud, space exploration not least among them (and many other scientific fields). Islamism has contributed nothing to the good of humanity, nor will it ever do. It is entirely destructive in ethos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.
These nationalist interests weren't alien to us since, as you said, they've been basic politics since ancient times. Everyone does it, and everyone knows the rules of the game. We know what the boundaries are, which no side will step over, since all sides are orthodox states. Islamism is jihad transplanted into modern society, themselves abiding by rules which we've left behind centuries ago, yet who game our modern society to allow them to inflict maximum damage in areas which we consider off limits by the rules recognised by orthodox states. That's why I despise them, and almost as much, the bleeding heart liberals who genuinely believe that liberal rights apply to these Islamists. No they don't. Rights come with responsibilities. Islamists deny all their responsibilities as a matter of principle, and hold those that value them as their enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Eh, let me enumerate your points to give a better structured answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
1) That is correct and more or less directly owed to the religious teachings they believe in
2) Isn't that one of the hallmarks of terrorism in general? If a group used to try and kill as many soviet or other enemy soldiers we used to call them resistance fighters and if they killed our soldiers they were partisans or subversive elements or whatever but not exactly terrorists. Nowadays the word is thrown around all the time just like Hitler's name.
Besides, the neo nazis who murdered a lot of immigrants in Germany also chose soft targets. The guy who shot up the planned parenthood complex last Friday also chose soft targets, as did other people who had political goals but chose to attack soft targets. I don't see how that is unique.
3) And so do a lot of other people, how is that unique? Besides, they also plan plenty of attacks in other countries in case that distinction was part of your argument.
4) That seems like an artificial point because there is no real distinction in the case of terrorists. The number of victims is more or less proportional to the terror caused and therefore to the achievement of the goal. School schooters nd many other murderers have the same goal. In fact your point applies far more to serial killers who try to kill as many people as possible without getting attention.
Apart from the fact they want to die and go to heaven because of their religion, I do not really see the huge difference.
Paul also wrote plenty of times that he can't wait for the lord to take him to heaven. Not that he was a terrorist, but the wish to go to heaven isn't even unique, only the way to get there seems relatively unique to Islam, but they have to have something special or they'd just be ecumenic, no?
As for communist terrorists, how about Stalin and his secret police? Didn't they kill thousands/millions of people to scare the others into submission?
Phil and Frag both think that it's all about the Muslims. Is this a perspective they have come to from a sober assessment of the situation? No, I don't believe so. I think their perceptions have been selectively taken to slot in with their own preexisting mental narratives. Phil with his Christianity-in-a-country-gone-secular. And Frag with his overrun-by-darkies fear.
I don't tnink there is an answer, they are already here and we must find out who is who. Best we can do right now. We should reconsider border policies we have been warned for this for decades, but all they got was ridicule and insinuations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
@Idaho, I don’t know if you have tried an objective view of the situation. You seem to think it is a matter of religiosity or racism. The biggest factor is one you don’t seem to have examined.
Here is the rub. Islam and western ideals of liberty are incompatible. All religions have some elements that could be called repressive, to one extent or another but there are grounds for accommodation and a sprit of live and let live, except with Islam. None of the others have as a tenant of their faith that all others must be converted, subjugated, or slain. Others have proven a willingness to live under a secular rule. The other religions do not call for forced conversion.
Many Muslims have also submitted themselves to live in secular countries but in doing so they violate the rules of their faith. The world view of the faith is that the world is divided into two. The lands of the faith and the lands of war.
Our ethics forbid us from assaults on the beliefs of others, while the faith of Islam demands it.
How are we logically to treat this threat to our values? Do we submit to eventual theocracy or do we resist?
How disillusioned he must feel now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Our MODERN ethics is what you say it is. But the initial attempts to interpret the Holy Texts literally resulted in numerous similar assaults from Christians. Since then Christian ethics has evolved through a series of changes to reach the current liberal stage. Evidently, Muslim world has been reluctant to such sweeping changes which eventually amount to divorcing people from reading too much into religious texts and distancing religious practices from real life. So the ultimate goal of those who wish to change the current lay of things should be secularizing Muslim countries as much as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Islam is particularly difficult to reform. The books are sacred and not to be altered. Quran, Sunnah, or Hadith. Can anyone name any reforms in the last 1400 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Trying to reform it is blaspheme. You become an apostate or worse and usually results in the reformer being executed or murdered.
What of this is not true for Christianity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Catholics don't go to heaven because they pray to people other than Jesus (saints).
Is this bait? What idiot told you that praying to Saints is blasphemy to Catholics?
Ignoring that, all of what you said is indeed false for Modern Christianity, It's been reformed and re-reformed for over a thousand years and even the Irish have mostly stopped killing each other over apostasy.
Some Christians may hold some outlandish beliefs but they do not come from the text of that religion in the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Most of their reforms have been to extra biblical beliefs instituted by church or state leaders.
It is not explicitly mandated as an article of faith. Christians may proselytise but nothing mandates it at sword point. Just as nothing in Jewish or Christian theology requires it to be the only religion on earth.
Yet Christianity went through reforms during which there were plenty of people shouting bloody murder and sticking labels of heresy and blasphemy at large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
But I suggested not reforming islam (foreseeing the difficulty thereof), but gradual reducing the role of religion in muslim countries.
Though, to tell the truth, both solutions are very long-term perspectives.
Don't even start it. How many sword-points did Christians dip into those that were of other faiths or those of their own faith who were deemed wrong in interpreting some of its tenets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
That doesn't say that Christianity/Judaism cannot tolerate the existence of other religions, it says they cant tolerate any of it's own members following a second religion simultaneously.
@Gilrandir , I am not here to defend Christianity or any other religion. All I am telling you is that no other religion I know of is at war with every other religion on earth.
So far as I know, that distinction belongs to Islam and only to Islam.
As it seems it was what was to expected it to be, seems like lone wolves though
Only the bible, but I guess it would be unfair to judge Christians by adherance to the bible if we cn do it for Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html
The thing is that all the reformers who reform things which are wrong according to the book are false prophets according to the same book. We can discuss about taking things literally and how the book came to be the book now, but then there are also imams who say the Quran is not always to be taken literally and then it comes down to whether you find them or the terrorists more trustworthy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Or in other words, whose interpretation you, as an atheist, would rather support in public and which path would support your goals more...
Is it surprising that many youngsters think the terrorists are right when they read Fragony and many others saying theirs is the one true interpretation of Islam? I wouldn't be surprised if the recruiters collect these gems and go "see, even the kuffar know deep in their hearts that we are right!" This kind of attitude may even hamper any attempts at reform. And this is not coming from nowhere, I've heard this kind of argument in many Christian churches.
"in the same way"? That's just a very vague distinction, as I said there are even islamist scholars who think the Quran is not always meant literally but then a Nigel Falanga or a similar type comes along and tell them that the terrorists are indeed right and every true muslim should indeed follow the terrorists....Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
But hey, it's Merkel who is doing the real harm. :rolleyes:
And if we think that was a good thing, why do we not support the same thing in Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Although I would grant Chritianity that the message of Jesus does not exactly need many alterations to be peaceful, it was more that the "reforms" led to all the wrong interpretations. But I assume we are talking about practical application here and how we can improve things. And I think the whole "Islam is inherently out to kill us, the others are not true muslims and the only solution is to turn them all into atheists" that seems to be the argument of many, is not exactly a productive or workable solution.
It's just a blame game without a real solution.
There are plenty of Muslims who believe they can live alongside other religions, as was the case in previous caliphates. But as I said, the solution is apparently to tell everyone that even we Christians and Atheists believe that they should slaughter us all to be good muslims...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking