|
Post by endersai on Jun 5, 2017 2:35:13 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 Because what tends to get lost is nuance. Islam itself becomes a target, and that does not help us engage with the 99.9% of Muslims who are moderate and mostlly politically secular. When, after the 11 September 2001 attacks in America, Americans beat the shit of sikhs (who aren't Muslim but you're asking a nation that has the lowest rate of international travel out of any developed world to know the difference) in retaliation. After Manchester, reprisal attacks on Muslims were reported. And there is a double standard at play. When people with made up stupid names like Amon and Cliven Bundy did their terroristic thing and siezed a Federal government installation in Oregon, they were and still are called a "militia". They're fucking terrorists. The difference may not seem like much but if an Arab does it, he's a terrorist but a white bloke with a made up idiotic name does it, he's a militia man. One is worse in context than another, so tell me - are they just being precious or do we have a problem? Hint: We have a problem.
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 5, 2017 9:03:14 GMT
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. I'm sure you've heard of Dylann Roof. The guy (white, supremasist) walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (black people audience, you'll have guessed), in South Carolina, and shot 9 people to death. Neither the medias nor the police have ever used the words "terrorist" or "terror attacks" to qualify his action. He was an "mentally unstable" man, with a difficult past, all that stuff. He still mass murdered people. Now imagine the same scenario, but the other way around. A male of arabic origins walks into a christian church full of white people and shoots 9 of them to death. Every mainstream media would have the big words TERRORIST and TERROR ATTACK on their websites and on their channels within minutes. And many people would already start blaming Islam and, worse, muslims for it (even though the first one is just a scapegoat, and the seconds are completely innocent) just a bit after. No mention of "mentally unstable" individual or anything of the sort. Nope. It'd just be TERRORIST. Don't say that we don't worry about what we say when it's a catholic terrorist and that we do worry when it's an islamic terrorist, because it's wrong. If anything, it's the entire opposite. We don't need to denounce Islamic terrorism. We need to denounce terrorism, which we already do.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 5, 2017 9:10:08 GMT
Well said mate!
|
|
clone
Member
Totally the right one.
Posts: 111
Registered on: January 2017
Steam: clone/de
Social Club: clone1337
|
Post by clone on Jun 5, 2017 10:33:35 GMT
Hey Endersai, did you watched Austrailian TV last day and listend to what Mohammad Tawhidi said?
Well, it is obvious that this Imam gets death threats and is personally attacked, just 6 days ago. The ones who speak it out, who believe in the good parts of their religion are getting attacked, made shut up while we sit here and watch and after every deadly attack we play the same game: Dont name what it is, dont name where it comes from, slur the ones who do it.
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 5, 2017 11:14:50 GMT
Well, it is obvious that this Imam gets death threats and is personally attacked, just 6 days ago. The ones who speak it out, who believe in the good parts of their religion are getting attacked, made shut up while we sit here and watch and after every deadly attack we play the same game: Dont name what it is, dont name where it comes from, slur the ones who do it. I'll play along. Let's say we do as you say, we claim high and loud that Islam is a huuuuge problem that needs to be dealt with, because Islam is creating those violent people who decide to blow themselves up and kill dozens of innocent people. What do you do next? You ban every muslim from the country? But how to be sure they are indeed muslim? Maybe banning every single person of arabic origin would be safer? But banning them might not solve the problem, they could come back illegally and in secrecy to do their evil deeds. So what do we do? We put them in prisons? But they might convert other prisoners to their evil beliefs and make more crazy people wanting to blow themselves up. So we put them in special prisons? Congratulations, this is called concentration camps, and it's already been used against the jews a few decades ago. Here's your Fourth Reich award. Saying Islam is the problem will not solve anything. It won't help with the situation, it'll only make it worse, because it'll marginalize people even more. And that's without counting the fact that Islam is only a scapegoat anyway, because even without Islam, those idiots would still blow themselves up because that's what they want to do anyway. Islam just happens to be a convenient conduct to brainwash them.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 5, 2017 12:02:00 GMT
clone, I know the answer to this will be a no, and you'll lie to cover it up by using some delicious alt-right copypasta, have you read the Qu'ran? I know you haven't but hearing YES AND IT SEZ KILL TOPKEK is gratifying as proof. Anyway, I'm going to have a daughter soon. The Bible says that I can sell my daughter into slavery. I'm curious as to why this isn't more common and what sort of price she might fetch, in your estimation. One of my staff sent me an email yesterday, which was Sunday. Exodus says he should be put to death. In fact, all working on the Sabbath should be - "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death." Literal quote there. Bible advocating for mass killings. Leviticus says that burning a bull on an altar as a sacrifice provides a pleasing odour for the Lord. The problem is, others find it offensive and the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals took umbrage. Should I slaughter them or what? While we're on the topic; Leviticus also states that if a person is dwarfed, hunched of back, defective of sight or has damaged testicles, he may not approach the altar of the lord. I wear glasses and had to go to a wedding for my sister in law, meaning I had to sit in the front row and approach an altar to do so. Is my sight defective because without glasses I can't see as well? What's more of an abomination - bumming another man or eating lobster? Leviticus is pretty clear on the whole shellfish thing. Sorry, you were inferring textual literalism is symbolic of what now?
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on Jun 5, 2017 13:55:42 GMT
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. I'm sure you've heard of Dylann Roof. The guy (white, supremasist) walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (black people audience, you'll have guessed), in South Carolina, and shot 9 people to death. Neither the medias nor the police have ever used the words "terrorist" or "terror attacks" to qualify his action. He was an "mentally unstable" man, with a difficult past, all that stuff. He still mass murdered people. Now imagine the same scenario, but the other way around. A male of arabic origins walks into a christian church full of white people and shoots 9 of them to death. Every mainstream media would have the big words TERRORIST and TERROR ATTACK on their websites and on their channels within minutes. And many people would already start blaming Islam and, worse, muslims for it (even though the first one is just a scapegoat, and the seconds are completely innocent) just a bit after. No mention of "mentally unstable" individual or anything of the sort. Nope. It'd just be TERRORIST. Don't say that we don't worry about what we say when it's a catholic terrorist and that we do worry when it's an islamic terrorist, because it's wrong. If anything, it's the entire opposite. We don't need to denounce Islamic terrorism. We need to denounce terrorism, which we already do. I completely Fucking agree. Guy was a racist piece of shit terrorist. Even though the media never called him a terrorist, everyone is denouncing his actions and calling him a piece of shit. No, people have to worry about what they say due to being called islamaphobic. While people on the fringe will still say whatever the fuck they want, the mainstream opinion is to not denounce this as this may lead a millatant Islamic man to radicalize due to what we say. Whenever it is a white teenager that is the shooter, media is quick to denounce it, and don't give a fuck if there is a radical blowback. edit- already wrote that and I agree with what you originally said, the US justice department called this an act of domestic terror. While they said it's terror, mainstream opinion about it was that it was not terror, and I agree with you about that. But legally it was considered terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on Jun 5, 2017 14:03:06 GMT
clone , I know the answer to this will be a no, and you'll lie to cover it up by using some delicious alt-right copypasta, have you read the Qu'ran? I know you haven't but hearing YES AND IT SEZ KILL TOPKEK is gratifying as proof. Anyway, I'm going to have a daughter soon. The Bible says that I can sell my daughter into slavery. I'm curious as to why this isn't more common and what sort of price she might fetch, in your estimation. One of my staff sent me an email yesterday, which was Sunday. Exodus says he should be put to death. In fact, all working on the Sabbath should be - "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death." Literal quote there. Bible advocating for mass killings. Leviticus says that burning a bull on an altar as a sacrifice provides a pleasing odour for the Lord. The problem is, others find it offensive and the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals took umbrage. Should I slaughter them or what? While we're on the topic; Leviticus also states that if a person is dwarfed, hunched of back, defective of sight or has damaged testicles, he may not approach the altar of the lord. I wear glasses and had to go to a wedding for my sister in law, meaning I had to sit in the front row and approach an altar to do so. Is my sight defective because without glasses I can't see as well? What's more of an abomination - bumming another man or eating lobster? Leviticus is pretty clear on the whole shellfish thing. Sorry, you were inferring textual literalism is symbolic of what now? Both the Koran and the Bible are horrible books, and I hope you don't raise your daughter by either religions. However, Christianity rejects the Old Testament as when Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, he fulfilled the laws and they were no longer needed. So yes, while I would say I am very atheist, that is one confusion that happens with people and the Bible.
|
|
Theign
Member
Professional Cynic since 1912
Posts: 282
Registered on: June 2016
Steam: Hinty
Social Club: Theign
Discord: Hinty#8743
|
Post by Theign on Jun 5, 2017 15:38:48 GMT
Wait wait... what? I never even released that...
The Christians actually believe that their OMNIPOTENT OMNICOGNISANT god, set down a bunch of laws and then changed his mind?
Anyway, side track.
A lot of people are blaming Islam, the fact of it is, the ones to blame. The reason these attacks happen, are the Islamophobes.
The Attacks on Manchester were carried out by a man born in the UK, who grew up in Manchester, whose family fled Libya before he was born. He has EVERY REASON to see the UK as a place of shelter, to love a country that provided he and his family with safety and comfort, protecting them from a life of horror and fear in Libya.
So how did this man come to view the UK as his enemy? Oh sure he was "brainwashed" or he was fed religious fanaticism, but the thing is, these things need something to latch onto. You can not build hatred without a kernel of hatred to attach it to, he had to already hate this country, and what reason would he have to hate it? Perhaps all the people walking around saying "Islam is our enemy" "get those Muslims out" and viewing anyone with dark skin as a threat.
I assure you, blaming, attacking, and issuing restrictions upon all Muslims for the actions of a handful is not the fastest way to end the threat. It is the fastest way to grow it. Congratulations for doing ISIS' recruitment for them.
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on Jun 5, 2017 16:37:12 GMT
Wait wait... what? I never even released that... The Christians actually believe that their OMNIPOTENT OMNICOGNISANT god, set down a bunch of laws and then changed his mind? Anyway, side track. A lot of people are blaming Islam, the fact of it is, the ones to blame. The reason these attacks happen, are the Islamophobes. The Attacks on Manchester were carried out by a man born in the UK, who grew up in Manchester, whose family fled Libya before he was born. He has EVERY REASON to see the UK as a place of shelter, to love a country that provided he and his family with safety and comfort, protecting them from a life of horror and fear in Libya. So how did this man come to view the UK as his enemy? Oh sure he was "brainwashed" or he was fed religious fanaticism, but the thing is, these things need something to latch onto. You can not build hatred without a kernel of hatred to attach it to, he had to already hate this country, and what reason would he have to hate it? Perhaps all the people walking around saying "Islam is our enemy" "get those Muslims out" and viewing anyone with dark skin as a threat. I assure you, blaming, attacking, and issuing restrictions upon all Muslims for the actions of a handful is not the fastest way to end the threat. It is the fastest way to grow it. Congratulations for doing ISIS' recruitment for them. Never said it was logical, as most religions are illogical. That is just what christians use to justify the terrible shit in the Bible.
|
|
__Gandhi__
Member
Popular Judean People's Silent Aitch Restoration Front
Posts: 137
Registered on: June 2015
Steam: Dont Shoot. I'm a Pacifist
Social Club: __Gandhi__
Discord: _Gandhi_#6912
|
Post by __Gandhi__ on Jun 5, 2017 17:21:33 GMT
Thoughts for the day. (edit turned into a rant)
As far as I'm aware there have been way more deaths caused by Muslim on Muslim terrorism, since the first London attack, in Afghanistan alone, than in all three UK attacks. (not belittling the UK attacks. I cried quite a bit after the Manchester attack and am still in shock from them all)
If you own a cafe , bar etc. in the UK and someone goosesteps in wearing full Nazi regalia and sieg heil's you, can you ask them to leave ? Probably not as in the UK it is against the law to discriminate against someone based on their religion, belief or lack of religion/belief. This law has never sat well with me. I completely get not discriminating based on gender, sexuality, disability, age or anything else that a person cannot generally change.
But religion and belief ? I'm not so sure. To single out a particular religion would seem wrong to me. But I am an atheist. I have no truck with any of them. The more devout a person is in any religion the more I inherently distrust them and question their reasoning. People who say they are a particular religion but really just seem to be going along with it to keep friends and family happy are at the very very low end of my scale. But I'm not allowed to think like this. It makes me a bad person. I have to respect peoples beliefs (religious or otherwise). Why do I have to respect religious beliefs if I don't particularly respect religion ? Why can't I discriminate against someone who believes, and is committed to promoting , the fact that the world is flat or the moon is made of cheese or that a fine way to spend a Saturday afternoon is marching through Luton with the English Defence League (or whatever they are called these days) ?
Just came back to me so putting it out there. For the record I am friendly and hospitable with people of all faiths, colours and creeds. And I always have been . I just think its an odd law. Makes sense at first glance but the more I think about it the less sense it makes (much like the UK hate speech laws)
A lot of muslims are just as nervous as a lot of white english are, when someone gets on the bus in the UK in full ethnic getup and a big rucksuck. I know cause they've told me. Are they racist ? Because I've been told ocasionally that if that makes me nervous I'm a racist.
Growing up terrorism normally seemed to have an aim (Not sure about the Red Army Faction ?) Now it seems to be an aimless excuse for the mentally ill to kill and maim as many people as possible.
OK tear me to pieces 1...2...3.....
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 5, 2017 19:51:19 GMT
You can't discriminate because it's just that, by definition I don't think you understand what it means. Discrimination is treating someone differently due to a characteristic they have or belief they hold.
What you're looking for is assuming someone is stupid and telling them that they are for thinking the world is flat. You are free to do this, because it is stupid. You cannot however not offer them a job because they think this, or refuse to sell produce in your shop to them because of this.
You are free to think or talk how you like, but infringing against someone's rights is not one thing you can do.
|
|
__Gandhi__
Member
Popular Judean People's Silent Aitch Restoration Front
Posts: 137
Registered on: June 2015
Steam: Dont Shoot. I'm a Pacifist
Social Club: __Gandhi__
Discord: _Gandhi_#6912
|
Post by __Gandhi__ on Jun 5, 2017 20:47:50 GMT
You can't discriminate because it's just that, by definition I don't think you understand what it means. Discrimination is treating someone differently due to a characteristic they have or belief they hold. What you're looking for is assuming someone is stupid and telling them that they are for thinking the world is flat. You are free to do this, because it is stupid. You cannot however not offer them a job because they think this, or refuse to sell produce in your shop to them because of this. You are free to think or talk how you like, but infringing against someone's rights is not one thing you can do. I do understand what discrimination is. What I wonder about is actual undeniable states: male, lesbian, chinese, blind etc. versus man made constructs i.e. beliefs. And what I was, badly, trying to get across is it is about extremes. Many belief systems whether religious or not have adherents who take things to the extremes. They are generally the ones who cause society the most problems. It's fine to be eccentric but when you think everyone should be the same as you does it cross a line ? I remain unconvinced that the UK discrimination, and the hate speech, laws are perfect. Put simply I know I think less of, and probably would discriminate against, zealots. I'd sell a zealot a chocolate bar but probably wouldn't rent them my flat. Just being honest. Thinking out loud (always dangerous ).
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 5, 2017 21:06:19 GMT
Well the moment you stop allowing people to have their own thoughts, no matter how awful they are, you lose civil liberty and freedom.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 5, 2017 21:35:08 GMT
This. In 2015, some of you may recall, a man was crash tackled on a Thalys train as he pulled out an AK-47. Two weeks later I caught a Thalys from Gare-du-Nord to Koln. No extra gendarmes. No GIGN. No additional security checkpoints. I was so in awe of the French resilience. Our way of life is not for the control of these lunatics, they seemed to say. Conversely, I'm in the US this year and I have to remove shoes. Men stamp my passport, armed with SIG sidearms at LAX. The last country I was in where those guys were armed was probably Vietnam or Cambodia. Two SWAT-geared types stood with Cold M4 rifles under an utterly ironic "Welcome to America" sign. We live in a society with certain values, beliefs, and indulgences. Our actions will have a cause-and-effect blowback from time to time. If we wish to live as freely as we do, then the price we will pay are challenges to that. Sometimes those challenges are a choice between an American Theresa May or an Orange tyrant. Sometimes those challenges are people for whom we have failed the integration test and who lash out with violence. The smart move would be to address the systemic cause of that disenfranchisement. Saying it's Islam, however, is not the smart move. It's the bigoted, narrowly prescriptive move. As was said earlier, I think by Hystery - if you took Islam out of the equation, violence would still happen. People have used excuses to justify horrid shit for centuries - again, the Christian roots and justification for the Holocaust spring to mind. It's not the religion itself. It's mankind. How do you tackle a problem with mankind, and not with ideology.
|
|