ILoveYourVibes wrote: » This is one of those situations were everyone seems to make a spectacle of themselves and no one behaves respectfully enough towards the tragedy. Some Muslims ..some non muslims who are Islamophobic ...both sides just being embarrassing ...
MikeOxsgreen wrote: » Why yes, yes you can. Motive, casuality and understanding rationale are key, as is mind set of the perpetrator, both before and after. The "why" the person committed the atrocity. Take your Mountbatten example. Did the perpetrator intend to kill two kids? Doubt it. Does he regret killing them? Possibly* Our Chechen friend certainly intended what he did, and I doubt he regretted it. *His wife has stated, "Tommy never talks about Mountbatten, only the boys who died. He does have genuine remorse. Oh God yes"
El Tarangu wrote: » I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.
El Tarangu wrote: » I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute). Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.
RWCNT wrote: » I think it's that people often feel these things are brought up in an effort to suggest that all or a majority of Muslims are supportive of radical Islamic terrorism and therefore that Muslims are generally bad people and not to be trusted. Perhaps they know or are friends with a Muslim and feel that could lead to their unfair treatment, so they try to draw a comparison towards our own home grown terrorism to take the heat off the muslims a bit. However, while it's a fair enough point its an overly simplistic comparison IMO and it turns up in every single thread on the topic as sure as night follows day, to the point it makes people even more angry. From what I've seen it doesn't serve its intended purpose.
jmayo wrote: » So should we look on the bright side that the dead only number in the hundreds. Mind you it hasn't been for lack of trying. :rolleyes: But for the massive amount of surveillance, monitoring and security resources dedicated to islamist terrorism, there would be many thousands dead by now.
El Tarangu wrote: » ... out of a population of 1,800,000,000. The PIRA killed 1,700 people, and the population of Irish people on this island at the time would have been, what, 4 milllion? So if you are Irish, you are... 100 times more likely to be a terrorist than a muslim is (at the very least) - can you not see how unhelpful it is to tarnish the reputation of so many people, based on the actions of a handful of evil psychopaths?
Sweetemotion wrote: » Out of a population of 1,200,000,000 how many times have you heard of Christians decapitating anyone?
El Tarangu wrote: » Here's one from two days ago - would you consider this crime to be the fault of Catholics in Poland and Pentecostals in Ghana, or just this guy?
jmreire wrote: » Sure no problem, now the Good Friday ended the IRA war. and killing. When will Islamic terrorism finish their killing? In fact over the years, they have killed hundreds of thousand's of people making the IRA death toll amateurish by comparison. And sadly, while the majority of Muslims would not take an active part in these atrocities, neither does the majority condemn them, and so by default they are in agreement. All of this killing could have been stopped along time ago....if the majority of Muslims wanted it stopped and took action to stop it. As reported, when the Chechen's body was returned home to Chechnya for burial, he was given a hero's welcome as a Martyr and Lion of Islam, and the police had to block the road leading to his village to limit the nrs who wanted to attend his funeral. So that speaks volumes in itself. So no, its not aimed at every Muslim, but for sure radical Islam has no place in Europe, and needs to be rooted out where and when ever it appears.
Gervais08 wrote: » Or more likely they do but haven’t yet got round to it.
Gentlemanne wrote: » Sometimes the anti muslim posters reveal their true selves. It is insanely delusional to think millions and further hundred of millions and sometimes even over a billion people depending on how you're stereotyping, are hiding in waiting, secretly wanting to murder the non-muslims. I can almost guarantee you've imagined some anti-semitism elsewhere, when you are such an islamaphobe, that you have this idea that this massive group of people are secretely waiting to murder people not like them.
Gervais08 wrote: » Sure. Fine. Whatever. Ignore ....
jmayo wrote: » When the fook has anyone here ever said ALL muslims are terrorists ? When has anyone said ALL muslims are islamists ? No one has said ALL muslims are bad people. What some of us continue to say is that it isn't just a tiny tiny minority that don't see a problem with using violence against people in the West and anyone that is seen as an enemy of islam. A tiny tiny minority carry out these attacks but they don't operate in some sort of vaccum. And some of us definitely say it is anything but a minority that have huge issues with our secular socially liberal societies and lifestyles. In fact I would say with confidence it is a MAJORITY of muslims that have issues with our western values. And that is why I argue that islam is incompatible with our western societies. But you go right ahead banging the drum that we claim ALL muslims are this that and the other.
Gentlemanne wrote: » Can almost guarantee this exact same guy has given out about echo chambers
GreeBo wrote: » Ah here, the perpetrator intended to blow up a boat with people in it and didn't give a fiddlers about who was killed as long as their primary target was killed. It's convenient of Tommy to have genuine remorse... I'm sure the dead kids are only delighted. And what about Mountbatten himself, what exactly did he do to make himself a viable target other than be British? How is that any different than Islamic fundamentalists targeting people from other religions?
GreeBo wrote: » Why would you distinguish between murder by decapitation vs any other type of murder? What relevance or difference does it make? Is it because decapitation seems more "foreign" to you and so it must be worse? Seems terribly racist tbh. "Why can't they blow up their targets and their families like any ordinary decent terrorist would?"
GreeBo wrote: » Why would you distinguish between murder by decapitation vs any other type of murder? What relevance or difference does it make?Is it because decapitation seems more "foreign" to you and so it must be worse? Seems terribly racist tbh. "Why can't they blow up their targets and their families like any ordinary decent terrorist would?"
MikeOxsgreen wrote: » Sometimes you have to wonder about peoples bone fides... At the risk of appearing to condone that atrocity, he wasnt killed simply because he was British, he was killed because he was a senior royal, a former senior military commander, arguably a legitimate target, and a known target. Killed by a bomb planted the night before. Albeit an old man. Deliberately? Certainly. Our teacher, Samuel Paty, was well, a teacher...beheaded on a Parisean street in broad daylight.. That you cant separate respective motivation and objective (and as you acknowledge, possible remorse at the outcome) speaks to your lack of knowledge of Irish history and ISIS/Islamic fundamentalism, and wilful conflation of the two to obfuscate.
If you're Irish and proud of not being British, you have that gift as a result of atrocities carried out by generations of Irish men and women, who in turn had atrocities perpetrated on them by the British, to grant you that gift.
Deleted User wrote: » While I agree that the majority of Muslims have little interest in murdering us all, the fact remains that our culture (way of life) is at a direct opposite of what most Islamic beliefs accept. While they wouldn't have the interest in murdering us, most would want us to change how we live, and bring in their own values over ours. The part you're ignoring is that throughout the world there are many regions which are extremely poor, have little access to education (of close to our standard), and social conditioning has been ongoing for centuries. There are huge populations of Muslims who are uneducated, and unwilling to accept western values. The star of western civilisation is waning, and we're not as powerful on the world stage as we used to be. As time goes by, other nations, likely to be Muslim nations will rise to compete with us, and there will be conflict. The teachings in Islam make this a guarantee, because of the belief that there must be one religion under God, and that religion must be Islam. You don't seem to realise, probably because you're attributing your own experience with Christianity, to Muslims, but Islam is a very different animal, with little scope for change, and a greater degree of intolerance. In virtually every instance of a country gaining a Muslim majority, that nation has merged society, government and religion, to the extent that the religion has direct influence over the lifestyles of the people. And in most cases, we've seen those countries, no matter how westernised, become more traditional, or even harsh in how they apply Islamic rules to the people. The issue is that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who would welcome the fall of Western nations, and the rise of their own faith. That would not be good for us. Your effort to dismiss the threat is dangerous. And foolish. (Nope. Not calling you a fool).
Deleted User wrote: » While I agree that the majority of Muslims have little interest in murdering us all, the fact remains that our culture (way of life) is at a direct opposite of what most Islamic beliefs accept. While they wouldn't have the interest in murdering us, most would want us to change how we live, and bring in their own values over ours.
weisses wrote: » The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq If you want Muslims to stop hating people in the west, getting the **** out of their countries would be a first step. I would happily become a martyr after realizing my family was bombed into oblivion by yet another drone strike accident
Hangdogroad wrote: » The Chechens are a strange bunch in general.
GreeBo wrote: » Sometimes you have to wonder about the tint of some peoples glasses... Why is an old British royal any more of a "legitimate target" then a school teacher? What does "known target" mean? This innocent teacher was a target because he was knowingly showing inflammatory (to Islam) cartoons. He was a known target since Charlie Hebdo by your logic. To me at least and I suspect to most normal people, both of these are pathetic reasons to murder someone. What motivation can condone murder other than self defence? What objective other than causing terror, the very definition of terrorism. As for remorse somehow being relevant, what difference does remorse make to any victims? And now we discover the tint of your glasses..."proud of not being British". :rolleyes: You might has well be proud of your hair colour.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9a4b6f81bcce70b1d15bba9354ad9550.svg)
