Eight injured in "terrorist" stabbing attack Sweden

Hello 2D Person Below

jmreire wrote: »

Sure they have marched against radical Islam, many times , but it will not change anything , because when the Radicals are challenged by their fellow Muslims, they simply show the relevant passage in the Quran, which not only justifies their murderous activity's, but encourages it. And they then accuse the peacfull Muslims of not being real Muslims. I worked with a Wahabbi at one time, and he explained it to me as follow's:- The Holy Quran allows believers to follow the path of peace or war. And plainly , it is being acted upon. You cannot find any passage in the Christian New Testament telling you to kill the unbelivers, or death if you leave Christianity.

Why use the entire version of the Quran, but only the New Testament (the shortest of the Testaments) for the Bible?

Hello 2D Person Below

biko wrote: »

So if you get attacked by someone with a background in a war-torn country, it somehow is excused? They didn't know better?

I don't care what your background is - if you stab me I hope you rot in jail, or hell.

And therein lies the problem, you're letting feelings conquer your rationale.

If life was so black and white, we'd all sail through it.

Beechwoodspark

Hello 2D Person Below wrote: »

Why use the entire version of the Quran, but only the New Testament (the shortest of the Testaments) for the Bible?

Why do you desperately try to equate the Koran and the Bible?

km991148

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Why do you desperately try to equate the Koran and the Bible?

Random ancient texts, mostly most likely made up and certainly almost all reinterpreted many times by various powers that be?

Why would you not think them at least a bit comparable? Because the Bible is currently slightly less rapey than what it once was?

Alfred123

Does it really matter if its the Bible, Talmud, koran or the Tanakh

The only reason we are in disagreement is that a certain element - who are (oftentimes violently) opposed to the values of the country kind enough to offer them shelter from the storm, will eventually grow in number and seek to impose their will upon the host country.

They breed large families who acquire citizenship from host country and will then want to assert their rights, will want to introduce their own rule of Law. How can they not !

What baffles me is why any civilized country would open their doors to this inevitability. I don't care how they behave in their own countries - in fact, if their beliefs and way of life is so correct, why flee in the first place ?
Why come as guests to another country and then inflict their intolerance upon others

Poland and Hungary were correct to refuse migrants shelter. You won't find boards.pl arguing about such matters because they solved the problem by simply not offering it bed, board and a passport.

If you come to my house as a guest, then you live by my house rules. Otherwise, get back on the boat that fetched you here

Beechwoodspark

km991148 wrote: »

Random ancient texts, mostly most likely made up and certainly almost all reinterpreted many times by various powers that be?

Why would you not think them at least a bit comparable? Because the Bible is currently slightly less rapey than what it once was?

Educate yourself on the significant differences between the Islamic religion and Christianity before making such dense statements.

Rezident

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's the thing, it can't be undone. Even if they put in the most strict policies there is no going back.

What has happened to Sweden is what happens when a liberal media had complete control and no dissent was tolerated. They pursued and promoted a crazy immigration policy (easy to say with hindsight in fairness).

If you spoke out 20 years a go you were disappeared basically. You'd lose your employment wherever it was. There are so many documentaries about those who tried to speak out and ended up in a bad way.

I look at this country and I ask - what's different?

We are on the exact same journey they were 20, 25 years a go. There is no difference. You could say our media is not quite as slanted but that's it.

That's why I asked earlier - why won't this happen here?

I think it's a good question.

Excellent post, it is the same here and the Irish media is very obviously biased. Exact same thing here, if you speak out against it you will be called a racist. Mods on this site have called people xenophobic just for criticising those who are openly anti-Irish. This is what happens when you dress up woke pseudo-intellectual naivety as 'progress'.

jmreire

Hello 2D Person Below wrote: »

Why use the entire version of the Quran, but only the New Testament (the shortest of the Testaments) for the Bible?

Some facts for you...just to recap. We ( Christians ) had tha Bible ( old Testament, which lasted from the beginning, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden all the way down through the centuries, until the Arrival of Jesus, 2'000 years ago who who gave us the New and everlasting Testament. This finished all the death and destruction which was found in the Old Testament,,eye for an eye tooth for a tooth, stoning for adultery etc. and has lasted for the last 2'000 years.Then in the 6th Century, Mohammad introduced Islam. He introduced it because of conversations he had with the Angel Gabriel, and strangely enough, a Christian cleric, who also guided him. Basically, they preached that the people had drifted away from the original laws made by God, and his Prophets. And so, we have present day Islam, complete with all the savagery of the old Testament. Muslims revere Moses, Abraham (( Ibrahim) and Issa ( Jesus ) The main difference being that Jesus changed the Old Testament, but only Mohammad or God can change the Quran. And so we are where we are today.

Odhinn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Why do you desperately try to equate the Koran and the Bible?

Why are you so desperate to avoid the old testament and the Book of Revelations?

Sonic the Shaghog

Hello 2D Person Below wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

Well if growing up in a war torn area gives you some sort of excuse of attack or kill others then you've just given the number 1 reason to reject all refugees

Rezident

poisonated wrote: »

A lot of islamophobic sentiment on here tonight. Don’t forget that IRA is predominantly Catholic.

Fear of Islam is not a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear of something that cannot hurt you. Islam kills Jews in the Middle East and Europe, Hindus in India, Buddists across Asia, Christians all over the world and Atheists everywhere as we are all 'Infidels'.



In Islamic areas, Sunnis fight Shi'ites and Wahabbism kills both of them. Islam appears to be a belief system based upon intolerance of others and their views, it is no good for us as human beings.



Islam is clearly not compatible with peaceful life, it has been fighting and killing people since 632AD, and before actually, you just didn't care before because it was mostly killing people far away. Islam teaches that it is 'The Final Religion', what do you think that means?

km991148

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Educate yourself on the significant differences between the Islamic religion and Christianity before making such dense statements.

No need to get sh!tty, I'm making a generalisation on a forum, not turing in my Theology masters dissertation...

km991148

Anyway it's nonsense to compare the religious texts in the context of extremists. I've lived in areas with higher than average muslim population, most (all?) muslims I know are not running about preaching the Qur'an and stabbing strangers. Just regular families doing regular family stuff, same as most catholics, protestants, atheists and the one Sikh that I know.

Actually if we must generalise, I know more stabby prods than any other demographic.

Obviously a small sample size, but we are in the land of generalisions and comparisons now anyway..

Hello 2D Person Below

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Why do you desperately try to equate the Koran and the Bible?

Where is the desperation?

jmreire

km991148 wrote: »

Anyway it's nonsense to compare the religious texts in the context of extremists. I've lived in areas with higher than average muslim population, most (all?) muslims I know are not running about preaching the Qur'an and stabbing strangers. Just regular families doing regular family stuff, same as most catholics, protestants, atheists and the one Sikh that I know.

Actually if we must generalise, I know more stabby prods than any other demographic.

Obviously a small sample size, but we are in the land of generalisions and comparisons now anyway..

No, its not nonsense to compare religious text's to extremists...especially when those self same texts are driving the extremism. Most of my friends are Muslims, and their biggest day to day worries are keeping a roof over their heads, and food on the table. The extremists are a back drop to all this, and a worrying one for them too. And this is the problem for all Muslims..a relatively small fraction ( but even a small fraction of 1.8 billion Muslims is a worrying thought ) adopt a highly vicious and murderous form of Islam as followed by isis, the taliban and others, and they cannot be challenged as they claim legitimacy derived from the Quran. And this is where the problem is..the Quran cannot be changed, and this is why religious texts are important.

poisonated

There’s a strange irony about people condemning the entire Islamic religion and the terrorist attack by some of its members and at the same time defending the atrocious terrorist attacks committed by the IRA. Odd! It’s almost as if some of the posters can relate to the IRA. Their thinking seems to be along the lines of “sure they’re salt of the earth, who cares if lots of innocent people died, they were defending ireland”.

Doctor Roast

Makes for some scary reading, one of the victims was a man helping his wife put shopping in the car, what an ordeal.

https://samnytt.se/emmas-pappa-hoggs-i-halsen-vid-willys-han-kom-fran-ingenstans-och-hogg/

AllForIt

.anon. wrote: »

You seem delighted anyway.

What an odd comment.

I could equally say 'you seem not too bothered about it', or 'you for some reason would rather the story wasn't highlighted'.

I think I'd go with the latter.

poisonated

poisonated wrote: »

There’s a strange irony about people condemning the entire Islamic religion and the terrorist attack by some of its members and at the same time defending the atrocious terrorist attacks committed by the IRA. Odd! It’s almost as if some of the posters can relate to the IRA. Their thinking seems to be along the lines of “sure they’re salt of the earth, who cares if lots of innocent people died, they were defending ireland”.

*sigh
Every fcuking time...

At the risk of appearing to defend IRA, they're nothing like ISIS/Islamic Jihadis.

Jihadis do what they do for any of one or more of the following:
Establish a caliphate or some such guff
Because convert everyone to Islam
Because they hate western infidels
Because some nut told them it would be worth their while and sure inshallah etc.
Because oil n bombs n war n stuff
Because crusades and revenge n sruff
Because their victims are not Muslim enough
Because they've fcuk all to do


IRA just wanted Brits out of Ireland

GT89

poisonated wrote: »

So what you seem l, IMO, to be saying is: “Ah sure, they’re a grand bunch of lads #brits out” sigh indeed.

At least the IRA had some sort of legitimate aim to them I obviously don't condone violence but the IRA were representing an oppressed people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic prior to independence. The same with Hamas and the PLO in Palestine they are standing up for an oppressed people.

Who are ISIS standing up for the only purpose of ISIS appears to be cause as much destruction as possible in the name of radical Islam. If Muslims were being oppressed I might get some reasoning behind them but they are not.

poisonated

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

*sigh
Every fcuking time...

At the risk of appearing to defend IRA, they're nothing like ISIS/Islamic Jihadis.

Jihadis do what they do for any of one or more of the following:
Establish a caliphate or some such guff
Because convert everyone to Islam
Because they hate western infidels
Because some nut told them it would be worth their while and sure inshallah etc.
Because oil n bombs n war n stuff
Because crusades and revenge n sruff
Because their victims are not Muslim enough
Because they've fcuk all to do


IRA just wanted Brits out of Ireland

I just think you’re tarring all Muslim people With the same brush. Much like what happened to us in the 80’s.

poisonated

poisonated wrote: »

So what you seem to be saying is: “Ah sure, they’re a grand bunch of lads #brits out” sigh indeed.

Fantastic rejoinder p
You be you, you're doing great.
*thumbs up

poisonated

poisonated wrote: »

I just think you’re tarring all Muslim people With the same brush. Much like what happened to us in the 80’s.

Please point out where I've conflated all Muslims with (and the term I used) Isis/Islamic jihadis?

I even gave a reason - that they kill fellow Muslims as wilfully as infidels.

poisonated

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Please point out where I've conflated all Muslims with (and the term I used) Isis/Islamic jihadis?

I even gave a reason - that they kill fellow Muslims as wilfully as infidels.

I don’t mean you personally, I think the posters I was referring to in my earlier post are doing this.

Fionn1952

Rezident wrote: »

Fear of Islam is not a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear of something that cannot hurt you. Islam kills Jews in the Middle East and Europe, Hindus in India, Buddists across Asia, Christians all over the world and Atheists everywhere as we are all 'Infidels'.

A seemingly minor, but incredibly important discrepancy there. A phobia is an irrational fear of something UNLIKELY to cause harm, not something which CANNOT hurt you. Most phobias are in relation to something which COULD cause harm, but the phobe's expectation of harm is greater than the actual likelihood of it actually happening. Many arachnophobes attribute the same level of fear towards a common house spider as a funnel web spider, Many Islamophobes attribute the same level of fear to Muhammad working in the local software development team as they did to Abu Hamza eulogising Sharia law and killing the infidel.

Fionn1952

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A seemingly minor, but incredibly important discrepancy there. A phobia is an irrational fear of something UNLIKELY to cause harm, not something which CANNOT hurt you. Most phobias are in relation to something which COULD cause harm, but the phobe's expectation of harm is greater than the actual likelihood of it actually happening. Many arachnophobes attribute the same level of fear towards a common house spider as a funnel web spider, Many Islamophobes attribute the same level of fear to Muhammad working in the local software development team as they did to Abu Hamza eulogising Sharia law and killing the infidel.

Well that's one interpretation...

Phobias are irrational fears of something, irrespective of whether harm is likely to result.

But anyway, no one says they suffer from Islamphobia.
The label is attached to those who expresses a negative view on Islam, similar to playing the racist card, to avoid rational discourse, an attempt to dismiss a rational rejection of something with an irrational fear.

In your above example, you just did something similar, you're conflating bigotry to an actual justified fear of having your noggin lopped off.

KeepItLight

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Well that's one interpretation...

Phobias are irrational fears of something, irrespective of whether harm is likely to result.

But anyway, no one says they suffer from Islamphobia.
The label is attached to those who expresses a negative view on Islam, similar to playing the racist card, to avoid rational discourse, an attempt to dismiss a rational rejection of something with an irrational fear.

In your above example, you just did something similar, you're conflating bigotry to an actual justified fear of having your noggin lopped off.

How is a fear 'irrational' if harm is likely, or even possible?

KeepItLight

KeepItLight wrote: »

How is a fear 'irrational' if harm is likely, or even possible?

Now you're into risk assessment

The fear is "irrational" because the probability of harm is low relative to the resources you've committed to the risk.

That doesn't mean there is zero probability of harm from the fear being realised, or that the fear being realised will cause harm 100% of the time.

If the probability of harm is high though, its not irrational to fear it.

Are there any phobias where the probability of harm is fairly high?
I can't think of one.

Fionn1952

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Well that's one interpretation...

Phobias are irrational fears of something, irrespective of whether harm is likely to result.

But anyway, no one says they suffer from Islamphobia.
The label is attached to those who expresses a negative view on Islam, similar to playing the racist card, to avoid rational discourse, an attempt to dismiss a rational rejection of something with an irrational fear.

In your above example, you just did something similar, you're conflating bigotry to an actual justified fear of having your noggin lopped off.

My comment was purely a semantic one on the definition of Islamophobia. Even then, I contrasted bigotry to an actual justified fear of getting one's head lopped off, not conflated. One would be bigoted to have a fear of Muhammad the software engineer just because he is from a Muslim background, whereas fearing a person who is actively preaching hatred and threats based on their interpretation of Islam would be quite reasonable given the implied threat of head lopping.

Fionn1952

Fionn1952 wrote: »

My comment was purely a semantic one on the definition of Islamophobia. Even then, I contrasted bigotry to an actual justified fear of getting one's head lopped off, not conflated. One would be bigoted to have a fear of Muhammad the software engineer just because he is from a Muslim background, whereas fearing a person who is actively preaching hatred and threats based on their interpretation of Islam would be quite reasonable given the implied threat of head lopping.

We probably agree so!