You paint me as a bigot, a white supremacist, a neo-nazi and even a racist yet you support Sharia, a disgusting homophobic, regressive, perverted, violent and racist ideology.
You mistake acknowledgement of the cultural tradition with acceptance of the negatives of the practice. That is wrong and is where your argument falls apart. If we are expected to be accepting of rabbinical or halahka law, canon or ecclesiastical law, then why should we not be accepting of other religious traditions, even those we find abhorrent? If you allow one, you must allow the other. My personal belief, as an agnostic, is that no religious tradition should be acknowledged or protected. But that is not the stance of our culture, so we are accepting of one, we must be accepting of all traditions.
Quote:
Take comfort in knowing you still have your same 5 or 6 brother sheep's thanking your posts and agreeing with your views.
Now, now, it appears both sides of the argument have a certain number of muppets who will do the same.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
You paint me as a bigot, a white supremacist, a neo-nazi and even a racist yet you support Sharia, a disgusting homophobic, regressive, perverted, violent and racist ideology.
I haven't painted you as anything, I've simply (and repeatedly) called out the hate-driven organisations you support and celebrate while spreading their words and propaganda on here. It seems like it would be simple to say "I was mistaken for spreading propaganda produced by a neo-Nazi organisation," but all you've done is double down and defend it, so I have no reason to believe you're anything but a supporter of those organisations. Just like the evil that exists in Islam, it's crucial we call out hate when we see it. And I'm just calling out people who spread content from neo-nazis with NI terrorism ties.
I don't support "Sharia" in all its interpretations, but I DO support those progressive Muslims who are trying to breath life into a modern, liberal interpretation (of which there are many). It's important we recognise peaceful people who are using their faith for good, AS WELL as recognising those that use it for evil.
To categorise it as one or the other is ignorant. Ignorance is the fuel of hatred, and I'm sorry, hatred has no place in our liberal Canadian society. I don't care if you're Muslim, a Christian, any type of theist or atheist, or a member/supporter of some heinous racist hate groups. If you subscribe to hate, please march yourself into the ocean. I don't see any moral difference between those that spread Nazi propaganda and those that spread the word of ISIS.
Hate has no place here, and it has no place in this discussion. If someone is unable to use nuance and realise that definitive statements on things that have many interpretations makes them ignorant, then they are bound to fail in whatever their goal is. All Muslims adhere to Sharia. Some use it to spread love and peace in the world, some use it to spread hate and violence.
In absence of the ability to eliminate it, I know which side I'm happy to celebrate and which side I'm determined to condemn.
I hope that you can both see how those with either extreme left or right views are making this problem worse.
Painting all Muslims with the same brush helps no one. It pushes people towards extremism and leads to more wars in the middle east.
Similarly, excusing terrorism because it was perpetrated by Muslims is just as bad. Terrorists are not oppressed people. They're evil people. They're overall highly intelligent and well educated with access to vast resources. Coordinating a terror attack is extremely difficult. It takes military knowledge/training, fluency in multiple languages, the ability to evade law enforcement, access to weapons, adeptness with computers and social media etc..If you can afford to fly to Libya for training, you can afford to put food on your table or take college courses to get a better job.
When someone starts encouraging or making acts towards a terrorist activity they should be arrested. End of story. The law shouldn't even look at what religion they are. And no, it's not the responsibility of "moderate Muslims" to deal with them. They aren't expected to take honor oaths to the country they live in or put their own lives in danger.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
More than 130 imams from Britain are refusing to offer Islamic burials to the three men who launched attacks Saturday night in London, killing seven and wounding dozens more.
"We will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege," the Muslim leaders said Monday in a statement posted on social media.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
They're evil people. They're overall highly intelligent and well educated with access to vast resources. Coordinating a terror attack is extremely difficult. It takes military knowledge/training, fluency in multiple languages, the ability to evade law enforcement, access to weapons, adeptness with computers and social media etc..If you can afford to fly to Libya for training, you can afford to put food on your table or take college courses to get a better job.
You make these morons sound like characters from a Jason Bourne movie.
The guys who carried out the attack on Saturday asked a neighbor on Saturday where to rent a van. Then rented a van. And they owned knives. High intelligence, military knowledge/training and fluency in multiple languages didn't have anything to do with it. All you need is motivation/fanaticism to do this kind of thing.
Maybe that makes it even scarier.
EDIT: and yeah I get that some of these attacks are carefully planned out and need the smarts of someone who isn't just a religious fanatic, but considering the crude way they are pulled off lately, it doesn't take a genius.
__________________
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 06-06-2017 at 11:59 AM.
I hope that you can both see how those with either extreme left or right views are making this problem worse.
Painting all Muslims with the same brush helps no one. It pushes people towards extremism and leads to more wars in the middle east.
Similarly, excusing terrorism because it was perpetrated by Muslims is just as bad. Terrorists are not oppressed people. They're evil people. They're overall highly intelligent and well educated with access to vast resources. Coordinating a terror attack is extremely difficult. It takes military knowledge/training, fluency in multiple languages, the ability to evade law enforcement, access to weapons, adeptness with computers and social media etc..If you can afford to fly to Libya for training, you can afford to put food on your table or take college courses to get a better job.
When someone starts encouraging or making acts towards a terrorist activity they should be arrested. End of story. The law shouldn't even look at what religion they are. And no, it's not the responsibility of "moderate Muslims" to deal with them. They aren't expected to take honor oaths to the country they live in or put their own lives in danger.
I agree with much of what you are saying here. I have a problem with the bolded part. You are not delving into their motivations for doing these things. This is the weakness of the many parties fighting terrorism. They don't understand what would drive anyone to do something so extreme, especially those from wealthy families.
Wealth and affluence have little to do with beliefs. They greatly impact the ability for an individual to act out, but they do not impact the motivations of an individual's beliefs. Nor does it impact an individual's commitment to their belief system or how they perceive how that belief system is accepted. The reality is that Osama bin Laden became a terrorist not because he was rich, but because he felt his beliefs were being oppressed. He joined the mujaheddin because he saw his fellow Muslims being oppressed by the Soviets. The same goes with the rest of the extremists from every religion or ideology.
Now you may not like the term oppression, and prefer other terms, but these people are driven by righting a social injustice they feel is being forced on their beliefs. We'll move away from the radicalized Islamic angle and instead focus on something closer to home. The Bundy's took over the Oregon Wildlife Refuge because of the oppression they saw from the US federal government. This was directly as a result of oppression, the Bundy's own words. Cliven, Ryan and Ammon Bundy all made claims of actions by the "oppressive" federal government as the motivation for their actions in Nevada and Oregon.
Same thing extended to bin Laden and al-Zawahari and their cadre of radicals. They saw the oppression of their wahhabism as an affront to their core beliefs. When they were denied access to the governance process their next step was extremism. I'm not defending any of these people, just explaining the motivation for their actions. You can't defeat an enemy until you understand your enemy.
I agree with much of what you are saying here. I have a problem with the bolded part. You are not delving into their motivations for doing these things. This is the weakness of the many parties fighting terrorism. They don't understand what would drive anyone to do something so extreme, especially those from wealthy families.
Wealth and affluence have little to do with beliefs. They greatly impact the ability for an individual to act out, but they do not impact the motivations of an individual's beliefs. Nor does it impact an individual's commitment to their belief system or how they perceive how that belief system is accepted. The reality is that Osama bin Laden became a terrorist not because he was rich, but because he felt his beliefs were being oppressed. He joined the mujaheddin because he saw his fellow Muslims being oppressed by the Soviets. The same goes with the rest of the extremists from every religion or ideology.
Now you may not like the term oppression, and prefer other terms, but these people are driven by righting a social injustice they feel is being forced on their beliefs. We'll move away from the radicalized Islamic angle and instead focus on something closer to home. The Bundy's took over the Oregon Wildlife Refuge because of the oppression they saw from the US federal government. This was directly as a result of oppression, the Bundy's own words. Cliven, Ryan and Ammon Bundy all made claims of actions by the "oppressive" federal government as the motivation for their actions in Nevada and Oregon.
Same thing extended to bin Laden and al-Zawahari and their cadre of radicals. They saw the oppression of their wahhabism as an affront to their core beliefs. When they were denied access to the governance process their next step was extremism. I'm not defending any of these people, just explaining the motivation for their actions. You can't defeat an enemy until you understand your enemy.
So I get what your saying, but when you look at these monsters that are following ISIS and being inspired and recruited by ISIS, the whole fighting social injustice argument goes out the window when you talk about a group that machine guns woman and children, commits acts of savage mass rape and a host of other brutal atrocities including attempting acts of genocide against other Muslim Groups. You even saw it in the video above where they believed that the Kurds who are other Muslims are unbelievers. At this point we are talking about a group that is equivalent to the Nazi's.
I mean I'm sure that there are radicals that believe in the whole social injustice thing. But what percentage of ISIS supporters are that, and what percentage are thrill killers with no life who's goal is to be able to legally rape a kid?
Yes absolutely understanding motivation is key, but by simply saying its one motivation means that your blinding yourself to the fact that this problem with radicalization goes far beyond merely being able to pin social injustice and oppression on it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
You mistake acknowledgement of the cultural tradition with acceptance of the negatives of the practice. That is wrong and is where your argument falls apart. If we are expected to be accepting of rabbinical or halahka law, canon or ecclesiastical law, then why should we not be accepting of other religious traditions, even those we find abhorrent? If you allow one, you must allow the other. My personal belief, as an agnostic, is that no religious tradition should be acknowledged or protected. But that is not the stance of our culture, so we are accepting of one, we must be accepting of all traditions.
Now, now, it appears both sides of the argument have a certain number of muppets who will do the same.
You can't reason with people like this. They replace complex questions that require nuance, with simple questions that are black and white. It allows their simplistic thinking room to breathe.
They are incapable of thoughtfulness and can only pound the same myopic drum. It's similar to ISIS and their supporters. Closed minded extremists.
I'm not defending any of these people, just explaining the motivation for their actions. You can't defeat an enemy until you understand your enemy.
Acts of violence are always justified in the eyes of the perpetrators. Rivals who show disrespect. Snitches who need to be taught a lesson. Business associates who renege on a deal. Women who humiliate. Apostates who pollute the sanctity of God's vision. All struck down with righteous fury. Nobody ever thinks to himself Mwa-ha-ha, I'm going to commit an atrocity because I'm evil.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-06-2017 at 01:09 PM.
I agree with much of what you are saying here. I have a problem with the bolded part. You are not delving into their motivations for doing these things. This is the weakness of the many parties fighting terrorism. They don't understand what would drive anyone to do something so extreme, especially those from wealthy families.
Wealth and affluence have little to do with beliefs. They greatly impact the ability for an individual to act out, but they do not impact the motivations of an individual's beliefs. Nor does it impact an individual's commitment to their belief system or how they perceive how that belief system is accepted. The reality is that Osama bin Laden became a terrorist not because he was rich, but because he felt his beliefs were being oppressed. He joined the mujaheddin because he saw his fellow Muslims being oppressed by the Soviets. The same goes with the rest of the extremists from every religion or ideology.
Now you may not like the term oppression, and prefer other terms, but these people are driven by righting a social injustice they feel is being forced on their beliefs. We'll move away from the radicalized Islamic angle and instead focus on something closer to home. The Bundy's took over the Oregon Wildlife Refuge because of the oppression they saw from the US federal government. This was directly as a result of oppression, the Bundy's own words. Cliven, Ryan and Ammon Bundy all made claims of actions by the "oppressive" federal government as the motivation for their actions in Nevada and Oregon.
Same thing extended to bin Laden and al-Zawahari and their cadre of radicals. They saw the oppression of their wahhabism as an affront to their core beliefs. When they were denied access to the governance process their next step was extremism. I'm not defending any of these people, just explaining the motivation for their actions. You can't defeat an enemy until you understand your enemy.
Nope. ISIS is now the greatest driving force behind terrorism. They are motivated by a desire to enslave the rest of the world under an Islamic state, which follows their own hardcore interpretation of Islam. They are responsible for a fair bit of their own oppression. In the short time they've been in existence they've murdered, raped, pillaged, etc...The majority of their victims have been either other Muslims or more oppressed groups like the Yazidis.
I also really don't buy into the whole, "I heard about some other people being oppressed, so I decided to do my own oppressing" argument. Anyone who is truly motivated by the oppressed recognizes that all oppression is wrong. Osama Bin Laden was also more than a terrorist, he set up the Taliban which introduced hardcore Islamic rule and oppressed all citizens in Afghanistan. Do you honestly think he stopped 10s of millions of women from going to school because Muslims were being oppressed somewhere?
So I get what your saying, but when you look at these monsters that are following ISIS and being inspired and recruited by ISIS, the whole fighting social injustice argument goes out the window when you talk about a group that machine guns woman and children, commits acts of savage mass rape and a host of other brutal atrocities including attempting acts of genocide against other Muslim Groups. You even saw it in the video above where they believed that the Kurds who are other Muslims are unbelievers. At this point we are talking about a group that is equivalent to the Nazi's.
I mean I'm sure that there are radicals that believe in the whole social injustice thing. But what percentage of ISIS supporters are that, and what percentage are thrill killers with no life who's goal is to be able to legally rape a kid?
Yes absolutely understanding motivation is key, but by simply saying its one motivation means that your blinding yourself to the fact that this problem with radicalization goes far beyond merely being able to pin social injustice and oppression on it.
I don't disagree with what you are saying Cap, they are monsters. But how do you fight monsters? How do you subdue the beast that grows two heads when you cut one off? I would argue the best strategy here is to try and corral and then tame the beast. The only way to truly defeat this twisted perspective to wait for it to defeat itself and allow the people to turn on it.
The next question is, how do you fight the monsters when you prop up the breeding ground from which the monster is born? You can't continue to cry foul about the radicals when the majority of them come from the land you consider your best ally in the region. You're not going to affect change with the people if you keep supporting the same people most responsible for the oppression. Until the United States starts treating the Saudis as the problem they are, then what is really going to change in this regard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
You can't reason with people like this. They replace complex questions that require nuance, with simple questions that are black and white. It allows their simplistic thinking room to breathe.
They are incapable of thoughtfulness and can only pound the same myopic drum. It's similar to ISIS and their supporters. Closed minded extremists.
Snuff is ominously similar to T@T.
You're right, you can't reason with people like this. You can only wait for them to do themselves in, or die off of natural causes or at the hands of their own. I always jokingly say that the answer to the radical right in the United States is to wait 10-15 years, and it will just naturally die off from old age or a Darwin award moment. The same thing here.
The way to really defeat this radical perspective is to get these people educated. Get them exposed to another book than the Koran. Get them away from the 7th century worldview and get them into a 21st century perspective. It takes time, and it takes a concerted effort to do so. The younger folk here may not understand this, but look at the difference a generation of American media has affected Canadians. Apply that to the Muslim world. Al Jazeera is a problem in many of the Middle Eastern countries because it speaks truth to power. There needs to be more media like this, and more western media, to sway the next generation away from these radial views and have a greater perspective on their religion. You don't win hearts and minds at the end of a gun.
You know what they should be doing, all of these radicals monsters that they do capture. Try them in Islamic Court.
I mean sure, you would literally be supporting the death penalty and the method would be decapitation.
But the best way for Islam to denounce radicalized Islam is through the court systems. So sign make an agreement with Iran or Saudi Arabia where terrorists or terrorist supporters or recruiters or radical Imams who are captured are tried, slammed and killed by the religion that they purport to support. I mean denouncement is nice, but having what would be a legal finding in an Islamic Court that these people are wrong would be powerful
That would also create a urgency to finish this war with ISIS and capture their leader.
We could probably convene a World Court for Crimes against Humanity, but many of these nutters would use that for radicalization with the rest of the world hates us.
But if you have Islamic Scholars finding these people guilty for basically crimes against their faith and sentencing them to have their heads lopped off in a public square after prayer there would be no martyrdom for them and they would be proven wrong.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Nope. ISIS is now the greatest driving force behind terrorism. They are motivated by a desire to enslave the rest of the world under an Islamic state, which follows their own hardcore interpretation of Islam. They are responsible for a fair bit of their own oppression. In the short time they've been in existence they've murdered, raped, pillaged, etc...The majority of their victims have been either other Muslims or more oppressed groups like the Yazidis.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy. Please, please review the various regions in this database to see it is not a related to any one theology.
I also really don't buy into the whole, "I heard about some other people being oppressed, so I decided to do my own oppressing" argument. Anyone who is truly motivated by the oppressed recognizes that all oppression is wrong. Osama Bin Laden was also more than a terrorist, he set up the Taliban which introduced hardcore Islamic rule and oppressed all citizens in Afghanistan. Do you honestly think he stopped 10s of millions of women from going to school because Muslims were being oppressed somewhere?
Let's be accurate here. The United States created "the Taliban." The Taliban were one of the tribes that the CIA recruited and trained to fight the Soviets. It was their training and the power vacuum left by the Soviets that drove the Taliban to power. If the US had stuck around and not turned their back on the Taliban, they may not have radicalized.
bin Laden was actually at odds with the Taliban to begin with. Only later, with a common enemy, did bin Laden find a relationship and comfort with the Taliban.
You know what they should be doing, all of these radicals monsters that they do capture. Try them in Islamic Court.
I mean sure, you would literally be supporting the death penalty and the method would be decapitation.
But the best way for Islam to denounce radicalized Islam is through the court systems. So sign make an agreement with Iran or Saudi Arabia where terrorists or terrorist supporters or recruiters or radical Imams who are captured are tried, slammed and killed by the religion that they purport to support. I mean denouncement is nice, but having what would be a legal finding in an Islamic Court that these people are wrong would be powerful
That would also create a urgency to finish this war with ISIS and capture their leader.
We could probably convene a World Court for Crimes against Humanity, but many of these nutters would use that for radicalization with the rest of the world hates us.
But if you have Islamic Scholars finding these people guilty for basically crimes against their faith and sentencing them to have their heads lopped off in a public square after prayer there would be no martyrdom for them and they would be proven wrong.
That's a helluva an idea. Let the people be in control and punish their own by their own laws. Brilliant Captain.
That's a helluva an idea. Let the people be in control and punish their own by their own laws. Brilliant Captain.
Well with the eyes of the world watching as you put the future of these radicals in the hands of their own faith it might certainly change policies in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia among others.
We sentenced you to death for crimes against the states
But you gave me money to do it Saudi Arabia, and you helped train me Iran.
Errr off with his head.
Think if we could reach a consensus with the Islamic countries that we are trusting you to help clean up this mess.
As well it removes a huge leg in the radicalization argument. "The West and Christians and Jews hates me", "yeah no everyone pretty much hates you. "
Of course I don't think it would work because of a number of things
1) Civil Liberty groups would scream about the lack of lawyers, from what I understand you are defended by religious scholars.
2) Civil Liberty Groups would scream about the lack of appeal process. Basically your tried and sentenced fairly quickly, lead out, given a chance to reconcile things with god and then . . .
3) Civil Liberty groups would really scream about the caviler use of the death penalty.
4) Civil Liberty groups would complain that these were a kangaroo court being unduly influenced by their own government and the Western World to deliver guilty verdicts in the name of the war on terrorism.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I meant why do they attack their home Western countries, where most of them grew up. One of the London attackers was Moroccan-Italian...why did he stab random civilians in a London outdoor area? Because he had grave greivances about the English recognition of France's sphere of influence in Morocco in the 1904 Entente Cordiale?
You can assign fake motives and deflect all you want, the extremely obivous and blatant thread between ALL of these attacks are that the perpatrators Muslim. It doesn't mean Muslims shouldn't be allowed to live in Western countries, or they should be discriminated against, but it is a fact. I really hope you're not a professor of any social science disciplines.
How does the fact that the Kurds, both men (YPG) and women (YPJ) are fighting ISIS fit in your (false) narrative? Kurds are Muslims. In fact many Muslims are fighting and dying in the struggle against ISIS.
There is an interpretation or ideology that ISIS follows that is outright rejected and physically fought against by Muslims. ISIS does not represent the religion or the majority of the followers.
Quote:
we are fighting in the Middle East not for ourselves alone, we are fighting ISIS and terrorism for all humanity. Our resistance is for Europe, for the West and for all humanity.
How does the fact that the Kurds, both men (YPG) and women (YPJ) are fighting ISIS fit in your (false) narrative? Kurds are Muslims. In fact many Muslims are fighting and dying in the struggle against ISIS.
This isn't remotely logical. First, it's possible to adhere to exactly the same religious ideology and still have other differences that create conflict. Second, no one is saying that all Muslims believe the same exact set of doctrines. Even Al Qaeda strongly opposes ISIS. They're both utterly devoted to religious principles. Obviously the Kurds are not Al Qaeda, but your argument doesn't follow at all.
There are many terrible elements of the ISIS doctrine that are outright rejected by the majority of Muslims (including the use of force). There are also bad elements of the ISIS doctrine that are endorsed to varying degrees by hundreds of millions of Muslims on precisely the same scriptural basis that ISIS endorses them. It shouldn't surprise you that there is a broad spectrum of religious belief within Islam, and that minor differences between group A and group B - where both groups hold beliefs that should be intolerable - can create bloody conflict.
Violence perpetrated by Islamist extremists is not solely caused by religious belief. Motivation for human behaviour is always complex and multi-faceted, and there are a variety of overlapping and interacting causes that lead people to kill each other. But religious belief has a whole lot to do with it, and to obfuscate that point is to actively abandon the people attempting to deal with the elements of the faith that need reform.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 06-06-2017 at 03:28 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Maajid Nawaz is usually has a good point but is prone to labelling those he disagrees with as extremists (He himself is a former extremist who served time in prison). He works for Quilliam. They usually do a pretty good job minus the incident with one of their journalists writing a hit piece on Tommy Robinson named Julia Ebner. Quilliam's head (Harris Rafiq) rejected the claims of their own journalist and admitted on live tv Tommy is not a white supremacist.
