Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[CB Fry]

Why is he going on about me AND Hypo when any fule no that we are the same person and everything.

[shurlock]

And another: "the left has a narrative for people like me; I'm the victim. I've been through the stuff that the left says people go through that makes them a victim- I've been through violent racism, I've been arrested at gunpoint at 15 and racially profiled. I've. Been imprisoned in the war in terror, I've witnessed torture. I am a brown Muslim and everything they say should make me a victim has happened to me but because my conclusions don't concur with their preconceived ideological script, suddenly my voice becomes illegitimate and it's incredibly patronising and colonial if you think about it."

 

Sounds like Nawaz has a lot of emotional baggage and has found a new outlet for his anti-establishment views. He speaks some sense but then undermines it with the absurdum ad reductio. A lot of moderate Muslim friends simply have no time for this publicity-seeker who knows how to press the right buttons (as well as make a few quid). He blew his chance as a government advisor as his work has been increasingly discredited. But hey he's a brown Muslim with a rip roaring back-story - he must be the real deal.

Edited 8 July, 2017 by shurlock

[van Hanegem]

Speaking of Sam Harris and Douglas Murray - interesting Podcast here about his new book.

 

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/is-this-the-end-of-europe

 

'The moral obligation to take in as many people from Africa and the Middle East as possible vs. protecting the European societies against it's downfall as a result'. Interesting indeed, especially with the population explosion in Africa in the next 40 years in mind.

[hypochondriac]

Sounds like Nawaz has a lot of emotional baggage and has found a new outlet for his anti-establishment views. He speaks some sense but then undermines it with the absurdum ad reductio. A lot of moderate Muslim friends simply have no time for this publicity-seeker who knows how to press the right buttons (as well as make a few quid). He blew his chance as a government advisor as his work has been increasingly discredited. But hey he's a brown Muslim with a rip roaring back-story - he must be the real deal.

Where's the alternative to the quilium foundation that's fighting Islamic extremism from within the Islamic community? As Nawaz and Murray point out, the only counter extremism strategy the government has is the prevent strategy which undoubtedly hasquite a hit wrong with it. Instead of seeking to reform it or to suggest an alternative, most Muslim leaders want to see it scrapped and Andy Burnham ran his campaign based on that. That's half the problem and until someone comes up with a better alternative for tackling extremism then I fail to see how nawaz has been undermined in any way.

[badgerx16]

Just another day in Engalnd....

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/cornish-terror-group-claims-responsibility-fire-rick-steins-restaurant-085705179.html

[ScepticalStan]

More Islamic hilarity as two gay lads have had the first ever Muslim wedding.

 

Of course, the likes of Unilad and LadBible and so on have tried to be oh-so-progressive by repeatedly sharing the story far and wide, but its rather backfired as the comment sections have been dominated by hordes of irate, angry Muslims telling them that they're going to burn in hell and that Islam condemns this and so on.

[hypochondriac]

I'm about halfway through a really interesting book called "nothing to do with islam" - a very fair study into the qaran, how it is studied and interpreted by Muslims and why calling Islam a religion of peace is absurd. It is a really eye opening read for those who are not that well versed on the Islamic faith. This but in particular interested me:

 

"some readers may respond to the proof of Islam's deep revulsion towards unbelievers as highlighted in this chapter by stating that they have Muslim friends who treat them with respect and courtesy. This may indeed be the case, but the reason behind the friendship of these Muslim people is probably the fact that they choose to act on natural human instincts and ignore this aspect of Islamic teaching. However, the attitudes and actions of individual Muslims do not, for one moment, take away the existence of the verses listed above. They are there in the heart of the Qaran, ready to be discovered by any Muslim who may ask whether the way he or she thinks about non-Muslims and interacts with them is pleasing to Allah."

[shurlock]

I'm about halfway through a really interesting book called "nothing to do with islam" - a very fair study into the qaran, how it is studied and interpreted by Muslims and why calling Islam a religion of peace is absurd. It is a really eye opening read for those who are not that well versed on the Islamic faith. This but in particular interested me:

 

"some readers may respond to the proof of Islam's deep revulsion towards unbelievers as highlighted in this chapter by stating that they have Muslim friends who treat them with respect and courtesy. This may indeed be the case, but the reason behind the friendship of these Muslim people is probably the fact that they choose to act on natural human instincts and ignore this aspect of Islamic teaching. However, the attitudes and actions of individual Muslims do not, for one moment, take away the existence of the verses listed above. They are there in the heart of the Qaran, ready to be discovered by any Muslim who may ask whether the way he or she thinks about non-Muslims and interacts with them is pleasing to Allah."

 

Do you ever read anything to expand your thinking rather than confirm your existing biases?

[Jonnyboy]

I'm about halfway through a really interesting book called "nothing to do with islam" - a very fair study into the qaran, how it is studied and interpreted by Muslims and why calling Islam a religion of peace is absurd. It is a really eye opening read for those who are not that well versed on the Islamic faith. This but in particular interested me:

 

"some readers may respond to the proof of Islam's deep revulsion towards unbelievers as highlighted in this chapter by stating that they have Muslim friends who treat them with respect and courtesy. This may indeed be the case, but the reason behind the friendship of these Muslim people is probably the fact that they choose to act on natural human instincts and ignore this aspect of Islamic teaching. However, the attitudes and actions of individual Muslims do not, for one moment, take away the existence of the verses listed above. They are there in the heart of the Qaran, ready to be discovered by any Muslim who may ask whether the way he or she thinks about non-Muslims and interacts with them is pleasing to Allah."

 

The Bible would probably have me flog you to death for using the Internet on a Sunday.

[hypochondriac]

Do you ever read anything to expand your thinking rather than confirm your existing biases?

Yes I read a lot. I didn't consider this book to be particularly biased, in fact I am surprised about how impartial it is. Out of interest, what but of my quote did you believe to be unreasonable.

[hypochondriac]

The Bible would probably have me flog you to death for using the Internet on a Sunday.

Not sure I understand your point here, no one is defending the Bible and some of the things written in it. Not sure what relevance it has when discussing Islam and some of its doctrine.

[buctootim]

Not sure I understand your point here, no one is defending the Bible and some of the things written in it. Not sure what relevance it has when discussing Islam and some of its doctrine.

 

Of course its relevant. Wars are most often due to a mental set of 'my group over your group'. Sometimes religion is used because its a handy way to manipulate people. The Lords Resistance Army or the West Bank settlers use religion as justification, but Pol Pot, the Nazis and the Hutus, not so much.

 

The Torah, Bible and Koran are full of passages about smashing the enemy and killing gay people, adulterers etc. The point is the vast majority of followers ignore the inconsistencies in their books and follow a peaceful religion. The extremists go around killing people who arent in the right club. The problem isnt the religion its the people promoting a fundamentalist dark ages version of that religion. IS probably wouldn't exist without Saudi support and the west tolerates its spreading of hate throughout the middle east and south Asia because we sell them arms.

Edited 24 July, 2017 by buctootim

[aintforever]

The problem isnt the religion its the people promoting a fundamentalist dark ages version of that religion.

 

Only seems to be a problem with one religion though.

[Verbal]

Only seems to be a problem with one religion though.

 

Couldn't the 'fundamentalist dark ages' also be represented by the Crusades?

 

Today, violent Hindu extremism in India and violent Buddhist extremism in Thailand and Burma - all directed at Muslim minorities - might rake in a few more religions, right?

[hypochondriac]

Of course its relevant. Wars are most often due to a mental set of 'my group over your group'. Sometimes religion is used because its a handy way to manipulate people. The Lords Resistance Army or the West Bank settlers use religion as justification, but Pol Pot, the Nazis and the Hutus, not so much.

 

The Torah, Bible and Koran are full of passages about smashing the enemy and killing gay people, adulterers etc. The point is the vast majority of followers ignore the inconsistencies in their books and follow a peaceful religion. The extremists go around killing people who arent in the right club. The problem isnt the religion its the people promoting a fundamentalist dark ages version of that religion. IS probably wouldn't exist without Saudi support and the west tolerates its spreading of hate throughout the middle east and south Asia because we sell them arms.

"so it is all well and good to point to institutions like the Spanish inquisition as past examples of how other traditions besides Islam engaged in religiously inspired violence, but catholic authorities burning people at the stake is clearly not quite the problem that we are facing at the moment is it? So yes let's have a debate about history, but let us also recognise that, in our own century, the overwhelming majority of those who commit acts of violence with scriptural quotations on their lips belong to the Muslim faith."

 

I don't believe Islam has been hijacked in order to manipulate people as you claim. Indeed, the scripture is very clear with explicit commands of violence towards the unbeliever and death to apostates. The concept of abrogation is troubling here too where greater theological weight is placed on passages that occur later in the qaran and unfortunately that means all the violent verses. Literal interpretations of the qaran are the only accepted forms in the middle east and the few reformers who call for a reinterpretation are often persecuted.

 

"Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism all experienced a variety of reform movements that moved many of the adherents of these religions (I'm many cases a majority) away from literal understandings of their faith. Islam has never experienced such a movement, at least not a widespread and successful one. Literalism therefore reigns supreme in the vast majority of mosques abd Muslim institutions of higher learning. In fact, anyone who would like to propose innovative interpretations to soften the hard edges of Islam's teaching on unbelievers is quite likely to be met with the serious charge of committing the ultimate theological sin, namely bidah (or introducing innovation.)"

 

It seems clear to me that without a form of reformation- which is virtually impossible as it currently stands- we will continue to have to deal with a significant number of Islamist across the world with highly regressive views.

[hypochondriac]

Couldn't the 'fundamentalist dark ages' also be represented by the Crusades?

 

Today, violent Hindu extremism in India and violent Buddhist extremism in Thailand and Burma - all directed at Muslim minorities - might rake in a few more religions, right?

Well Yes that is true but it rather puts it into perspective when you see stats like since September 11th there have been 5 deadly terror attacks inspired by Islam every single day, a total of more than 27,000 attacks in a decade and a half. Kings college London monitored jihadist attacks for November 2014 and the report lists 664 attacks in 14 countries with a total of 5,042 deaths in just that month alone.

 

So whilst it is clear that all religions inspire atrocities, it is undeniable that the problem stemming from Islamic extremism is much greater than any other religion in the 21st century.

[hypochondriac]

Oh and by the way Tim thanks for the reasonable reply, it makes a change rather than the mindless shouts of racist or made up words like islamaphobic. I would genuinely like to hear refutations in a calm manner from reformers like Nawaz to some of the points raised. The problem is that the vast majority of Muslims in the media come across as incredibly defensive or even aggressive when Islam and its teachings are questioned in any way which says a lot itself.

 

I'm open to considering an argument supporting Islam as a religion of peace but the teachings contained in the qaran and most troublingly the "most perfect example" set by Muhammed is directly contradictory to this claim.

[aintforever]

Couldn't the 'fundamentalist dark ages' also be represented by the Crusades?

 

Today, violent Hindu extremism in India and violent Buddhist extremism in Thailand and Burma - all directed at Muslim minorities - might rake in a few more religions, right?

 

Look hard enough and you will probably find extremes of any religion, none remotely on the same scale though. Must be a reason why Islam is so unique in being connected to the cause so much violence and death.

[Verbal]

Look hard enough and you will probably find extremes of any religion, none remotely on the same scale though. Must be a reason why Islam is so unique in being connected to the cause so much violence and death.

 

None remotely on the same scale? The death toll from the Crusades - note: a religious attack initiated and sustained by the Latin church - was up to three million. Are the Crusades such a big secret that we only know about them by looking really, really hard?

[aintforever]

None remotely on the same scale? The death toll from the Crusades - note: a religious attack initiated and sustained by the Latin church - was up to three million. Are the Crusades such a big secret that we only know about them by looking really, really hard?

 

Not sure that stuff that happened centuries ago is relevant.

[Verbal]

Not sure that stuff that happened centuries ago is relevant.

 

Introducing an arbitrary disqualifier doesn't disguise a losing argument.

 

If violence is intrinsic to a particular religion, and the reason for it is supposed to be textually sourced, then it makes no difference whatsoever when that violence took place. The murderous Crusaders were every bit as certain that their massacres were religiously sanctioned as modern-day Jihadists.

[aintforever]

Introducing an arbitrary disqualifier doesn't disguise a losing argument.

 

If violence is intrinsic to a particular religion, and the reason for it is supposed to be textually sourced, then it makes no difference whatsoever when that violence took place. The murderous Crusaders were every bit as certain that their massacres were religiously sanctioned as modern-day Jihadists.

 

It does make a difference, everyone was violent back in the 11th century, the fact you have to go back so far proves my point.

[TheCholulaKid]

I'm about halfway through a really interesting book called "nothing to do with islam" - a very fair study into the qaran, how it is studied and interpreted by Muslims and why calling Islam a religion of peace is absurd. It is a really eye opening read for those who are not that well versed on the Islamic faith. This but in particular interested me:

 

"some readers may respond to the proof of Islam's deep revulsion towards unbelievers as highlighted in this chapter by stating that they have Muslim friends who treat them with respect and courtesy. This may indeed be the case, but the reason behind the friendship of these Muslim people is probably the fact that they choose to act on natural human instincts and ignore this aspect of Islamic teaching. However, the attitudes and actions of individual Muslims do not, for one moment, take away the existence of the verses listed above. They are there in the heart of the Qaran, ready to be discovered by any Muslim who may ask whether the way he or she thinks about non-Muslims and interacts with them is pleasing to Allah."

 

The author's (Peter Townsend) Twitter feed tells you everything you need to know about this book's contents. You are either extremely naive or shameless in suggesting that this an impartial and fair dissection of Islam.

 

Disgusting.

[hypochondriac]

The author's (Peter Townsend) Twitter feed tells you everything you need to know about this book's contents. You are either extremely naive or shameless in suggesting that this an impartial and fair dissection of Islam.

 

Disgusting.

Have you read the book? Probably better to judge for yourself before flinging round words like disgusting based on a twitter feed.

[TheCholulaKid]

I have no intention of reading it.

 

When an author passes off 'journalism' by Pamela Geller (look her up) as his own then you know you're in trouble.

 

Disgusting.

[hypochondriac]

I have no intention of reading it.

 

When an author passes off 'journalism' by Pamela Geller (look her up) as his own then you know you're in trouble.

 

Disgusting.

I'd be interested to know what arguments or passages you found unreasonable but as you said, you've made your mind up already based on a twitter account so no need. I think if you were to read the book, you'd be surprise at some of the content. Pleas for no incitement to violence against Muslims under any circumstances and shunning physical conflict in favour of winning a battle of ideas because a conflict is giving the extremists what they want for example, ideas that I would not have expected from someone as disgusting and biased as you claim.

 

I suppose the main difference is that I'm quite prepared to have a civil conversation regarding Islam and I'm happy to listen to opposing viewpoints. The trouble is, the usual response is to deflect onto other religions, discuss personalities rather than arguments that have been put forward and if that fails start calling people made up names like islamaphobic. As I said, happy to consider other points of view that differ from my own if you hold such views.

 

Tadpole.

 

(see I can write a meaningless word at the end of a post too.)

Edited 25 July, 2017 by hypochondriac

[Verbal]

I'd be interested to know what arguments or passages you found unreasonable but as you said, you've made your mind up already based on a twitter account so no need. I think if you were to read the book, you'd be surprise at some of the content. Pleas for no incitement to violence against Muslims under any circumstances and shunning physical conflict in favour of winning a battle of ideas because a conflict is giving the extremists what they want for example, ideas that I would not have expected from someone as disgusting and biased as you claim.

 

I suppose the main difference is that I'm quite prepared to have a civil conversation regarding Islam and I'm happy to listen to opposing viewpoints. The trouble is, the usual response is to deflect onto other religions, discuss personalities rather than arguments that have been put forward and if that fails start calling people made up names like islamaphobic. As I said, happy to consider other points of view that differ from my own if you hold such views.

 

Tadpole.

 

(see I can write a meaningless word at the end of a post too.)

 

Try 'Poltroon'. It's a good word.

 

I agree that it's churlish and (literally) a bit childish not to look at something you disagree with, as if covering your eyes will make it go away. However, it's equally true that Townsend is a notorious Islamophobe who finds his natural allies among Prison Planet and other neo-fascist analogues. If you want something to challenge your perspective, try Reza Aslan's “No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.” I don't happen to agree with much it, but it's a very well written textual defence of Islam.

 

The big flaw in both books, and your position, though, is the very idea of reading religious violence back to a textual source in the Koran. All actions carried out in the name of religions are claimed to be 'in the name of' the religion. And insofar as they are, that religion IS a problem. But that doesn't mean that it's a legitimate argument to follow the extremists down the path of saying that the source of violence is in the Koran itself and Muhammad himself.

 

For one thing, the Koran was written from a sort of group memory in the early caliphates, around a century after his death (not unlike large chunks of the Roman Bible). Also, many of the textual justifications for violence come from the Hadiths - religious fragments which have never been part of the Koran, and are crammed with dodgy content designed to suit the needs of a particular medieval despot.

 

But the bigger issue is that the actual source and justification for extremist Islamist violence isn't textual so much as ideological. And that ideology is Wahhabism, an eighteenth century cult built around a woman-hating psychopath, whose ideas about the origins of Islam included advocating the destruction of every last piece of physical evidence that Muhammad and his descendants ever existed.

 

Had it not been for oil, Wahhab's ideas - if that's what they were - would have remained buried in the dust in the backward Persian Gulf (the power centres and great civilisations of Islam had long since moved to Persia, Egypt and South Asia).

 

It does make a difference, everyone was violent back in the 11th century, the fact you have to go back so far proves my point.

 

Nope. You've slung in another random disqualifier, with the unevidenced generalisation that 'everyone was violent back in the 11th century.'

 

To repeat: if your argument is that Islamist violence is inextricably linked textually to the Koran, you're wrong, for the reasons above. Religions are ultimately groups of people who, as groups, emphasise what they want to emphasise from source texts of various kinds, in order to justify their behaviour or beliefs. Just as the majority of Christians don't spend time highlighting the hyper-violence of the Book of Leviticus, because it offends them or is irrelevant to them, the vast majority of Muslims - all but a tiny fraction of a single percent - do not go hunting for textual references to violence in order to justify their day-to-day lives, which are of course completely free of violent impulses.

 

The even bigger point, well understood by most theologians, is that religious adherence isn't in any case really about belief but about ritual. So when you get to corner a Jihadist - as no doubt you will - you'll be woefully disappointed to discover that he has a poorer understanding of the content of the Koran than even you. He will, though, have a really good understanding about how to bang his head on the ground five times a day.

 

So far from having your point having been 'proven', unfortunately you do not have a point at all.

[hypochondriac]

I'll reply to the rest of that later but let me assure you that as someone who was once in an amateur production of Ruddigore, I am well acquainted with the word Poltroon.

[Jonnyboy]

It does make a difference, everyone was violent back in the 11th century, the fact you have to go back so far proves my point.

 

The US Air Force is riddled with Christians, it's a big part of their culture. They've bombed what, fifty different countries since WW2?

[aintforever]

The US Air Force is riddled with Christians, it's a big part of their culture. They've bombed what, fifty different countries since WW2?

 

Pretty sure the US Air Force includes people of many faiths.

[aintforever]

To repeat: if your argument is that Islamist violence is inextricably linked textually to the Koran, you're wrong.

 

But Islam is not just about the text of the Koran, it's also about the people, groups, cultures and ideologies associated with it and their interpretation of it. Wether the Jihadis actions accurately represent the views of the Koran is irrelevant, fact is that is their interpretation and they believe it is right. There are obviously many different sects within Islam just like Christianity - who is right and who is wrong is subjective.

 

When the Pope says you can't use a condom he is not speaking the words of Jesus, that is his interpretation. It doesn't make the Catholic Church any less responsible for influencing over population or the spread of STDs in the third world regardless of the text in the Bible.

[hypochondriac]

My struggle is how can non Muslims so confidently assert that the IS interpretation is a perversion of Islam given the violent actions of Muhammed who is referred to as "the perfect example" in the Qaran and given that we have entire countries that are supposedly devout Muslim countries that persecute homosexuals and have never heard of women's rights. Are they all perverting Islam? Seems to me that historically Islam very much has its roots in violence and subjugation and virtually every Middle Eastern Muslim country has at least some elements of barbarism that would be rejected by the West. Yet politicians still flatly deny that this has anything at all to do with Islam and its that falsehood that I think riles people most of all.

[van Hanegem]

Try 'Poltroon'. It's a good word.

 

I agree that it's churlish and (literally) a bit childish not to look at something you disagree with, as if covering your eyes will make it go away. However, it's equally true that Townsend is a notorious Islamophobe who finds his natural allies among Prison Planet and other neo-fascist analogues. If you want something to challenge your perspective, try Reza Aslan's “No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.” I don't happen to agree with much it, but it's a very well written textual defence of Islam.

 

The big flaw in both books, and your position, though, is the very idea of reading religious violence back to a textual source in the Koran. All actions carried out in the name of religions are claimed to be 'in the name of' the religion. And insofar as they are, that religion IS a problem. But that doesn't mean that it's a legitimate argument to follow the extremists down the path of saying that the source of violence is in the Koran itself and Muhammad himself.

 

For one thing, the Koran was written from a sort of group memory in the early caliphates, around a century after his death (not unlike large chunks of the Roman Bible). Also, many of the textual justifications for violence come from the Hadiths - religious fragments which have never been part of the Koran, and are crammed with dodgy content designed to suit the needs of a particular medieval despot.

 

But the bigger issue is that the actual source and justification for extremist Islamist violence isn't textual so much as ideological. And that ideology is Wahhabism, an eighteenth century cult built around a woman-hating psychopath, whose ideas about the origins of Islam included advocating the destruction of every last piece of physical evidence that Muhammad and his descendants ever existed.

 

Had it not been for oil, Wahhab's ideas - if that's what they were - would have remained buried in the dust in the backward Persian Gulf (the power centres and great civilisations of Islam had long since moved to Persia, Egypt and South Asia).

 

Good explanation Verbal, the world would be a better place without Wahhabism. In my opinion we could do without Salafism too, as you didn't mention this ideology does this mean you believe followers of Salafism are no threat to European norms and values?

[van Hanegem]

My struggle is how can non Muslims so confidently assert that the IS interpretation is a perversion of Islam given the violent actions of Muhammed who is referred to as "the perfect example" in the Qaran and given that we have entire countries that are supposedly devout Muslim countries that persecute homosexuals and have never heard of women's rights. Are they all perverting Islam? Seems to me that historically Islam very much has its roots in violence and subjugation and virtually every Middle Eastern Muslim country has at least some elements of barbarism that would be rejected by the West. Yet politicians still flatly deny that this has anything at all to do with Islam and its that falsehood that I think riles people most of all.

 

I reckon it depends on which branch of islam is the most powerful. Verbal mentioned Wahhabism, an ideology "exported" by the Saudi's (amongst others) by funding mosques and radical imams all over the world. Take Indonesia for example, the biggest muslim country in the world (almost 90% of the 250m inhabitants are muslim). Besides the quarrels between muslims and christians on the Moluccan Islands there was never a real problem with islam. That changed more than a decade ago when Wahhabism came along so now homosexuals are beaten up in front of an audience and huge crowds are shouting that the sharia laws should rule the country. The same goes for Turkey, once a secular state but with Erdogan and his sunni accomplices this is changing rapidly and I guess it won't take too long before you'll hear Turkey is perverting islam. But Verbal is right, it's the people or groups who are responsible for the damage done and not some old and retarded book.

[hypochondriac]

The US Air Force is riddled with Christians, it's a big part of their culture. They've bombed what, fifty different countries since WW2?

This is why you are referred to as an apologist for extremist islam. The US air force has people of all faiths in it including Muslims and people of no faith at all. It is clearly not a Christian organisation even if it has a number of Christians in it. Trying to pretend it is a Christian organisation in some bizarre attempt to claim US atrocities as Christians and thus to downplay or motigate the many atrocities committed by actual Islamic extremist organisations is just strange.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

This is why you are referred to as an apologist for extremist islam. The US air force has people of all faiths in it including Muslims and people of no faith at all. It is clearly not a Christian organisation even if it has a number of Christians in it. Trying to pretend it is a Christian organisation in some bizarre attempt to claim US atrocities as Christians and thus to downplay or motigate the many atrocities committed by actual Islamic extremist organisations is just strange.

 

So if the USAF is not in your view a Christian organisation - because as you say not all its members are indeed Christians - then presumably this also must mean that (for example) the Italian Air Force of WWII cannot be viewed as a instrument of fascism as only a minority of Regia Aeronauctica personnel were also Fascist Party members. This is the underlying logic of your argument here is it not?

 

Research (by the Pew Organisation) shows that some 70% of adult US citizens identify themselves as to some extent followers of the Christian faith. In the light of that obvious reality if some elsewhere in the world choose to see the armed forces of this predominantly Christian nation as essentially Christian in nature then it could be argued that they hold a not entirely unreasonable opinion. This is not by the way a attempt to support or excuse terrorism, but rather a small effort to explain that not everyone in the world sees things from our western, perspective.

 

To better understand the world in all its complexity you must make some effort to see things from "the other side of the hill".

[aintforever]

 

So if the USAF is not in your view a Christian organisation - because as you say not all its members are indeed Christians - then presumably this also must mean that (for example) the Italian Air Force of WWII cannot be viewed as a instrument of fascism as only a minority of Regia Aeronauctica personnel were also Fascist Party members. This is the underlying logic of your argument here is it not?

 

Research (by the Pew Organisation) shows that some 70% of adult US citizens identify themselves as to some extent followers of the Christian faith. In the light of that obvious reality if some elsewhere in the world choose to see the armed forces of this predominantly Christian nation as essentially Christian in nature then it could be argued that they hold a not entirely unreasonable opinion. This is not by the way a attempt to support or excuse terrorism, but rather a small effort to explain that not everyone in the world sees things from our western, perspective.

 

To better understand the world in all its complexity you must make some effort to see things from "the other side of the hill".

 

That example would make sense if the US Air Force was ordered into battle by the Church, not a democratic, secular government.

[Sour Mash]

 

So if the USAF is not in your view a Christian organisation - because as you say not all its members are indeed Christians - then presumably this also must mean that (for example) the Italian Air Force of WWII cannot be viewed as a instrument of fascism as only a minority of Regia Aeronauctica personnel were also Fascist Party members. This is the underlying logic of your argument here is it not?

 

Research (by the Pew Organisation) shows that some 70% of adult US citizens identify themselves as to some extent followers of the Christian faith. In the light of that obvious reality if some elsewhere in the world choose to see the armed forces of this predominantly Christian nation as essentially Christian in nature then it could be argued that they hold a not entirely unreasonable opinion. This is not by the way a attempt to support or excuse terrorism, but rather a small effort to explain that not everyone in the world sees things from our western, perspective.

 

To better understand the world in all its complexity you must make some effort to see things from "the other side of the hill".

F**ks sake.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That example would make sense if the US Air Force was ordered into battle by the Church, not a democratic, secular government.

 

When seen from the proper perspective a political philosophy employed to justify the waging of expansionist wars or extremist religious beliefs used to excuse terrorist crimes appear to be very much two sides of the same old coin methinks - it's all mass murder at the end of the day is it not? Surely you must have recognised how almost god-like men such as Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler became in the eyes of their most devoted followers.

 

By the way, the current Commander in Chief of the US Air Force describes himself as a Christian for what it is worth.

[whelk]

.....

[whelk]

 

So if the USAF is not in your view a Christian organisation - because as you say not all its members are indeed Christians - then presumably this also must mean that (for example) the Italian Air Force of WWII cannot be viewed as a instrument of fascism as only a minority of Regia Aeronauctica personnel were also Fascist Party members. This is the underlying logic of your argument here is it not?

 

Research (by the Pew Organisation) shows that some 70% of adult US citizens identify themselves as to some extent followers of the Christian faith. In the light of that obvious reality if some elsewhere in the world choose to see the armed forces of this predominantly Christian nation as essentially Christian in nature then it could be argued that they hold a not entirely unreasonable opinion. This is not by the way a attempt to support or excuse terrorism, but rather a small effort to explain that not everyone in the world sees things from our western, perspective.

 

To better understand the world in all its complexity you must make some effort to see things from "the other side of the hill".

 

Beneath all the pompous patronising there is a pretty dense individual.

[Jonnyboy]

When seen from the proper perspective a political philosophy employed to justify the waging of expansionist wars or extremist religious beliefs used to excuse terrorist crimes appear to be very much two sides of the same old coin methinks - it's all mass murder at the end of the day is it not? Surely you must have recognised how almost god-like men such as Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler became in the eyes of their most devoted followers.

 

By the way, the current Commander in Chief of the US Air Force describes himself as a Christian for what it is worth.

 

Has the US (or UK) ever had an atheist President (or PM)? That would be a no.

[whelk]

It will be our buses next

http://boingboing.net/2017/08/01/norwegian-islamophobes-confuse.html

[Guan 2.0]

Well done to the security services. Nice to have a positive outcome on this thread!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40802787

 

Three men who dubbed themselves the Three Musketeers have been found guilty of plotting a terror attack on a police or military target in the UK.

Naweed Ali, 29, and Khobaib Hussain, 25, both of Sparkhill, Birmingham, and Mohibur Rahman, 33, of Stoke-on-Trent, were convicted at the Old Bailey.

They were arrested in August last year in an undercover police sting using a fake courier firm.

A fourth man, Tahir Aziz, 38, from Stoke-on-Trent, was also found guilty.

They will be sentenced on Thursday.

Police say the men, who had all denied preparing terrorist acts, were inspired by so-called Islamic State, also known as Daesh.

[whelk]

And why football fans are some of the saddest people on the planet. Celtic fans singing Lee Rigby songs.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-40804531?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

[Sour Mash]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/newcastle-sex-ring-child-abuse-racist-rotherham-mp-sarah-champion-labour-asian-gang-community-a7885486.html how many more of these?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/09/paris-police-hunt-driver-hit-soldiers-on-patrol-levallois-perret And how many more of these will France have to put up with?

[Batman]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/newcastle-sex-ring-child-abuse-racist-rotherham-mp-sarah-champion-labour-asian-gang-community-a7885486.html how many more of these?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/09/paris-police-hunt-driver-hit-soldiers-on-patrol-levallois-perret And how many more of these will France have to put up with?

 

not even worth a discussion these days. Just part of living in big cities.

[Sour Mash]

not even worth a discussion these days. Just part of living in big cities.

True. Think a fair few now secretly realise the likes of Tommy Robinson were right all along.

[sadoldgit]

True. Think a fair few now secretly realise the likes of Tommy Robinson were right all along.

 

That "fair few" being you and Batman. And perhaps the reason that people cant be bothered to discuss it here anymore is because they have had it with your unfettered racism?

[Sour Mash]

That "fair few" being you and Batman. And perhaps the reason that people cant be bothered to discuss it here anymore is because they have had it with your unfettered racism?

How can I be referring to me, I always knew he was right? Do you get anything right?