Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: trippymonkey on June 04, 2017, 08:12:47 AM
-
This happened last night with killers shouting 'This is for Allah'!!!!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=news&oq=news&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j0l4.1744j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-bridge-borough-market-attack-general-election-campaign-suspended-conservatives-labour-latest-a7771711.html
-
How does one fight against mentally retarded, brainwashed morons who have a fake, weak & incompetent deity who can't do his own dirty-work?
This is the filth we have in the UK, waiting in the sewers to come out now.
It's a real rotten shame for all the decent Muslims we have here as THEY get targeted by other subnormals coming out of the woodwork at the slightest thing.
-
I see UKIP are not suspending campaigning. Seems the right decision to me on a number of levels.
-
How does one fight against mentally retarded, brainwashed morons who have a fake, weak & incompetent deity who can't do his own dirty-work?
This is the filth we have in the UK, waiting in the sewers to come out now.
It's a real rotten shame for all the decent Muslims we have here as THEY get targeted by other subnormals coming out of the woodwork at the slightest thing.
Yes...there are many good muslims....but how do you identify them? Terrorists are from all groups, classes, age groups and gender. A young pretty girl recently married could be a suicide bomber or a old grandfather type or a educated smart type....anyone. That is the problem. And now that they are using ordinary everyday equipment for the attacks....its almost impossible to know beforehand. There is hardly any Intelligence possible.
-
Yes...there are many good muslims....but how do you identify them? Terrorists are from all groups, classes, age groups and gender. A young pretty girl recently married could be a suicide bomber or a old grandfather type or a educated smart type....anyone. That is the problem. And now that they are using ordinary everyday equipment for the attacks....its almost impossible to know beforehand. There is hardly any Intelligence possible.
Could you provide a breakdown of the numbers of terrorist attacks and their gender, age, educational, religious background to justify your post?
-
Could you provide a breakdown of the numbers of terrorist attacks and their gender, age, educational, religious background to justify your post?
I think Sriram is just generalising upon how you cannot assume that a particular background or personality type when trying to pre-detect a potential killer. This article gives quite a good outline of the problem. .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
-
I think Sriram is just generalising upon how you cannot assume that a particular background or personality type when trying to pre-detect a potential killer. This article gives quite a good outline of the problem. .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
In which case generalising about being terrorists being Muslim has the same issue, so his post would be internally inconsistent.
And BTW there the link doesn't cover all the attributes Sriram covered.
-
In which case generalising about being terrorists being Muslim has the same issue, so his post would be internally inconsistent.
And BTW there the link doesn't cover all the attributes Sriram covered.
Are you suggesting that Islamic inspired terrorism doesn't exist?
-
Are you suggesting that Islamic inspired terrorism doesn't exist?
No. But the idea that any such attacks are carried out by such a diverse set of people within that grouping that it prevents any further analysis seems to need justification to me. Anecdotally to my mind, it would seem the terrorist we see in Europe are vastly more likely to be male but Sriram's post would argue against that.
-
We do know some ARE female but it seems women are either more useful alive, for breeding more fuckwits, or they're far more intelligent which is why Islamic Law & Muslims seem to want to 'close them of' in some way.
NS
We DO seem to know that there's a certain mentality front here. That even these f-wits see what WE might call innocents as fair game as long as they get the 'bad guys'.
Maybe this reflects a little on what's just happened 'over there' where 'we've' killed innocents too ?!?!?!
-
We do know some ARE female but it seems women are either more useful alive, for breeding more fuckwits, or they're far more intelligent which is why Islamic Law & Muslims seem to want to 'close them of' in some way.
NS
We DO seem to know that there's a certain mentality front here. That even these f-wits see what WE might call innocents as fair game as long as they get the 'bad guys'.
Maybe this reflects a little on what's just happened 'over there' where 'we've' killed innocents too ?!?!?!
Perhaps, perhaps also our habit of supporting 'our enemy's enemy' in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. But again as I have said before, I don't believe in a more ethical (IMO) because it stops terrorist attacks but because it is the right thing to do.
I also think that while we can talk about Islamic inspired attacks, it is much more complex than that. It is one prism through which we can and through which others look at this but there are other issues tie up with that prism such as you highlight about the role of women.
-
We do know some ARE female but it seems women are either more useful alive, for breeding more fuckwits, or they're far more intelligent which is why Islamic Law & Muslims seem to want to 'close them of' in some way.
NS
We DO seem to know that there's a certain mentality front here. That even these f-wits see what WE might call innocents as fair game as long as they get the 'bad guys'.
Maybe this reflects a little on what's just happened 'over there' where 'we've' killed innocents too ?!?!?!
There is no moral equivalence, directly targeting civilians and accidently killing civilians.
-
There is no moral equivalence, directly targeting civilians and accidently killing civilians.
We aren't dropping bombs accidentally. We are not selling arms to murderers accidentally.
-
We aren't dropping bombs accidentally. We are not selling arms to murderers accidentally.
Never claimed any of those things.
-
Never claimed any of those things.
Claiming that the collateral deaths of our intentional actions is 'accidentally' leading to deaths when we are aware that it night do is claiming precisely that.
-
Claiming that the collateral deaths of our intentional actions is 'accidentally' leading to deaths when we are aware that it night do is claiming precisely that.
You think that accidents are morally equivalent to things done on purpose?
-
You think that accidents are morally equivalent to things done on purpose?
I think bombings aren't accidents. You have already accepted that.
-
I think bombings aren't accidents. You have already accepted that.
Driving a car isn't an accident.
You seemed to have evaded the question.
-
Driving a car isn't an accident.
You seemed to have evaded the question.
The prime purpose of driving a car isn't violence. I have stated, and you agreed that bombings are not accidents, so when you asked about accidents you made your question irrelevant as you have agreed that is not being talked about.
-
The prime purpose of driving a car isn't violence. I have stated, and you agreed that bombings are not accidents, so when you asked about accidents you made your question irrelevant as you have agreed that is not being talked about.
My point is that there is not moral equivalence between directly targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians.
I don't think it is a controversial point, I'm not claiming dropping bombs is a morally good thing to do.
-
My sense of outrage is a given as is my sympathy for the victims.
But what needs to happen now is;
Jeremy Corbin must befriend these terrorists and talk to them, that's the answer.
-
My sense of outrage is a given as is my sympathy for the victims.
But what needs to happen now is;
Jeremy Corbin must befriend these terrorists and talk to them, that's the answer.
Then kill them.
-
My point is that there is not moral equivalence between directly targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians.
I don't think it is a controversial point, I'm not claiming dropping bombs is a morally good thing to do.
I know your point, I am disagreeing with your use of the word accident here, and when I said that dropping bombs was not an accident you agreed, so your point is invalid.
-
My sense of outrage is a given as is my sympathy for the victims.
But what needs to happen now is;
Jeremy Corbin must befriend these terrorists and talk to them, that's the answer.
As opposed to the party that has been in govt for the last 7 years, and the person who has been Home Secretary and PM in that time. Obviously what we have to vote for is more of that.
-
I know your point, I am disagreeing with your use of the word accident here, and when I said that dropping bombs was not an accident you agreed, so your point is invalid.
If I drive my car and hit someone without intending to hurt them, then that is an accident, my intent defines if it is an accident, my driving the car is not an accident.
Choose any word you like, do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and bombing IS in Syria?
-
As opposed to the party that has been in govt for the last 7 years, and the person who has been Home Secretary and PM in that time. Obviously what we have to vote for is more of that.
Yes expect Corbyn to be complaining about the shoot to kill policy used, what will his policy be, light a few candles and try to hold hands?
-
If I drive my car and hit someone without intending to hurt them, then that is an accident, my intent defines if it is an accident, my driving the car is not an accident.
Choose any word you like, do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and bombing IS in Syria?
And again you aren't driving your car with intent to kill which you ate with bombing. Was there a reason why you repeated the analogy which I had already pointed out to be fallacious?
I note that you are poisoning the well to say that the bombing is only against US as if bombs as not relatively indiscriminant. Also it isn't clear that we are bombing IS in Syria, when we had the debate in Parliament we seemed to be going after the govt who ate not US. We seemed to think that we would get help from people who might on occasion support IS, so your dichotomy seems factually incorrect.
-
Yes expect Corbyn to be complaining about the shoot to kill policy used, what will his policy be, light a few candles and try to hold hands?
Unlikely but then you want to vote for the party under whose govt this has happened. Now I don't think that it is an easy problem to solve but it seems odd of you to argue against Corbyn's policy , and indeed make it up, but then you seem to think this should be stopped but support the govt who have been in power while it happened. Doesn't seem logical to me.
-
And again you aren't driving your car with intent to kill which you ate with bombing. Was there a reason why you repeated the analogy which I had already pointed out to be fallacious?
Yes because it is not fallacious, the action is irrelevant if something is an accident it is dictated by the intent. You make words up if you want I'll use the dictionary if that is ok with you.
I note that you are poisoning the well to say that the bombing is only against US as if bombs as not relatively indiscriminant. Also it isn't clear that we are bombing IS in Syria, when we had the debate in Parliament we seemed to be going after the govt who ate not US. We seemed to think that we would get help from people who might on occasion support IS, so your dichotomy seems factually incorrect.
Waffle in an attempt to evade the question, I'll try again.
Do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and the UK dropping bombs in Syria?
-
Unlikely but then you want to vote for the party under whose govt this has happened. Now I don't think that it is an easy problem to solve but it seems odd of you to argue against Corbyn's policy , and indeed make it up, but then you seem to think this should be stopped but support the govt who have been in power while it happened. Doesn't seem logical to me.
I blame the terrorists for what has happened not the UK government. If you want to blame what happened on the bombs in Syria why are you supporting a party whose members voted for that action?
-
I know that area' and Borough Market. It is popular with young people, because it is multicultural, and affordable. Many there are not British, they are Europeans, Antipodean, and Hispanic/Lationo. Beyond that, words fail me at this time.
-
Yes because it is not fallacious, the action is irrelevant if something is an accident it is dictated by the intent. You make words up if you want I'll use the dictionary if that is ok with you.
Since I was arguing that the intent is what us important and the intent if bombing is not the same as driving a car (when you aren't using the car to deliberately kill) then you make my point that your analogy was fallacious for me.
Waffle in an attempt to evade the question, I'll try again.
Do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and the UK dropping bombs in Syria?
No, I pointed out why it was an invalid question. I would be obliged f you disagreed with what I said that you dealt with that rather than make a personal attack.
I think both the terror attacks and the bombings are morally wrong. As already stated I don't want to stop killing innocents because it will stop terrorist attacks, nor do I see them as justifying the murderous attacks. I think the terrorist attacks re on a scale of badness 'worse' but not sure of what import that is.
-
I blame the terrorists for what has happened not the UK government. If you want to blame what happened on the bombs in Syria why are you supporting a party whose members voted for that action?
Since I don't blame the UK govt either that's a strawman. Since I am not supporting the Labour party that is a second strawman.
The point being made is that it makes no sense to Blane Corbyn for what has happened by linking the policies that people made up for him on this thread to what happened. If you think that current policy isn't working, however, it would make no sense to vote for the continuation of that policy.
-
The German Govt opposed western action in Syria and took no part in wars in Afghanistan, it threw open it's doors to Muslim refugees yet it too has been subject to terrorist attack.
It seems the attacks occur because of hatred of western values rather than being in response to anything in particular.
They do not like girls being educated, laws being made by vote rather than by gods will. Most of all they hate those who do not share their beliefs.
So seeking to blame any particular govt for this situation is ridiculous.
-
The German Govt opposed western action in Syria and took no part in wars in Afghanistan, it threw open it's doors to Muslim refugees yet it too has been subject to terrorist attack.
It seems the attacks occur because of hatred of western values rather than being in response to anything in particular.
They do not like girls being educated, laws being made by vote rather than by gods will. Most of all they hate those who do not share their beliefs.
So seeking to blame any particular govt for this situation is ridiculous.
The point is that you seemed to somehow be blaming Corbyn who hasn't been in govt for having in your view the wrong policies to deal with this. Note thinking that a party or a govt has or has had the wrong policies to deal with this, is not blaming them for it.
-
Since I was arguing that the intent is what us important and the intent if bombing is not the same as driving a car (when you aren't using the car to deliberately kill) then you make my point that your analogy was fallacious for me.
The intent is not kill innocent civilians, the intent of terrorism is to kill innocent civilians. I could kill an innocent civilian driving a car if I did so that would be an accident, the UK could kill innocent civilians dropping bombs also an accident.
No, I pointed out why it was an invalid question. I would be obliged f you disagreed with what I said that you dealt with that rather than make a personal attack.
I rephrased the question.
I think both the terror attacks and the bombings are morally wrong. As already stated I don't want to stop killing innocents because it will stop terrorist attacks, nor do I see them as justifying the murderous attacks. I think the terrorist attacks re on a scale of badness 'worse' but not sure of what import that is.
Thank you for clarifying, I think its important because some justify terrorism as a result of military action.
For what it is worth I do think we should not be getting involved in the Middle East militarily. The only party that actually consistently holds that view I think is UKIP which is a yucky thought.
-
Since I don't blame the UK govt either that's a strawman. Since I am not supporting the Labour party that is a second strawman.
I never claimed you blame the government, so that is a lie. You are supporting Labour by defending Corbyn so that is a second lie.
The point being made is that it makes no sense to Blane Corbyn for what has happened by linking the policies that people made up for him on this thread to what happened. If you think that current policy isn't working, however, it would make no sense to vote for the continuation of that policy.
I do not blame Corbyn for what happened another lie. The policy has worked but is not working now, the Tories are promising a review of that policy.
-
The intent is not kill innocent civilians, the intent of terrorism is to kill innocent civilians. I could kill an innocent civilian driving a car if I did so that would be an accident, the UK could kill innocent civilians dropping bombs also an accident.
I rephrased the question.
Thank you for clarifying, I think its important because some justify terrorism as a result of military action.
For what it is worth I do think we should not be getting involved in the Middle East militarily. The only party that actually consistently holds that view I think is UKIP which is a yucky thought.
It's still a fallacious comparison. We know that the use of bombs will kill innocents, we choose to do it. You have already accepted it's a moral wring, if you think it's equivalent to driving a car, then you would think driving a car is a moral wrong. Do you?
I think intervention extends beyond bombing, ergo the mention of arms sales. We have a tendency, and I have said before, to support in various ways those who we see as our enemy's enemy. It seems misguided given experience.
-
I never claimed you blame the government, so that is a lie. You are supporting Labour by defending Corbyn so that is a second lie.
I do not blame Corbyn for what happened another lie. The policy has worked but is not working now, the Tories are promising a review of that policy.
It doesn't matter if you did say I blame the Tory govt or support Corbyn for it to be a strawman. No one has argued it, so it's a strawman. I will accept your apology for calling me a liar when you have calmed down enough to understand that.
I also didn't say you blame Corbyn but he would appear to me to be blamed on here by others. Again I will accept your apology for calling me a liar when you have calmed down. You need need not to personalise this so much.
Anyway au revoir and to the pub
-
It's still a fallacious comparison. We know that the use of bombs will kill innocents, we choose to do it. You have already accepted it's a moral wring, if you think it's equivalent to driving a car, then you would think driving a car is a moral wrong. Do you?
I don't think it's equivalent, strawman. They are both accidents.
-
It's a great part of London. Impressed by how swiftly the police responded.
-
My thoughts are with all those affected by this latest atrocity. Praise must also be given to the people who tried to help the victims, and those who confronted the terrorists.
-
It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.
-
My thoughts with those inLondon - and Cairo - And Kabul - and Syria - and Pakistan - and Bangladesh - all of whom suffered terrorist attacks this week. Man's inhumanity to man knows no borders.
-
It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.
Who are you thinking of banning?
-
It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.
Perhaps we ought to ban people from getting radicalised, that should sort it.
-
I've just had a discussion online I'll post it in the Muslim section
-
Moderator:
There was a thread on this in the Muslim Board (Wonder What Else We Have In The UK?) which has been wholly merged into this one since the posts there mostly involved the wider aspects of this event.
-
It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.
Who is "they" and "them"?
I haven't read much about the latest terrorist attacksbut are the perpetrators from somewhere other than UK and do we want a UK comprising of WASPs?
I too know the area where this happened though a long time since I worked there. Like it too, Borough Market is great. My sister works at and one nephew is at Guy's. Neither of' 'them' talking about "they' and "them".
-
Who is "they" and "them"?
I haven't read much about the latest terrorist attacks but are the perpetrators from somewhere other than UK and do we want a UK comprising of WASPs?
I too know the area where this happened though a long time since I worked there. Like it too, Borough Market is great. My sister works at and one nephew is at Guy's. Neither of' 'them' talking about "they' and "them".
Sassy is an avowed Christian and never misses an opportunity to tell us so. She can quote-mine the Old Testament with consummate ease to prove even the most minuscule point. She is clearly a very caring individual, but she does seem to miss the central point of the parable of the good Samaritan.
-
It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.
Who?
-
It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.
If by "they", you mean Muslims I don't agree, most Muslims in this country are compassionate people who follow a compassionate Islam.
Isis, who is encouraging this sort of attack view compassionate Muslims as apostates, and the punishment for apostasy in their eyes is punishable by death.
It's called Takfari.
So supporters of Isis don't care about what happens to Muslims in the UK.
Isis believes the end of the world is just round the corner and now is the time to show they are on Gods side by committing what to us and the vast majority of Muslims, is an atrocity.
They are complete fanatics who believe they are they only sort of "real " Muslims.
Any other sort of caring Muslim is only worthy of death.
They delight in metering out punishments like beheading, burning to death, torture, killing other Muslims who they don't recognise.
They believe it is justifiable because they are part of some prediction in the Quran, which allows them to do this.
So they do, this in their eyes, justifies them as holding a this special apocalyptic position.
They also believe in slavery and sexual slavery.
It's actually quite horrible, and not to be confused with your average compassionate follower of Islam.
To do what you suggest, Sassy, would play right into their sense of destiny.
They want Armageddon.
To fight these terrorists we need to treat ordinary Muslims decently and not blame them for an ideology which isn't theirs.
We certainly shouldn't be prejudiced.
Stereotypes are what Isis do.
Let's not do that, it's what they want us to do.
Stereotype innocent Muslims, so we appear to be the oppressors.
This fulfills their sense of destiny.
It's a horrible cult, that enjoys committing atrocities in the name of Islam.
-
Rose
I really do hope you don't think Islam is in no way responsible for any & all atrocities committed in its name???
-
Rose
I really do hope you don't think Islam is in no way responsible for any & all atrocities committed in its name???
Is the rest of Christianity responsible for the actions of the Westboro church? Or some other Waco type carry on?
Of course they are not.
I hope you don't tarnish all Muslims with the actions of one fanatical group
-
You've never read the Quran, have you? Or talked with Muslims ?
I have & NO, not all are like this because so many ignore or overlook the more nastier sides of Islam.
You need to read a good, approved translation of The Quran as I have & also The Hadiths or Sayings Of The Prophet. Betya's not heard of THAT eh?
-
You've never read the Quran, have you? Or talked with Muslims ?
I have & NO, not all are like this because so many ignore or overlook the more nastier sides of Islam.
You need to read a good, approved translation of The Quran as I have & also The Hadiths or Sayings Of The Prophet. Betya's not heard of THAT eh?
Yes I've talked with Muslims, yes I've read the Quran.
Yes I've attended meetings with Muslims on terrorism, yes I've been to a mosque.
I just can't be doing with your islamaphobia, Trippy.
-
WELL then you never understood it or did as I DID & looked into all the backgrounds of the sort of rubbish people like you spout.
This is not a recent thing for me & I'm deffo NOT Islamophobic as that is an irrational fear which I certainly DON'T have.
I've done MY homework & you need to do yours.
Goodnight !!
-
WELL then you never understood it or did as I DID & looked into all the backgrounds of the sort of rubbish people like you spout.
This is not a recent thing for me & I'm deffo NOT Islamophobic as that is an irrational fear which I certainly DON'T have.
I've done MY homework & you need to do yours.
Goodnight !!
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/207047-Religious-scholars-issue-unanimous-fatwa-declaring-suicide-attacks-Haram
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/70000-indian-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaida-and-other-terror-groups-a6768191.html
-
Sassy is an avowed Christian and never misses an opportunity to tell us so. She can quote-mine the Old Testament with consummate ease to prove even the most minuscule point. She is clearly a very caring individual, but she does seem to miss the central point of the parable of the good Samaritan.
Wouldn't know about that, just wondered who the 'them' and 'they' were, the implication being that the terrorists were from overseas who came here just to commit the atrocity but do we yet know they were? This is the latest I could find:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/london-attack-six-dead-van-rampage-stabbings-terrorists-killed/
-
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/207047-Religious-scholars-issue-unanimous-fatwa-declaring-suicide-attacks-Haram
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/70000-indian-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaida-and-other-terror-groups-a6768191.html
Thanks for both articles Rose, v. encouraging indeed. Hope people take notice, unfortunately fanatics will always try to find reasons.
(Interesting advert underneath first article :o)
-
Did anyone see the muslem woman wearing a burka on the late BBC News and she was recomending more intergration.
ippy
-
No didn't see it, good for her but it doesn't seem that long ago to me,ippy, when Muslims did seem fairly integrated in our society, no-one took much notice of their religion (or anyone else's). Now every Muslim is viewed with suspicion by some people. Must be awful for them.
I wish flipping ISIS could be quashed once anf for all, i know that's too simplistic but I'm tired & feeling pretty useless about all this.
Night all, sleep well.
-
No didn't see it, good for her but it doesn't seem that long ago to me,ippy, when Muslims did seem fairly integrated in our society, no-one took much notice of their religion (or anyone else's). Now every Muslim is viewed with suspicion by some people. Must be awful for them.
I wish flipping ISIS could be quashed once anf for all, i know that's too simplistic but I'm tired & feeling pretty useless about all this.
Night all, sleep well.
I think ippy is probably referring to the irony of a burka clad woman in Britain talking of integration.
-
Morning sririam. I don't think so. We see lots of people in the UK wearing niqabs and saris as well as Orthodox Jews in long frock coats. Nothing unusual about it.They've been well integrated in past. I think he was just commenting on how good it was that she said what she said.
-
Is the rest of Christianity responsible for the actions of the Westboro church? Or some other Waco type carry on?
Of course they are not.
I hope you don't tarnish all Muslims with the actions of one fanatical group
Exactly. It is the extremists who bring disrepute upon their religions.
-
torri,
Perhaps we ought to ban people from getting radicalised, that should sort it.
Plus of course banning travelling.
From Barking.
-
Morning sririam. I don't think so. We see lots of people in the UK wearing niqabs and saris as well as Orthodox Jews in long frock coats. Nothing unusual about it.They've been well integrated in past. I think he was just commenting on how good it was that she said what she said.
Ok...if you say so!! :D
-
http://newsthump.com/2017/06/05/attacking-east-london-bound-to-work-say-terrorists-with-poor-grasp-of-history/
-
http://newsthump.com/2017/06/05/attacking-east-london-bound-to-work-say-terrorists-with-poor-grasp-of-history/
"Simon Al-Williams, who asked to remain anonymous."
PMSL ;D
-
By Tuesday - is that tomorrow?
They are such nasty people, i don't understand how anyone can want to kill the innocent, including kids. Including Muslims! They don't survey the crowd to find out their religion before killing them.
It's sobering.
I also PMS at the name Simon Al-Williams.
-
To cock a minimal snook at the terrorist malarkey, I caught a boat upriver and got off at the Globe for a wee dauner back doon the watter. Stopping off at a cafe nearby, I asked for the bacon butty. But no butty available due to the artisanal bakery that supplies cafe being shut due to the murderous thugs. Down with this sort of thing!
-
Careful now.
-
Shakes,
"Simon Al-Williams, who asked to remain anonymous."
PMSL ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhY-Y0I8DkY
-
John Oliver's take on the reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Pyq99Wgqc
-
NS,
John Oliver's take on the reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Pyq99Wgqc
Brilliant, esp the chap who went back to pay his bill (plus tip).
-
Have any of you heard of the Islam road show in the UK?
http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/british-muslims-reveal-their-plan-for-the-uk-in-plain-english-for-the-world-to-see/
I am not trying to spread any muslim hatred here but the video is interesting nonetheless.
-
Yes a couple of yeaars back sririam though not seen it myself. Unusual stuff, reminded me of street corner preachers and rallies that Christian groups used to put on in busy parts of towns, with noisy loudhailers and singing,don't come across that now.
As you say, interesting. Could do without the loud background music!
Here's an article- http://lovingdalston.co.uk/2015/03/dont-vote-islams-women-of-sharia-tell-dalston/
There;s quite a lot including youtube clips about telling Muslims they should not vote. Ha, wonder what they think of the Muslim London Mayor. for whom the people voted. Probably consider him an infidel.
Anyway nowt to do with London Bridge atrocities.
-
I think ippy is probably referring to the irony of a burka clad woman in Britain talking of integration.
Quite Sriram, another comment could be, an own goal.
ippy
-
I get it now.
Coincidentally I went to pharmacy today and was served by a young woman in burqa. Her niqab was pushed back of course. Usually I don't notice -may even have seen her before - but because of this thread today I did notice and thought of you. Of course I didn't ask her if she wanted to be integrated butthe thought flashed through my mind before she served me. She was chatting to customers and asking the pharmacist questions,quite relaxed so my conclusion was that she is integrated in society & i stopped noticing her attire.
-
Integration has nothing to do with what people wear - are goths integrated? what about people in tweeds and cords? It is about attitude, a willingness to get along and acceptance of difference.
-
Exactly.
-
I see Trump is dissing Sadiq Khan again about the bombings. With no foundatoion. Not a time for doing that sort of thing I'd have thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/05/donald-trump-attack-courts-travel-ban-london
-
No didn't see it, good for her but it doesn't seem that long ago to me,ippy, when Muslims did seem fairly integrated in our society, no-one took much notice of their religion (or anyone else's). Now every Muslim is viewed with suspicion by some people. Must be awful for them.
I wish flipping ISIS could be quashed once anf for all, i know that's too simplistic but I'm tired & feeling pretty useless about all this.
Night all, sleep well.
Yes Rob, good for her calling for more integration, but for a bit of an elephantine error there, she was wearing a cloth bag bag with only enough of a cut away so that she could see where she was going, (a burka), it looked like a really good example of how to get on like a storm with the indigenous people here in the U K a western country, I don't think.
I have two adopted mixed race sons, I'm more a realist than a racist Rob.
ippy
-
Integration has nothing to do with what people wear - are goths integrated? what about people in tweeds and cords? It is about attitude, a willingness to get along and acceptance of difference.
Yes, some people seem to use it to mean conformity or sameness. That's not integration, in my book.
-
Yes, some p
The law courts require to see the faces of anyone addressing the court, why do you think that is Wiggi?
ippy
-
So they can see who it is. And?
-
My point is that there is not moral equivalence between directly targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians.
I don't think it is a controversial point, I'm not claiming dropping bombs is a morally good thing to do.
I disagree with your opinion. If deliberately dropping the bombs cause the death of civilians - as in 'but for' the dropping of the bombs the civilians would be alive - in criminal law you can't class the deaths of civilians as accidental.
So for example, when the Saudis bomb hospitals in Yemen, supported by British military personnel helping them identify targets, supplying weapons etc - the civilian deaths tend to cause outrage, especially amongst relatives of the dead, and can lead to people becoming radicalised and seeking revenge by bombing civilians in the UK. That is not a controversial point - violence leads to violence.
I am equally outraged by both sets of bombings. Children are blown to pieces and suffer shrapnel wounds in both sets of bombing. The children and their relatives presumably don't feel better about being blown up simply because the people sharing responsibility for the shredding of their limbs and heads were wearing British army uniform at the time and 'cocked up'. The cock-up was reasonably forseeable, given it has happened a few times now - so morally they should stop helping the Saudis. If they continue helping the Saudis, they can't shrug the deaths off as an accident - morally it might as well be deliberate.
-
They're all as bad as each other !!!
If we can't 'target' properly with the equipment we have & these effing cowards out there stop using 'innocents' as collateral ....????
-
One attacker named -https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/london-bridge-attacker-named-as-khuram-butt
Young chap not well educated or well off, radicalised, outcast from his own community. Left behind two little kids.
Whoever pulled his strings no doubt still lives - and doesn't care a fig.
-
If by "they", you mean Muslims I don't agree, most Muslims in this country are compassionate people who follow a compassionate Islam.
Isis, who is encouraging this sort of attack view compassionate Muslims as apostates, and the punishment for apostasy in their eyes is punishable by death.
It's called Takfari.
So supporters of Isis don't care about what happens to Muslims in the UK.
Isis believes the end of the world is just round the corner and now is the time to show they are on Gods side by committing what to us and the vast majority of Muslims, is an atrocity.
They are complete fanatics who believe they are they only sort of "real " Muslims.
Any other sort of caring Muslim is only worthy of death.
They delight in metering out punishments like beheading, burning to death, torture, killing other Muslims who they don't recognise.
They believe it is justifiable because they are part of some prediction in the Quran, which allows them to do this.
So they do, this in their eyes, justifies them as holding a this special apocalyptic position.
They also believe in slavery and sexual slavery.
It's actually quite horrible, and not to be confused with your average compassionate follower of Islam.
To do what you suggest, Sassy, would play right into their sense of destiny.
They want Armageddon.
To fight these terrorists we need to treat ordinary Muslims decently and not blame them for an ideology which isn't theirs.
We certainly shouldn't be prejudiced.
Stereotypes are what Isis do.
Let's not do that, it's what they want us to do.
Stereotype innocent Muslims, so we appear to be the oppressors.
This fulfills their sense of destiny.
It's a horrible cult, that enjoys committing atrocities in the name of Islam.
So all MUSLIMS BELONG TO ISIS.
Truth is no one is interested in the false support or the brown nosing...
The fact is that MUSLIMS are committing these evil happenings.
The fact is they do not belong here in the first place.
The fact is that when someone is suspected or related to a person who kills others, they have to be remove with their families.
Had they removed these suspects when first suspected it could not have happened.
No one is saying BLAME ALL MUSLIMS but wake up because if Muslims take over then you have seen what happens in Muslim Countries.
You will see homosexuals, disobedient children, unwanted wives and many others murdererd and stoned in the streets.
Including you if you do not convert.
Not blaming every Muslim but those known to be part of any terrorist group have to be deported.
-
I think Sriram is just generalising upon how you cannot assume that a particular background or personality type when trying to pre-detect a potential killer. This article gives quite a good outline of the problem. .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
That is right ekim. Thanks. Out of the 12 arrested about five are women I think, old and young.
-
So all MUSLIMS BELONG TO ISIS.
Truth is no one is interested in the false support or the brown nosing...
The fact is that MUSLIMS are committing these evil happenings.
The fact is they do not belong here in the first place.
The fact is that when someone is suspected or related to a person who kills others, they have to be remove with their families.
Had they removed these suspects when first suspected it could not have happened.
No one is saying BLAME ALL MUSLIMS but wake up because if Muslims take over then you have seen what happens in Muslim Countries.
You will see homosexuals, disobedient children, unwanted wives and many others murdererd and stoned in the streets.
Including you if you do not convert.
Not blaming every Muslim but those known to be part of any terrorist group have to be deported.
No ALL Muslims don't belong to Isis.
Yes they DO belong here, a lot of Muslims were born here and hold a British passport.
They are British.
My only concession to your argument is that asylum seekers who stir up trouble or break the law in the uk should be sent home, regardless if it puts their life in danger.
But this would apply to Christians and other groups as well.
Just because someone has a different coloured skin, doesn't mean they don't belong here.
Also how are you going to deal with home grown white Muslims who have become radicalised?
It happens.
Where are you going to deport them to? Or are the rules different for them because their skin is white?
-
I wonder if it is a Death Wish of some kind among European nations, born of their colonial past, that is responsible for this disregard for their own safety and welfare. :-\
Show some anger folks!
-
I wonder if it is a Death Wish of some kind among European nations, born of their colonial past, that is responsible for this disregard for their own safety and welfare. :-\
Show some anger folks!
What do you think is the disregard that is being shown?
-
People are angry sririam. I've read several interviews with survivors who describe the disbelief, the terror and horror, things they can't 'unsee'.
-
Sriram seems to be confusing anger with hate.
-
Yes. There's enough hate going around already & achieves nothing, makes things worse.
-
"Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law." - the Buddha.
Seems fair enough to me.
-
"Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law." - the Buddha.
Seems fair enough to me.
This is the thing. We are hated passionately. The only way to fight it is to love with just as much passion.
-
This is the thing. We are hated passionately. The only way to fight it is to love with just as much passion.
IMO this is not love but a helplessness and a resignation. I know what Buddha and Gandhi stood for. It was never for weak acceptance of wickedness.
Why did no one show this 'love' for Hitler and the nazis btw?! Why the WWII at all?
-
Who do you suggest we go to war with?
-
IMO this is not love but a helplessness and a resignation.
Then you clearly understand very little.
-
IMO this is not love but a helplessness and a resignation. I know what Buddha and Gandhi stood for. It was never for weak acceptance of wickedness.
Why did no one show this 'love' for Hitler and the nazis btw?! Why the WWII at all?
YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
-
Then you clearly understand very little.
Say what you will...I can sense the helplessness and weakness. You people here are talking like wimps.
America seems to have a better control over the situation and much more serious about tackling the issue.
-
Say what you will...I can sense the helplessness and weakness. You people here are talking like wimps.
America seems to have a better control over the situation and much more serious about tackling the issue.
Bizarrely you seem to think that when people don't act with fear, then they are 'talking like wimps'. I can understand that your fear makes you want to lash out but clear thinking on this needs you to move beyond your basic instincts and consider how to achieve things without your irrational fear.
-
Say what you will...I can sense the helplessness and weakness.
From half way around the world? You psychic or something?
You people here are talking like wimps.
What, in your utterly worthless opinion, constitutes 'non-wimpish' talk?
America seems to have a better control over the situation and much more serious about tackling the issue.
Ah yes - because an orange moron who thinks he can bar all Muslims from entering the country and building a wall and making a neighbouring nation pay for it is sophisticated political vision.
-
Hmmmm.....OK.
If that is the way destiny is working, how can I say anything! Have fun!
-
Hmmmm.....OK.
If that is the way destiny is working, how can I say anything! Have fun!
Destiny? What are you on about?
-
Hmmmm.....OK.
If that is the way destiny is working, how can I say anything! Have fun!
Yep, your destiny is that if you make bad arguments or assertions that you cannot back up, then you will, as you have here, be reduced to writing a valueless post such as the one above.
-
America seems to have a better control over the situation and much more serious about tackling the issue.
In what way? They have had as many if not more episodes of terrorism, and certainly more deaths as a consequence.
I know the orange windbag is to be heard making strange noises that are sometimes confused with English but can you point to any specific thing that they are doing that ensures their safety and shows that they are "tackling the situation" because as far as I can see they have exactly the same issue with homegrown terrorism that we have and react in a more hysterical fashion than we do.
My two favourite things from the dreadful weekend was one guy running down the road still clutching his pint of beer - they might be trying to kill us but I've paid for this and I'm having it - and the other was a guy who said he was going to go out and flirt with more handsome men and drink G & T's and talk with women. No Sririam you are reading this all wrong. Given that we have to make some kind of response this is about the best we can - and for some reason that I find difficult to articulate, I feel very proud of the reaction I've seen.
The politicians are a different matter, but the people have been magnificent.
-
It seems America's answer to everything is to shoot first and ask questions afterwards, which causes even more acts of violence.
-
In what way? They have had as many if not more episodes of terrorism, and certainly more deaths as a consequence.
I know the orange windbag is to be heard making strange noises that are sometimes confused with English but can you point to any specific thing that they are doing that ensures their safety and shows that they are "tackling the situation" because as far as I can see they have exactly the same issue with homegrown terrorism that we have and react in a more hysterical fashion than we do.
My two favourite things from the dreadful weekend was one guy running down the road still clutching his pint of beer - they might be trying to kill us but I've paid for this and I'm having it - and the other was a guy who said he was going to go out and flirt with more handsome men and drink G & T's and talk with women. No Sririam you are reading this all wrong. Given that we have to make some kind of response this is about the best we can - and for some reason that I find difficult to articulate, I feel very proud of the reaction I've seen.
The politicians are a different matter, but the people have been magnificent.
For which see post 74
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13993.50
-
http://newsthump.com/2017/06/06/west-ham-fans-and-vegetarians-completely-safe-as-terrorists-target-people-enjoying-themselves/
I'm one of the safest people in Britain.
-
... and I'm 50% safe.
-
So they can see who it is. And?
I was asking you Wiggs.
ippy
-
and, of course
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/donald-trump-considering-london-visit-show-solidarity-terror/
-
and, of course
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/donald-trump-considering-london-visit-show-solidarity-terror/
If Trump decided to 'favour' the UK with his presence, the terror alert would go up to critical +++++!
-
Shamefully I watched last nights Big Brother, a quote, 'I could win Big Brother, that orange man won President'.
-
If Trump decided to 'favour' the UK with his presence, the terror alert would go up to critical +++++!
Surely someone should warn him that the Mayor is being forced to cut police resources and it would be best to wait a couple of years?
-
This is the thing. We are hated passionately. The only way to fight it is to love with just as much passion.
Wow! That is so melodramatic. Like something out of a B&W movie. 'The more he beats me up the more I will love him'......CUT!
Keep your daffodils ready just in case someone pulls out a gun somewhere!
-
Wow! That is so melodramatic. Like something out of a B&W movie. 'The more he beats me up the more I will love him'......CUT!
Keep your daffodils ready just in case someone pulls out a gun somewhere!
I see your basic instinct of fear is leading you to misrepresent people. It's as already noted understandable that you feel the need to lash out.
-
His friends got him a present in hospital - a manual called 'Learn to Run'.
Perhaps though this story may help you, Sriram, to understand that it is perfectly possible to fight back, to be angry but to not let the anger be the only thing, and in particularly to avoid acting out of it in terms of how we deal with terrorism.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terror-attack-fk-fuck-you-im-millwall-hero-roy-larner-football-fan-lion-of-london-a7775246.html
-
Wow! That is so melodramatic. Like something out of a B&W movie. 'The more he beats me up the more I will love him'......CUT!
Keep your daffodils ready just in case someone pulls out a gun somewhere!
Was that actually what I said?
-
I have just come across this.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/loose-women-star-saira-khans-13150730
It seems like a good plan to me.
-
Shortly after she was on The Apprentice she produced a short op ed tv piece that was outstandingly good on these issues.
-
I have just come across this.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/loose-women-star-saira-khans-13150730
It seems like a good plan to me.
1.Stop sectarian schools. Hurrah, agree. There is an odd issue about non state schools and how you balance freedom and state interests but hey, thank Dawkins this is not a lonely position. Some of us in sectarian schools when people of the sect and its alternate sect were setting bombs and shooting at each other have been calling for this for 40 years.
2. Headscarves. Not keen on the state telling kids can't be covered up. But not a big issue - to me.
3. Mosques - one per city? Really? One in Glasgow? See this reads like the restrictions on RCs in the west of Scotland in the 1880s. If you do this you deny democracy and privilege other religions.
4. Imams - all British born? So the parish priest that I knew should have been stopped? The entirety of the evangelism of the Empire is now being said to not be British? Why does an imam have to be born here, as opposed to a rabbi or a doctor or a metal fusion engineer?
5. Ofsted - an educational reviewer of dubious ability should report on something outside its remit and only on one religion ?
6. remove all community leaders - even if they are elected? Seems an odd way to argue for democracy. Now if it was seek to open up what is seen as representative, 100%, but that wasn't point made.
7. Deport known terrorists to homeland. We do this generally unless the homeland takes actions such as torture that we both don't agree with and are signed up to. Should we send someone back to SA to be beheaded or whipped because they are a Christian terrorist?
8. Release suspected terrorist pictures - not sure what this means. If it is people suspected of acts, we already to this. If they are just suspected of being likely to be bad, then no! Easy gain to give a dictatorship power.
9. Ban segregation - mmm so no women's exercise classes anywhere? Not sure how any law works here
10. Expose - agree other than apparently racism and homophobia was a 'new thing' . If people, cultures, religions wish to impose non legal beliefs on people than we need ways of that being flagged.
-
No ALL Muslims don't belong to Isis.
Yes they DO belong here, a lot of Muslims were born here and hold a British passport.
They are British.
The bomber from Manchester came over as refugees with his Parents.
Not British at all. So not all Muslims here are British.
My only concession to your argument is that asylum seekers who stir up trouble or break the law in the uk should be sent home, regardless if it puts their life in danger.
But this would apply to Christians and other groups as well.
All foreigners and you using religion shows that you have a bias. Anyone who comes here who causes problems should be sent home wherever they are from regardless of religion, colour or creed. So to speak.
Just because someone has a different coloured skin, doesn't mean they don't belong here.
Also how are you going to deal with home grown white Muslims who have become radicalised?
I NEVER AT ANY POINT MADE IT ABOUT COLOUR OF SKIN SO DON'T EVER MAKE IT SOMETHING IT WAS NOT.
It happens.
Where are you going to deport them to? Or are the rules different for them because their skin is white?
Seems you have a problem, I don't. My nieces partner is from Latvia and he will tell you I am NOT A RACISTS AND I TOTALLY RESENT YOUR FALSE INUENDOS.
-
Integration has nothing to do with what people wear - are goths integrated? what about people in tweeds and cords? It is about attitude, a willingness to get along and acceptance of difference.
It isn;t about the type of material everyone would be naked but for clothes.
But given the fact you can hide anything under a burqa and men can dress and not be detected in one and carry a bomb under them then you cannot compare to Goths, tweeds or even cords for you can't hide a bomb in the them.
-
It isn;t about the type of material everyone would be naked but for clothes.
But given the fact you can hide anything under a burqa and men can dress and not be detected in one and carry a bomb under them then you cannot compare to Goths, tweeds or even cords for you can't hide a bomb in the them.
so kilts are out? Because I could easily hide a bomb in a kilt.
-
It isn;t about the type of material everyone would be naked but for clothes.
But given the fact you can hide anything under a burqa and men can dress and not be detected in one and carry a bomb under them then you cannot compare to Goths, tweeds or even cords for you can't hide a bomb in the them.
Oh yes you can. An incendiary device can be very small indeed. A suicide bomber can have their body wired up.
Have any bombers been men wearing burqas? Or those who drove into pedestrians or knifed people?
The man who knifed and shot Jo Cox was neither a foreigner or a Muslim.
-
Oh yes you can. An incendiary device can be very small indeed. A suicide bomber can have their body wired up.
Have any bombers been men wearing burqas? Or those who drove into pedestrians or knifed people?
The man who knifed and shot Jo Cox was neither a foreigner or a Muslim.
Good post.
-
It isn;t about the type of material everyone would be naked but for clothes.
But given the fact you can hide anything under a burqa and men can dress and not be detected in one and carry a bomb under them then you cannot compare to Goths, tweeds or even cords for you can't hide a bomb in the them.
Quite right.
These women especially should be banned from going out in public.
Very dangerous clothing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun#/media/File%3ACarmelitas_de_la_comunidad_de_Nogoy
::) ::)
-
CAN I JUST POINT OUT THAT TYPING IN CAPITALS DOES NOT MAKE THIS SENTENCE ANY MORE MEANINGFUL.
-
The bomber from Manchester came over as refugees with his Parents.
Not British at all. So not all Muslims here are British.
All foreigners and you using religion shows that you have a bias. Anyone who comes here who causes problems should be sent home wherever they are from regardless of religion, colour or creed. So to speak.
I NEVER AT ANY POINT MADE IT ABOUT COLOUR OF SKIN SO DON'T EVER MAKE IT SOMETHING IT WAS NOT.
Seems you have a problem, I don't. My nieces partner is from Latvia and he will tell you I am NOT A RACISTS AND I TOTALLY RESENT YOUR FALSE INUENDOS.
The thug was born in Manchester. So factually incorrect. Though your post has necessitated me pointing out to my neighbour who is 48, and was brought here by her parents when she was 3 months, that despite living here for 48 years, having a British passport, paying taxes (and running two small businesses that pay taxes) that she isn't British at all, according to you, not that you are racist.
-
You beat me to it, NS..... Though the chap I had in mind is an American citizen, 63, who has lived here since he was 6 weeks old. Bloomin' immigrants - kick 'em out, the lot of 'em......
-
Quite right.
These women especially should be banned from going out in public.
Very dangerous clothing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun#/media/File%3ACarmelitas_de_la_comunidad_de_Nogoy
::) ::)
Ooh nuns on the run!
-
Watch and listen to, "Muslim woman asks a question and probably wishes she didn't", on YouTube and make up you're own minds.
ippy
-
Watch and listen to, "Muslim woman asks a question and probably wishes she didn't", on YouTube and make up you're own minds.
ippy
Doesn't answer the question and uses a bad analogy
-
Doesn't answer the question and uses a bad analogy
In your opinion, that's fair enough.
ippy
-
In your opinion, that's fair enough.
ippy
Do you think it did answer the question? Or was that religions and countries is a good analogy?
BTW for anyone else here's the link to what ippy raised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoXgZLRee0
-
It isn;t about the type of material everyone would be naked but for clothes.
But given the fact you can hide anything under a burqa and men can dress and not be detected in one and carry a bomb under them then you cannot compare to Goths, tweeds or even cords for you can't hide a bomb in the them.
You are confusing integration with crime/terrorism prevention. Starting from the POV that anyone in a burqa could be hiding a bomb is not only unwarranted, it prevents integration and fuels division and hate.
-
The bomber from Manchester came over as refugees with his Parents.
Not British at all. So not all Muslims here are British.
All foreigners and you using religion shows that you have a bias. Anyone who comes here who causes problems should be sent home wherever they are from regardless of religion, colour or creed. So to speak.
I NEVER AT ANY POINT MADE IT ABOUT COLOUR OF SKIN SO DON'T EVER MAKE IT SOMETHING IT WAS NOT.
Seems you have a problem, I don't. My nieces partner is from Latvia and he will tell you I am NOT A RACISTS AND I TOTALLY RESENT YOUR FALSE INUENDOS.
No his parents came over, and then he was born here, later.
Latvia? Haha ha
-
so kilts are out? Because I could easily hide a bomb in a kilt.
I would love to see you walk normally with a bomb hanging under your kilt.
Let us just say, you would stand out like John Wayne...
-
Oh yes you can. An incendiary device can be very small indeed. A suicide bomber can have their body wired up.
Have any bombers been men wearing burqas? Or those who drove into pedestrians or knifed people?
The man who knifed and shot Jo Cox was neither a foreigner or a Muslim.
Really, are we talking home-made or military?
You do realise they don't hand out military weapons to terrorist in this country don't you. That like the Manchester bomb they can be full of objects that inflict damage. Terrorist do not buy their weapons in England from the Military or the Ministry of Defence. In fact what is available to our armed forces is totally different to that available to terrorist.
The MOD I can tell you that everything is top secret even locations for repairs of military defence weapons.
They don't allow terrorist to buy weapons from legitimate arms dealers.
Anything can be used as a weapon but we were talking about suicide bombers not those who used weapons and cars available anywhere.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-disguised-woman-wearing-burqa-kills-14-chad-attack-article-1.2288989
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3102596/Carnage-ISIS-suicide-bomber-dressed-woman-burka-blows-car-outside-mosque-Saudi-Arabia-killing-four.html
Are you Muslim Robinson of are you born of a family who were?
As for Jo Cox was that a red herring which you thought would throw us off the real purpose of the London Bridge Atrocity?
Not everyone killed with a knife or car is a victim of terrorist. Bit mute wasn't it?
-
What gives you the impression Robinson is a Muslim, Sass, and what would it matter if she were one?
-
Quite right.
These women especially should be banned from going out in public.
Very dangerous clothing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun#/media/File%3ACarmelitas_de_la_comunidad_de_Nogoy
::) ::)
Men first... ::)
-
CAN I JUST POINT OUT THAT TYPING IN CAPITALS DOES NOT MAKE THIS SENTENCE ANY MORE MEANINGFUL.
No but it. get's the point over and is it noticed..
Thanks for making it clear.. Trent. :)
That was the point of the CAPITAL LETTERS... LOL
-
No but it. get's the point over and is it noticed.
That's not a good thing.
-
The thug was born in Manchester. So factually incorrect. Though your post has necessitated me pointing out to my neighbour who is 48, and was brought here by her parents when she was 3 months, that despite living here for 48 years, having a British passport, paying taxes (and running two small businesses that pay taxes) that she isn't British at all, according to you, not that you are racist.
Suicide bomber Salman Abedi is believed to have travelled to Syria and become radicalised before returning to the UK to cause carnage at a gig in the city where he was born.
The son of Libyan parents, who reportedly fled their native country and sought refuge in the UK, he is thought to have come back to Britain from Libya just days before the massacre.
Here's everything we know about the 22-year-old Manchester Arena attacker.
His parents were refugees he may have been born here but he certainly is not from here.
As I said his parents were refugees and they did not come from here. We fed them, we housed them and educated the man who then killed our children.
So don't think his birth certificate made him ENGLISH anyone can be British but some of us are actually native of this country.
And it sickens me to think you can defend a person just because you don't like me. You wonder why terrorist exist?
Well it is easy when you can be prejudice towards a person because of religion isn't it.
The bible tells us that Christ compared hatred to murder. Do you think you are doing any good defending someone who killed our children in Manchester? Should be ashamed of yourself. Go tell the parents of the dead you are defending him because of where he was born
Your neighbour is not the same as they did not kill anyone. You can say the same about any foreigners. My sisters in laws are from Poland and Austria been here since the 50's what is it that you have to twist the things said into something NOT BEING SAID. They are not Muslims and not black. You need to apologise to me for falsely accusing me of racism by any means when I was not being racist in anyway.
-
Sassy
Please re-read at no point was NS defending the terrorist he was merely pointing out factual mistakes.
PS My partner wasn't born here - but in his attitudes, his way of thinking, everything really he is much more British than I, who was born here, will ever be.
I don't go in much for tub thumping national pride. That's nearly as dangerous as terrorism.
-
That's not a good thing.
Really! You need to remove the forest from your eye if you want to remove the splinter from mine.
-
Sass you need to go to Specsavers, you haven't read NS's post properly, he wasn't defending the terrorists!
-
Really!
Yes, really.
You need to remove the forest from your eye if you want to remove the splinter from mine.
I appear not to have had any wood-based opthalmological injuries lately. I'm sure I'd remember.
-
Here are some men in kilts comparing their bombs -
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Men-in-Kilts-kilts-645817_400_300.jpg
There are very small home made incendiary devices.
No I'm not Muslim & nor are my family ::).
If you are born here you are from here,where else are you from?
Jo Cox's murder was an act of terrorism.
I do not defend terrorism one bit!
-
Men first... ::)
Do you mean like this man?
https://tinyurl.com/What-is-this-man-hiding (https://tinyurl.com/What-is-this-man-hiding)
He's a foreigner. He comes from a country that we were recently at war with.
He could be hiding anything under that garb!
He should never be allowed into this country without having gone through a thorough body search first, should he?
-
Here are some men in kilts comparing their bombs -
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Men-in-Kilts-kilts-645817_400_300.jpg
There are very small home made incendiary devices.
..and they can go off if handled in the wrong (or right) way!
The results can be very messy indeed so I hear.
-
Watch and listen to, "Muslim woman asks a question and probably wishes she didn't", on YouTube and make up you're own minds.
ippy
Iwatched and listened earlier. Doubt the young woman wished she hadn't asked the question, it's often asked.
Wow that woman on the panel was loud!If her figures are correct the 15-25% of Muslims being radical could be worrying but does being radical equate to being a terrorist? Plenty of people join a cause but don't do anything at all except spout hot air, part of being young.
however my overall opinion was that they needed a David Dimbleby in the middle to stop that woman holding court - she really was on a roll -and a few more comments from others - audience maybe. Here in UK the rest of the panel wouldn't have been grinning inanely, far too serious a matter for that. But it was America.
Thanks for posting, makes me ever more glad i` live here rather than there.
-
His parents were refugees he may have been born here but he certainly is not from here.
As I said his parents were refugees and they did not come from here. We fed them, we housed them and educated the man who then killed our children.
So don't think his birth certificate made him ENGLISH anyone can be British but some of us are actually native of this country.
And it sickens me to think you can defend a person just because you don't like me. You wonder why terrorist exist?
Well it is easy when you can be prejudice towards a person because of religion isn't it.
The bible tells us that Christ compared hatred to murder. Do you think you are doing any good defending someone who killed our children in Manchester? Should be ashamed of yourself. Go tell the parents of the dead you are defending him because of where he was born
Your neighbour is not the same as they did not kill anyone. You can say the same about any foreigners. My sisters in laws are from Poland and Austria been here since the 50's what is it that you have to twist the things said into something NOT BEING SAID. They are not Muslims and not black. You need to apologise to me for falsely accusing me of racism by any means when I was not being racist in anyway.
I have not defended the murderous thug.
BTW can you confirm that my friend is just as British as you?
-
The little Englander mentality annoys me, you don't have to be English to be British.
-
.....he may have been born here but he certainly is not from here.
How exactly do you determine where someone ( that someone having been born in this country) is from?
-
Generally, being white, Christian, and with a name like Bob or John, helps. Avoid foreign names and brown skin, if possible. None of this Mohammed malarkey as a first name, not British values.
-
Generally, being white, Christian, and with a name like Bob or John, helps. Avoid foreign names and brown skin, if possible. None of this Mohammed malarkey as a first name, not British values.
Mohammed Malarkey would be a brilliant name.
-
Or Mohammed Al-Malarkey.
-
How exactly do you determine where someone ( that someone having been born in this country) is from?
Is it like a stick of rock?
-
You have to give people citizenship questions, especially brown people. For example:
1. What does the Yorkshire dialect word 'ginnel' mean?
2. Why have white people conquered the world?
3. Do you prefer white or black as colours?
4. What is the pub in Coronation St?
5. Why did Jesus die for you?
6. Was Jesus really white, or pale sepia?
-
You have to give people citizenship questions, especially brown people. For example:
1. What does the Yorkshire dialect word 'ginnel' mean?
2. Why have white people conquered the world?
3. Do you prefer white or black as colours?
4. What is the pub in Coronation St?
5. Why did Jesus die for you?
6. Was Jesus really white, or pale sepia?
1. Kangaroo?
2. Because it was their destiny and Jesus was white and on their side?
3. Neither are?
4. The Queen's Woolpack Returns?
5. Jesus didn't, however Brian did.
6. White, but he had a good tan.
:-\ :-\
-
Very good. I can confirm that you are neither brown nor Muslim, and in fact, a good British citizen, with appropriate values, esp. GSOH. Most foreigners with funny names don't get this.
-
You have to give people citizenship questions, especially brown people. For example:
1. What does the Yorkshire dialect word 'ginnel' mean?
2. Why have white people conquered the world?
3. Do you prefer white or black as colours?
4. What is the pub in Coronation St?
5. Why did Jesus die for you?
6. Was Jesus really white, or pale sepia?
1. Toilet?
2. Did they?
3. Blue actually
4. Don't know
5. Did he?
6. Brownish
-
Not bad. I can confirm that you are probably British, because of your general ignorance. And probably white, with a good British name. You can go ahead now to the 25 metre breast-stroke final.
-
You have to give people citizenship questions, especially brown people. For example:
1. What does the Yorkshire dialect word 'ginnel' mean?
2. Why have white people conquered the world?
3. Do you prefer white or black as colours?
4. What is the pub in Coronation St?
5. Why did Jesus die for you?
6. Was Jesus really white, or pale sepia?
1. Not just Yorkshire, Lancashire too! Alley behind rows of houses with access to back doors, also known as 'the entry'
2. Didn't know they had
3. Black
4. Rovers' Return
5. To atone for our sins and save our souls
6. IC6 or IC9
-
You have to give people citizenship questions, especially brown people. For example:
1. What does the Yorkshire dialect word 'ginnel' mean?
2. Why have white people conquered the world?
3. Do you prefer white or black as colours?
4. What is the pub in Coronation St?
5. Why did Jesus die for you?
6. Was Jesus really white, or pale sepia?
1. defeat
2. They didn't conquer the lands of the prophet, pbuh because we gubbed you solid
3. Side by side on my IS flag, they come together in perfect harmony
4. Never been in a pub, never, man, no way, it wasn't me, you didn't see me
5. To prepare the way in some sort of way, not sure I made it to the madrassah that week, but he's a good guy the Jesus bloke, solid.
6. He looked like Anjem Choudary but taller
-
Not bad. I can confirm that you are probably British, because of your general ignorance. And probably white, with a good British name. You can go ahead now to the 25 metre breast-stroke final.
Thanks, I was good at swimming breast-stroke as a kid.
-
You have to give people citizenship questions, especially brown people. For example:
1. What does the Yorkshire dialect word 'ginnel' mean?
2. Why have white people conquered the world?
3. Do you prefer white or black as colours?
4. What is the pub in Coronation St?
5. Why did Jesus die for you?
6. Was Jesus really white, or pale sepia?
Answers:
1. We use the word 'tenfoot', around here. Those who use 'ginnel' are foreigners.
2. Superiority. Most of the useful ones were from Yorkshire. The rest don't count.
3. Any colour at all apart from red. We don't like red roses around here, y'know.
4. Should never have been named the Rover's Return. 'The Hull Cheese' would have done fine.
5. So that I could be born in Yorkshire, of course.
6. I see him as sort of off white probably because he was weather beaten from all that Yorkshire weather...a bit like Compo, really, with whippets up his trousers, and wearing wellies. He's part of the trinity, Earnshaw, the father, Jesus, the son, and the Holy Ale, Timothy Taylors from Keighley, which blends all three very well indeed, as I personally can vouch for.
None of this foreigner malarkey for me, especially those down south, and further up north, and those across the Pennines..oh, and not forgetting the yellowbellies from Lincolnshire.
-
No his parents came over, and then he was born here, later.
Latvia? Haha ha
Good to see you Rose, hoped you weren't going to vanish.
(What's funny about Latvia?Think they won the Eurovision once years ago so s'pose that's funny.)
-
Good to see you Rose, hoped you weren't going to vanish.
(What's funny about Latvia?Think they won the Eurovision once years ago so s'pose that's funny.)
Guessing that if the idea is you might be a bit prejudiced at the beyond magnolia skin tone, that Latvia is maybe not the most beyond magnolia country.
-
The bomber from Manchester came over as refugees with his Parents.
Not British at all. So not all Muslims here are British.
All foreigners and you using religion shows that you have a bias. Anyone who comes here who causes problems should be sent home wherever they are from regardless of religion, colour or creed. So to speak.
I NEVER AT ANY POINT MADE IT ABOUT COLOUR OF SKIN SO DON'T EVER MAKE IT SOMETHING IT WAS NOT.
Seems you have a problem, I don't. My nieces partner is from Latvia and he will tell you I am NOT A RACISTS AND I TOTALLY RESENT YOUR FALSE INUENDOS.
Robinson,
it was Sassy's reasoning about her not having a problem with colour of skin, because she knows some Latvians who would take her part.
The only Latvian I know is white with long blond hair, blue eyes etc.
For all we know Latvians could have an issue and be racist.
It proves nothing.
-
Guessing that if the idea is you might be a bit prejudiced at the beyond magnolia skin tone, that Latvia is maybe not the most beyond magnolia country.
;D
-
;D I was actually jesting, guessed that's why you laughed. Latvians can be quite vanilla coloured,wear funny socks boots and cloaks because it's cold out there. (The clothes also hide a multitude of sins of course.)
However I don't believe Sassy's objections to Muslims is about the colour of most of them,it's just the religion & she probably wouldn't care about that if recent terrorist activities hadn't been carried out by extremist Muslims. Let's face it we've had Muslims living here for a long time & no-one ever gave a fig!
Wish it was like that now :(.
-
Do you think it did answer the question? Or was that religions and countries is a good analogy?
BTW for anyone else here's the link to what ippy raised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoXgZLRee0
N S, have a look into Douglas Murry's take on the same subject, I'll go with most of his viewpoint overall he sums it up in a nutshell and I'll assume if you look hard enough anyone can find something of his to pick at.
I'd sooner go along with the large body of his viewpoint on this subject than anything else I've see here on this thread.
Their's loads of Douglas Murry's contributions on YouTube.
ippy
-
N S, have a look into Douglas Murry's take on the same subject, I'll go with most of his viewpoint overall he sums it up in a nutshell and I'll assume if you look hard enough anyone can find something of his to pick at.
I'd sooner go along with the large body of his viewpoint on this subject than anything else I've see here on this thread.
Their's loads of Douglas Murry's contributions on YouTube.
ippy
I'm uninterested in arguing with Douglas and then you commenting. If you think he makes good points, pick some of them and put them forward for discussion.
-
;D I was actually jesting, guessed that's why you laughed. Latvians can be quite vanilla coloured,wear funny socks boots and cloaks because it's cold out there. (The clothes also hide a multitude of sins of course.)
However I don't believe Sassy's objections to Muslims is about the colour of most of them,it's just the religion & she probably wouldn't care about that if recent terrorist activities hadn't been carried out by extremist Muslims. Let's face it we've had Muslims living here for a long time & no-one ever gave a fig!
Wish it was like that now :(.
A few days ago there was a nasty racist attack near me, at a children's theme park, a man attacking a woman.
-
You mean a white guy abusing an Asian woman?
-
I'm uninterested in arguing with Douglas and then you commenting. If you think he makes good points, pick some of them and put them forward for discussion.
I'm not suggesting you do argue with D M at least have a look at his input on this subject and I'm sure you'll find him interesting and he presents amostly very well balanced argument.
I find his presentations reflect my estimations, so mostly if you wish to argue with his outlook you'll be differing with me on this subject, please feel able to fill your boots with picking at him but as I have said I think you'll find very little to pick at.
ippy
-
I'm not suggesting you do argue with D M at least have a look at his input on this subject and I'm sure you'll find him interesting and he presents amostly very well balanced argument.
I find his presentations reflect my estimations, so mostly if you wish to argue with his outlook you'll be differing with me on this subject, please feel able to fill your boots with picking at him but as I have said I think you'll find very little to pick at.
ippy
Just to reiterate, if you want to present an argument, go for it. Not arguing with Douglas on here in his absence.
-
Just to reiterate, if you want to present an argument, go for it. Not arguing with Douglas on here in his absence.
I have done so without reams of text, D M is very eloquent wish I could match him, you go for it and enjoy.
ippy
-
I have done so without reams of text, D M is very eloquent wish I could match him, you go for it and enjoy.
ippy
Oh no you haven't
-
Oh no you haven't
You keep on putting up links, is there any particular reason why I shouldn't be doing something very similar to your use of the forum, or are there differing rules for moderators?
Anyway, haven't you diverted attention away from the subject of the thread?
ippy
-
You keep on putting up links, is there any particular reason why I shouldn't be doing something very similar to your use of the forum, or are there differing rules for moderators?
Anyway, haven't you diverted attention away from the subject of the thread?
ippy
Didn't say you couldn't put up links. Indeed I discussed the link you did put up. (Or the link you referred to, and I went and put up for you) However on be of that means that you have put up a number of arguments based on Douglas's anywhere which is what you claimed, and I was pointing out that you hadn't.
-
Didn't say you couldn't put up links. Indeed I discussed the link you did put up. (Or the link you referred to, and I went and put up for you) However on be of that means that you have put up a number of arguments based on Douglas's anywhere which is what you claimed, and I was pointing out that you hadn't.
If you want to discuss the D M link fine, where does it say in the forum rules it has to be me that discusses them with you?
Have you had a job or profession where you were in charge of people? If you have that's fine by me but apart from your place as a moderator on this forum?
ippy
-
If you want to discuss the D M link fine, where does it say in the forum rules it has to be me that discusses them with you?
Have you had a job or profession where you were in charge of people? If you have that's fine by me but apart from your place as a moderator on this forum?
ippy
Your first sentence is a strawman
Your second is a non sequitur.
-
If you want to discuss the D M link fine, where does it say in the forum rules it has to be me that discusses them with you?
As far as I can see, ippy, it was you who raised DM so it isn't unreasonable to presume you'd be up for discussing DM's output.
Have you had a job or profession where you were in charge of people? If you have that's fine by me but apart from your place as a moderator on this forum?
Which is a pointless ad hom.
-
As far as I can see, ippy, it was you who raised DM so it isn't unreasonable to presume you'd be up for discussing DM's output.
Which is a pointless ad hom.
I have said previously that I agree with the great majority of D M's output in this subject but I'm also equally sure that there could be some nit picking around the edges of his view on this subject, it would be interesting to hear the well known nit pickers on the forum POV and either take up the nit pickers point's or not.
I can not see that there is anything difficult to understand about the words I have chosen to use.
Now do go into D M's copious output on this subject on YouTube to me it's a joy to listen to, I also think he says it like it is, if you don't agree fine we all have our differing viewpoints.
As for the ad hom as you call it, N S is very far from being thick.
ippy
-
I have said previously that I agree with the great majority of D M's output in this subject but I'm also equally sure that there could be some nit picking around the edges of his view on this subject, it would be interesting to hear the well known nit pickers on the forum POV and either take up the nit pickers point's or not.
I can not see that there is anything difficult to understand about the words I have chosen to use.
Now do go into D M's copious output on this subject on YouTube to me it's a joy to listen to, I also think he says it like it is, if you don't agree fine we all have our differing viewpoints.
I'm not familiar with his stuff so, and since you introduced him, I'd have thought that asking you for a precis of his main points as you see them would be useful, and is in no sense nit-picking.
Expecting people to toddle-off to Youtube just to get a flavour of someone's position that you've introduced seems unreasonable to me and perhaps a bit more effort on your part is needed to get people interested: you've taken the trouble to introduce DM but you haven't taken the trouble to explain why you've introduced him.
As for the ad hom as you call it, N S is very far from being thick.
True, but this observation of yours in no way negates your ad hom.
-
I've read this article (despite it being in the Sun & think Murray sets out his beliefs quite well here.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3722649/never-mind-singing-john-lennon-songs-if-we-want-peace-then-we-need-one-thing-less-islam/
Modify message
I think the answer is not to have less Islam but to have less extremist,fanatical Islam, merely my opinion.
-
Well If you really 'knew' Islam it's the same thing, I'm afraid.
Nick
-
Thank you very much Nick for your response!
You imply I do not know Islam but i do'nt mindt you saying that.
Let's see what others say about Mr Murray's opinions.
Here is more about him -
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/people/professional-staff/directors/douglas-murray/
-
No, R, I don't feel you know nowt about Islam, sorry. It was more a sarcy remark to some here that would happily open ALL our doors to some real filth.!!!
-
I'm not familiar with his stuff so, and since you introduced him, I'd have thought that asking you for a precis of his main points as you see them would be useful, and is in no sense nit-picking.
Expecting people to toddle-off to Youtube just to get a flavour of someone's position that you've introduced seems unreasonable to me and perhaps a bit more effort on your part is needed to get people interested: you've taken the trouble to introduce DM but you haven't taken the trouble to explain why you've introduced him.
True, but this observation of yours in no way negates your ad hom.
You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, Gordon.
ippy
-
I would think that anyone that doesn't want to hear an acurate break down of the troubles we seem to be going through connected with the inns and outs of islam would want to divert attention away from Douglas Murry's take on islam.
D M can convey his views in a better way than I could do in relateing them to others, so on that basis I recomend anyone to have a look into the YouTube content of his viewpoint on this subject; I go along with the great majority of his views on this subject, but even so it's far better to hear these views from the horses mouth, than from me.
For my part D M speaks for me so if anyone wants to know my take on this subject is, I prefer to relate to D M's take because to date I've yet to find any area where I differ with him, on this particular subject.
ippy
-
Ippy
I googled an have watched a few of the youtubes where he is in debate. From what I have seen so far, I think he is presenting the facts clearly and well; also factually which I definitely like.
-
Ippy
I googled an have watched a few of the youtubes where he is in debate. From what I have seen so far, I think he is presenting the facts clearly and well; also factually which I definitely like.
I can't fault the man, it's a plain case of hitting the nail on the head every time he speaks.
ippy
-
I can fault him - I have come across his arguments before and I have also seen the You Tube link that NS put up of the lady on the panel stating that moderate majorities are irrelevant because it is the violent minority that kill people. Both Douglas Murray and the lady on the panel seem to be displaying double standards.
Yes there are extremists in all societies and I think Western societies deal with their extremists slowly because of rule of law and the legal process. For example it took years for the Chilcot report to come out to try and hold accountable the minority who dropped bombs and blew up people in Iraq, destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure and security services, permitted mass looting and corruption by Iraqi officials and Western oil corporations - all pretty extreme acts especially the ones involving dropping missiles in cities.
It's unfortunate that minorities in Western liberal democracy can commit acts that lead to the death of thousands and it is unfortunate that the moderate majority in Western liberal democracies proved to be irrelevant in preventing their governments from carrying out these violent extreme acts, but we don't say that we need less Western liberal democracy simply because a minority of extremists are part of Western liberal democratic governments.
Chilcot was only published in 2016 even though the extremist acts that endangered Iraqi lives and society took place in 2003. I believe Blair still maintains that he does not regret his actions or decisions because it was his job as the leader of the country to make the best decision he could for national self-interest based on the complex geopolitical situation at the time. He thinks regime-change was justifiable. Hopefully holding those Muslim extremists who want regime-change in the UK accountable won't take 13 years as well, but as Chilcot shows, yes it takes time to follow all the steps that are part of a Western liberal democracy's legal process in dealing with extremist acts. So Douglas Murray and people who agree with him better get used to patiently dealing with the slow process of accountability, much like the peaceful and irrelevant majority of the Iraqi people have had to do during the Chiclot inquiry.
-
Gabriella #202
I have read through your post but cannot see where you have actually 'faulted' Douglas Murray.
-
I fault him on all his lazy generalisations - where he categorises Muslims and Islam as a problem rather than focusing on the extremists.
I fault him on his double standards - whereby he blames Islam for extremist Muslim violence in British society, but applauds Western liberal democracy even though such democracies result in acts of extremism or violence by Western liberal democratic governments.
I fault him for claiming that violent passages in the Quran or Hadith means Islam is a violent religion and that it is incompatible with Western democratic values. Not sure where this special incompatibility arises from since Western democratic values includes violence, and furthermore, as far as I can see, nation states and international law have mechanisms to deal with violence carried out in the name of Western liberal democratic interests which can also be used to deal with Muslim extremist violence.
-
Yes, I thought that Murray conflates targeting extremists, which I assume nobody has problems with, with 'less Islam'. I suppose his argument is that without Islam, there would not be extreme Islamists. However 'less Islam' has a sinister flavour, as if we should reduce the number of Muslims. How would you do that? Deport them, imprison them, put them in internment camps? Anything like that would tend to increase radicalization.
There is also Gabriella's point about Western violence, which is one of our primary exports!
-
Well If you really 'knew' Islam it's the same thing, I'm afraid.
Nick
Omg ::)
-
No, R, I don't feel you know nowt about Islam, sorry. It was more a sarcy remark to some here that would happily open ALL our doors to some real filth.!!!
You have a real problem trippy!
Please keep it to yourself.
-
I fault him on all his lazy generalisations - where he categorises Muslims and Islam as a problem rather than focusing on the extremists.
In a discussion on 'The Sunday Politics' a few weeks ago, he was quite specific in some respects - in the cited case, blaming the disgusting attitude of Salford University which spawned this sad little non-entity who thought he was a hero:
Jo Coburn: Sara Khan's view there, and Douglas Murray and Sara Khan join me now. Douglas Murray, you wrote a book, Strange Death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you say, "Let's get serious?"
Douglas Murray: Several things. Just one example I can give you. The young man who carried out this atrocious attack last Monday night was two years a student at Salford University. He was on a campus which is, from its leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of the government's only counter-extremism programme. They not only oppose it they boast they're boycotting it. They always did this. The university that he was at was against the only counter-extremism policy this state has.
(Jo Coburn interviewing Murray and Sara Khan, whose efforts Murray certainly supported, but suspected might be in vain)
-
Dear Gabriella,
Go Gabby go!! ( is it okay if I call you Gabby ::) )
Yes I love it when here in the west we think we are are all innocent and can point the finger at the nasty terrorists as if we had bugger all ( excuse my language ) to do with it.
Here in Glasgow we come together and show real solidarity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-40242188
Christian, Muslim coming together ( I am sure I will get it in neck for not mentioning other religions, the Church of atheism ::) ) but I know there has been other Islamic gathering's condemning the Manchester and London atrocities, these should be highlighted more.
And this man should be highlighted more when we talk of Islam,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/abdul-sattar-edhi-google-honours-angel-mercy-170227140720826.html
No Religion higher than Humanity
Gonnagle.
-
You have a real problem trippy!
Please keep it to yourself.
Do please go back to your nice warm little room blocked off from the real world.
-
I fault him on all his lazy generalisations - where he categorises Muslims and Islam as a problem rather than focusing on the extremists.
Because Islam is the problem. These people think they are doing the right thing because their religion (Islam in this case) tells them it is.
Another thread here is about a Facebook poster who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. That's Islam fucking up the lives of ordinary people again.
-
Another thread here is about a Facebook poster who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. That's Islam fucking up the lives of ordinary people again.
Butbutbutbutbut it's not Islam, it's only the Muslamic fundamentaloids!
[/sarcasm, for the irony deficient]
-
I agree but it's Islam & The Quran that these EFF-Wits are using to justify their behaviour, isn't it?
-
Do please go back to your nice warm little room blocked off from the real world.
It's not blocked off from the real world.
I can walk to my nearest mosque.
Muslims are just a part of my life, as neighbours friends and work colleagues.
Why would I listen to you? And your prejudices.
-
Quite right Rose.
Thanks too to Gabriella for your balanced posts.
Trippy do you never think about anything else?
-
Because Islam is the problem. These people think they are doing the right thing because their religion (Islam in this case) tells them it is.
Another thread here is about a Facebook poster who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. That's Islam fucking up the lives of ordinary people again.
Lazy generalisations - just like the Muslims who blame 'the West' for everything as though everyone in 'the West' holds the same set of values and ideas just because some Western governments think they are doing the right thing by pursuing foreign policies that inflict damage on some Muslim communities in other countries.
-
Islamism is the problem, isn't it? In fact, violent Islamism, since there are peaceful Islamists. So people like Murray are saying that Islam leads to violent Islamism. I can't see the argument here. As Gabriella says, that's like saying that the West automatically breeds violence.
-
Dear Gabriella,
Go Gabby go!! ( is it okay if I call you Gabby ::) )
Yes I love it when here in the west we think we are are all innocent and can point the finger at the nasty terrorists as if we had bugger all ( excuse my language ) to do with it.
Here in Glasgow we come together and show real solidarity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-40242188
Christian, Muslim coming together ( I am sure I will get it in neck for not mentioning other religions, the Church of atheism ::) ) but I know there has been other Islamic gathering's condemning the Manchester and London atrocities, these should be highlighted more.
And this man should be highlighted more when we talk of Islam,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/abdul-sattar-edhi-google-honours-angel-mercy-170227140720826.html
Gonnagle.
Yes, given the number of times elected European governments have exported violence to Muslim majority countries and persuaded nationals of those countries to agitate violently against their own leaders and fellow- countrymen, it is surprising that Douglas Murray wants less Islam but not less European democracy.
Murray seems to have a problem when people in Britain or France start dying because of an ideology, and calls for less Islam, but I am wondering how troubled he was by people in other countries dying as a result of certain British or French foreign policies based on ideology.
As far as I know he is not blaming the concept of Democracy or Capitalism and calling for less Democracy or less Capitalism because some citizens in 'the West' vote for leaders who pursue violent foreign policies for their country's economic and commercial gain.
-
Lazy generalisations - just like the Muslims who blame 'the West' for everything as though everyone in 'the West' holds the same set of values and ideas just because some Western governments think they are doing the right thing by pursuing foreign policies that inflict damage on some Muslim communities in other countries.
No, I'm not generalising.
I'm not blaming all Muslims, I am saying that Islam provides the motivation and "justification" for the bad ones, including, it appears, the Pakistan justice system.
I'm sorry, but it is true. The London Bridge bombers weren't shouting "this is for Dawkins". They weren't even shouting "this is for the Syrians you bombed", they were shouting "this is for Allah".
-
As Gabriella says, that's like saying that the West automatically breeds violence.
Well, it pretty much does, or so it seems. I am really disturbed that our government is in a state of denial about the fact that our military action has a direct input into the terrorist attacks here. Having said that, most of the violence perpetrated in the Middle East is done so by people from the Middle East. Not only that, they are mostly driven by Islamic ideology.
-
No, I'm not generalising.
I'm not blaming all Muslims, I am saying that Islam provides the motivation and "justification" for the bad ones, including, it appears, the Pakistan justice system.
I'm sorry, but it is true. The London Bridge bombers weren't shouting "this is for Dawkins". They weren't even shouting "this is for the Syrians you bombed", they were shouting "this is for Allah".
Yes you are generalising - there isn't one single concept of Islam because everyone has their own understanding of what that concept is. Of course some people can be persuaded to follow a particular part of someone else's concept - that applies to any concept or abstract idea because concepts and ideas keep evolving depending on the brain that takes up that concept.
The Quran permits violence on the battlefield because anything else is impractical and unrealistic in 7th century Arabia. Non-violence is still unrealistic in 21st century Western democracies - hence Jeremy Corbyn gets a hard time for wanting nuclear disarmament. Someone can take the concept of a just war and decide the whole world is a battlefield in asymmetric or unconventional warfare or decide that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is justified.
Are you saying that if British soldiers kill someone or fire a missile while shouting "this is for Queen and country", and the international community condemns the action as contrary to international law but some members of the British Army support the killing, the killing becomes the Queen's fault because the concept of monarchy provided the motivation to fight and kill for your Queen and country? Or is it the fault of international law because international law has a concept of 'just war'?
-
Well, it pretty much does, or so it seems. I am really disturbed that our government is in a state of denial about the fact that our military action has a direct input into the terrorist attacks here. Having said that, most of the violence perpetrated in the Middle East is done so by people from the Middle East. Not only that, they are mostly driven by Islamic ideology.
If you agree with Murray then the solution is less West. Murray is talking rubbish when he comes up with these simplistic slogans. The solution is to promote ideas that create a more ethical foreign policy and combat extremism and division. There is no quick fix to unethical foreign policy, self-interest or violence to achieve short-term political goals. There is no quick fix to combat the idea that the end justifies the means.
-
Yes you are generalising - there isn't one single concept of Islam because everyone has their own understanding of what that concept is. Of course some people can be persuaded to follow a particular part of someone else's concept - that applies to any concept or abstract idea because concepts and ideas keep evolving depending on the brain that takes up that concept.
The Quran permits violence on the battlefield because anything else is impractical and unrealistic in 7th century Arabia. Non-violence is still unrealistic in 21st century Western democracies - hence Jeremy Corbyn gets a hard time for wanting nuclear disarmament. Someone can take the concept of a just war and decide the whole world is a battlefield in asymmetric or unconventional warfare or decide that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is justified.
Are you saying that if British soldiers kill someone or fire a missile while shouting "this is for Queen and country", and the international community condemns the action as contrary to international law but some members of the British Army support the killing, the killing becomes the Queen's fault because the concept of monarchy provided the motivation to fight and kill for your Queen and country? Or is it the fault of international law because international law has a concept of 'just war'?
Hi Gabriella
I agree that most muslims are peace loving and good people. But it is a fact that Islam through its teachings (or interpretations) does promote violence and disregard for other people and their beliefs.
This is something we in India have seen again and again. Whether it is about the repeated muslim invasions over the centuries, the killing of millions of Hindus and the destruction of innumerable temples and Hindu scriptures across the land, the forced conversions.....and more recently, the partition or the Kashmir issue or Pakistan sponsored terrorism....it is all about Islam, Koran and Allah.
It is not just about some madcaps doing their own thing.
I think Muslims in general should take some responsibility for the violence and destruction unleashed by their community over the centuries and still continue to do. Some isolated extremist groups like the ISIS or Al Qaeda cannot be blamed for everything.
-
Hi Sriram
Not sure centuries of empire-building and warfare is relevant, given empire-building and warfare was the done thing at the time all over the world. Which particular passages in the Quran do you hold responsible for Muslim invasions of India, forced conversions, the partition of India etc?
Also, I would expect that a 7th century message regulating human behaviour would need to regulate violence if it was going to be remotely useful or relevant - similarly Hindu religious books promote violence in certain circumstances. So violent passages in a religious book are not a problem. Violence is an unavoidable and ugly part of human life - that was true in 7th Century Arabia and it is true today, regardless of religion or political beliefs. Yes, some individuals can avoid violence and be pacifists but only because other individuals are prepared to fight on behalf of the pacifists.
Not sure what you mean by Islam teaching disregard for other people's beliefs. The Quran is a message that promotes monotheism and worship of an undefinable supernatural entity, and regards idol worship as incompatible with this concept so it is going to say that that the worship of idols is wrong. It wouldn't be much of a message in support of monotheism if it says a trinity or polytheism or idol worship is ok too. If that's what you mean by disregard then yes I agree the Quran teaches disregard of certain beliefs that are incompatible with beliefs promoted by the Quran. It also teaches that it is up to individuals to freely accept or reject the message of the Quran. Those who reject the message presumably disregard the beliefs about Allah's punishment for polytheism or idol worship on a Day of Judgement. So not really sure what the problem is about disregarding particular beliefs - we all disregard certain beliefs that other people hold.
Regarding Muslims taking responsibility - I am a Muslim. What would be an example of me taking responsibility for the Muslim invasions of India or the attack on London Bridge? How do you as a Hindu show you take responsibility for the murder of Gandhi by the Hindu nationalist, Nathuram Vinayak Godse? You probably already know the speech Godse gave the court during his trial:
I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. (In the Ramayana) Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. (In the Mahabharata) Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations, including the revered Bhishma, because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed the total ignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essential for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhi has merely exposed his self-conceit....
I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds in Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually, but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US
-
What about people who do not disregard those beliefs. Those who see Islam as being under attack, in danger as it was in the day of Mohammed, and respond as the response was in those days.
-
Gabriella
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views you express here. BUT why do you see no fault at all with Islam itself?
Lets look at the reality of life in Muslim majority countries for instance; Pakistan where it ok to execute people for having different views (see post on Muslim topic about facebook). The Philippines where it is ok to summarily execute people the govt do not like without any kind of judicial process. Saudi Arabia where public executions and floggings are a major form of entertainment.
I will not even bother to mention the "minor" matter of these countries repressive attitudes to women.
I can think of no "Western Country" where such barbaric activity is normal.
But there can't be anything wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs can there?
-
Gabriella
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views you express here. BUT why do you see no fault at all with Islam itself?
Lets look at the reality of life in Muslim majority countries for instance; Pakistan where it ok to execute people for having different views (see post on Muslim topic about facebook). The Philippines where it is ok to summarily execute people the govt do not like without any kind of judicial process. Saudi Arabia where public executions and floggings are a major form of entertainment.
I will not even bother to mention the "minor" matter of these countries repressive attitudes to women.
I can think of no "Western Country" where such barbaric activity is normal.
But there can't be anything wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs can there?
Has Gabriella said there can be nothing wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs? It seems to me she has not said anything of the sort?
There seem to me two major problems with the idea though that Islam is in any sense a root cause here. The first is that it as so often means reifying Islam to be something other than simply a collection of beliefs that is similar to other sets of beliefs, not all religious, which people cite as justification for their actions. That the actions if people citing the justification can be entirely different and that other justifications can lead to similar actions, surely brings into question treating one as unique in this fashion.
Secondly, but related, is the simplistic post hoc ergo proper hoc identification of cause. There are many countries where the rile if law seems questionable in 'Western' terms, indeed your use of 'Western' countries in your post is part of a circular argument since your definition of Western is to exclude countries where such disregard happens. So even though. China or North Korea or Russia or Uganda might carry out such actions, and are not Islamic is excluded because they are not Western, and then ignored as to why the issue is then obviously not just Islam.
In addition even where there are multiple executions such as in The US and even though there is arguably evidence of systematic racism in their applicatiion, we deem that as 'not as bad'. Further that it is a mete 75 years, since the Western countries were in a war where millions were executed for their religion, and that throughout the 70s to 90s there were more deaths through terrorism in Europe because of beliefs nothing to do with Islam than there have been here in the last 20 years or so. (and that leaves aside any questions over military actions in the last 20 years)
It's the poverty of history in this approach to Islam that I find bizarre. What is happening is neither unique nor novel. There seems to me an almost idolatrous tone in those who indulge in this that mirrors the loons of IS.
-
Yes, I keep thinking that the arguments that 'it's all the fault of Islam' actually mirror IS. Very strange mirror image.
-
Gabby I KNOW is a great lass - I DO hope she doesn't mind me saying this - she relatively recently converted to Islam from a Hindu family. At least she does come here & chat a bit.
We live in an electronic world where anything we say can & WILL be used in evidence against us. ;)
I'm pretty sure MANY Muslims see these kinds of awful things seemingly approved of in Islam but can't, nay DAREN'T say anything due to other dickheads taking God's 'laws' & job into their own hands.
Maybe they realise Allah is either incompetent or is non-existent.???
One can't be born a Muslim as one has to speak the Shahada of 'There is no god but Allah' etc etc & a child can't do that. So that rubbishes another Muslim so-called argument for Islam about us all being born Muslim. Yes, I'm afraid it really doesn't get any better than this.
You can go online & search very easily the verses that ante-Islamists cite re violence etc. What certain types of Muslims don't seem to be able to accept is that NO religion can be wholesale transported from so many centuries ago & dropped into the 21st !!
I'm pretty sure the moderate ones, those that just do the 'job' of Islam & get on with their lives with no problems at all - yes I KNOW they exist - are the ones who can get lots of s++t from stupid ignoramuses that feed into racist stuff & incite their own laws. We hear it quite often now due to what's been happening in Manchester etc.
-
What about people who do not disregard those beliefs. Those who see Islam as being under attack, in danger as it was in the day of Mohammed, and respond as the response was in those days.
Not really sure what you mean by Islam being under attack - could you be more specific as there are lots of different Islams depending on how teachings are interpreted and implemented in a particular place or group.
Do you mean continuing US and UK military support for the Saudi royal family despite Saudi human rights abuses against Muslims? Do you mean Western foreign policy that leads to regime-change in Muslim majority countries to gain access or control of natural resources such as oil and gas?
Well one response is that Khomeni preached revolt and martyrdom against tyranny as being part of Shia Islam to unite Iranians to overthrow the US-installed Shah in 1979 through a popular campaign of civil disobedience. The Shah had been installed by the US and UK governments after they organised a coup to overthrow the elected leader of Iran. Khomeni united various Iranian Muslim groups against the Shah and his Western allies under the revolutionary slogan "Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!" as a way of rejecting the influence of both liberal capitalism and communism.
Or do you mean further back during European colonialism, when a group of individuals formed a fledgling Islamist party and argued that Europeans were exploiting the Muslims and that defending Islam meant fighting back politically, economically, socially and physically against European colonists?
Islamists certainly view Islam as a way to mobilise public support for their political aims. Some Islamist groups use warfare to try to further their aims. In modern times, as they don't stand a chance against conventional weapons, some of them they are using asymmetric warfare tactics.
This was not the response in Prophet Mohamed's time - if his state was under attack he raised an army and met the opposing army on a battlefield even if he was outnumbered. But they didn't have highly explosive missiles and bombs capable of mass destruction back then.
-
Ex post, G but you remind us all why Mohd was thrown out of Mecca & then came back with an army to take over?
-
In a discussion on 'The Sunday Politics' a few weeks ago, he was quite specific in some respects - in the cited case, blaming the disgusting attitude of Salford University which spawned this sad little non-entity who thought he was a hero:
(Jo Coburn interviewing Murray and Sara Khan, whose efforts Murray certainly supported, but suspected might be in vain)
Sorry - missed this - yes if he is being specific then I agree with some of his comments in this interview that the Islamic society at Salford failed and the authorities failed to tackle extremism by allowing Salford Islamic society to refuse to co-operate with anti-extremism measures.
-
It really wasn't that long ago that a 'Western' country (Serbia) attempted to ethnically cleanse Albanians from part of its territory, the vast majority of whom were Muslim.
-
Gabriella
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views you express here. BUT why do you see no fault at all with Islam itself?
Lets look at the reality of life in Muslim majority countries for instance; Pakistan where it ok to execute people for having different views (see post on Muslim topic about facebook). The Philippines where it is ok to summarily execute people the govt do not like without any kind of judicial process. Saudi Arabia where public executions and floggings are a major form of entertainment.
I will not even bother to mention the "minor" matter of these countries repressive attitudes to women.
I can think of no "Western Country" where such barbaric activity is normal.
But there can't be anything wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs can there?
As I keep stating - I see faults with specific interpretations of Islam. I can't generalise and say I see a fault with Islam as though Islam is a single universally agreed upon concept. There are many interpretations. There is no single Islam.
And I hold people responsible for their interpretations and actions because an idea can't control someone's brain - that person has to interpret the idea and put their interpretation into action. Which is why there are many peaceful, law-abiding Muslims - because their interpretation of Islam is not the same as the interpretation of the terrorists.
It's like blaming the US Constitution for George Bush &co re-interpreting the words "imminent threat" to come up with the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq which conveniently allowed him and Blair to ignore the illegality of regime-change as a basis for war.
-
If a line from a Quranic verse says Mohd walked down a road & turned left then is it at all possible to be translated as he went RIGHT?
-
Gabby I KNOW is a great lass - I DO hope she doesn't mind me saying this - she relatively recently converted to Islam from a Hindu family.
You have a strange definition of "relatively recently". I converted 23 years ago. I was a Hindu for maybe 13 years, but given I was a baby and then a child during that time not sure it really counts. I was an atheist for about 10 years before I became a Muslim. My father likes what he understands of Islam, though he is critical of and opposed to certain interpretations.
But then again he is also critical of and opposed to certain interpretations of Hinduism.
I'm pretty sure MANY Muslims see these kinds of awful things seemingly approved of in Islam but can't, nay DAREN'T say anything due to other dickheads taking God's 'laws' & job into their own hands.
Maybe they realise Allah is either incompetent or is non-existent.???
One can't be born a Muslim as one has to speak the Shahada of 'There is no god but Allah' etc etc & a child can't do that. So that rubbishes another Muslim so-called argument for Islam about us all being born Muslim. Yes, I'm afraid it really doesn't get any better than this.
You can go online & search very easily the verses that ante-Islamists cite re violence etc. What certain types of Muslims don't seem to be able to accept is that NO religion can be wholesale transported from so many centuries ago & dropped into the 21st !!
I'm pretty sure the moderate ones, those that just do the 'job' of Islam & get on with their lives with no problems at all - yes I KNOW they exist - are the ones who can get lots of s++t from stupid ignoramuses that feed into racist stuff & incite their own laws. We hear it quite often now due to what's been happening in Manchester etc.
You never did get back to me with the name of the translator of your copy of the Quran despite me asking at least 4 or 5 times this year. Can't take your claims about the Quran seriously if you don't want to state the name of the person who is translating the Quranic Arabic into English.
-
If a line from a Quranic verse says Mohd walked down a road & turned left then is it at all possible to be translated as he went RIGHT?
You are asserting objectivity in a valley of subjectivity
-
Ex post, G but you remind us all why Mohd was thrown out of Mecca & then came back with an army to take over?
You want a recap of the story? Ok, so he fasts, prays to one God, hangs out in a cave, feels inspired to preach monotheism by reciting the words of the Quran, which he said were revealed to him and weren't his own words.
Monotheism was bad for business as certain influential people in Mecca made a lot of money out of idol worship at the Kaaba by passing traders; plus he came up with all this nice stuff about rights that appealed to slaves and women, and so as he claimed to be a prophet of God, continued preaching over 13 years and his support increased because people loved the poetic words he was reciting, he was viewed as a threat to the power structure in Mecca. They try torturing some of his new followers and confiscating their assets but they won't recant.
So they try to kill him, he escapes penniless, runs away, is welcomed by the people in Medina because they consider him trustworthy and able to sort out all their tribal differences. He sets up a constitution with rights for Muslims and non-Muslims and acts as head of this new state for the last 10 years of his life. During this time more Muslims run away from being tortured or jailed in Mecca and turn up in Medina to join him. The Muslims try to gather intelligence about Mecca war plans and also recover some compensation for their confiscated assets by raiding caravans passing to and from Mecca. A few peace treaties and truces are signed with various tribes and the Muslims expand their strength by forming alliances for mutual protection with various tribes and by conquering certain tribes e.g.Battle of Khaybar. If the tribes break the peace treaties, the Muslims form an army and fight and kill some people and because of their own treaties with other tribes the Meccans eventually show up with an army to fight the Muslims.
There are a few battles. Eventually he returns to Mecca with his army and Mecca surrenders with very little bloodshed and most of the defeated are allowed to remain unharmed as they surrendered rather than fought. The Kaaba is cleared of idols as it is considered the house of the monotheistic concept of God built by Abraham.
I think I've covered the main points of the story.
-
Isn’t the real problem deeper than the content of any particular set of beliefs that have coalesced to constitute one religion or another? Scratch the surface of pretty much any religious texts and (with the possible exception of Jainism’s Aganas) you’ll find some nasty stuff, as you will some benevolent stuff too.
The question surely is what people do with moral narratives. Call it “moral philosophy” and you have ideas about how to live a good life that are reasoned but tentative, provisional. They’re change-apt as new and different thinking comes along. Consequently not many people will die (or kill) over the differences between, say, Aristotle and Plato.
Call it “religion”, "faith", “revealed” etc and claim it to have been handed down by a morally inerrant god though and the narratives become certain, atrophied, unchangeable no matter what. That is, they become dogmatised.
And the problem with dogmas (not only religious ones by the way) is that not only are they certain in their content, but that people who subscribe to them are certain that they’re right to do so. And once they’ve got themselves to that position, why then wouldn’t they die – or kill – to defend them, or to propagate them? After all, when in your head you know – really, really know – that if you don’t convert someone from his heathen ways he’ll go to hell, then it’s positively your duty to do the converting. You’d be acting immorally if you didn’t!
And where that leads is pretty much to what we see today– silos of certainty, some of them outright hostile to the others, some of them paying lip service to tolerance but hey, you know, we’re still right and they’re still wrong when all said and done.
As to what we do about it, in a word: education. Not education that religious claim X is right and religious claim Y is wrong (or vice versa), but rather that reason and scepticism and the ability to detect and reject bullshit arguments matter. Really matter. Even when the theist espouses reason altogether by claiming faith to trump reason or some such, that in itself is a bad piece of reasoning.
Will that ever happen, either at all or before someone with a “holy” text in one hand and the nuclear codes in the other has his way? Who can possibly say, but it’s worth trying I’d have thought.
How about teaching philosophy in primary schools and making it as compulsory as English and Maths at least until GCSE stage?
-
Education it has to be, but it needs educators who are themselves critical thinkers, or who are able to set aside their religious beliefs to teach philosophy in a way that encourages critical thinking.
It's pi in the sky, for now, I think. *sigh*
-
So this philosophy that needed to be taught, the ideas that Plato wad supportive of tyrants, in the ancient Greek sense, and no one kills for that seems to show an ignorance of history.
-
NS,
So this philosophy that needed to be taught, the ideas that Plat. supported of tyrants, in the ancient Greek sense, and no one kills for that seems to show an ignorance of history.
No - for a couple of reasons. First, taking, say, Plato as if he were some kind of end game would be precisely the same mistake as doing the same thing with a religious text. Rather the important principle is that his and subsequent thinking was human and therefore fallible. Second, subsequent thinking disagrees with him in any case and moreover there's no telling what philosophies may arrive in future. That though does not diminish from the primacy of rational thought and scepticism - which is what I was arguing for.
-
NS,
No - for a couple of reasons. First, taking, say, Plato as if he were some kind of end game would be precisely the same mistake as doing the same thing with a religious text. Rather the important principle is that his and subsequent thinking was human and therefore fallible. Second, subsequent thinking disagrees with him in any case and moreover there's no telling what philosophies may arrive in future. That though does not diminish from the primacy of rational thought and scepticism - which is what I was arguing for.
. But that means you have a decision which isn't about philosophy, it's about your philosophy. The idea that you are just being objective here isn't even wrong.
-
NS,
But that means you have a decision which isn't about philosophy, it's about your philosophy. The idea that you are just being objective here isn't even wrong.
No - you're conflating the content of a philosophical position with a method that gets you there, ie rationalism. I advocate the teaching of rationalism, not of a position that may or may not be at the end of it. It's process, not product.
Why? Because rationalism entails doubt, the possibility at least of being wrong whereas dogmatism does not. And more harm comes from the latter than from the former.
-
NS,
No - you're conflating the content of a philosophical position with a method that gets you there, ie rationalism. I advocate the teaching of rationalism, not of a position that may or may not be at the end of it. It's process, not product.
Why? Because rationalism entails doubt, the possibility at least of being wrong whereas dogmatism does not. And more harm comes from the latter than from the former.
and you are judging the success of teaching or approach by whether it agrees by your conclusion.
-
Isn’t the real problem deeper than the content of any particular set of beliefs that have coalesced to constitute one religion or another? Scratch the surface of pretty much any religious texts and (with the possible exception of Jainism’s Aganas) you’ll find some nasty stuff, as you will some benevolent stuff too.
The question surely is what people do with moral narratives. Call it “moral philosophy” and you have ideas about how to live a good life that are reasoned but tentative, provisional. They’re change-apt as new and different thinking comes along. Consequently not many people will die (or kill) over the differences between, say, Aristotle and Plato.
Call it “religion”, "faith", “revealed” etc and claim it to have been handed down by a morally inerrant god though and the narratives become certain, atrophied, unchangeable no matter what. That is, they become dogmatised.
And the problem with dogmas (not only religious ones by the way) is that not only are they certain in their content, but that people who subscribe to them are certain that they’re right to do so. And once they’ve got themselves to that position, why then wouldn’t they die – or kill – to defend them, or to propagate them? After all, when in your head you know – really, really know – that if you don’t convert someone from his heathen ways he’ll go to hell, then it’s positively your duty to do the converting. You’d be acting immorally if you didn’t!
And where that leads is pretty much to what we see today– silos of certainty, some of them outright hostile to the others, some of them paying lip service to tolerance but hey, you know, we’re still right and they’re still wrong when all said and done.
I agree that a dogmatic approach stifles freedom of thought and it should be avoided in religion, philosophy politics etc. Early Islamic tradition allowed for multiple schools of thought but debate and freedom of thought became stifled for political reasons.
Islamic dogma is narrowing the space for debate in the Arab world, argues an Egyptian professor whose own life was overturned by persecution for free thinking.
Thirteen years after an Egyptian sharia court declared him an apostate from Islam, annulled his marriage and effectively forced him into exile, Nasr Abu Zayd looks back without rancor.
"I define myself as an ordinary Muslim who is able to think," he told Reuters during a recent visit to Beirut.
Today, constant claims to a monopoly of Islamic truth by Arab rulers and opposition groups scrabbling for legitimacy have stifled discussion, in contrast to debate flourishing elsewhere in the Muslim world, notably in Iran and Turkey, he added.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-scholar-idUSL0167412620080501
-
NS,
and you are judging the success of teaching or approach by whether it agrees by your conclusion.
What conclusion - that less harm is better than more harm? Well, I do think that yes and I also think that rationalism is more likely to achieve that than dogmatism.
Inasmuch as moral philosophy concerns itself with how we should lead a good life, I think too that it's reasonable to define "good" as something like, " causing least harm", and that some types of thinking are more likely to achieve that than others.
What I don't think though is what you seem to be implying I think, namely that that (or any other) outcome has anything to say to the epistemic truth of a proposition - ie, an argumetnum ad consequentiam. Indeed I'd hesitate to argue that moral philosophy has any epistemic truths - just provisional positions and arguments. My point rather was that the ability to identify and reject bullshit arguments for something is important, that it tends to reduce the risk of harm that dogmatism brings, and thus that it should be taught more consistently in schools.
Which doesn't seem controversial to me, particularly given the alternatives.
-
NS,
What conclusion - that less harm is better than more harm? Well, I do think that yes and I also think that rationalism is more likely to achieve that than dogmatism.
Inasmuch as moral philosophy concerns itself with how we should lead a good life, I think too that it's reasonable to define "good" as something like, " causing least harm", and that some types of thinking are more likely to achieve that than others.
What I don't think though is what you seem to be implying I think, namely that that (or any other) outcome has anything to say to the epistemic truth of a proposition - ie, an argumetnum ad consequentiam. Indeed I'd hesitate to argue that moral philosophy has any epistemic truths - just provisional positions and arguments. My point rather was that the ability to identify and reject bullshit arguments for something is important, that it tends to reduce the risk of harm that dogmatism brings, and thus that it should be taught more consistently in schools.
Which doesn't seem controversial to me, particularly given the alternatives.
Harm defined by how yoi define harm? Aw, so circular
-
Sorry about not getting back about ONE of the Qurans or books about the Quran I read !! I've only just found one again this last few days. Translator's name is Abdullah Yusuf Ali printed by Islamic Dawah Centre International.
Don't recall you telling me it was 23 years ago you converted. If I may, when you say you were a Hindu for 13 before that, were your family Hindu?
Slight sidestep... Re Zakhir Naik & his dodgy take on Islam. Do you regard him in any good favour? I have a booklet of him comparing the main religions of Islam, Judaism, Christianity & Hinduism. MMM?!?!?? He thinks pain travels along blood vessels which is why in Islam an animal has to be bled dry to get rid of possible bacterias but the animal doesn't feel any pain ?!?!!? because it's neck has been sliced wide open. It jumps & rolls around because of muscle spasm & not a reaction to pain !!! Excuse me????
-
NS,
Harm defined by how yoi define harm? Aw, so circular
No, by how dictionaries define it. You seem confused.
-
NS,
No, by how dictionaries define it. You seem confused.
Dictionaries aren't prescriptive. You are still being circular.
-
Rationally the best thing for the planet is for human beings to be wiped out, or at least drastically culled. Dogmatically Jains don't take life.
And as a species we are full of shit.
-
Rationally the best thing for the planet is for human beings to be wiped out, or at least drastically culled. Dogmatically Jains don't take life.
And as a species we are full of shit.
It feels that way, sometimes.
But all you can do is recognise the bravery and kindness of individuals who combat such things by even giving their own lives, sometimes.
We don't hear enough about those sorts of people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/adel-termos-hero-father-saved-hundreds-of-lives-by-tackling-second-suicide-bomber-in-beirut-a6735776.html
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-attack-brave-people-13136881
I suppose all you can do is not allow poisonous people to change you, and hope you would be as brave and helpful to others in need if you are unlucky enough to find yourself in a situation.
-
It feels that way, sometimes.
But all you can do is recognise the bravery and kindness of individuals who combat such things by even giving their own lives, sometimes.
We don't hear enough about those sorts of people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/adel-termos-hero-father-saved-hundreds-of-lives-by-tackling-second-suicide-bomber-in-beirut-a6735776.html
I wasn't talking about what we do. Generally people are ok. But we believe all kinds of bollocks.
-
I wasn't talking about what we do. Generally people are ok. But we believe all kinds of bollocks.
Rhiannon,
You don't believe in all kinds of bollocks, and even if you did, I doubt if you would let it get in the way of your common humanity in a crisis.
I don't know you, it's true.
But going by your posts, you come across as a caring person who empathises.
Provided you will put out your hand to help others in crisis, regardless, bollocks doesn't matter 😉
-
NS,
Dictionaries aren't prescriptive. You are still being circular.
No-one suggested that they are, but they do provide a context in which words like "harm" can be discussed meaningfully. And that's not what circular reasoning would entail by the way.
-
NS,
No-one suggested that they are, but they do provide a context in which words like "harm" can be discussed meaningfully. And that's not what circular reasoning would entail by the way.
A context? Or as it actually is in your position a casual use of the ad populum fallacy.
-
Rationally the best thing for the planet is for human beings to be wiped out, or at least drastically culled. Dogmatically Jains don't take life.
And as a species we are full of shit.
Jains are allowed to be soldiers - there is a history of them serving in the Indian Army. Nuns and monks do not become soldiers but ordinary Jains can.
-
Hi Sriram
Not sure centuries of empire-building and warfare is relevant, given empire-building and warfare was the done thing at the time all over the world. Which particular passages in the Quran do you hold responsible for Muslim invasions of India, forced conversions, the partition of India etc?
Also, I would expect that a 7th century message regulating human behaviour would need to regulate violence if it was going to be remotely useful or relevant - similarly Hindu religious books promote violence in certain circumstances. So violent passages in a religious book are not a problem. Violence is an unavoidable and ugly part of human life - that was true in 7th Century Arabia and it is true today, regardless of religion or political beliefs. Yes, some individuals can avoid violence and be pacifists but only because other individuals are prepared to fight on behalf of the pacifists.
Not sure what you mean by Islam teaching disregard for other people's beliefs. The Quran is a message that promotes monotheism and worship of an undefinable supernatural entity, and regards idol worship as incompatible with this concept so it is going to say that that the worship of idols is wrong. It wouldn't be much of a message in support of monotheism if it says a trinity or polytheism or idol worship is ok too. If that's what you mean by disregard then yes I agree the Quran teaches disregard of certain beliefs that are incompatible with beliefs promoted by the Quran. It also teaches that it is up to individuals to freely accept or reject the message of the Quran. Those who reject the message presumably disregard the beliefs about Allah's punishment for polytheism or idol worship on a Day of Judgement. So not really sure what the problem is about disregarding particular beliefs - we all disregard certain beliefs that other people hold.
Regarding Muslims taking responsibility - I am a Muslim. What would be an example of me taking responsibility for the Muslim invasions of India or the attack on London Bridge? How do you as a Hindu show you take responsibility for the murder of Gandhi by the Hindu nationalist, Nathuram Vinayak Godse? You probably already know the speech Godse gave the court during his trial:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US
Hi Gabriella,
Deep faith can have many positive outcomes such as we have seen among Christian Missionaries. But if it always has only negative outcomes in the form of destruction, killings and so on...there is something amiss there.
It is not as if such atrocities by Muslims have been isolated incidents or specific to a region or a period in time. No! They have been almost a natural part of Islam from its origins till date, across the world.... regardless of what the Koran may or may not say.
Individual terrorists and organisations like ISIS are only symptoms of a deeper problem. What the problem is, is something only those Muslims who are free from this destructive mindset can and should analyse.
-
Another gem from Newsthump.
http://newsthump.com/2017/06/15/londoners-show-defiance-of-terror-by-eating-overpriced-artisan-sausages-at-borough-market/
-
Hi Gabriella,
Deep faith can have many positive outcomes such as we have seen among Christian Missionaries. But if it always has only negative outcomes in the form of destruction, killings and so on...there is something amiss there.
It is not as if such atrocities by Muslims have been isolated incidents or specific to a region or a period in time. No! They have been almost a natural part of Islam from its origins till date, across the world.... regardless of what the Koran may or may not say.
Individual terrorists and organisations like ISIS are only symptoms of a deeper problem. What the problem is, is something only those Muslims who are free from this destructive mindset can and should analyse.
Hi Sriram - yes if you choose to be ignorant of historical context, I can see why you would reach that conclusion.
If Muslims were the only people empire-building in certain parts of the world during the periods of history you are referring to then you would have a point about Islam. If 7th century Arabia was a a peaceful place and there had not been an ongoing war between the Byzantine empire and the Persian empire on its borders for most of the 6th century and early part of the 7th century, your theory about warmongering Muslims would have some credibility.
Also, coming to modern times, if oil had not been discovered in the Middle East, if European colonialism and the Cold War hadn't happened, your above opinion might be worth considering.
But given the historical facts, your sweeping generalisations about Islam e.g. "it always has only negative outcomes in the form of destruction, killings and so on" has nothing of any substance worth discussing. That you feel this way about Islam and Muslims is your problem, which you will have to take responsibility for and see if you can tell yourself to not be so silly in future.
-
Historical context or a get out of jail free card. Why constant denial, or lack of honesty. Why not just once hold your hand up and say, yes, there were times, a lot of times even.......
-
Saying Muslims were not the only people empire-building means Muslims were also empire-building, which is a bloody process whoever does it. Maybe read my posts without your usual knee-jerk prejudices. And maybe come up with some factual points about the issues and discuss them rather than waving your biased accusations of dishonesty in place of an actual argument.
-
A context? Or as it actually is in your position a casual use of the ad populum fallacy.
If you want to know the definition of a word, ad populum is not a fallacy. Words are defined by how people use them and a dictionary documents usage.
-
If you want to know the definition of a word, ad populum is not a fallacy. Words are defined by how people use them and a dictionary documents usage.
and if you are only talking about subjectivity then that's fine. But it doesn't make the jump from there to objectivity.
-
Sorry about not getting back about ONE of the Qurans or books about the Quran I read !! I've only just found one again this last few days. Translator's name is Abdullah Yusuf Ali printed by Islamic Dawah Centre International.
Don't recall you telling me it was 23 years ago you converted. If I may, when you say you were a Hindu for 13 before that, were your family Hindu?
Slight sidestep... Re Zakhir Naik & his dodgy take on Islam. Do you regard him in any good favour? I have a booklet of him comparing the main religions of Islam, Judaism, Christianity & Hinduism. MMM?!?!?? He thinks pain travels along blood vessels which is why in Islam an animal has to be bled dry to get rid of possible bacterias but the animal doesn't feel any pain ?!?!!? because it's neck has been sliced wide open. It jumps & rolls around because of muscle spasm & not a reaction to pain !!! Excuse me????
Great - I have a Yusuf Ali translation and it's also available online as well so it's easy to see if any verses you post from various websites are Yusuf Ali or some other unknown translator.
Yes my family are Hindu.
I've seen Zakir Naik on TV. He seems to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting scriptures from different religions but a lot of his arguments are very simplistic so not a fan.
I think it's always a problem when people turn to simplistic narratives because they want certainty or easy answers rather than deal with complexity. It can lead to intolerance, and not just amongst the religious.
Bluehillside raised the issue of teaching children to question ethics at primary school level. They do teach that in Religious Studies and PSHE at my kids' school - both at primary and secondary. I think this helps create understanding between people and there should be more done in schools to challenge people's assumptions and perceptions in order to teach them that are very few certainties.
-
and if you are only talking about subjectivity then that's fine. But it doesn't make the jump from there to objectivity.
I'm merely pointing out that your invocation of ad populum was erroneous in the context of the definition of a word.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40432673
-
I'm merely pointing out that your invocation of ad populum was erroneous in the context of the definition of a word.
Which would be incorrect given the appeal to objectivity
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40432673
Extraordinary, humbling.
-
Extraordinary, humbling.
Agreed.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40432673
Very brave man.