Another terrorist attack

[pencil shavings]

Actually, how should the authorities go about deciding who is Muslim & who isn't, based purely on sight? I'd love to hear a fool-proof way.



Bonus point to Baph :smt115

[gettin2dizzy]

Actually, how should the authorities go about deciding who is Muslim & who isn't, based purely on sight? I'd love to hear a fool-proof way.

Someone wearing slippers in December?

[northwind]

As long as the Muslim community continue to show a lack of responsibility for the extremists, then yes they should be tarred with the same brush.

First of all, that's almost exactly what Ayman al-Zawahiri said in his pre-bombing video statement. "your support of them makes you directly responsible"

You can't treat almost 2 million people like a single homogenous body. There is no one "muslim community". Leaving aside the fact that islam contains several different sects, muslims in the UK are divided by region, ethnicity, local culture, personal history, etc etc- they're no more a single cohesive community than UK christians. Most importantly, persecuting muslims in general for the actions of a minority will only ever make that minority bigger, it'll certainly never reduce it.

Perhaps the reason law abiding muslims show a "lack of responsibility for the extremists" is that they have no responsibility for them? The average british muslim has no more connection to islamic jihadists than the average UK christian or UK atheist.

[pencil shavings]

First of all, that's almost exactly what Ayman al-Zawahiri said in his pre-bombing video statement. "your support of them makes you directly responsible"

You can't treat almost 2 million people like a single homogenous body. There is no one "muslim community". Leaving aside the fact that islam contains several different sects, muslims in the UK are divided by region, ethnicity, local culture, personal history, etc etc- they're no more a single cohesive community than UK christians. Most importantly, persecuting muslims in general for the actions of a minority will only ever make that minority bigger, it'll certainly never reduce it.

Perhaps the reason law abiding muslims show a "lack of responsibility for the extremists" is that they have no responsibility for them? The average british muslim has no more connection to islamic jihadists than the average UK christian or UK atheist.

good point.

Muslims kill more muslims through religious violence than non-muslims, and have throughout history.

[yorkie_chris]

I'm baptized catholic, you going to blame me for IRA?

[pencil shavings]

I'm baptized catholic, you going to blame me for IRA?

yes :smt019


prehaps that wasnt clear, I will rephrase.

No :-D lol

[Baph]

Perhaps the reason law abiding muslims show a "lack of responsibility for the extremists" is that they have no responsibility for them? The average british muslim has no more connection to islamic jihadists than the average UK christian or UK atheist.

At this point Northy, I feel I have to remind you of something you posted before...


"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression"


So surely due to the acts of terrorism that have already happened, specifically in America & the UK, every Muslim in those territories is "duty bound" to follow minor Jihad?

At least until the terrorists decide they want to f*** off home again!

[pencil shavings]

At this point Northy, I feel I have to remind you of something you posted before...



So surely due to the acts of terrorism that have already happened, specifically in America & the UK, every Muslim in those territories is "duty bound" to follow minor Jihad?

At least until the terrorists decide they want to f*** off home again!

im not trying to answer on behalf of northwind, just MO.

they would only be duty bound to follow a lesser jihad if it fitted in with their interpretation of Islam. But if it involves random killing, IMO any decent muslim would denounce it out of hand, regardles of the cause.

[Baph]

they would only be duty bound to follow a lesser jihad if it fitted in with their interpretation of Islam. But if it involves random killing, IMO any decent muslim would denounce it out of hand, regardles of the cause.

The first part of that was a given.

However, the second part, surely lesser jihad, according to Northy's post, wouldn't mean "random killings" - it would mean fighting fire with fire until they withdraw/surrender, then pretty much letting bygone's be.

Whilst we're on that subject, I went to school with the brother of one of the London bombers (I think his bomb actually failed to detonate, I forget, but that's not the point). I have no problem with the guy I went to school with (I even specifically got back in touch with him to share that sentiment after I read about his brother in the news), nor the rest of his family. I might have more than a few strong words should I ever meet the p***k that decided to board a bus with a bomb though.

[northwind]

Heh, good point that... It depends when you decide you've "transgressed limits" I guess. I suppose someone who's actually read the qur'an might be able to come up with an answer to that but I only know bits. If you take the gettin2dizzy/religious extremist view then I suppose you could say that we're all responsible for the actions of our governments, and that all muslims should be treated as one so an attack on one muslims is an attack on islam itself- and that would make us targets.

I doubt the prophet would have agreed, it's not consistent with his actions from what I understand. Mohammed was, as far as I can tell, a pretty sound guy. I think he'd have fit right in on the org :mrgreen:

[yorkie_chris]

These people must be f##king retarded though, how many prematures and failure to fires do they have. I can't understand the logic of a suicide bomber at all except for a healthy dose of brainwashing and stupidity.

I take achmeds veiw on it "we're looking for some idiots with no future"

Just to brighten up your day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svlj9U0NTFo

[pencil shavings]

The first part of that was a given.

However, the second part, surely lesser jihad, according to Northy's post, wouldn't mean "random killings" - it would mean fighting fire with fire until they withdraw/surrender, then pretty much letting bygone's be.

Whilst we're on that subject, I went to school with the brother of one of the London bombers (I think his bomb actually failed to detonate, I forget, but that's not the point). I have no problem with the guy I went to school with (I even specifically got back in touch with him to share that sentiment after I read about his brother in the news), nor the rest of his family. I might have more than a few strong words should I ever meet the p***k that decided to board a bus with a bomb though.

sorry, prehaps indiscriminate would be a better word than random. anything that targets non-combatants, women, childern of infrastructre in not permissable. If the attacks in the name of Allah adher to that then I would hazard a guess that they would be duty bound to follow it.

But I would be hard pressed to find such a case of the proper implimentation of a lesser Jihad. I have not come across one in my reading, but that is definatly not to say that it dosent exist as I am far from an expert.

[pencil shavings]

I can't understand the logic of a suicide bomber at all except for a healthy dose of brainwashing and stupidity.

+1
thats exactly what I think it boils down to!

[northwind]

These people must be f##king retarded though, how many prematures and failure to fires do they have.

Like the glasgow airport "bombers", or should that be "mild delayers of flights"- the average mum on a school run in a jeep cherokee will cause more fatalities than those two :mrgreen:

[Baph]

sorry, prehaps indiscriminate would be a better word than random. anything that targets non-combatants, women, childern of infrastructre in not permissable. If the attacks in the name of Allah adher to that then I would hazard a guess that they would be duty bound to follow it.

Again, I don't see how retaliation for terrorist acts would be indiscriminate.

For example, lets assume a devout Muslim is on a bus, and someone gets on with a bomb - the bomb detonates, but both the bomber & the Muslim survive.

If the Muslim decides it's his duty to carry out lesser Jihad, and sets about kicking seven shades out of the bomber, right there, on the scene, there's no question as to who set the bomb off (subject to the Muslim witnessing the bombers behaviour on the bus).

Hell, in that situation, I'm not Muslim, but I'd be giving a kicking out (unless I were in shock etc due to the situation).

[pencil shavings]

Again, I don't see how retaliation for terrorist acts would be indiscriminate.

For example, lets assume a devout Muslim is on a bus, and someone gets on with a bomb - the bomb detonates, but both the bomber & the Muslim survive.

If the Muslim decides it's his duty to carry out lesser Jihad, and sets about kicking seven shades out of the bomber, right there, on the scene, there's no question as to who set the bomb off (subject to the Muslim witnessing the bombers behaviour on the bus).

Hell, in that situation, I'm not Muslim, but I'd be giving a kicking out (unless I were in shock etc due to the situation).

Ah right im with you now.

So far as I am aware, the muslim would have no religious right to attack the bomber unless the attack was directly faith related. A lesser Jihad can only be used in defence of the faith, not just in defence of a muslim. I hope I am making the distinction clear?

[yorkie_chris]

I have a religious objection to people trying to kill me, so I'd be pretty narked too.

[Baph]

So far as I am aware, the muslim would have no religious right to attack the bomber unless the attack was directly faith related. A lesser Jihad can only be used in defence of the faith, not just in defence of a muslim. I hope I am making the distinction clear?
The Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that "The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living)." (source questionable).

Read into that what you will, but to me, it comes across in a similar intention to the Good Samaritan Act. Although the Good Samaritan Act has it's hands tied by politics, so you could argue that ihsan has it's hands tied by religion. :D

[pencil shavings]

The Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that "The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living)." (source questionable).

Read into that what you will, but to me, it comes across in a similar intention to the Good Samaritan Act. Although the Good Samaritan Act has it's hands tied by politics, so you could argue that ihsan has it's hands tied by religion. :D

that quote would be refering to the greater Jihad, the internal struggle that is unquestionably a duty of every practicing muslim. not the lesser Jihad that we have been talking about. but it is a good quote none the less :)

Islam is such a diverse and complex religion, i have bearly scratched the surace of it in my 3 years of study. I was talking my my lecturer the other day about my struggles with coming to terms with the differnt uses of fundamentalism, she replied she spent a year of her PHD studying just that.

[Baph]

that quote would be refering to the greater Jihad, the internal struggle that is unquestionably a duty of every practicing muslim. not the lesser Jihad that we have been talking about. but it is a good quote none the less :)

Now see, me not being a Muslim, I naturally blend the two. Someone threatens my life in some way, they are encroaching on my "righteous living." :D

But no, I do get your point, and we're pretty much in agreement about the whole thing anyway.

As for trying to understand aspects of Muslim life - I gave up a long time ago, when a college friend of mine signed up to the KKK. Muslim fella living at home with his family, and supplied all the real information. Given his name, it was safe to assume he definitely isn't white! :lol:

[pencil shavings]

Now see, me not being a Muslim, I naturally blend the two. Someone threatens my life in some way, they are encroaching on my "righteous living." :D

But no, I do get your point, and we're pretty much in agreement about the whole thing anyway.

As for trying to understand aspects of Muslim life - I gave up a long time ago, when a college friend of mine signed up to the KKK. Muslim fella living at home with his family, and supplied all the real information. Given his name, it was safe to assume he definitely isn't white! :lol:

yep, I completly see your point too :)

well im off to bed now! have to do this all again tomorrow morning in my seminar on the ethics armed humanitarian intervention. joy! :batman:

[Dangerous Dave]

You argue that the Islamic terrorists are not performing their acts of terrorism in the name of Islam; why are they killing people in the name of Allah then?
They are not, again this is the misinterpretation everybody is getting from all the comic book newspapers! They are not killing in the name of there god, they are asking there god for there forgiveness.

Have you ever met a suicide bomber? I have, and their god is not telling them to do it. Listen to what they say and you can see there reasoning behind it, I am not saying I support it but you can see how they began.

maybe someone will actually find a religious act of terrorism because so far none have been down to the guidance of religion.
I'm still waiting for someone to find one...

[gettin2dizzy]

They are not, again this is the misinterpretation everybody is getting from all the comic book newspapers! They are not killing in the name of there god, they are asking there god for there forgiveness.

Have you ever met a suicide bomber? I have, and their god is not telling them to do it. Listen to what they say and you can see there reasoning behind it, I am not saying I support it but you can see how they began.


I'm still waiting for someone to find one...
What is their reasoning generally?

[Dangerous Dave]

What is their reasoning generally?
Look up the history of the British Empire, look what we have done to the world and what we still continue to do.

If someone did that to you and your family would you not want revenge? I would, and I am a soldier who has to combat terrorism and deal with these peolpe face to face.

[yorkie_chris]

What even 50 years since the empires downfall?

[jimmy__riddle]

Look up the history of the British Empire, look what we have done to the world and what we still continue to do.

If someone did that to you and your family would you not want revenge? I would, and I am a soldier who has to combat terrorism and deal with these peolpe face to face.

i dont see half the world going after germany, and im pretty sure concentration camps come pretty highly in worst things done in the last 100 years.

[Dangerous Dave]

What even 50 years since the empires downfall?
We are fuel hungry, what do you think Iraq is about.

i dont see half the world going after germany, and im pretty sure concentration camps come pretty highly in worst things done in the last 100 years.
But that wasn't the country, it was the few in power who were then later trialled for war crimes.

[jimmy__riddle]

But that wasn't the country, it was the few in power who were then later trialled for war crimes.

thats the same with any situation. of course ultimately the country cannot be held responsible, its the people running it.

yes, many governments and people have done terrible things, us included, however this is no excuse for deliberately targeting civillians.

the point still stands, germany doesnt take the blame for the acts of the nazis, as we should not take the blame for the actions of our government 100 yrs ago.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Look up the history of the British Empire, look what we have done to the world and what we still continue to do.

If someone did that to you and your family would you not want revenge? I would, and I am a soldier who has to combat terrorism and deal with these peolpe face to face.

Gotta agree with the last two posts, old British Imperialism has nothing to do with modern day fanatics.

I'm no expert, but I do know a little about the British Empire, and I can tell you that we didn't take over a third of the world with a few hundred thousand men by p!ssing off the entire population of every country we invaded as you suggest.

[Dangerous Dave]

Gotta agree with the last two posts, old British Imperialism has nothing to do with modern day fanatics.
More newspaper facts? I never said that is everybody's thinking, that was one answer to one known terrorist group.

The fact is the west has robbed for its own rewards, we have left countries poor and we have left innocent families in hunger. We have also supported wars which had no direct interset to us, for the highest bidder or to who may be of use in the future.

The original post was about religion being the founder and supporter of terrorism, yet nobody can find a terrorist group who are operating under the guidance of a god.

[jimmy__riddle]

nobody can find a terrorist group who are operating under the guidance of a god.

thats cos theres no such thing as god ;)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

More newspaper facts?

What news paper facts?

You've just stated in a manner as if it was a matter of fact, that the British Empire was built upon raping a country of anything of value, murdering the inhabitants and leaving it a husk of it's previous virtue; and that this is the reason for extremism.

That is, I'm afraid, complete ********, and that was all I was pointing out.

[gettin2dizzy]

The fact is the west has robbed for its own rewards, we have left countries poor and we have left innocent families in hunger. We have also supported wars which had no direct interset to us, for the highest bidder or to who may be of use in the future.

The middle east would be a desert if they didn't have oil.

Their wealth is our doing.

[Dangerous Dave]

thats cos theres no such thing as god ;)
Aye

The middle east would be a desert if they didn't have oil.

Their wealth is our doing.
Go there and tour every country fully, trust me only a minority have wealth.

[gettin2dizzy]

Aye


Go there and tour every country fully, trust me only a minority have wealth.
Sounds like Britain!

[Odin]

thats cos theres no such thing as god ;)

+1 :cheers:

I am really scared that some people still think that God(s) exist. It just shows how very gullible they must be to start with. No wonder they are such easy targets for others to manipulate.

[gettin2dizzy]

+1 :cheers:

I am really scared that some people still think that God(s) exist. It just shows how very gullible they must be to start with. No wonder they are such easy targets for others to manipulate.
I'd hesitate to employ a believer to be honest.

Whilst I'd fight for anyones right to religious freedom (so long as I can be free of it too!), I'd have to question the persons logic.

If someone told me that 2+2 = 10; likewise.

[Balky001]

Socrates did not believe 1+1=2 and he was supposed to be good at maths!

If God existed and was the creator of all things he is so powerful and knowledgable then why does he need people praying to him and giving him absolute belief and commitment. He sounds like a meglomaniac, like me controlling ants and letting them burn if they make the wrong choice. Would he really be that concerned with worship, what does he get out of it?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I'd hesitate to employ a believer to be honest.

Whilst I'd fight for anyones right to religious freedom (so long as I can be free of it too!), I'd have to question the persons logic.

If someone told me that 2+2 = 10; likewise.

Socrates did not believe 1+1=2 and he was supposed to be good at maths!

If God existed and was the creator of all things he is so powerful and knowledgable then why does he need people praying to him and giving him absolute belief and commitment. He sounds like a meglomaniac, like me controlling ants and letting them burn if they make the wrong choice. Would he really be that concerned with worship, what does he get out of it?

Both logical points. However, the only reason we don't believe ourselves is because we weren't indocrinated at a young age. There's nothing inherantly smart about people who question religion, as much as I often like to think there is :wink:

[gettin2dizzy]

Both logical points. However, the only reason we don't believe ourselves is because we weren't indocrinated at a young age. There's nothing inherantly smart about people who question religion, as much as I often like to think there is :wink:
I was!

But after the Santa fallacy, I was careful what to believe ;)

[pencil shavings]

I was!

But after the Santa fallacy, I was careful what to believe ;)

the what!!???

please no....

he is real...

right??

[-o< (im sure i dont have to express in any detail the irony of the praying smily!)

[SoulKiss]

the what!!???

please no....

he is real...

right??

[-o< (im sure i dont have to express in any detail the irony of the praying smily!)

He's real alright - but its not all good news.

Ever noticed how Santa and Satan both know if you have been good or bad.

Or that they both are frequently depicted wearing red.

That they are never seen in the same place at the same time.

That they have VERY similar names?

Now you know what he does the OTHER 11 months of the year.......

Soulkiss, Born-again Santaist :)

[gettin2dizzy]

the what!!???

please no....

he is real...

right??

[-o< (im sure i dont have to express in any detail the irony of the praying smily!)
Well I can't disprove his existence...

[Baph]

The original post was about religion being the founder and supporter of terrorism, yet nobody can find a terrorist group who are operating under the guidance of a god.
Not really. The original post was more about the attack that happened, and the reasoning the media has given. IMO anyway. But you're right, terrorist groups aren't motivated by religon - they're motivated by money.

Both logical points. However, the only reason we don't believe ourselves is because we weren't indocrinated at a young age. There's nothing inherantly smart about people who question religion, as much as I often like to think there is :wink:
I pretty much was, but rebelled from it at a relatively young age. I've also been clear with my kids that it's a possibility some form of 'God' exists (we can't disprove it) but also that I personally don't believe they do exist.

I don't see how you can think there's nothing smart about questioning religion. Surely that is part of the quest for knowledge (to either prove or disprove) - so long as it's done thoroughly, it's fine.

[northwind]

The middle east would be a desert if they didn't have oil.

Err... They wouldn't be as rich, but the middle east has been populated and wealthy for millenia, and is one of the places considered the cradle of humankind. I don't think they'd discovered oil then.

[pencil shavings]

Well I can't disprove his existence...

haha, I like that answer alot :mrgreen:

[gettin2dizzy]

Err... They wouldn't be as rich, but the middle east has been populated and wealthy for millenia, and is one of the places considered the cradle of humankind. I don't think they'd discovered oil then.Without the oil, they'd be ignored. I can't think of a single other reason they would have the wealth they have today.

[northwind]

Yes, as I say, they wouldn't be AS rich. But it wasn't just a desert before they discovered oil, it wouldn't be just a desert now.

[gettin2dizzy]

Yes, as I say, they wouldn't be AS rich. But it wasn't just a desert before they discovered oil, it wouldn't be just a desert now.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:thxgb1tsk7UfqM:http://www.battlefield-site.co.uk/lance_corporal_jones.gif
Hence the expression ;
getting their just desserts.


Seriously. What do the Middle East offer otherwise?

[northwind]

Fertile lands, large populations, fairly strong industry, large export markets, culturally enormously significant.

It seems like when you say "Middle east" you actually mean "persian gulf", since that's where the concentration of oil is- Turkey isn't an oil economy, Egypt has a strong non-oil economy, Iran's would be sustainable without oil, Israel has next to no mineral resources, Pakistan isn't an oil economy. It's oil that makes them so important but it's not all they have.

[Baph]

It's oil that makes them so important but it's not all they have.
Oil that makes them so important, WMD that makes them such a thread. :mrgreen::rolleyes:

[Bibio]

jesus h ful!n christ.. what bloooody law do the gov want to pass now ...

[northwind]

Er, what?

[Dangerous Dave]

So have we all realised that terrorist are not motivated by religion?

If not please PM your address and I will slow down our response time so you can interview the terrorists in depth.

[gettin2dizzy]

So have we all realised that terrorist are not motivated by religion?

If not please PM your address and I will slow down our response time so you can interview the terrorists in depth.


I don’t care whether Christians are Roman Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Assyrian… the list is almost endless. But these are all interpretations of the same book. Which is correct? Well it’s not anyone’s position to argue which interpretation is correct, as there is no ‘right’ in religion. Even the Anglicans look like they’re about to split over such a trivial matter as allowing female bishops.

Likewise, with Islam; the number of interpretations are staggering. To argue Islam’s position on any matter is impossible, as you can almost guarantee a fellow Muslim could read a passage and have a completely conflicting point of view. To say that violence is against their beliefs; just can’t be defended in the slightest.

The extremists argue that they are being oppressed; whether by the West, Christianity, Zionism, or any secular ideas and that they need to defend themselves by way of the jihad. Even schools in Britain can be found where pop music, tv and socialising with the ‘kuffar’ isn’t allowed as this is the kuffar’s way of inflicting ‘evil’ on to them. This is a battle created by the interpretation of the texts, that as a Muslim you do not need to abide by any laws other than sharia itself. That Muslims should live in a state solely of Muslims, and that it is a battle that needs to be fought by whatever means.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth

As for what specific groups? How’s Al Qaeda for a start?

[pencil shavings]

Likewise, with Islam; the number of interpretations are staggering. To argue Islam’s position on any matter is impossible, as you can almost guarantee a fellow Muslim could read a passage and have a completely conflicting point of view. To say that violence is against their beliefs; just can’t be defended in the slightest.

This is a battle created by the interpretation of the texts, that as a Muslim you do not need to abide by any laws other than sharia itself. That Muslims should live in a state solely of Muslims, and that it is a battle that needs to be fought by whatever means.



There are many reasons why Islam is so split. just afew examples: when the phrophet died he did not leave a leader of the faith, which resulted in the first split, which basically boils down to Sunni/Shiite.

another one: The Quran itself is a unclear text, with passages explicitly stating that they are not clear, and if Allah wanted them clear, he would have made them clear.

a quick point for clarification on the interpretation of passages. There are relitivly few contested passages. the case that you claim, that conflicting views can arive out of the same passage, while true, is very limited.
Where the conflict occurs within Islam is that there are separate contradictory passages, which is not the same thing. This leaves Muslims with the decission to make of which way to go, on many issues, political, soical and economic.

and to say that ' To say that violence is against their beliefs; just can’t be defended in the slightest.' is im afriad, just ignorant. The Quran teaches that, similar to the bible, peace love friendship and aceptance of other religions etc. however it also teaches violence to defend the faith from non-believes.
Both views within Islam are as valid and as defendable as one another. Neither is more right, neither is more wrong. this is why there are so many splits, becasue there is no right or wrong and muslims just have to make their own choices.

Also, your last point, is directly related to the point I just made. While the ideal is a Sharria system of law, this is not necessarly the system that all muslims will live under. and again, the quran says that you should acept the system of rule imposed upon you and not attemp to interfear in matters that dont not concern you. but then it also says, for want of better words, fight the oppression!!

So you can see, that both points of view once again are equally valid, and equally well defendable as they are not contested passages, rather passage that raise a contested issue.

hope this clears up your apparent missunderstandings

[Dangerous Dave]

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth

That quote says nothing of violence and terror attacks, you can interpret that to say kill everyone that doesn't believe in our god or you could interpret that to pass the word and let people see the light in our religion.

Al Qaeda doesn't kill for their religion, every soldier that understands what they are doing and that has done a tour in Afghan will tell you that.

[gettin2dizzy]

and to say that ' To say that violence is against their beliefs; just can’t be defended in the slightest.' is im afriad, just ignorant.
Followed by:


Neither is more right, neither is more wrong. this is why there are so many splits, becasue there is no right or wrong and muslims just have to make their own choices.

My point was entirely that. That you can’t defend the whole of Islam because there is no representative, unanimous belief.


The Quran teaches that, similar to the bible, peace love friendship and aceptance of other religions etc. however it also teaches violence to defend the faith from non-believes.
Both views within Islam are as valid and as defendable as one another.

Yes but jihadism, whether offensive of defensive is a very fine line. Removing a government from power because it allows Western “ideals” such as equality, alcohol, education for all or even human (rather than prophetic) leadership; can, and currently IS seen as an attack on their faith. Obviously this is within Islamic groups, predominantly the minority of course.

(Also, the bible is hardly a worthy defensive line to take. It has some of the most disturbing examples of human behaviour I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading).



Also, your last point, is directly related to the point I just made. While the ideal is a Sharria system of law, this is not necessarly the system that all muslims will live under. and again, the quran says that you should acept the system of rule imposed upon you and not attemp to interfear in matters that dont not concern you. but then it also says, for want of better words, fight the oppression!!

So you can see, that both points of view once again are equally valid, and equally well defendable as they are not contested passages, rather passage that raise a contested issue.

hope this clears up your apparent missunderstandings

You’re reading one interpretation of the book. I’d be more than happy for Islam to use the happy-clappy-love-one-another version world wide. But this isn’t the case, and as such you can’t say that by default, Islam has no role to play in the extremism.

In case you’ve forgotten, my argument is that we shouldn’t tip-toe around Islam for fear of offence when it is clear that it has huge influence, with catastrophic consequences. I’m not arguing that Islam is fundamentally evil, or that the majority hold such beliefs, but that in order to oppose the terrorising of civilians by way of bombings, hostages, murder, rape; we need to accept that it has responsibility. Islam needs to self-police in its communities before we can have a hope of addressing British-born extremism.


That quote says nothing of violence and terror attacks, you can interpret that to say kill everyone that doesn't believe in our god or you could interpret that to pass the word and let people see the light in our religion.

Al Qaeda doesn't kill for their religion, every soldier that understands what they are doing and that has done a tour in Afghan will tell you that.
Killing for your religion, or killing because of your religion deserves no distinction. Suicide bombers achieve nothing, other than to satisfy their sick desire for Islamic martyrdom.

And without all the mystical half sentences. What is it you believe they are fighting for?

[pencil shavings]

You’re reading one interpretation of the book. I’d be more than happy for Islam to use the happy-clappy-love-one-another version world wide. But this isn’t the case, and as such you can’t say that by default, Islam has no role to play in the extremism.


I think that Islam clearly has a role to play in Islamic extremism ;)

But I do see your point, Islam can be what you make it.

The only point ive been trying to make is that Islam is a diverse religion with many diverse elements. I just think it is important to understand what you are dealing with when attempting to fix any problem.

I think we are both basically arguing the same point, so Im going to leave it there. Ive just finished an essay on the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, if you want to read it (or if anyone else dose for that matter), drop me a PM :)

[Dangerous Dave]

What is it you believe they are fighting for?
Al Qaeda fight for revenge, this makes them an unstable threat and in my job a very difficult threat to deal with.

[pencil shavings]

Al Qaeda fight for revenge, this makes them an unstable threat and in my job a very difficult threat to deal with.

I personally wouldnt put it as simply as that. The translation/full name of Al Qaeda gives an insight into their motivations.

'The International Front for Jihad Against the Crusaders and Jews'

bin Laden states, job done when they are all deal.

But regardless if revenge is the motivation or some twisted interpretaion of Islam and the pretext of defending the faith, undeniably they present a real and undiniable threat.

[Dangerous Dave]

Having stood face to face in an Afghn cave with a man wanting to kill me because I am "a soldier of the western world", having sat gathering intelligence, and having acted in counter terrorist operations todays Al Qaeda is acting on revenge whether or not that is the belief and the inspiration for Osama bin Laden.

I have lost friends and colleagues because of Al Qaeda, many service men/women have lost there lives and many families are left ruined here in the UK. This is a war we started many years ago, Al Qaeda are now writing the final chapter.

[yorkie_chris]

The afghans have been fighting people for years, I doubt they'll change their minds now. Someone else will invade the place when we get bored of it.

[rob13]

We are on a severe threat level at the moment....

[northwind]

Really? You realise that means we'll have to change the bulbs?

Interestingly, of all the various grades, it seems we've only ever been "severe" and "critical" since they started making it public. We've been at severe for a year (I think since just after the glasgow non-bombing)

[gettin2dizzy]

I wonder what actual difference it makes.

[Biker Biggles]

I wonder what actual difference it makes.
Not much.
Some of us will have a busy Xmas,but we would have anyway so what the hell?

[the_runt69]

i dont see half the world going after germany, and im pretty sure concentration camps come pretty highly in worst things done in the last 100 years.

Invented by us in the boar war, We interned hundreds of thousands of Dutch Africaans many of whom died of cholora

But the point of Terrorists is to change the world, it has been like this for thousands of years, over the last 30 years we have seen the Red groups like the Barder Meinhof in Germany, the red Brigade from Japan and various other would be communist groups trying to make a better world for us through bombs and killings, as Communism has died Islam is the new front for a bunch of extremists who want to force their views on us. Unfortunatly as weopans get better (and reporting also gets better) theyre outrages will get bigger and more condemning

[yorkie_chris]

they present a real and undiniable threat.

Why?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Why?

Indeed. Even 9/11 in the grand scheme of things didn't kill lots of people. 7/7 bombings here? Well more people die falling out of bed/slipping (EVERY year) in the shower, let alone deaths on the roads etc.

As it stands, the best way to defeat terrorism is to stick our fingers in our ears, say lalala, and pretend it's not happening.

[Dangerous Dave]

I wonder what actual difference it makes.
For the SBS it makes some people to be on standby for 365 days a year, deployable within one hour, and the Home Office issuing them lethal force before they have left base. Other than that, working undercover at docks, airports, and train stations. Sneaking into the UK's high priority terrorist targets and then advising how the security needs to be improved, you wouldn't believe the places I have managed to get in to. Worst of all, keeping people working and away from there families because more staff can not be employed.

As it stands, the best way to defeat terrorism is to stick our fingers in our ears, say lalala, and pretend it's not happening.
Aye, unless your job involves taking an interest.

[Warthog]

Really? You realise that means we'll have to change the bulbs?

:mrgreen: Red dwarf!


Personally, seeing as we are on a severe threat level, I am going to spend christmas under my bed clutching a baseball bat. They won't catch me unawares!

[yorkie_chris]

Indeed. Even 9/11 in the grand scheme of things didn't kill lots of people. 7/7 bombings here? Well more people die falling out of bed/slipping (EVERY year) in the shower, let alone deaths on the roads etc.

As it stands, the best way to defeat terrorism is to stick our fingers in our ears, say lalala, and pretend it's not happening.

As I keep saying. These people are trying to change our way of life... and the socialist morons in power are doing it.