|
Post by Sunken on Jun 4, 2017 17:38:04 GMT
Nice contribution. Willing to actually name those people, or are you going to hide behind a blanket accusation? Discussion in this topic, while decisive, has been civil so far. Let's keep it that way! Basically was wondering if this thread had any news on yesterday's happenings but instead I was appalled by the contents of this thread. I might add something to the discussion later but right now I don't really feel like it. And I could name those people but I'm convinced you already have a pretty good idea who I'm on about. Please inform me if you, or someone else, finds my comments disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 17:58:45 GMT
There was a killing in NI less than 9 days ago in the name of the IRA, a Catholic organisation so that needs correcting Source? Not saying you're wrong but this is the first I've heard of it. As far as I was aware the IRA has been disbanded a while back. That still makes it 45 to 1 for Islam and we're only one third into this year's Ramadam. Google "Colin Horner" and you can read all about it. And to the point made after you, the IRA have killed more Brits than Muslims since 1980. London had a "Rings of Steel" around the city enacted because of it that still exist today, and is re-enacted every terror attack situation like last night. Try reading stuff by Jon Coaffee (2003-2004 is a good period on this), Mike Davis (1990s), Stephen Graham (2001-2004), and other urban security experts and you'll see it's far more than just Muslims, particularly the IRA. If you lived in London in the 80s and 90s you'd know. Maybe the FBI has that statistic because that's for the USA. I doubt the IRA would fly from Ireland to USA to bomb you over a fued with the UK over the partition and religion.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 18:11:44 GMT
One other point to this. A prominent song called "The Way We're Made (Made in England)" talks about growing up in England in the lyrics. One of the parts goes like this:
And I can remember an explosion going off on the wharf one day And I was scared and that's when mum used to say she would often tell me don't be afraid she would often say it's just that things ain't great and all through the night time sleeping with the lights it's just the way you was made, just the way you was made she would often tell me just be safe she would often say run fight another day
The wharf refers to Canary Wharf. A frequent target by the IRA, with many bombs going off and stopped there. This shows the prominence of terrorism way before Islamic terrorism. It shows the fear people had growing up. IRA attacks were far more frequent. Don't act like Islam is 1000 years behind when just 15 years ago IRA were doing this, and the IRA still exists, just not as big.
|
|
Zacification
Member
Posts: 38
Registered on: February 2016
Xbox GT: Cxsket
Social Club: Zacification
Discord: Cxsket#0760
|
Post by Zacification on Jun 4, 2017 18:34:35 GMT
I'd like to, beforehand, clear my bias as a Baptist Christian. Cleared.
On the surface this thread may seem pointless, just your political back-and-forth, but it reveals something if you look deeper. We all think we know the underlying problem to terrorism. Some are saying Islam is the problem, some are saying religion is the problem, some are saying the West is the problem, some are saying Islamic indifference is the problem, generations of inbreeding, lunatic psychopathy, lone wolf acts, etc etc etc.
Different to all this, I'd like to express my view that terrorism is the problem. MOST people in this thread who are arguing with each other are in one way or another correct. Everything mentioned from Islamic indifference, to Western involvement, to psychotic brains and upbringing, all usually play a factor into terrorism. I think it is silly to blame the ideology or the U.S. solely and entirely, but I do not understand how these views conflict with one another, given that they can both contribute to terrorism. I also think that bringing up other religions terrorist acts is not useful, given that the nature of the conversation is Islamic terrorism, not Irish nationalism. That line of logic can also be to defer the terrorism, because there are more gang-related gun deaths per year in the U.S. than terrorism. They are both problems!
If you do anything, interact with people before you judge them. Do you know a Muslim/Christian? Do you know a Communist/Nationalist? Are they peaceful, or are they extreme in their beliefs? It is not enough to only know the scriptures and principles, it is important to understand the people who follow the scriptures and believe in the values.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 4, 2017 21:42:16 GMT
All that during Ramadan. Proof that Islam isn't the problem, crazy brainwashed people are. No, the problem IS islam. And liberal ignorance. They bring in hundreds of turds who actualy fighted for isis into europe, to be "monitored". lol wake the fuck up Neutren, as someone who wrote their Master's thesis on counterterrorism policy and worked in CT for a number of years before going private sector, I'm probably the best qualified person on the boards to tell you you are, factually, quite wrong. A religion of over a billion adherents. A subsect of radical Sunnis influenced by Sayyid Qutb. Doesn't really seem like they're one and the same. And as has been noted, more Christian terrorists (the IRA) have killed Brits than Islamic. When Europe was ravaged by Marxist terrorists, in the 1970s and 1980s, would the statement "No, the problem IS socialism. And liberal ignorance" still fly? When the IRA were blowing innocents up in support of the 'cause', would it be "no, the problem IS Christianity"...? The problem is socioeconomics. Why is it every incident in Britain and Europe has involved people from the most economically disenfranchised, and socially un-integrated, groups? It's a really simple maxim; if you give people something to live for, they're not going to want to die on someone else's word. Blaming Islam is superficial, vacuous, ignorant itself, and exactly why this cycle continues. If you want to be angry, be angry that we're failing the integration question so loudly.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 4, 2017 21:54:05 GMT
There was a killing in NI less than 9 days ago in the name of the IRA, a Catholic organisation so that needs correcting Source? Not saying you're wrong but this is the first I've heard of it. As far as I was aware the IRA has been disbanded a while back. That still makes it 45 to 1 for Islam and we're only one third into this year's Ramadam. You should count six million Jews dead in Peak Christian behaviour, i.e. the Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by equationunequal on Jun 4, 2017 21:57:12 GMT
Source? Not saying you're wrong but this is the first I've heard of it. As far as I was aware the IRA has been disbanded a while back. That still makes it 45 to 1 for Islam and we're only one third into this year's Ramadam. You should count six million Jews dead in Peak Christian behaviour, i.e. the Holocaust. The Holocaust wasn't done in the name of Christianity, or any religion for that matter. Also nice Godwin.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 4, 2017 22:13:47 GMT
Yes it absolutely was. You forget, or perhaps didn't know, that until the 1960s the Jews lived with the charge of Deicide against them by the Catholic Church. Antisemitism was always a popular intellectual pursuit - Karl Marx, himself Jewish, was fairly anti-Jew and of course there's Richard Wagner's treatise on Jews in music (the notable exception was, as always, Nietzsche) - but it reached its peak in America and elsewhere during WWII. The entire history of modern Judaism is one of political scapegoating. It's telling that the Roman Catholic church rose to such prominence after the Roman Pilate saw the good in Jesus and the Jews did not, no? And for 2000 years their legitimacy and power came from pointing the finger at Jews as the reason Jesus, who would have otherwise brought paradise, was dead.
Now the natural reaction from Christians here is firstly to splutter disputes about the antisemitism bit, then to say "but this isn't Christianity". Oh ok, so let me understand the logic of grown adults who still believe in fairies - it's not ok to look at the cited Christian reasons for hatred of Jews by Hitler and the SS hierarchy, but it is ok to say Islam is the problem?
If people actually read the Qu'ran, they'd realise two things. One, given the ascendant style of Arabic poetry in the 9th century, it's a much easier read than the Bible. And two, literally the first book, the Cow, says this:
"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."
If you cannot agree the teachings of an agrarian peacenik socialist leads to the killing of six million, how do you argue that a book which says God's appeared three times to man - the first to Jews, who forgot God to focus on ritual and then to Christians, who put Jesus (a prophet) above God, before trying again due to infinite love and patience via another prophet, Muhammed - to save him and that all men of the book are equal in God's eyes is a religion of hate?
In jurisprudence, there is a Latin phrase which goes "post hoc ergo proper hoc." Literally translated, it says "after this, therefore because of this." It's a form of specious logic that ties two sets of events together by unrelated causes. Such as saying "all killers were Muslim, therefore all Muslims are killers." As a general rule, in law as well as outside it, it is not considered a reasonable foundation for thought.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 4, 2017 23:06:36 GMT
You realise the Bible also preaches that non believers will be punished? Religion is written by man not God, therefore it is not perfect. Islam terrorism is a problem yes, Islam the religion is not a problem in most cases. It's the people not the religion Please. The bible does not tell you to kill someone. Yes, the old testament is partly based on a cruel form of god punishing all kinds of people, but when does he tell his people to kill someone? Directly "Kill the disbelievers whereever you find em" like? And that also neglects the fact that the whole christian religion (which I am not a part of) is based on the new testament and its core message: "Mercy and forgiving" by a forgiving god for all people. Not even his people, as the christian religion was not even made when the events that the bible "describes" happend. The Quaren directly tells you to kill disbelievers and it also tells you that only this book is the pure message of the god. If the religion wouldnt be a problem, the islamic religion would have been reformed, like the christian religion went under several reforms in the past in its several different groups that formed during its history. The islamic world never reformed anything, the core is still an archaic desert religion and with a serve code of war for a expanding, warmongering state that it became the state religion of. The religion is more then just their members, it has an ideological background and interferce up to the most private things in once life. While you can deeply argue that the christianity does that in a very bad way too, homosexuallity, kondoms are some things that come into once mind, we are on a whole different level when we look at Mecca and Medina (aka the islamic world): The command to kill, to punish, to enslave people for their believes, the command to overrule the women, the command to punish by amputation, whip or stones have never been pushed away by this religion, neither by their eternal believes (like the new testament in the christianity) nor by the religios institutions (like the conclaves of the katholic church removed alot of bullshit from time to time). This religion is still chained in their archaic believes with all the dirty things people did in the 7th century. And thats what people are making out the islam, the same as they did 1400 years ago, no reformation at all, no pushing away of all the cruelity that it includes. You have seriously ask yourself the question if you want to be a usefull idiot and keep on telling everyone that the people that kill you and the people that build their ideological background are just missunderstood people or start to question the whole ideological background and that will always go back to the one book of orders they have and share will all their believers. This is actually a selective and not necessarily correct position historically for you to take, clone. Not only does it make assumptions about normative processes, it ignores key structural differences in the two religions and that the Islamic world was for a time the most advanced civilisation on earth. Firstly, you assume because the West's political evolution followed a certain track that this is the only track to follow. Not so. Secondly; the reformation in Chrisendom was due to a number of factors revolving around the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had dominated Christian thought and orthodoxy. Martin Luther translating the Bible into German so ordinary Germans could read it? Doing so against the wishes of the Catholic Church. Galileo's heliocentrism being rejected by the Catholic Church forced him to defend his position and that inspired others. Henry VIII wanting to divorce on a whim and creating the Church of England? Pushback against Catholicism. And so on, and so forth. Sunni and Shi'a Islam never had this. They have a fundamental disagreement on whether Abu Bakr was a prophet and there was never therefore one central authority like the Vatican and no spiritual head like a Pope. So holding them to account for not having a Christian style reformation is prescriptivist and wrong. And given at the time our ancestors were rolling naked in mud, they'd developed most of the thinking on modern medicine as well as street lighting, it's hard to really feel like this is a backwards desert religion. Since, you know, the biggest Muslim country is Indonesia...
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 4, 2017 23:34:29 GMT
I've read a really good point made on another website, gonna share it here:
sek510i:"I just hope that people realise that these attacks aren't just random acts of violence; they're part of a cycle whereby islamophobia increases, people are divided and discriminated against and more people are driven towards extremism. Don't give them what they want by taking it out on innocent people."
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on Jun 4, 2017 23:44:10 GMT
Yes there are more acts of violence done by non Muslims in the west. That is because Islam is such a small minority in comparison to the rest of religions in the west. Christianity is by far the majority, so of course there would be more terrorists that are non Muslim. However when .45% of the population commits 6% of terror, that is a significant problem. Amount the other issues with Islamic culture(such as homophobia, mysogany, and human rights violation), I don't really understand where this Islam is a religion of peace bullcrap comes from.
|
|
clone
Member
Totally the right one.
Posts: 111
Registered on: January 2017
Steam: clone/de
Social Club: clone1337
|
Post by clone on Jun 4, 2017 23:44:29 GMT
Its easy to talk about it when your own gouvernment sends every illegal immigrant to concentrationcamps located in 3rd party countrys and you are basically free from getting your children bombed when they just want to watch their teen idol.
So lets go through with this:
Were are the leftist terrorist organisations? Crushingly defeated and gone. Not only did their System in the outside implode totally in 1989, but also in the inside high amounts of pressure was put uppon them, not only the radical terrorist groups, but all radical leftist have been watched out for. They were not defeated because the majority of the society stood up and said "poor marxists, these terrorist use marxism for their violence!".
Britain had another timeperiod, where terror was uppon your state. In this time Churchill forbid the BUP and looked them away and putting most pressure on these groups so they could not harm the nation from the inside.
When we come to the integration, it must be asked, why a certain group is the most unintegrated of all. Why, here in Germany, are the russian-germans (highest amount of immigrants, even higher then the turks or poles) dont engage in radical terroristic behaviour, even tho they all are not well integrated there has not been done anything special for their integration? Why is the large vietnamnese community (over 100.000 alone in Berlin, they came either as boatpeople or after the fall of the iron curtian as being in the socialst worker guest programms) much better integrated without any speical treatment? Why is there a special group of immigrants, that has certainly much more problems in the integration then any other group? And why does only one group of the big group of socially left behind group able to engage in the uttermost disgusting crimes? When you want me to ask failed integration, I must ask you how it is possible that integration fails for certain groups so utterly, while alot of other groups integrate not always easy, but at least the integration works. What should western society do more till not the society is getting questioned, but the ones who cant find a way of being this society? How much does the western society give up of itself for this? And especially, why does it have to do so?
The 9/11 attackers have not been part of the lowest class, as 15 of them have been Saudi-Arabian and the money to "study" in Hamburg, Germany, for some time before the attack, they were not low class people hanging up some ideology they want to. Last Summer a underage refuge (offically 17 years old, but his real age stayed always in question) picked an axe and started hammering on chinese tourists in a train in the name of Allah. The reason he did not use a truck like his "instructor" wanted him to do so? He has no licence and didnt know how to drive one. The 11 month prior to this attack the person has been in Germany, the state payed arround 5000€ per month for his wellbeing and integration. He came into a family, he had social workers for him, integration affords were made as much as possible. Still he picked the Axe. The San Bernadino Shooting was not done by unintegrated, socially dismissed people, these people were called integrated, they were not socially in the backs, they still shoot in the name of their god. Reducing the question of terrorism to the social question is not enough, as you cant deny that the rise of the national socialism here in Germany was much more then a question of the social problems during that time, but a large amount factors played in there, alot of them specific to Germany and german people.
At them moment 23.000 radical Jihadist live in Britain and they all refer to one focus point: The ideology and their believes. And if you return their acts to the social question alone, you give them the myth of righteousness, fighting against oppression and injustice. Which they arent, they kill for their ideology. And this ideology is spread widely, less extreme in once, with deadly consequences in others.
Then lets get to the topic of antisemitsm. Its obviously easy to talk about christian antisemitsm (which has undenyable always been a part of europe, just look at Martin Luther [not King!!!!] for a example. Still praised, but is burning antisemitsm was always in his believes) while not giving a word to the wide spread muslim antisemitsm, that is spread in the muslim world and lead to total increased antisemits here in Germany for example. When we have to talk about the crimes of Germany and National socialism, it is bonkers to draw a line from Hitler to the catholic church: Not only did Hitler dismiss that Church and was never beliving in this religion, his antisemitism did not build up of the old "They dont accept jesus as son of god, they even killed him!!" sheme of christian antisemitsm. His hate build uppon the idea that Jewism was behind capitalism and bolshevism (at the same time) and they were the reasons for several failures and problems of germany. It becomes more of an idotism to build this line, when you read what Hitler said about the Islam and his meetings with Islamic officals, like the great Imam of Jerusalem he meet. Brothers in spirit, Brüder im Geiste, that were the words Hitler used personally. You can continue and try to draw a line from the christian antisemitsm to the antisemitsm of national socialists or to bolshevikian antisemitsm, but it does not fit, as both ideologies build their antisemitism from completly different perspective to the christian one. Just as you cant draw a line from christian antisemitsm to islamic antisemitsm.
And the last part, nobody here said all muslims are killers. Not all facists are killers, not all socially inequal people are killers, not all clones are killers. Thats why also nobody wanted to forbid the islam, to put every muslim in jail or nuke mecca, medina and every other muslim city. Its about getting rid of an ideology that gives terrorists the needed justification for their crimes and remove the parts that give the background for crimes against the humanity. You know why Saudi-Arabia controls what preachers tell in the mosques? You know why the turkish gouvernment employs each and every preacher and a central bureaucracy controls what they say? Why even in the islamic states that are gouvernt by emires or kings (a very unislamic way of gouvern) or in the secular turkey (well, rip that) the gouvernment took control over the religion and the preaches? Because they are not stupid. Because only this way they can control what is told to the believers and what enlightens their hearts. And how do we do it? Most preaches in Germany are done in arabic or turkish, I guess same goes for Britain with urdu and arabic, more and more of the mosques are under surveillance of the security services. The numbers here in Germany gone to over 100. Terrorists come one day in the mosque and the next day the drive a truck into a christmes market. Imams, that have been in meetings with gouvernment officals in 2014 are now under surveillance by services in 2017. The gouvernment is fooled and has no idea what is preached in 99% of the mosques. Not in Germany nor in Britain or in France. All while the homgrown islamic extremists do visit mosques on weekly or even daily bases, while the terrorism of the 21th century comes with the ideological background given from there.
And after you finished denying everything I said, you will say that I dont have any ideas what to do, I will tell you what has to be done:
1. The immigration pathes to europe will be closed off. The landboarders are closed anyway and the seeboardes will be too: No ship with refuges on will be allowed to enter europeen harbors. If they need, they will get water, food, medicin and fuel. If they do so, the captains and crews will be detained as human smugglers, the passengers will be detained till they can be returned to the country they come from, or the country they have been last before they entered europeen soil. Hard politics will be used to make sure the nations will take them back or argeements with proper 3rd party states will be enclosed, just like your state acts, endersai. 2. The mosques will put under control of the gouvernments, paied and run by the gouvernment. Unlicenced mosques will be criminalised. (FYI the priests in Germany are payed fully by the state too). The state will decide what will be preached, preachers from outside have to prove that they are capable of preaching in german/english/french (respective for the state). 3. The deportation of criminal immigrants will be increased drastically (most terrorists in the past have been part of criminal activites beforehand, like Anis Amri) and again, hard politics will be used to make the original countries to submit.
To go further, there is the possibilty to declare offically war status with the IS. This leads to the same options as the US or Britain used in 1940/1941 till 1945: Detaining everyone the gouvernment is able to relate to the IS in any way. As the IS has no offical citizenship, the definitions will done by our states. The over 23.000 radical islamic extremists in GB (and arround the same amount here in Germany) will be detained as combatants or loyalists of the other side. We are bombing their home nation, the IS anyway and even send special forces as ground troops.
Yes, this changes our society, something we dont want to give the terrorists as a victory. But watch our society, we party behind guards with machine guns and concrete blockades, teen idol concerts will get massive security checks, your parliaments, places we could visit earlier all the time, are looked behind security stations with machine guns, cars are blocked of the streets arround the parliaments. Every tried to get into downing street in the past? Because now there are giant gates and machine pistoled policemen. And not to talk about entering an airport, where you give up your human rights basically. Remember how it was to fly in an airplane before 2001? When you could just visit the pilot, talk to him? When the did not have to remove all your cloth if the security control wanted to be "extra sure"?. Our society has changed under the terrorits massivly and it does more with each attack. Everywhere where a crowd is, now you have security messures you never could think of 20 years ago. If our societies dont now take strong actions, they will slowly fall appart. Its not a big implosion, it will be a slow death, so slow that we cant even recognize it till its too late. A death so silent, that we get used to it more and more till we wake up and the liberal society is gone. At the end of this death there wount be an islamic califat or any bullshit in that way, it will be a terrible regime like the regimes we hoped to never see again in europe. And will do the same crimes like these regimes.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 4, 2017 23:47:51 GMT
I've read a really good point made on another website, gonna share it here: sek510i: "I just hope that people realise that these attacks aren't just random acts of violence; they're part of a cycle whereby islamophobia increases, people are divided and discriminated against and more people are driven towards extremism. Don't give them what they want by taking it out on innocent people."Correct. The Islamophobic reaction works astoundingly well for creating ongoing tension which makes young, disaffected and disenfranchised Muslims feel further disenfranchised and looking for somewhere to belong and finding it in radicalised ideology which leads to attacks which leads to an Islamophobic reaction which works astoundingly well for creating ongoing tension...
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 5, 2017 1:37:35 GMT
Notwithstanding the terrifying implications in that post, clone, a few points:
1. Hitler as late as 1941 defined himself as Catholic and spent most of Mein Kampf defending his position as a Christian one. He sought assurances from, and pacts with, Pius XII's Vatican who shored up the National Socialists because of their social conservatism and anti-Semitism. To pretend that this isnt' the case is laughable. I can provide you with tonnes of quotes confirming it.
That he, or others, use religion as an incentive for bigotry, hate, or mass loss of life is proof that the problem is the people, not the framework.
2. So hang on, you're closing off access to refugees despite the statistically insigificant portion of refugees involved in acts of terrorism?
Maybe you should film yourself sodomising an effigy of the prophet. I agree it's a very crass and tasteless comment, much less image, but if your intent is to provoke conflict between people who already feel so marginalised that their only sense of comfort is to latch onto extremism then I feel this will shortcut the process. Video of a papier-cmahe Mohammed being bummed will surely ignite the tension you want more than closing your borders to people fleeing from Islamic State in the first place, and with the same kind of cruel indifference to their fate which marks the American approach.
Not that I expect a lot of traction here but you understand that a refugee is, under customary international law, a person fleeing a reasonable threat of prosecution, right? So you know, moderate Muslims who don't want the strict IS code imposed on them at gun point fleeing IS and trying to find a job and future elsewhere - not the kind of people who become terrorists. And studies, such as those by the OECD, have shown that migrants and refugees are statistically overwhelmingly willing to be assimilated.
No, refugees aren't the problem. Nor are migrants. Their kids are problematic, because we've failed in our public policy obligations and duties. You can't tell me if that if a bloke called Bob comes to Germany from Syria, mere moments ahead of Islamic State cutting his head off that he's a risk because we know statistically he's not. But if his kid, BobJr or BoJu, feels unwelcome despite Bob being utterly pro-Germany, then how is the religion or the refugee an issue? A threat?
Think this through yeah? With facts and figures first, not misquoted Qu'ranic verse (I note you didn't touch the Cow quote).
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on Jun 5, 2017 1:49:55 GMT
Can we just all agree that organized religion is terrible. Christian and Islamic terrorism is both terrible, but opinions about both are completely different. If a catholic shoots up an abortion clinic, that action is heavily denounced by everyone. We dont worry about what we say because we might radicalize another catholic terrorist. However when the terrorist is Islamic, we make excuses for what they did, and we worry about more radicalization due to Islamaphobia. Why do we worry about what we say when it's an Islamic terrorist, but not when it's a catholic terrorist. Fuck that, these Islamic fighting age men are insatiable, instead of worrying about hurting their feelings and radicalizing them, we need to promote western values and denounce Islamic terrorism. So no I don't agree with your islamaphobia comments endersai
|
|