Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

The line coming out now and being pressed by Sadiq Khan earlier is he was a "criminal" not a terrorist. Agenda setting at it's worst.

Haha, that's laughable

Criminal, terrorist all the one these days than? mind you most criminals are grand, petty crime and what not. Unfortunately same criminals with fundamentalist beliefs may perhaps also go on to be mass murderers - let's not call him what he really is, just INCASE a certain portion of the population get offended.

He might be afraid to call it by it's real name, but that doesn't change what the world already knows, that man committed an act of terrorism.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Pc brigade will refer to him as a CRIMINAL. But to normal population he is a murdering Islamic piece of scum.

Yep that's their usual line you can say he was a criminal he was mentally ill he was a lone wolf! The usual crap. At the end of the day he was a Muslim Terrorist who killed innocent people!

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yep that's tnheir usual line you can see he was a criminal he was mentally ill he was a lone wolf! The usual crap. At the end of the day he was a Muslim Terrorist who killed innocent people!

Indeed; lets throw loads of shocking non terror related words out there to divert from the real problem at hand and see what ones stick.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/24/nine-custody-westminster-terrorist-attack-police-arrests

He was supposedly well happy the day before. I hate hearing about him it makes me feel sick.

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

The line coming out now and being pressed by Sadiq Khan earlier is he was a "criminal" not a terrorist. Agenda setting at it's worst.

The only one trying to set an agenda seems to be you and some others in this thread.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-attack-response-westminster-parliament-terror-a7644761.html

The first words out of his mouth are that it's a terror attack and he then goes on how these people want to destroy the way of life. He's not even remotely trying to deny it's a terrorist.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's not that long ago that we had a religion that policed itself with devastating results.
We are just hoping it has evolved, nobody is quite sure.

Sharia has patently evolved somewhat in western culture or else Muslims are behaving themselves because I am not aware of a surge in one handed men.

And before you start, I detest Sharia law and all it stands for like the core religion here.

The thing is there's not one sharia. Each country has it's own council and it differs in it's interpretation. Even then, within a country there's no obligation for any individual or cleric to follow that sharia.

For most Muslims in the west a good comparison would be with canon law. If a catholic wishes to end a marriage they need an annulment. Officially the catholic church doesn't recognise secular law in that regards. And it's very recently that the pope said that divorced people should be allowed get communion.

In Canada they allow certain elements of sharia to have legal standing. It's all civil stuff. A Muslim can get a divorce from a sharia council and that divorce can have legal standing. However the agreement still has to be in line with canadian law. It's the equivalent of someone getting an annulment and having the annulment recognised legally as a dissolution of the marriage.

The thing is that if you mention sharia people automatically associate it with places like Saudi. And Saudi is horrific.
Muslims are going to follow certain element of sharia, just like a catholic will follow certain elements of canon law. The best thing to do is integrate it with the legal system so the people who are implementing it are properly trained and moderates. Otherwise you end up with untrained people doing it. And since there's no central structure within Islam that's entirely possible.

Grayson wrote: »

The thing is there's not one sharia. Each country has it's own council and it differs in it's interpretation. Even then, within a country there's no obligation for any individual or cleric to follow that sharia.

For most Muslims in the west a good comparison would be with canon law. If a catholic wishes to end a marriage they need an annulment. Officially the catholic church doesn't recognise secular law in that regards. And it's very recently that the pope said that divorced people should be allowed get communion.

In Canada they allow certain elements of sharia to have legal standing. It's all civil stuff. A Muslim can get a divorce from a sharia council and that divorce can have legal standing. However the agreement still has to be in line with canadian law. It's the equivalent of someone getting an annulment and having the annulment recognised legally as a dissolution of the marriage.

The thing is that if you mention sharia people automatically associate it with places like Saudi. And Saudi is horrific.
Muslims are going to follow certain element of sharia, just like a catholic will follow certain elements of canon law. The best thing to do is integrate it with the legal system so the people who are implementing it are properly trained and moderates. Otherwise you end up with untrained people doing it. And since there's no central structure within Islam that's entirely possible.

Please explain the process for obtaining a divorce from a sharia council that is in line with Canadian law? I am not au fait with Canadian law or this system.

No, I don't think people automatically think of Saudi, apart from one or two who were apparently relieved to confirm nobody's hands are being chopped off in Britain. I am fairly sure campaigners within the Muslim community are quite aware of what they are objecting to and know whether their hands are in danger.

I'll quote what someone said recently when I explained that I object to sharia law amongst other things connected to it. He said I shouldn't expect Muslims to share ''White Values''. If this is the belief at the root of resistance to criticism of Islam then people should be ashamed of themselves.

Widdershins wrote: »

The fact that we had oppressive ways of doing things isn't a reason to tolerate oppressive ways of doing things now. This is not about ''look at us, we're so liberated and egalitarian'' so pointing out our own disturbing history doesn't diminish the need to object to contemporary disturbing practises.If anything knowledge of it is more reason to object when you see it. I don't hold with this ''oh sure look at us, we were nearly as bad not a million years ago''.

The absence of one handed men or stoned women doesn't mean this is acceptable. It's insulting to those who fight that system from a much less comfortable position than we are in.

I asked you before, what is your solution to this?
If you want condemnation from me you can have it in spades. But as we know only too well condemnation achieves diddly squat.

222233 wrote: »

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yep that's tnheir usual line you can see he was a criminal he was mentally ill he was a lone wolf! The usual crap. At the end of the day he was a Muslim Terrorist who killed innocent people!

Indeed; lets throw loads of shocking non terror related words out there to divert from the real problem at hand and see what ones stick.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/24/nine-custody-westminster-terrorist-attack-police-arrests

He was supposedly well happy the day before. I hate hearing about him it makes me feel sick.

At least the scum is dead now.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, I actually meant about people practising their religion within the civil law.
But on the answer you gave, I am not seeing a solution to a previously unremarkable (from a radical Islam POV) man going on an easily organised rampage tbh.

I don't have a solution or an answer to British Sharia councils. Just my opinions.

If an unremarkable to the security services man attempts an attack there's no more that I can suggest that security services wouldn't already do. I don't recall whether the London attacker was known to them but all they can be expected to do is closely monitor those who are known.

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Another member of the religion of peace in the USA

http://abc7.com/news/officials-probing-whether-santa-monica-hit-run-was-act-of-terror/1816108/

Jaysus you could pluck hundreds of cases like that around the globe on a weekly basis it has **** all to do with religion.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fascinating to observe how people's prejudices colour their perception of this incident.

I agree, but probably not in the way you mean.

Widdershins wrote: »

I agree, but probably not in the way you mean.

You can read minds? What am I thinking now?

www.boards.iq has a similar thread to this one about what they, the Iraqi people, are gonna do about the people who did this*.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-reviewing-airstrikes-iraq-syria-killed-100s-civilians/story?id=46361783


*Not meant to derail or troll the thread, but it does bear thinking about when asking about solutions.

Widdershins wrote: »

Is there a Boards. iq or is that just a joke?

Most of the perpetrators weren't affected by airstrikes. There's been isil-like splinter groups for centuries. And they target many races and kinds of people because they are bloodthirsty.

That's not to say civilian deaths aren't a problem!

I was just reading about the woman in the headscarf who was photographed walking past one of the victims on the bridge, looking at her phone. I think the implication was she was unsympathetic or something. Apparently she was on the phone to the hospital where she works and was ''terrified'' which I can imagine she would be. I think people forget the Muslims are often either targeted themselves or caught up in terror attacks like everyone else unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So you only have a legitimate gripe if you are affected by airstrikes? There would have been about twenty soldiers in the BA in WW2 if that was anything other than an evasion from the point.
It further illustrates that some people are not interested in a solution where the west has to take some of the responsibility.
As I said when I entered the thread, there will be no solution to this found until such time as the causes are addressed, just like the lesson we learned on our own island.
So there will be more threads like this, more tragedy and more ranting.


*Boards turned that into a link. There is no www .boards.iq Those people's voices are not heard much in the west, outta sight, outta mind.