Explosions in Stockholm

Nodin

realies wrote: »

I am not talking about imams who live in the locality(what else will they say) or when some of them are meeting western or other religious leaders,I am talking about the ones who have the most influence like in pakistan,saudi arabia,indonesia,,I have never heard any significant iman come out by his own and condemn them.

Did you look?

RMD

realies wrote: »

Why dont the moderate or any muslim imams ever come out at Fridays prayers and denounce this sort of violence,They are quick enough to come out against cartoons and any slight imagined or otherwise critics of there prophets,They also were not complaining when nato helped the muslims in serbia.

Quite a few actually do. Obviously you'll never hear about this though because news and media groups want to make sure you only see the exciting stories, ya know, people blowing **** up and spreading terror. An Imam in America here actually explains how the Quran justifies America's war on terror against Islamic fundamentalists.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/adi03.htm

Obviously you're only going to ever hear about the fundamentalists reactions because they're the only interesting ones, they're the only wons which will win viewers or readers.

People saying that we should poor troops into the Middle East and take a tougher stance, just remember what happened when the British poured soldiers into the North and they took a tougher stance. It was an outwide propaganda victory for the IRA an other Republican groups. The smartest way to tackle fundamentalists is to donate hugely to the most Western-aligned parties in the Middle East, help them come to power and then deal with the fundamentalists. Otherwise we're just looking at an expensive war, and a unnecessary pile of bodies.

Son Of A Vidic

Below, are some examples of non-Muslim suicide bombers/attackers.
The assassination of the Russian Tsar, Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Travelling in Saint Petersburg near the Winter Palace, he died of wounds caused by an explosion. The Tsar was killed by Ignacy Hryniewiecki who deliberately detonated a bomb he was holding during the attack.

Thousands of kamikaze attacks were launched by the Japanese in World War 2. The famous ‘banzai’ charge could also fall under the suicide attack category. The attacker launched a reckless charge upon his enemy, knowing full well he would not survive.

July 5, 1987: The LTTE (Tamil tigers) carries out its first suicide bombing, killing 40 troops at the Nelliyady army base in northern Sri Lanka.

The Tamil tigers continued to use suicide bombers up until the end of the war. They had an elite unit of suicide attackers known as the “Black tigers”. The suicide attack which killed Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, was probably their most famous attack.

wes

biko wrote: »

That was 2000 years ago or so.
This is today.

Not all Muslims are suicide bombers but all* suicide bombers are Muslim.
I blame Islam.


*generalisation but if someone can furnish me with exact number that'd be helpful

I fail to see why a suicide bomber is any worse than someone using a plane or a drone. People still end up dead.

Sure, I could say all drone attacks are by "Westerners". Which is meaningless, as the "West" are the only people who have drones. I am sure the various Islamic extremists would use planes or drones if they had them, wouldn't make the violence anymore acceptable, so I can't quite fathom why the "Wests" constant violence is some how better as they use better weapons. Stuff like "shock and awe" were pretty much massive attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, to bring Iraq to its knees for example, and yet its apparently not a bad thing, that make the "West" evil, go figure, a bizarre double standard.

The Waltzing Consumer

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Below, are some examples of non-Muslim suicide bombers/attackers.
The assassination of the Russian Tsar, Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Travelling in Saint Petersburg near the Winter Palace, he died of wounds caused by an explosion. The Tsar was killed by Ignacy Hryniewiecki who deliberately detonated a bomb he was holding during the attack.

Thousands of kamikaze attacks were launched by the Japanese in World War 2. The famous ‘banzai’ charge could also fall under the suicide attack category. The attacker launched a reckless charge upon his enemy, knowing full well he would not survive.

July 5, 1987: The LTTE (Tamil tigers) carries out its first suicide bombing, killing 40 troops at the Nelliyady army base in northern Sri Lanka.

The Tamil tigers continued to use suicide bombers up until the end of the war. They had an elite unit of suicide attackers known as the “Black tigers”. The suicide attack which killed Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, was probably their most famous attack.

It is amazing how none of these are SWEDISH. Got any Swedish examples?

The Waltzing Consumer

wes wrote: »

I fail to see why a suicide bomber is any worse than someone using a plane or a drone. People still end up dead.

Sure, I could say all drone attacks are by "Westerners". Which is meaningless, as the "West" are the only people who have drones. I am sure the various Islamic extremists would use planes or drones if they had them, wouldn't make the violence anymore acceptable, so I can't quite fathom why the "Wests" constant violence is some how better as they use better weapons. Stuff like "shock and awe" were pretty much massive attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, to bring Iraq to its knees for example, and yet its apparently not a bad thing, that make the "West" evil, go figure, a bizarre double standard.

It is a good argument, but it is solely based on the idea that people support all actions by the American and British military in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't like generalising but I have never met any "westerner" who supported those campaigns and I have never seen a boards.ie thread supporting the Americans or Brits. Have you?

So where is this double standard? I think what the "Westerners" have done is pretty evil, just like what this crazy bastard has done in Stockholm too.

Craebear

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

It's amazing how Christian fundamentalists are always conveniently overlooked. Islam views us Christians as 'People of the book', they acknowledge the old and new testaments, they acknowledge Jesus Christ as a holy prophet/messenger of a God/Allah. Christianity acknowledges nothing of Islam, they are the enemy. Jerusalem was a city of peace and tolerance under Islamic rule. Jews and Christians lived within it's wall. Then the barbarous Crusades were launched and kicked everything off.

In Moorish controlled southern Spain, Arts, culture, science and astronomy flourished while Europe was stuck in the dark ages. Jews and Christians fought side by side with Muslims for the Moorish army. Another little known fact is, that at this time Jews were fleeing from persecution across Europe to Moorish controlled Spain. http://www.sephardicgen.com/seph_who.htm#goldenage

Rome could not endure such tolerance and mixing of religions and pushed the Spanish kings onwards to destroy this haven of tolerance. Rome demanded control of its Christian subjects, nothing has changed much has it in the ensuing centuries. The first true 'fundamentalists' were Christians - The Knights Templar being the greatest amongst them. Killing for god was their Glory – the first instigators of ‘holy war’.

Then fast forward to when George Bush announced his Crusade on 16th September 2001. Bush and his Christian conservative evangelicals launched their war on Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. These nuts believe in the 'Rapture', war and conflict is what they seek. These guys believe that conflict and war will speed up 'The Rapture' and Jesus will return, lift them up and away into the sky, to paradise.

So lay of the Muslim bashing, because the smell of ignorance is overpowering. They have no Pope or epicentre of power, unlike Rome. Rome couldn’t even stand up for the rights or protection of children. Those American far right Christian nuts are what pose the greatest threat to all of us right now. Blaming ordinary law abiding Muslims, is a bit like accusing all the Irish in the past of being mad car bombing, fire bombing, shooting and knee capping loving bast@rds. Clearly we’re not; just make sure to remember that the same logic applies across the board.

Christian Fundamentalist nutjob = wear "God Hates Fags" signs and protest soldier funerals.
Muslim Fundamentalist nutjob = strap on a bomb and kill a bunch of people.

Which should we be more worried about?

Son Of A Vidic

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I am not sure who this is directed at. You are giving a history lesson which is not needed.

Why do you think the post is directed anyone? It’s merely pointing out historical fact, if history is a problem for you? Well that’s just unfortunate. Do you think what I pointed out was not needed? Well, when some ignorant comments are made attacking innocent Muslims. I felt a brief sample of history was required to enlighten.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

..you are also trying to use a balance tactic for some reason which is weird.

Tactic? So I must belong to one ‘camp’ or another is that it? Do you find it difficult to comprehend that I as a Christian can see the bigger picture and the historical picture. That I can have a tolerance of Islam and Muslims. Can you not comprehend that I don’t view Muslims as terrorists? So because I’m not bigoted or sectarian in my outlook, I must be using ‘Tactics’. I am playing Chess or something?

Sky breaking News: Poster uses Balance in his post – “approach with caution”.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Why when people are giving out about Muslim extremists do you find the need to remind us of Christian crusades?

Well you could take the long term view and say one did lead to the other. But if some people were only attacking terrorists, I wouldn’t have felt compelled to post at all. As a nation that suffered it’s fair share of bigotry and religious intolerance over the centuries. I find it incredibly ironic to now see it being displayed toward people of another religion.

Son Of A Vidic

Craebear wrote: »

Christian Fundamentalist nutjob = wear "God Hates Fags" signs and protest soldier funerals.
Muslim Fundamentalist nutjob = strap on a bomb and kill a bunch of people.

Which should we be more worried about?

One usually carries a rucksack bomb or drives a car filled with gas cylinders.

The other has a vast army/military machine at their disposal.

It's a difficult one alright.

The Waltzing Consumer

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

One usually carries a rucksack bomb or drives a car filled with gas cylinders.

The other has a vast army/military machine at their disposal.

It's a difficult one alright.

This is a big flaw in your argument. I agree with not stereotyping religions and their peoples. You have made that point, it is pretty hard not to agree with you. I respected that even though I disagree with other things you said.

BUT, you have just completely made a hypocrite of yourself by generalising western Governments (USA in particular) involved in Iraq/Afghanistan as fundamentalist Christians. So it now just looks like you disagree with stereotyping Muslims, but stereotyping Christians is fair game. Disappointing

Craebear

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

One usually carries a rucksack bomb or drives a car filled with gas cylinders.

The other has a vast army/military machine at their disposal.

It's a difficult one alright.

Not sure if you're serious...

Son Of A Vidic

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

.BUT, you have just completely made a hypocrite of yourself by generalising western Governments (USA in particular) involved in Iraq/Afghanistan as fundamentalist Christians.

When I mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan this is what I said...

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Then fast forward to when George Bush announced his Crusade on 16th September 2001. Bush and his Christian conservative evangelicals launched their war on Afghanistan and eventually Iraq.

Where did I mention Western Governments there and where is the generalisation? I did mention the USA, there’s no particular about it. Have you ever heard of the term ‘Neo-con’ . These nuts had great influence under the Bush administration, Rumsfeld, and Cheney especially so.

You see the point I’ve been trying to make all along is quite simple. While we have the threat of Islamic extremist motivated from their roots in wahhabism (extreme interpretation of Islam). You also have Christian extremist, who have a similar extreme interpretation of Christianity. Bush during his ‘reign’ was their poster boy. I have been merely highlighting the existence of these nuts. Similar to how I pointed out that suicide attacks are not the exclusive property of extreme Islam.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

So it now just looks like you disagree with stereotyping Muslims, but stereotyping Christians is fair game.

Where did I generalise about Christians? I am one. I did mention the existence of Christian fundamentalism and the danger it posed. I also mention that these fundamentalist Christians believe in ‘The Rapture’. These guys dream of Armageddon, so how can that possibly be interpreted as the stereotyping of Christians. I strongly disagree with the stereotyping of ANY religion and this was the motivation for my initial post today.

wes

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

It is a good argument, but it is solely based on the idea that people support all actions by the American and British military in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't like generalising but I have never met any "westerner" who supported those campaigns and I have never seen a boards.ie thread supporting the Americans or Brits. Have you?

So where is this double standard? I think what the "Westerners" have done is pretty evil, just like what this crazy bastard has done in Stockholm too.

Of course not everyone supported those actions, and I never claimed that they did. The massive Anti-war protests show that a lot of people did oppose those conflicts. However, in a democracy you need massive support to launch a war, and both Bush and Blair were reelected after they launched the the Iraq war for example. So, a lot of people did support it, and then there is the fact that no one is in jail over that war. You simply cannot launch a war in a democracy without a lot of support for it. Now to be fair in the case of Iraq, a lot of people were fooled by the WMD lie (if they didn't lie, then they were incompetent, which isn't much better), but after none were found, it is imho pretty sad that both Bush and Blair were re-elected.

Also, there are people on boards.ie who did support the Iraq war and what not. Had the occasional argument even.

BTW, I am not calling anyone evil, I am just saying, I could turn the argument around. Personally, I think the constant violence by various extremists, will just lead to more of it. Some idiot attacks the "West", more troops are sent to Afghanistan, which then lead to more attacks on the "West". Or lets say the "West" decides to attack Iran, which would again lead to more attacks on the "West". I don't understand why so many people on various sides are doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

biko

wes wrote: »

I fail to see why a suicide bomber is any worse than someone using a plane or a drone. People still end up dead.

Sure, I could say all drone attacks are by "Westerners". Which is meaningless, as the "West" are the only people who have drones. I am sure the various Islamic extremists would use planes or drones if they had them, wouldn't make the violence anymore acceptable, so I can't quite fathom why the "Wests" constant violence is some how better as they use better weapons. Stuff like "shock and awe" were pretty much massive attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, to bring Iraq to its knees for example, and yet its apparently not a bad thing, that make the "West" evil, go figure, a bizarre double standard.

I absolutely agree with you there, the UK/US or their allies using bombs or killings indiscriminately should be charged with war crimes.
Understandably the poorer Talibans/Muslims/etc don't have access to this kind of weaponry and therefore have to resort to suicide bombing.

However, this case seems different in that Sweden, while having soldiers in Afghanistan (which I personally am opposed to), before the suicide attack got a message to various news media shows links to fundamental Islam: ”Now your children, daughters, and sisters will die like our brothers and sisters and children are dying. Our actions speak for themselves. As long as you don’t stop your war against Islam, and you degrade the Prophet, and your support for that stupid pig [cartoonist Lars] Vilks.”

“to all Mujahadeen in Europe and Sweden. Now is the time to strike, don’t wait any longer. Step up with whatever you have, even if it is a knife, and I know you have more than a knife. Fear no one, fear not prison, fear not death.”
Translated from Swedish by Google

Swedish troops have been on various UN peace keeping missions for decades, much like Irish soldiers.
There are soldiers from 40 nations in Afghanistan, that's 40 potential targets including Ireland.

Star Bingo

when allah meets valhalla! where next, o'connell street? :eek: lol. seems to be a lot of what-ifs, the viking connection?! :pac:

scopper

May 11 video and BBC story about Lars Vilks getting attacked while giving a university lecture

Some context.

wes

biko wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you there, the UK/US or their allies using bombs or killings indiscriminately should be charged with war crimes.
Understandably the poorer Talibans/Muslims/etc don't have access to this kind of weaponry and therefore have to resort to suicide bombing.

However, this case seems different in that Sweden, while having soldiers in Afghanistan (which I personally am opposed to), before the suicide attack got a message to various news media shows links to fundamental Islam: ”Now your children, daughters, and sisters will die like our brothers and sisters and children are dying. Our actions speak for themselves. As long as you don’t stop your war against Islam, and you degrade the Prophet, and your support for that stupid pig [cartoonist Lars] Vilks.”

“to all Mujahadeen in Europe and Sweden. Now is the time to strike, don’t wait any longer. Step up with whatever you have, even if it is a knife, and I know you have more than a knife. Fear no one, fear not prison, fear not death.”
Translated from Swedish by Google

Swedish troops have been on various UN peace keeping missions for decades, much like Irish soldiers.
There are soldiers from 40 nations in Afghanistan, that's 40 potential targets including Ireland.

Well, from what I understand, that is basically the exact same reason that AQ (not saying he is AQ, may be inspired by them) have used to justify there attacks. However, you are right that this is different as they normally focus on the US or UK. Its also possible that the guy was a lone nut with no links to any groups, which in some ways is a lot worse, as there next to impossible to stop.

As for Ireland, well we already have plenty of issues with terrorism, this is just from today:

Live explosive found in Dublin retail park

We certainly don't need any more of that crap.

philologos

Corvus Maximus: It doesn't bear mentioning that there were secular supporters of the Iraq war including Christopher Hitchens as an example? - Christianity wasn't the only influence on bringing the US to war. It never is the sole driving force.

Dare I ask, what was the key force in Britain or any of the other countries which backed this effort if it wasn't Christianity?

old_aussie

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

It's amazing how Christian fundamentalists are always conveniently overlooked. Islam views us Christians as 'People of the book', they acknowledge the old and new testaments, they acknowledge Jesus Christ as a holy prophet/messenger of a God/Allah. Christianity acknowledges nothing of Islam, they are the enemy. Jerusalem was a city of peace and tolerance under Islamic rule. Jews and Christians lived within it's wall. Then the barbarous Crusades were launched and kicked everything off.

Maybe it's got something to do with the Bible being written before islam started!

Son Of A Vidic

Jakkass wrote: »

Corvus Maximus: It doesn't bear mentioning that there were secular supporters of the Iraq war including Christopher Hitchens as an example? - Christianity wasn't the only influence on bringing the US to war. It never is the sole driving force.

I never said Christianity was the only driving force, where did I say that? What I said was the Bush administration was an epicentre of neo-conservatism. Which drew its strength from the evangelical Christian fundamentalist brigade. I was merely demonstrating that the religious extremes of Christianity, parallel the religious extremes of Islam. Of course there were plenty of non-religious reasons, like oil, revenge, corporate motivations, the list is endless.

Jakkass wrote: »

Dare I ask, what was the key force in Britain or any of the other countries which backed this effort if it wasn't Christianity?

Well of course the British have always been very, very sycophantic towards the USA. With their constant harking on about the ‘special relationship’. In fact WiKi Leaks released documents on this very issue just last week, US diplomats were deriding the British and their pathetic emphasis on an alleged ‘special relationship’. Tony Blair acted like a total lapdog with Bush and set the seeds of his own downfall in doing so. Then you had intense American pressure on the NATO alliance members, to try and beef up numbers. If you look at troop numbers on the ground the US is/was and always has been at the coalface.

old_aussie wrote: »

Maybe it's got something to do with the Bible being written before islam started!

That’s what I’ve already said in my earlier post, which you then quoted and highlighted in bold. So what’s your point? Because you seem to be making the point I’ve already made. Muslims acknowledge the old and new Testaments, they view Jesus respectfully as a holy prophet.

Muhammad had his first revelation from God/Allah around the year 610AD. So if Jesus died around 33AD, that means Muhammad's revelation and the birth of Islam occurred around 577 years after the death of Jesus. I assumed that Islam’s foundation centuries after Christianity was common knowledge, but to you it obviously wasn’t judging by your excited use of bold text. You learn something new every day.

jackiebaron

TheZohan wrote: »

Multiple blasts are generally the work of Al Qaeda...

Another false flag insult to our intelligence. The perpetrator allegedly blew himself up....ergo he/she is just a pile of chopped meat splattered around the streets yet there are now reports of where the person went to school, what he had for breakfast, his favourite colour, etc.
Loada bollox

jackiebaron

So some muppets tried to make a bomb on a plane using Vaseline and hair conditioner....hence we can't carry a bit of aftershave on the plane. Then some other farcical gobsh1te tried to set his toggs on fire so we must have our balls squeezed or go through some microwave screener. Another cluck tries to light his trainers on fire so we have to take off our shoes. I mean who believes this sh1t? Now this Stockholm crap and that other nonsense in Oregon at a Christmas market. What now? No gatherings in December? And if you shag a Swedish chick, you're in for it.

Oh wait.....Assange you are!

Stinicker

jackiebaron wrote: »

So some muppets tried to make a bomb on a plane using Vaseline and hair conditioner....hence we can't carry a bit of aftershave on the plane. Then some other farcical gobsh1te tried to set his toggs on fire so we must have our balls squeezed or go through some microwave screener. Another cluck tries to light his trainers on fire so we have to take off our shoes. I mean who believes this sh1t? Now this Stockholm crap and that other nonsense in Oregon at a Christmas market. What now? No gatherings in December? And if you shag a Swedish chick, you're in for it.

Oh wait.....Assange you are!

Next thing some moron will hide a bomb up his a55 and then we will all be in for the rubberglove treatment!

Manic Moran

Yet Germany, France and Denmark all have much more troops.. why Sweden? If it was terrorists, do you think this is the targeting of major European countries that caused a panic a few weeks back?

It is instructive to look at the case of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who planned to set off a bomb at a Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony a week ago.

Portland made the news in 2005 when it voted not to partake in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. They were opposed to the Bush Administration's War on Terror.

Well, the FBI's JTF went to work anyway, and picked up this guy after he parked the van of (Fake) explosives by the ceremony and sent the detonation code.

According to the FBI affidavit, the undercover agents asked whether he worried that law enforcement would stop him. "In Portland?" Mohamud replied. "Not really. They don't see it as a place where anything will happen. People say, you know, why, anybody want to do something in Portland, you know, it's on the west coast, it's in Oregon, and Oregon's, like you know, nobody ever thinks about it."

Portland city officials are now re-considering their principled decision not to co-operate with the JTF.

The moral of the story is that just because you don't see yourself being a target doesn't mean to say that the people doing the targetting agree with you. Rely on their good intentions at your peril.

NTM

old_aussie

Maybe the west should just leave Afghanistan.

Let the taliban take over.

Let the taliban slaughter anyone who has a notion of demomcracy or doesn't 100% agree with the taliban ideology.

Let the taliban stop all woman from being able to be educated, many of the men will not be educated also.

Let the taliban dumb down the country till Afghanistan is back to the level of education found in the stone age.

Let the taliban take all the food and kill all farmers that resist.

Let the people starve to death at the hands of the taliban overlords, since that appears to be what the muslim population want.

Let the Taliban destroy the countries infrastructure, education system, hospital system, power roads etc.

Let the taliban mass rape vilages.

Why put allied lives at risk trying to bring freedom and democracy to an islamic country?

Let the muslims make Afghanistan exactly how they want it to be.

Lets pull our soldiers out now. Why risk anymore lives since we are not wanted in Afghanistan.

In five years time we can look at Afghanistan and admire the work of the islamic administration.

philologos

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Muhammad had his first revelation from God/Allah around the year 610AD. So if Jesus died around 33AD, that means Muhammad's revelation and the birth of Islam occurred around 577 years after the death of Jesus. I assumed that Islam’s foundation centuries after Christianity was common knowledge, but to you it obviously wasn’t judging by your excited use of bold text. You learn something new every day.

Christians still disagree precisely because Jesus was much much more than just a prophet. The Crucifixion and the Resurrection are key in the Christian faith. Islam rejects both of these.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I never said Christianity was the only driving force, where did I say that? What I said was the Bush administration was an epicentre of neo-conservatism. Which drew its strength from the evangelical Christian fundamentalist brigade. I was merely demonstrating that the religious extremes of Christianity, parallel the religious extremes of Islam. Of course there were plenty of non-religious reasons, like oil, revenge, corporate motivations, the list is endless.

Funnily enough I suspect that the latter reasons were the real motivators. Indeed, one cannot preclude the motivation of actually removing Saddam Hussein as dictator. I guess the question is was the US / UK etc coalition right to dispose of him when he would have naturally have been disposed within a few years.

I think your treatment of evangelical Christianity is slightly off also.

Indeed, your assessment of the Crusades is only partially accurate also. I disagree 100% with the Crusades, but you seem to ignore that at the rise of Islam (c. 600AD) most of the Middle East and North Africa was conquered by Islamic groups by force in many cases. Nobody is scot-free on this. We've all done wrong. Whether or not this should be applied to all individuals subscribing to group X is questionable. Indeed, a historical account that I read has even suggested that even Christians at the time of the First Crusade strongly disagreed with the Crusade.

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

Maybe the west (...............)administration.

You're the guy who harrasses Arabs on the train, aren't you?

irelandspurs

There's a facebook page set up for the suicide bomber now saying 9000 should be dead. :mad:

Nodin

irelandspurs wrote: »

There's a facebook page set up for the suicide bomber now saying 9000 should be dead. :mad:

And......?

irelandspurs

Nodin wrote: »

And......?

And its sick that people are supporting him for what he did