Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post
Options
Comments
-
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »You should always be suspicious of what you are told to believe.
Are you saying governments don't falsely escalate threats in order to spend money on defence?
Are you saying the police force of the UK haven't concocted stuff for political reasons? Because you'd be wrong.
Not without valid reason will I be suspicious, that is known as paranoia.0 -
The Fake Sheikh wrote: »You brought the tit and the tat.
So basically, you have nothing to add to the conversation, beyond doing the very thing your accusing me of :rolleyes:.0 -
Beyondgone wrote: »I may be playing devils advocate. Putting a point across from the other side never went down too well.
It never goes down well but consider the possibility it's all been thought of already.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »You should always be suspicious of what you are told to believe.
Are you saying governments don't falsely escalate threats in order to spend money on defence?
Are you saying the police force of the UK haven't concocted stuff for political reasons? Because you'd be wrong.
What exactly did they do? Drug him with hallucinogens and crystal meth and put him into the car? Did they hypnotise Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale to make them do what they did?0 -
Advertisement
-
I worked in London in the 1990s with the IRA bus bomber in 1996 Edward o Brien he was killed when the bomb went off I would have never thought he was like that. make you think about this Man Khalid Masood.0
-
0
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/middleeast/us-iraq-mosul-investigation-airstrike-civilian-deaths.html?_r=0
Apparently big-boy Donald has eased Rules of Engagements and US air-strikes have killed 200 civilians in Mosul in recent days. Forget the religious aspect for a second and think of this in simpler terms.
When Bloody Sunday happened in 1972, it led to widespread sympathy for the "cause" and for the families of the victims. You had Paul McCartney and John Lennon, both proud of their Irish heritage, release songs and attend protests. It inspired many North and South to take up a violent struggle, a struggle intrinsically based on the idealistic premise that the British invaded us and this is Ireland not Britain. Whatever your opinion on the merits of the unity of Ireland, it was a "cause" on this Island for hundreds of years. Whatever you think of ISIS, they have a "cause" of their own.
President ClownShoes doesn't give a monkeys about Mosul, North Korea, Syria or the rest of it. He's a spoofer from Queens who ran for President as a gimmick to try get a bigger contract out of NBC for The Apprentice. Now, he's in the job and couldn't give a monkeys about healthcare, defence, or the rest of it. Tax cuts and deregulation so the Trump Organization gets even richer is all he semi-cares about.
We've got a serious problem right now because the "leader" of America is an indifferent man-child who will sign whatever is put on his desk. If the relaxing of the Rules of Engagement leads to continuing horrific civilian loss of life, then all he is doing is creating martyrs.
Causes need martyrs. Whether they are a just (Irish Unity?) or unjust (Islamic Caliphate?) cause, killing civilians always makes things worse trying to defeat the cause and end the violence.
As for the attacker in London, his actions had as much to do with Islam as the IRA's had to do with Christianity - fcuk all. He was a violent scumbag before he converted and remained a violent scumbag after he converted.
He didn't find violence in Islam, violence came very naturally to him.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/middleeast/us-iraq-mosul-investigation-airstrike-civilian-deaths.html?_r=0
Apparently big-boy Donald has eased Rules of Engagements and US air-strikes have killed 200 civilians in Mosul in recent days.
Considering his earlier remarks about killing the relatives of terrorists, I wonder if that constitutes a war crime, considering his earlier stated intent of committing one.
Its rather stunning how little attention that story is receiving, considering we are looking at a potential war crime, as opposed to a screw up.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/middleeast/us-iraq-mosul-investigation-airstrike-civilian-deaths.html?_r=0
Apparently big-boy Donald has eased Rules of Engagements and US air-strikes have killed 200 civilians in Mosul in recent days. Forget the religious aspect for a second and think of this in simpler terms.
When Bloody Sunday happened in 1972, it led to widespread sympathy for the "cause" and for the families of the victims. You had Paul McCartney and John Lennon, both proud of their Irish heritage, release songs and attend protests. It inspired many North and South to take up a violent struggle, a struggle intrinsically based on the idealistic premise that the British invaded us and this is Ireland not Britain. Whatever your opinion on the merits of the unity of Ireland, it was a "cause" on this Island for hundreds of years. Whatever you think of ISIS, they have a "cause" of their own.
President ClownShoes doesn't give a monkeys about Mosul, North Korea, Syria or the rest of it. He's a spoofer from Queens who ran for President as a gimmick to try get a bigger contract out of NBC for The Apprentice. Now, he's in the job and couldn't give a monkeys about healthcare, defence, or the rest of it. Tax cuts and deregulation so the Trump Organization gets even richer is all he semi-cares about.
We've got a serious problem right now because the "leader" of America is an indifferent man-child who will sign whatever is put on his desk. If the relaxing of the Rules of Engagement leads to continuing horrific civilian loss of life, then all he is doing is creating martyrs.
Causes need martyrs. Whether they are a just (Irish Unity?) or unjust (Islamic Caliphate?) cause, killing civilians always makes things worse trying to defeat the cause and end the violence.
As for the attacker in London, his actions had as much to do with Islam as the IRA's had to do with Christianity - fcuk all. He was a violent scumbag before he converted and remained a violent scumbag after he converted.
He didn't find violence in Islam, violence came very naturally to him.
Ah right i was wondering...discussion over lads it was all trumps fault how did we not come up with this sooner?
Islamism exists, hard and all as it is to admit it, you might think that by dismissing it you're protecting muslims from discrimination but in actuality you're doing untold harm to the cause of millions of moderate muslims worldwide who wish to reform and modernize the religion and it needs to stop.0 -
Advertisement
-
wonderfullife wrote: »https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/middleeast/us-iraq-mosul-investigation-airstrike-civilian-deaths.html?_r=0
Apparently big-boy Donald has eased Rules of Engagements and US air-strikes have killed 200 civilians in Mosul in recent days. Forget the religious aspect for a second and think of this in simpler terms.
When Bloody Sunday happened in 1972, it led to widespread sympathy for the "cause" and for the families of the victims. You had Paul McCartney and John Lennon, both proud of their Irish heritage, release songs and attend protests. It inspired many North and South to take up a violent struggle, a struggle intrinsically based on the idealistic premise that the British invaded us and this is Ireland not Britain. Whatever your opinion on the merits of the unity of Ireland, it was a "cause" on this Island for hundreds of years. Whatever you think of ISIS, they have a "cause" of their own.
President ClownShoes doesn't give a monkeys about Mosul, North Korea, Syria or the rest of it. He's a spoofer from Queens who ran for President as a gimmick to try get a bigger contract out of NBC for The Apprentice. Now, he's in the job and couldn't give a monkeys about healthcare, defence, or the rest of it. Tax cuts and deregulation so the Trump Organization gets even richer is all he semi-cares about.
We've got a serious problem right now because the "leader" of America is an indifferent man-child who will sign whatever is put on his desk. If the relaxing of the Rules of Engagement leads to continuing horrific civilian loss of life, then all he is doing is creating martyrs.
Causes need martyrs. Whether they are a just (Irish Unity?) or unjust (Islamic Caliphate?) cause, killing civilians always makes things worse trying to defeat the cause and end the violence.
As for the attacker in London, his actions had as much to do with Islam as the IRA's had to do with Christianity - fcuk all. He was a violent scumbag before he converted and remained a violent scumbag after he converted.
He didn't find violence in Islam, violence came very naturally to him.
Aree r.e civilians, potential for more martyrs (though it's far, far from the main cause or motivation of jihadism) disagree r.e influence of Islam on Westminster attacker, why did he bother converting?0 -
Considering his earlier remarks about killing the relatives of terrorists, I wonder if that constitutes a war crime, considering his earlier stated intent of committing one.
Its rather stunning how little attention that story is receiving, considering we are looking at a potential war crime, as opposed to a screw up.
The London attack and absolute sh1t-show in America domestically with the Russia Investigation and Healthcare debacle meant it was overshadowed but Iraqi personnel are claiming there was an explicit relaxing of the Rules of Engagement by Trump regime.
If the story pans out, it'd be the worst war-crime in a decade by Allied Forces.Ah right i was wondering...discussion over lads it was all trumps fault how did we not come up with this sooner?
Islamism exists, hard and all as it is to admit it, you might think that by dismissing it you're protecting muslims from discrimination but in actuality you're doing untold harm to the cause of millions of moderate muslims worldwide who wish to reform and modernize the religion and it needs to stop.
Well done on missing the point :rolleyes:
1. London was not Trump's fault.
2. Killing 200 civilians in a potential war-crime IS on Trump, if the report on the Rules of Engagement is correct.
3. The death of the 20 women and children in the Yemen raid is on Trump.
4. Killing civilians creates martyrs for causes. Even causes that are religious in nature! Bloody Sunday created martyrs for the cause of Irish unity. Slaughtering 200 civilians in Mosul does the same for ISIS's cause.
5. Islamic Extremism is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by the Muslim community and wider world - not by massacring women and kids and creating an endless cycle of violence.Widdershins wrote: »why did he bother converting?
Before his conversion he had multiple convictions for violent crime. Stabbings, GBH etc. That was back when he was little old Adrian Elms, when he was just an ordinary black Christian man.
Here's my question:
As a black Christian man, Adrian Elms had over a dozen convictions for violent crime, including slicing someones face open with an 8 inch blade.
But when he converts to Islam and goes around stabbing people, it's all Islam's fault?
He was a violent fruitcake as a Christian and a violent fruitcake as a Muslim and he needed no religious excuse to start stabbing people - he'd been doing it his entire adult life.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »The London attack and absolute sh1t-show in America domestically with the Russia Investigation and Healthcare debacle meant it was overshadowed but Iraqi personnel are claiming there was an explicit relaxing of the Rules of Engagement by Trump regime.
If the story pans out, it'd be the worst war-crime in a decade by Allied Forces.
Well done on missing the point :rolleyes:
1. London was not Trump's fault.
2. Killing 200 civilians in a potential war-crime IS on Trump, if the report on the Rules of Engagement is correct.
3. The death of the 20 women and children in the Yemen raid is on Trump.
4. Killing civilians creates martyrs for causes. Even causes that are religious in nature! Bloody Sunday created martyrs for the cause of Irish unity. Slaughtering 200 civilians in Mosul does the same for ISIS's cause.
5. Islamic Extremism is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by the Muslim community and wider world - not by massacring women and kids and creating an endless cycle of violence.
Before his conversion he had multiple convictions for violent crime. Stabbings, GBH etc. That was back when he was little old Adrian Elms, when he was just an ordinary black Christian man.
Here's my question:
As a black Christian man, Adrian Elms had over a dozen convictions for violent crime, including slicing someones face open with an 8 inch blade.
But when he converts to Islam and goes around stabbing people, it's all Islam's fault?
He was a violent fruitcake as a Christian and a violent fruitcake as a Muslim and he needed no religious excuse to start stabbing people - he'd been doing it his entire adult life.
Oh I agree, he needed no excuse for violence, from the sounds of his history, but why did he convert and go jihadist? It doesn't need to be a transformation from pure as the driven snow, to muslim, or more zealous muslim, and then jhadist, for the religious factor to be important. For him, conversion to jihadism, it was clearly the pinnacle of his career in violence.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »Well done on missing the point :rolleyes:
1. London was not Trump's fault.
2. Killing 200 civilians in a potential war-crime IS on Trump, if the report on the Rules of Engagement is correct.
3. The death of the 20 women and children in the Yemen raid is on Trump.
4. Killing civilians creates martyrs for causes. Even causes that are religious in nature! Bloody Sunday created martyrs for the cause of Irish unity. Slaughtering 200 civilians in Mosul does the same for ISIS's cause.
5. Islamic Extremism is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by the Muslim community and wider world - not by massacring women and kids and creating an endless cycle of violence.
Discussion of trump and his actions is more suited to the trump thread, points 1,4 and 5 are relevant the rest should really be made elsewhere, but I do agree, I'm not happy with current us intervention tactics in the middle east theyre making an absolute dogs bollocks of the whole region if im to be frank.wonderfullife wrote: »Before his conversion he had multiple convictions for violent crime. Stabbings, GBH etc. That was back when he was little old Adrian Elms, when he was just an ordinary black Christian man.
Here's my question:
As a black Christian man, Adrian Elms had over a dozen convictions for violent crime, including slicing someones face open with an 8 inch blade.
But when he converts to Islam and goes around stabbing people, it's all Islam's fault?
He was a violent fruitcake as a Christian and a violent fruitcake as a Muslim and he needed no religious excuse to start stabbing people - he'd been doing it his entire adult life.
No one is disputing this guy is/probably always was an absolute piece of sh!t, but this doesnt mean radicalization by islamists either in prison, in the mosque or on twitter didn't contribute to his actions. You said yourself we have a huge problem with it and downplaying its role in these attacks is not helping!0 -
Discussion of trump and his actions is more suited to the trump thread, points 1,4 and 5 are relevant the rest should really be made elsewhere, but I do agree, I'm not happy with current us intervention tactics in the middle east theyre making an absolute dogs bollocks of the whole region if im to be frank.
No one is disputing this guy is/probably always was an absolute piece of sh!t, but this doesnt mean radicalization by islamists either in prison, in the mosque or on twitter didn't contribute to his actions. You said yourself we have a huge problem with it and downplaying its role in these attacks is not helping!
I really think points 2 and 3 are relevant because the next Adrian Elms or whatever the hell he liked to call himself, Khalid Masood, will be incited to kill in revenge for 'their' women and children being killed.
All I'm saying is he spent his entire adult life in and out of prison for violent crime and his usual go-to was knife attacks. That's all when he was a Christian. We aren't sitting here blaming Christianity for all those knife attacks are we? When he stabbed a guy in the face in the pub people didn't go "ah Christian extremism strikes again!". No! It was simply a violent scumbag being a violent scumbag.
He converts to Islam at the age of 40 and was evidently so entrenched in his new religion according to a friend:
"He loved cocaine and women with silicone breasts".
That's a post-conversion description. Look, I'm no expert on Islam but I'm pretty sure lines of Charlie and liking fake t1ts is not how they're supposed to live in accordance with their faith.
The single biggest terrorist ideologies worldwide, currently, are far-right extremism and Islamic Terrorism. Both ideologies need to be defeated. I just think people need to slow their roll blaming the actual religion of Islam or the actual concept of conservatism for the actions of extremists.0 -
The question is why do so many of the violent scumbags want to use Islam as an excuse to continue being violent scumbags? It's as if being a Christian or an Atheist is insufficient for them on some levels.
Is it the promise of wives or virgins in heaven? Is it that they feel insignificant and want to be infamous in death?
I'm sure there's lots of answers but it's definitely an issue that they choose the badge of Islam to continue their life of crime and violence as opposed to staying on the path of just being a violent atheist/christian criminal.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »I really think points 2 and 3 are relevant because the next Adrian Elms or whatever the hell he liked to call himself, Khalid Masood, will be incited to kill in revenge for 'their' women and children being killed.
All I'm saying is he spent his entire adult life in and out of prison for violent crime and his usual go-to was knife attacks. That's all when he was a Christian. We aren't sitting here blaming Christianity for all those knife attacks are we? When he stabbed a guy in the face in the pub people didn't go "ah Christian extremism strikes again!". No! It was simply a violent scumbag being a violent scumbag.
He converts to Islam at the age of 40 and was evidently so entrenched in his new religion according to a friend:
"He loved cocaine and women with silicone breasts".
That's a post-conversion description. Look, I'm no expert on Islam but I'm pretty sure lines of Charlie and liking fake t1ts is not how they're supposed to live in accordance with their faith.
The single biggest terrorist ideologies worldwide, currently, are far-right extremism and Islamic Terrorism. Both ideologies need to be defeated. I just think people need to slow their roll blaming the actual religion of Islam or the actual concept of conservatism for the actions of extremists.
The biggest fanatics and judgementals are often utter hypocrites n their own lives. See: pervert priests!
Martyrdom is believed to absolve a person of their sins. It's not that hard to understand the basic psychology of it.
No people don't need to slow the roll on blaming Islam when reformists ask for reform of Islam and express concern over its role in terror. Nobody is blaming Islam on the whole, you have to distinguish between it and Islamism, and you can't address this by discarding Islam from the equation. It's not possible.0 -
Widdershins wrote: »The biggest fanatics and judgementals are often utter hypocrites n their own lives. See: pervert priests!
Martyrdom is believed to absolve a person of their sins. It's not that hard to understand the basic psychology of it.
No people don't need to slow the roll on blaming Islam when reformists ask for reform of Islam and express concern over its role in terror. Nobody is blaming Islam on the whole, you have to distinguish between it and Islamism, and you can't address this by discarding Islam from the equation. It's not possible.
This is exactly the argument wonder, we fully understand and acknowledge there are predispositions to radicalized violence and terrorism but to call out certain teachings of islam that have been proven time and time again to breed islamism is not an attack on the entire religion or all its followers, many of the people calling these out are reformist muslims within the faith. The ''get out of hell free card'' that is martyrdom is also something you should seriously think of when you bring up the ''sinful'' things they do and use this as justification for how these attacks are ''not islamic''0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »I'm sure there's lots of answers but it's definitely an issue that they choose the badge of Islam to continue their life of crime and violence as opposed to staying on the path of just being a violent atheist/christian criminal.
If he had continued as a Christian, then he wouldn't have engaged in a course of action that inexorably led to his own certain death.wonderfullife wrote: »Before his conversion he had multiple convictions for violent crime. Stabbings, GBH etc. That was back when he was little old Adrian Elms, when he was just an ordinary black Christian man.
Here's my question:
As a black Christian man, Adrian Elms had over a dozen convictions for violent crime, including slicing someones face open with an 8 inch blade.
But when he converts to Islam and goes around stabbing people, it's all Islam's fault?
He was a violent fruitcake as a Christian and a violent fruitcake as a Muslim and he needed no religious excuse to start stabbing people - he'd been doing it his entire adult life.
But this was an entirely different kind of violence-qualitively. He jumped from GBH to mass-murder, from personal violence-against people that offended him-to random violence against complete strangers, from fairly mundane violence to a rampage that could only end in his own demise. He evolved from your common-or-garden thug to a Jihadi.wonderfullife wrote: »The death of the 20 women and children in the Yemen raid is on Trump.
It's on the Saudi Arabian military....and, by the way,if this correct, why haven't there been suicide bombings in the KSA in response to this?wonderfullife wrote: »Killing civilians creates martyrs for causes. Even causes that are religious in nature! Bloody Sunday created martyrs for the cause of Irish unity. Slaughtering 200 civilians in Mosul does the same for ISIS's cause.
There is no inevitable connection between the death of civilians and the desire to enact revenge by martyrdom. Circumstances of the deaths matter. The dead of Mosul will not be put on the head of the US-backed forces by Iraqis but on the head of IS....unless those civilians were already 1.Sunni and 2.Jihadi in sympathy,already predisposed to think that way. 1,150 French civilians died in the Allied bombing and bombardment of Caen in 1944 as the Allies struggled to capture the city. The French put the blame for that on the Germans, and it was the German Post-war government that paid reparations to the city.wonderfullife wrote: »Islamic Extremism is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by the Muslim community and wider world - not by massacring women and kids and creating an endless cycle of violence.
For a start, "massacring" is a word that asserts deliberation. Once again, I repeat, there is no inevitable connection between these acts. People are making the mistake of taking these Jihadis at their word, imagining that they have some concept of justice like ours. They do not. They have no concept of justice, of the value of human life, just a twisted partisan mind-set by which their people are the only truly innocent people. When they rail against the West killing the "Muslims",they don't mean what you think that they mean. It's like a german soldier weeping for the dead of Hamburg and Dresden,shaking his fists at the evil of the USAF....and then going back to the Eastern Front to look at reprisals on Polish, Serbian and Russian villages with equanimity.
Take note of this fact and it's significance. Most of the population of Iraq are Shias. A large proportion of the population of Afghanistan are Shias. I don't doubt that the Bush war fell as heavily on their heads as on everybody elses. Yet, strangely enough,none, not one, nada, zilch, 0.0% of these terrorist attacks in Europe have been perpetrated by Shias, only Sunnis. (The same goes for Sufi Muslims, Ismalis, Ahmadis...) Which speaks to the fact that these attacks have nothing inevitable about them, that they are the product of conscious choices, a certain world view, a certain ideology.0 -
They didn't have to do anything.What exactly did they do? Drug him with hallucinogens and crystal meth and put him into the car? Did they hypnotise Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale to make them do what they did?
But it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that the religious zealotry would be played up and other issues played down.
There was a time when it suited some people to push the 'news' that the Irish problem was a solely religious one.
This guy was willing to die. With his history looking like a generally disaffected one would he perhaps have died by his own hand anyway? Loads of nuances here.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »They didn't have to do anything.
But it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that the religious zealotry would be played up and other issues played down.
There was a time when it suited some people to push the 'news' that the Irish problem was a solely religious one.
This guy was willing to die. With his history looking like a generally disaffected one would he perhaps have died by his own hand anyway? Loads of nuances here.
If he was suicidal, he could have killed himself with sleeping tablets or a river. He choose to make a public gesture in a significant place and take other people with him. Pretending that his conversion and his choice of going out-a choice so many other jihadis are making-are irrelevant is to put blinkers on.They are doing this now in France,Germany and Britain. Baghdadi clearly told his adherents to do this, use any available means to kill the unbelievers-he even mentiomed cars. 2+2=4.0 -
If he was suicidal, he could have killed himself with sleeping tablets or a river. He choose to make a public gesture in a significant place and take other people with him. Pretending that his conversion and his choice of going out-a choice so many other jihadis are making-are irrelevant is to put blinkers on.They are doing this now in France,Germany and Britain. Baghdadi clearly told his adherents to do this, use any available means to kill the unbelievers-he even mentiomed cars. 2+2=4.
There are no blinkers here, there are among those who don't want to take a close look at the nuances here and fire up the jets.
The conversation I joined was about the 'scale of the threat'. If it turns out this man was unhinged first then that significantly alters the perception...no?0 -
Who exactly are the "West" killing in North Africa? If I recall correctly Islamists had killed a hundred thousand people in Algeria well before 9/11. And they are still killing people in Mali,Sierre Leone and Burkino Faso. How did this nebulous "West" make them do that?
It's perfectly relevant. We have people claiming that terrorists kill westerners because westerners killed children (or whoever ) in North Africa or in the Middle East, but we can see that these people have no moral objection in principle to killing civilians in their own countries and never had, so how does that have any logic? "I was outraged that the USA killed 5 innocent people in a drone strike...so I struck back by detonating a suicide vest in a crowded market in Karachi and killed 20 innocent people", Yes that makes sense .
Whereas the Godly have the right to fill mass graves with Islamic women...but that's all right because these women were'nt proper Muslims, they were apostate, or unholy or didn't cover their faces, or looked at TV programmes, or...something or other.
In short, these fanatic's claims (or rather claims on their behalf ) that they are prompted by some sense of injustice has as much validity a a Nazi claiming that he kills Jews because of RAF firebombing. "Our" dead are innocents, "their" dead had it coming.
.
Who exactly are the "West" killing in North Africa? If I recall correctly Islamists had killed a hundred thousand people in Algeria well before 9/11. And they are still killing people in Mali,Sierre Leone and Burkino Faso. How did this nebulous "West" make them do that?
You didn't know that American, French and British warplanes have been murdering innocent civilians in the Middle East for decades? Wow.
It's perfectly relevant. We have people claiming that terrorists kill westerners because westerners killed children (or whoever ) in North Africa or in the Middle East, but we can see that these people have no moral objection in principle to killing civilians in their own countries and never had, so how does that have any logic? "I was outraged that the USA killed 5 innocent people in a drone strike...so I struck back by detonating a suicide vest in a crowded market in Karachi and killed 20 innocent people", Yes that makes sense .
It is not relevant to the point I made. Dunno why you would think that a suicide bombing in Karachi makes sense but each to his own I suppose. Your mistake is that you jumped into the middle of a thread without bothering trying to understand the context and nuances. That happens when you are full of simplistic righteous indignation.
Whereas the Godly have the right to fill mass graves with Islamic women...but that's all right because these women were'nt proper Muslims, they were apostate, or unholy or didn't cover their faces, or looked at TV programmes, or...something or other.
Having read this rant a few times, I think that you might not like fundamentalist Islamic dogma when it concerns women? I would share some of those concerns too.
In short, these fanatic's claims (or rather claims on their behalf ) that they are prompted by some sense of injustice has as much validity a a Nazi claiming that he kills Jews because of RAF firebombing. "Our" dead are innocents, "their" dead had it coming
Godwin. The icing on the cake.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »The conversation I joined was about the 'scale of the threat'. If it turns out this man was unhinged first then that significantly alters the perception...no?
For a start, "unhinged" is an elastic concept. being a violent psychopath doesn't absolve one of responsibility. Some of those people who engaged in Mass shootings in the USA have survived. They're not detained in mental hospitals there. They're serving out life-sentences in prisons. These urges are directed by the culture that guides us, that gives meaning to our lives. In his case it was Islam. Were other religious fanatics from history all insane?Professor Moriarty wrote: »Who exactly are the "West" killing in North Africa? If I recall correctly Islamists had killed a hundred thousand people in Algeria well before 9/11. And they are still killing people in Mali,Sierre Leone and Burkino Faso. How did this nebulous "West" make them do that?
You didn't know that American, French and British warplanes have been murdering innocent civilians in the Middle East for decades? Wow.
And my point is that the Jihadis have also been killing civilians for decades, in enormous numbers in the case of Algeria. (but not confined to that country) So any indignation felt at "Western" actions might better be pointed at themselves. What moral high ground does a, say,supporter of the GIA (an organisation that murdered every man, woman and child in villages) to point the finger at any French actions. The Jihadis murder civilians by the tens of thousands;the Algerian government strikes back....but somehow it's France that's to blame. That I call perverse and blinkered. And, no, no matter what inchoate, protean entity "The west" did thst still doesn't explain,or gove any logic to the murders of people in Burkino Faso (and dozens of other places I could name-shall I?), people that were hardly accomplices of the plans and actions of this "West".
It's perfectly relevant. We have people claiming that terrorists kill westerners because westerners killed children (or whoever ) in North Africa or in the Middle East, but we can see that these people have no moral objection in principle to killing civilians in their own countries and never had, so how does that have any logic? "I was outraged that the USA killed 5 innocent people in a drone strike...so I struck back by detonating a suicide vest in a crowded market in Karachi and killed 20 innocent people", Yes that makes sense .Professor Moriarty wrote: »It is not relevant to the point I made. Dunno why you would think that a suicide bombing in Karachi makes sense but each to his own I suppose. Your mistake is that you jumped into the middle of a thread without bothering trying to understand the context and nuances. That happens when you are full of simplistic righteous indignation.
I see. Your forceful, focused argument is my simplistic rant. The point is simple. A suicide bomb in Karachi (or Nairobi, or Kabul, or Casablanca) is one of a piece with a truck murder in London, or Berlin or Nice. To the perpetrators all the victims are equally guilty. It's daft to try and unpick motive and reason-these slaughters are wrong, insane, but these slaughters are understandable, excusable, have a reason.
"Whereas the Godly have the right to fill mass graves with Islamic women...but that's all right because these women were'nt proper Muslims, they were apostate, or unholy or didn't cover their faces, or looked at TV programmes, or...something or other".Professor Moriarty wrote: »Having read this rant a few times, I think that you might not like fundamentalist Islamic dogma when it concerns women? I would share some of those concerns too.
Obviously, yes. My point being that any claims about injustice that Jihadis make come for a moral cesspool that deprives their complaints of any validity.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Godwin. The icing on the cake.
In this case the comparison is valid. You don't like it? Well, then, I'll use another.
In short, these fanatic's claims (or rather claims on their behalf ) that they are prompted by some sense of injustice has as much validity as a Serb militia member claiming that he killed Bosnian children at the bridge at Visegrad because of the crimes-or supposed, or anticipated crimes-of the Bosnian government (or because of the crimes of the Croats). "Our" dead are innocents, "their" dead had it coming. All right, now?0 -
And my point is that the Jihadis have also been killing civilians for decades, in enormous numbers in the case of Algeria. (but not confined to that country) So any indignation felt at "Western" actions might better be pointed at themselves. What moral high ground does a, say,supporter of the GIA (an organisation that murdered every man, woman and child in villages) to point the finger at any French actions. The Jihadis murder civilians by the tens of thousands;the Algerian government strikes back....but somehow it's France that's to blame. That I call perverse and blinkered. And, no, no matter what inchoate, protean entity "The west" did thst still doesn't explain,or gove any logic to the murders of people in Burkino Faso (and dozens of other places I could name-shall I?), people that were hardly accomplices of the plans and actions of this "West".
It's perfectly relevant. We have people claiming that terrorists kill westerners because westerners killed children (or whoever ) in North Africa or in the Middle East, but we can see that these people have no moral objection in principle to killing civilians in their own countries and never had, so how does that have any logic? "I was outraged that the USA killed 5 innocent people in a drone strike...so I struck back by detonating a suicide vest in a crowded market in Karachi and killed 20 innocent people", Yes that makes sense .
I see. Your forceful, focused argument is my simplistic rant.
"Whereas the Godly have the right to fill mass graves with Islamic women...but that's all right because these women were'nt proper Muslims, they were apostate, or unholy or didn't cover their faces, or looked at TV programmes, or...something or other".
Obviously, yes. My point being that any claims about injustice that Jihadis make come for a moral cesspool that deprives their complaints of any validity.
In this case the comparison is valid. You don't like it? Well, then, I'll use another.
In short, these fanatic's claims (or rather claims on their behalf ) that they are prompted by some sense of injustice has as much validity as a Serb militia member claiming that he killed Bosnian children at the bridge at Visegrad because of the crimes-or supposed, or anticipated crimes-of the Bosnian government (or because of the crimes of the Croats). "Our" dead are innocents, "their" dead had it coming. All right, now?
I couldn't be arsed responding to this in detail as it is very repetitive. Essentially, you seem to be saying that Islamic fundamentalist groups have committed many atrocities against fellow Muslims? If so, agreed.
Seeing as you are unwilling to read back through the thread and familiarise yourself with the nuance and context, I'll make my point again. If Western warplanes weren't bombing the sh1t out of the Middle East for decades, and murdering innocent men, women and children in the process, Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't have the consequential propaganda gold dust they have right now. Plus those innocent people would be alive today.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »I couldn't be arsed responding to this in detail as it is very repetitive.
Please yourself.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Essentially, you seem to be saying that Islamic fundamentalist groups have committed many atrocities against fellow Muslims? If so, agreed..
Yes, and then you somehow chart a path from western actions to these atrocities. I repeat, How did Western bombings "make" Jihadis murder Shias or Yazidis? Jihadis were murdering Westerners (and not just British, Americans and French-the guilty ones, apparently) well before 9/11. In 1997, at the Valley of the Kings, they killed Germans, Colombians and Japanese tourists. What crime did the Japanese government commit for their citizens to deserve this?Professor Moriarty wrote: »Seeing as you are unwilling to read back through the thread and familiarise yourself with the nuance and context, I'll make my point again. If Western warplanes weren't bombing the sh1t out of the Middle East for decades, and murdering innocent men, women and children in the process, Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't have the consequential propaganda gold dust they have right now. Plus those innocent people would be alive today.
There is no nuance there, Your point is simplistic. Their propaganda only has traction with those who are already inclined that way. Do you imagine that it has any effect on Shias or other Muslims who are victims of the Jihadis? It doesn't. Jihadis murder Muslim people by the hundred yet, you imagine ordinary Muslims are impressed by their spiel that it's the fault of the West that they are dying.
The fact is, these justifications, excuses, special pleadings melt away like the dew when put under scrutiny. We have twisted people who seem to think that they belong to some imagined community and are avenging acts half a world away, when these acts have nothing to do with them, their community, their country of origin or the country in which they live. They persuade themselves that their neighbours, social workers,teachers, shopkeepers, bus-drivers, government etc mean nothing, are infidels, while ignorant Pakistani tribesmen, Iraqi Jihadis, Malian bedouins,Egyptian rioters and Arabian Sheiks,people whose languages they often can't speak or understand are their community,their people,whose lives mean more than their own countrymen and whose deaths have to be avenged.
We have people whinging about discrimination when others suffer far more than they do. I remember well an interview with a Congolese immigrant in Brussels in the wake of the murders there. He had nothing but contempt for the local radicalised Muslims. To paraphrase, he said that they had no notion of what it meant to be discriminated against, that young black men were continually stopped, harassed and searched by the gendarmes looking for drugs. He ended by saying that Black Belgians didn't use their frustrations as an excuse for mass murder.0 -
For a start, "unhinged" is an elastic concept. being a violent psychopath doesn't absolve one of responsibility. Some of those people who engaged in Mass shootings in the USA have survived. They're not detained in mental hospitals there. They're serving out life-sentences in prisons. These urges are directed by the culture that guides us, that gives meaning to our lives. In his case it was Islam. Were other religious fanatics from history all insane?
Some do. It's the same in the UK with serial killers. Some serve their time in secure mental facilities. That's the way it should be. Besides the fact that even killers have human rights (which I know is a distasteful topic for many) we should study and learn from these people so we can better prevent it from happening again.
This guy is weird though. There's no actual proof that he was radicalised, although I think from the style of attack we have a pretty good indication.
He obviously had many issues. He was violent beforehand and we can't tell if he was drawn to a violent ideology because of it.
The security services have said that they have no evidence to provide a motive at this point. I'd imagine that they will only be able to piece together what happened and build a better picture through interviewing everyone he knew.0 -
Please yourself.
Yes, and then you somehow chart a path from western actions to these atrocities. I repeat, How did Western bombings "make" Jihadis murder Shias or Yazidis?
There is no nuance there, Your point is simplistic. Their propaganda only has traction with those who are already inclined that way. Do you imagine that it has any effect on Shias or other Muslims who are victims of the Jihadis? It doesn't. Jihadis murder Muslim people by the hundred yet, you imagine ordinary Muslims are impressed by their spiel that it's the fault of the West that they are dying.
The fact is, these justifications, excuses, special pleadings melt away like the dew when put under scrutiny. We have twisted people who seem to think that they belong to some imagined community and are avenging acts half a world away, when these acts have nothing to do with them, their community, their country of origin or the country in which they live.
We have people whinging about discrimination when others suffer far more than they do. I rember well an interview with a Congolese immigrant in Brussels in the wake of the murders there. He had nothing but contempt for the local radicalised Muslims. To paraphrase, he said that they had no notion of what it meant to be discriminated against, that young black men were continually stopped, harassed and searched by the gendarmes looking for drugs. He ended by saying that Black Belgians didn't use their frustrations as an excuse for mass murder.
I'm afraid the only charting is being done in your own head. So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries? Ok,0 -
For a start, "unhinged" is an elastic concept. being a violent psychopath doesn't absolve one of responsibility. Some of those people who engaged in Mass shootings in the USA have survived. They're not detained in mental hospitals there. They're serving out life-sentences in prisons. These urges are directed by the culture that guides us, that gives meaning to our lives. In his case it was Islam. Were other religious fanatics from history all insane?
Nobody is trying to exonerate, or diminish what he did. Stop with the wilful misinterpretation.
If it turns out that his problem was more to do with the 'guidance of British culture' (highly likely imo) and a disaffection from it, then ranting and outrage about ISIL is a bit redundant.0 -
Advertisement
-
Professor Moriarty wrote: »So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries? Ok,
Then why is it only certain murders that cause radicalisation, and only certain Muslims that are radicalised? I make the point yet again. Jihadis have murdered North African people in multiples of any numbers caused by Western intervention, but you seem to think that these don't count. Apparently somebody is killed by some,say, French action (and by the way, you have yet to state what these terrible Western actions in North africa are) and according to you it's natural for people to be radicalised. Yet these same people see their neighbours butchered by Jihadis, tourists that provide their livelihood murdered, bombs go off in their streets, cultural relics dating back to medieval times torn down to the ground, their religious practises denounced as being archaic, pagan, superstitious, heretical, musicians beaten, industrial installations sabotaged, priceless manuscripts burnt.....and yet these actions produce no consequence in the minds of the people of these countries. They also see their own authorities co-operate with the French against the Jihadis, and if I recall correctly,when French troops entered Mali in 2013 to fight the Jihadis, they were welcomed by ordinary people. "But, never mind those irrelevant incidents, it's the French we need to kill".
And to repeat yet again an old point: Why are we seeing no Shia mass-murders if this reaction is so natural? Shias often have gripes with the West, their mother country (in the religious sense) Iran, is often in a state of confrontation with the USA, Shia militias fought a long, bitter struggle with American and British troops in Iraq.FrancieBrady wrote: »If it turns out that his problem was more to do with the 'guidance of British culture' (highly likely imo) and a disaffection from it, then ranting and outrage about ISIL is a bit redundant.
What aspect of British culture provides a model for mowing down people and then attacking the police in a suicidal assault? His actions previous to this were standard British (same as Irish or anywhere really) thuggery and small-scale criminality. But after he converted his actions conformed to a model we've in other countries. Unless you believe that his actions and his conversion are just coincidental and that Derek Bird was his model and not Jihadism....and I'll wager that when his communications, Web history, reading are investigated, I'll be proved right.0
. No back and forth of any kind.
Advertisement