Azaran on 20/11/2015 at 17:04
A lot of suspicion and islamophobia was fueled by the whole cartoons thing a few years back. Murderous protests by huge mobs over cartoons - cartoons - which resulted in I don't know how many innocent people getting killed. I saw people on Facebook make comparisons, like cartoons cause murderous outrage, but terrorism does not, and why was that?
I am glad to see goid Muslims condemning terrorism more and more though, they should be the first o es to do it, especially considering they're usually the main victims of it
icemann on 20/11/2015 at 17:17
And ultimately it may come down to them (Muslim's world over) to resolve the issue, and remove the ISIS movement for good, as only they know of who the real actual terrorists are vs what most other people assume. Also the governments and police can only do so much with surveillance, anti-terror raids etc.
That is the only peaceful solution that I can ever think of.
Chances of that happening though.
Medlar on 20/11/2015 at 17:40
Having heard this statement: David Cameron the Prime Minister was asked by the SNP whether he would wait for the backing of the United Nations Security Council before British military action began against Syria, Mr Cameron said its approval was "preferable" but not "vital". I wonder is the United Nations Security Council fit for purpose. Tony Blair and G W Bush also ignored the council and the world changed, is it about to happen again? Do veto's make the UN a lame duck?
icemann on 20/11/2015 at 17:54
The UN back when the Yugoslavia war was going on - No
In today's age, when you consider both the ISIS situation + events in the Ukraine - Definitely.
Personally I think votes should just be done on majority with no Veto's allowed. But then that would not be a "United" effort, so meh.
Nowadays it just comes down to Coalitions of governments saying "well fuck this I'm sending in troops or planes in anyway".
heywood on 20/11/2015 at 19:28
Quote Posted by LkoRas
As i said, i will let you enjoy your happy fantasies about this cult. I know they will do this again but i hope no living being is harmed in the next round of muslim attacks. May all their bombs fizzle out.
I have a couple of Muslim friends and over the years I've had a lot of Muslim coworkers, some of which I've gotten to know fairly well. I'm pretty sure they're being honest when they say they're happier living under our current system than a pan-Islamic state. I know your part of the world has a history that mine doesn't, but don't prejudge the rest of the world's Muslim population, which we get along with peacefully for the most part.
After all, if all Muslims are really just closeted ISIS/ISIL supporters, and the world has 1.6 billion of them, why isn't there more jihad? And what about the 25% or so of Muslims who are not Sunni? Why is most of the battle against ISIL being conducted by other Muslims? Why are the Sunni Arabian states where Wahhabism is the dominant religion attacking ISIL? Why are so many so many Muslims in the region running away from them instead of embracing them? Why is most of Afghanistan happy to see the Taliban defeated? Why would so many Muslims emigrate from the Islamic world? Why was most of Egypt happy to have a military dictator overthrow and outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood? Etc. Etc.
Your thesis just doesn't hold up under even the lightest scrutiny.
Quote Posted by Assidragon
The problem is, if religion is institutionalised, then ignoring those bits is no longer possible. There's a reason they have
mutawi (religious police) in Qatar or UAE, and I can firmly tell you that the reason is not so people can skip the rules they don't like.
You can make up your own religion by cherry-picking because Europe is secular. In this case you aren't
really a christian believer of course, as you are sinning as far as the Church is concerned.
Differences of interpretation leads every religion to divide into various denominations and sects. When a government institutionalizes religion they are cherry-picking one interpretation.
I hope you're not suggesting that you can't be a real Christian or real Muslim if you don't accept everything in the Bible and Quran as true and binding. Cause I'm tired of refuting that canard.
Quote Posted by faetal
Foremost - we are being told via media that this is MUSLIMS, rather than a very small sub-set of Salafist Muslims who are interested in fomenting a global jihad (which they can only do by inciting non-Muslims to see this as all Muslims, so well done for helping them out). The media also conveniently downplays Muslim on Muslim violence, not only because it is far from home, but because of how human cognitive filtering works - MUSLIMS ARE KILLING NON-MUSLIMS stands out in capital letters in the perception of non-Muslims because it stands out as a threat, whereas Muslims killing other Muslims seems less of a worry, thus our very brains are weighting the perception of events towards a generalised model where Muslims are just looking for non-Muslims to kill for general reasons, mostly some stock de-humanisation which assumes that all of these wild-eyed Arabs with AKs over their shoulders are just born hating anything which resembles enjoyment or whatever.
Fortunately, the MSM over here isn't being quite so anti-Muslim. A big story this week is about how the US House of Representatives and 30+ governors are now trying to block (or at least pause) resettlement of Syrian refugees. The media is split over it, but nobody is really saying all Muslims are bad. The argument is over whether it's safe to take the chance that a jihadist will slip through the vetting process.
There is also the unfortunate debate over whether these attacks justify increasing surveillance powers. The pendulum had swung the other way, especially after Snowden, and I hope this doesn't cause it to swing back.
As far as Muslims killing Muslims goes, we know that a terrorist attack in the west gets more western media attention than a terrorist attack in the Middle East simply because of the location. The more local the event, the more media attention it often gets. Also, I think our seeming lack of concern for Muslim on Muslim violence is because we've become numb to it. Terrorist attacks have been so frequent in Iraq (particularly Baghdad) and Afghanistan for so long that the stories have become routine. But the Boko Harum attacks have gotten a fair bit of media attention though, especially considering it's central Africa. And when ISIS overran Northern Iraq, that was a huge story and big wake up call in the US.
Neb on 20/11/2015 at 20:06
Quote Posted by heywood
Why are so many so many Muslims in the region running away from them instead of embracing them?
That's crazy talk. Everyone knows that systematic executions of Muslims from other denominations (and even Sunnis of the wrong ethnicity) is something that every Muslim can get behind. Why can't you logic?
faetal on 20/11/2015 at 20:26
Quote Posted by Azaran
I am glad to see goid Muslims condemning terrorism more and more though, they should be the first o es to do it, especially considering they're usually the main victims of it
They should do it
only because they are the main victims of it. They aren't responsible and do not owe any contrition.
faetal on 20/11/2015 at 20:42
Quote Posted by icemann
On the interpretation stuff, definitely agree. People across ALL religions do it. Even then, one does not have to read a sentence and instantly believe it. That comes down to the individual. Of course there are those who see the words as the word of god. That's fine.
This to me exemplifies how we should logically look at this (and ties in with my earlier comment about statistics) - people of all faiths commit violent bloody murder against people who are innocent. People with no religion do as well. It's almost as if the common factor, rather than religion, is...people.
Assidragon on 20/11/2015 at 21:45
Quote Posted by heywood
I hope you're not suggesting that you can't be a real Christian or real Muslim if you don't accept everything in the Bible and Quran as true and binding. Cause I'm tired of refuting that canard.
Not
all of it, of course. I didn't say that. I meant, that one can be considered a follower of a church/religion when one accepts the rules of that specific 'branch'. These rules will be a subset of the whole 'holy library' themselves, of course; nor protestants, nor orthodox catholics claim to follow
all the holy books, for example. They will, however, only recognise people as "their faithful" if one keeps in line with all the rules they decree important. Rather hard to be a faithful catholic with never visiting church sunday, for example; eating pork stew and claiming to be muslim will be also met with scepticism, even if the other rules are obeyed.
Now, with that being said, nothing stops you from making up your own set of rules and still considering yourself as part of a group. That will not, however, make you actually part of the group.
Quote Posted by faetal
This to me exemplifies how we should logically look at this (and ties in with my earlier comment about statistics) - people of all faiths commit violent bloody murder against people who are innocent. People with no religion do as well. It's almost as if the common factor, rather than religion, is...people.
To me this smells of both oversimplification and whitewashing. Errors in the establishment/system need to be addressed instead of blaming the individuals.
Using your analogy, I could claim that as soviets and capitalists were both killing people, only the individual people are the common component, practically absolving marxist socialism from blame.
EDIT: (
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/saudi-court-sentences-poet-to-death-for-renouncing-islam) Still no sign of a larger scale, institutional issue, right?
