GreeBo wrote: » Distinguishing between two forms or murder based on who is doing the murdering is arguably racist. Why treat a car bombing murderer any differently than a beheading murderer? The only possible reason I can see is because you want to somehow say that they IRA (for example) are not as bad as ISIS, even though they kill people for the basically the same reasons, beliefs. And your basis for this is that car bombs are more humane than beheading. Is there some "murder technique" scale that I'm perhaps unaware of? Where does strangulation fit in for example?
MikeOxsgreen wrote: » This is actually painful, arguing with someone so deficient in rudimentary knowledge of what they're arguing about.
So you've accepted he wasn't killed because he was British, some progress... But it seems you cannot fathom that as Moubtbatten was a senior royal, and as senior royals are military commanders of an army; and he knew he was at risk, as the IRA had previously tried to get him. In the eyes of the IRA he was a legitimate target. I disagree. He was an auld codger.
Next, something about Charlie Hebdo- not really sure what you're saying, it might get that anyone who endorses their view of free speech is a "legitimate" risk? Is that it? Is it a view you share?
But anyway, you seem confused and are conflating a French civics teacher of being beheaded in a Parisean street, by a Chechyn because of a cartoon with IRA activities... really?
Murder by its definition, is not self defence. Killing someone is not necessarily justified. Jesus, you should know this basic stuff.
Its not to me to forgive others sins, but I imagine if there was genuine remorse, one might be more ready to forgive?
GreeBo wrote: » Remind me what the Crusades were about?
conorhal wrote: » Excellent post. I'll crib my response by surmising some of a paper I was looking at on 'pathological altruism', something that the West seems to be in the deep grip of. Pathological altruism can be defined as behavior which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others but results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable. Often it's the product people’s own good intentions, coupled with a variety of cognitive biases based on incomplete access to, or inability to process, the wide range of information necessary to make prudent decisions that align with cultural values associated with altruistic behavior. This can sometimes blind them to the disasterous consequences of their actions. This dynamic of pathological altruism involves subjectively prosocial acts that are objectively antisocial in their results. And example of this would be a mother who attempts to protect her son by refusing to vaccinate him and who consequently fuels a loss of herd immunity underpinning a local whooping cough epidemic in which an infant dies. A prime example of this in the context of the thread was Merkel insisting on accepting millions of migrants on the basis of one picture of a dead child on a Turkish beach. It was an emotionally incontinent reaction to a specific case that ignored all the facts. Facts like the child has been safe in Turkey for over a year and the reason that his father put him in a boat in the first place is that his application for a visa to Canada was taking too long, ergo we must throw open the gates to Europe and accept hundreds of thousands of third world military age men into the EU. We really need to start thinking about the long term consequences of mass immigration in this world and what impact it's having.
the term evolved to criticize some people among the left who seemingly advocate for positive slogans like peace and equality to boast their sense of moral superiority, but are ignorant of real-world consequences, and utilize destructive behavior like political sacrifice and identity politics
RandRuns wrote: » Rather than give you a history lesson, which you probably won't believe, I suggest you research the crusades yourself.
GreeBo wrote: » All that is being pointed out to you, is that to the victims, its irrelevant if they were murdered by ISIS, IRA, Nazis, lone gunman or whatever.
GreeBo wrote: » Its one group of people killing another group of people based on disagreement about beliefs. *You* are the one breaking it into semantics by deciding that beheading is worse than a carbomb and so Islamic Fundamentalists are therefore "worse" than other types of terrorist, such as IRA members. To those of us who have a basic problem with one group murdering another posts like yours are sheer semantic nonsense.
TomTomTim wrote: » Islamist's invaded Europe well before the Crusades, a point you people love to overlook. Thankfully for us, Charles Martel destroyed them in battle, so they never got much further than Italy and Spain.
GreeBo wrote: » It appears that you are incapable of debating without resorting to ad hominems, its terribly childish. Im sorry? trying to kill someone once before makes them a legitimate target?? In any case, surely legitimacy in the eyes of the murderer is hardly relevant? He was killed because he was a senior royal, there is nothing legitimate about that. What was it that he actually *did* that made him a target? It wasnt terribly complicated. I was pointing out that anyone with any clue of what goes on in the world would be aware that there are those who dont take kindly to people taking the piss out of the prophet. Charlie Hebdo was sufficient warning for that. Arguably as much warning as Mountbatten had that he was a "legitimate target". Whether I share it or not is as relevant as you agreeing that Mountbatten was a legitimate target. As I said above, legitimacy is in the eyes of the murderer. This is not complicated. The teacher knew that by taking the piss out of the prophet he was making himself a target, rightly or wrongly. To you (and I for that matter) a cartoon of a prophet is not worth killing someone over, to others it is. But equally, being a member of the royal family (something that you are born into and have no control over) isnt worth killing someone over. Ehh, thats exactly the point? Why would you distinguish between the IRA and ISIS? Both groups commit murder based on differences of beliefs. So if ISIS said "sorry" everytime they kill that would make it better? Another poster brought up the idea of remorse as something that somehow distinguishes the IRA from ISIS, remorse is only relevant to those left behind, the same number of people are dead with or without remorse.
RandRuns wrote: » I'm still waiting for that list of Islamic countries Sweden invaded as well.
biko wrote: » Quite a number of countries have been invaded by Sweden over the centuries. All neighbours, and Russia, Poland etc. None Islamic though, just good old Jesus countries.
biko wrote: » There is no connection nor likeness between IS and IRA. It's mad that apologetics/mutakallim even try that excuse.
GreeBo wrote: » Can you for once please point out where anyone is apologising for anything that either side has done? Frankly its getting a bit tiresome when you keep trotting it out without anything to back it up. Whats the difference between the IRA and ISIS? They are both, in their own minds, fighting to take back what is theirs with a big dollop of religious differences on top. You and other posters just see IS as more barbaric than the IRA and so choose to seem them differently.
WrenBoy wrote: » Pushing back against muslim expansion into Christian lands, the murder of Christians, taking of slaves and kidnapping Christian Children to turn them into a slave army (look up the Janissaries)
conorhal wrote: » Actually it's irrelevant to the victims who they were murdered by because they're dead. It's highly relevent to the rest of society however in how they react to the motivations of the perpetrators. A lone crazed gunman and a terrorist organization require very different responses.
You just don't want anybody to address the actual root cause of the problem by covering it in semantic nonsense yourself. Speaking of which.....
biko wrote: » And some think that wouldn't be a bad thing. I kinda disagree.
biko wrote: » When he use the word "remind" it implies he at some point knew... Maybe "tell me what the crusades were about?" would gave been a better question.
Montage of Feck wrote: » The majority of the territory under Islamic rule at that time had formerly been roman provinces populated of various ethnicities such as Assyrians, Berbers, Greeks and Jews. *Strings attached, lol
MikeOxsgreen wrote: » Dhera, I couldn't be bothered replying
GreeBo wrote: » LOL, just hilarious. So the crusades werent the Latin Church taking land that was held by Islamic rule?
If your argument is "well Islam stole it first" then all you need to do is go back a little further in time and you will discover that the Church took it from someone before them, and on and on.
Thats pretty much the history of our planet, unless you believe that some people have a natural right to some piece of land?
GreeBo wrote: » Indeed, and in this particular thread we are talking about two terrorist organisations, namely the IRA and ISIS. Yet some are now trying to distinguish between the barbaric terrorists and the friendly local terrorist, as if that somehow matters or makes a difference...
WrenBoy wrote: » Actually we weren't, I haven't seen anyone report isis taking responsibility or that Chechen lad being a part of isis, he's just your everyday "lion of islam" Thats part of the point Im trying to make, one is a terrorist organisation the other is an ideology and a large sect of a major world religion. But admittedly the conversation has gone off the rails to be about IRA and daesh and Crusades.
RWCNT wrote: » Please, for the love of god, do a bit of research into the troubles. I live in the UK and have had to explain this to British people who often have little to no knowledge of their own history and even less about anything that took place outside their own island. It was in no way, part or form a religious conflict.
I don't want to say anything that could be interpreted as defending the IRA, but you're forcing my hand a bit here. Disclaimer: I am not. You can't possibly believe that the desires of Republicans in the North during the troubles are equivalent to ISIS's desire for the restoration of the calpihate of early Islam dating back to 600 and something-ish EC and calling for the termination of literally anyone that doesn't pledge allegiance to this goal.
I believe you and I share a belief that the actions of Islamic extremists shouldn't be pinned on ordinary Muslims - and that's what is motivating you to argue so passionately in this thread against people you rightly or wrongly believe to be doing so. But I think you're overlooking that by continuously digging your heels in on this comparison you're actually disrespecting the memory of the huge amount of Muslims who IS have slaughtered due (the majority of their victims, as it happens) to their repugnant ideology. What about those Muslims? Surely they matter just as much as the people you hope to defend.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9a4b6f81bcce70b1d15bba9354ad9550.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
