Yesterday's attack in Woolwich was a vile, disgusting, indefensible crime.
However, I think you are a tad one-sided in your analysis i.e. Islam is not a religion of peace. Surely you would allow that a country or religious group can defend themselves if attacked?
For example, here are the US's involvement in Muslim countries or countries with substantial Muslim populations. Reading this list you can perhaps understand why "Islamists" don't necessarily hold the west and the US, in particular, in the highest regard and have even been known to retaliate.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops. Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in manoeuvres.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-12 Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.
Woolich Attack
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Mr Slater
"But Islam does leave room for the glorification of martyrdom in a way Christianity doesn't. At least today's Christianity, anyway. This could be why it appeals to nutters, or why nutters find the perfect excuse for a bit of killing."
Yes, mind, you can see similar tendencies in certain nation states where religion is replaced by pseudo-religious claptrap
For example the ones that send their troops to invade a country like Iraq as part of an illegal war bolstered by a dodgy dossier and that results in anything between 100,000 and a million Iraqi deaths depending on which survey you believe.
These nation states then remember their brave dead in the House of Commons by uniformly and without exception praising the actions of the dead soldiers in a war to defend our and others' freedoms, which seems to many to have brought minimal benefits either to Iraq or the UK. I suppose you could argue that in the case of the nation states, it is the nutters who are sometimes in charge of the government.
And then we wonder why as a nation we are not overly popular with many Muslims in the area.
Lions led by donkeys indeed!
Yes, mind, you can see similar tendencies in certain nation states where religion is replaced by pseudo-religious claptrap
For example the ones that send their troops to invade a country like Iraq as part of an illegal war bolstered by a dodgy dossier and that results in anything between 100,000 and a million Iraqi deaths depending on which survey you believe.
These nation states then remember their brave dead in the House of Commons by uniformly and without exception praising the actions of the dead soldiers in a war to defend our and others' freedoms, which seems to many to have brought minimal benefits either to Iraq or the UK. I suppose you could argue that in the case of the nation states, it is the nutters who are sometimes in charge of the government.
And then we wonder why as a nation we are not overly popular with many Muslims in the area.
Lions led by donkeys indeed!
Re: Woolwich Attack
Sam Slater wrote:
> But I don't think it's that relevant because Christianity has
> been beaten back by the enlightenment, science, democracy and
> education. We've, for the most part, tamed it.
I think there's more to it than that. G.K. Chesterton said that when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything. People may not believe in God any more but they believe in astrology, Tarot cards, fortune tellers and mediums which one might argue are equally spurious.
However, the whole of Western society is based on/developed from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which means in effect that one would not be able to live the life ones does were it not for Christians and Jews. As I said on this subject some time back, it wasn't the atheists who set up various charitable institutions.
We still have to
> keep an eye on it.....especially in America. Islam hasn't gone
> through that same process and so I think it would be
> disingenuous to state, or imply, both are somehow exactly
> equal, or as bad as eachother just so we don't offend anyone
> and can all play happy families.
>
> The two murderers were apparently Islamic converts. I think if
> they'd stayed Christian that poor guy who got his head chopped
> off would still be with us. You think?
>
> Of course, most Muslims would be as sickened by this attack as
> non-Muslims. We're all human. But Islam does leave room for the
> glorification of martyrdom in a way Christianity doesn't. At
> least today's Christianity, anyway. This could be why it
> appeals to nutters, or why nutters find the perfect excuse for
> a bit of killing.
>
The Muslim aim is to take over the world. Indeed, it is a Muslim's "job" to proselytise. One day they will probably succeed. That matters not to anyone here because none of us will be alive when it happens but Muslims have higher birth rates than non-Muslims so even if it is not done violently it will occur by sheer weight of numbers.
> But I don't think it's that relevant because Christianity has
> been beaten back by the enlightenment, science, democracy and
> education. We've, for the most part, tamed it.
I think there's more to it than that. G.K. Chesterton said that when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything. People may not believe in God any more but they believe in astrology, Tarot cards, fortune tellers and mediums which one might argue are equally spurious.
However, the whole of Western society is based on/developed from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which means in effect that one would not be able to live the life ones does were it not for Christians and Jews. As I said on this subject some time back, it wasn't the atheists who set up various charitable institutions.
We still have to
> keep an eye on it.....especially in America. Islam hasn't gone
> through that same process and so I think it would be
> disingenuous to state, or imply, both are somehow exactly
> equal, or as bad as eachother just so we don't offend anyone
> and can all play happy families.
>
> The two murderers were apparently Islamic converts. I think if
> they'd stayed Christian that poor guy who got his head chopped
> off would still be with us. You think?
>
> Of course, most Muslims would be as sickened by this attack as
> non-Muslims. We're all human. But Islam does leave room for the
> glorification of martyrdom in a way Christianity doesn't. At
> least today's Christianity, anyway. This could be why it
> appeals to nutters, or why nutters find the perfect excuse for
> a bit of killing.
>
The Muslim aim is to take over the world. Indeed, it is a Muslim's "job" to proselytise. One day they will probably succeed. That matters not to anyone here because none of us will be alive when it happens but Muslims have higher birth rates than non-Muslims so even if it is not done violently it will occur by sheer weight of numbers.
Re: Mr Slater
Nice list there but all it does is show a list of actions where other nations did some maybe questionable things to other nations not a religion killing other religions because they cannot tolerate any other bar their own.
the evil westerners argument doesn't hold any water of justification as Islam has been murdering their own populace and other religions before we got involved.
the evil westerners argument doesn't hold any water of justification as Islam has been murdering their own populace and other religions before we got involved.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater
You'd have more of an argument if Islamists were only attacking the west, but as I said:
They're fighting with Hindus in India, secularists and Buddhists in Thailand, secularists and Christians in Indonesia, Christians in Africa, other types of Muslims in the Middle East, Jews in Israel AND westerners in Europe and the USA.
This cannot all be explained by Western meddling in the Middle East, nor all blamed on the the USA. What CAN explain this scuffling with just about everyone they brush up against is an intolerant, backward religion that glorifies martyrdom and hasn't had much in the way of reform for a thousand years.
When a British-born Nigerian, with Christian parents and a Christian upbringing, converts to Islam and starts talking about Afghanistan as 'our lands' he is not doing so based on his British nationality, nor his Nigerian roots. Nor is it really about principles. He didn't, for instance, target an oriental-looking guy and hack his head off in protest at China's long-standing annexation of Tibet. It is because he converted to that religion I described in the previous paragraph.
I cannot defend a religion that has similar attitudes to outgroups as fascists do. I cannot defend a religion that talks of women like they were livestock, thinks non-Muslims are inferior, or wants to kill homosexuals. And while most Muslims (at least in the Western world) do not think that way, they don't in spite of their religion, not because of it. I will defend Muslims from attack by racists, but I can do so while at the same time hating their religion. You seem to differ, here. You cannot seem to separate the people and their theology and so think a defense of Islam is you defending Muslims.
Your intentions are now doubt good, but defending it is something that goes against everything you should stand for as a leftist.
They're fighting with Hindus in India, secularists and Buddhists in Thailand, secularists and Christians in Indonesia, Christians in Africa, other types of Muslims in the Middle East, Jews in Israel AND westerners in Europe and the USA.
This cannot all be explained by Western meddling in the Middle East, nor all blamed on the the USA. What CAN explain this scuffling with just about everyone they brush up against is an intolerant, backward religion that glorifies martyrdom and hasn't had much in the way of reform for a thousand years.
When a British-born Nigerian, with Christian parents and a Christian upbringing, converts to Islam and starts talking about Afghanistan as 'our lands' he is not doing so based on his British nationality, nor his Nigerian roots. Nor is it really about principles. He didn't, for instance, target an oriental-looking guy and hack his head off in protest at China's long-standing annexation of Tibet. It is because he converted to that religion I described in the previous paragraph.
I cannot defend a religion that has similar attitudes to outgroups as fascists do. I cannot defend a religion that talks of women like they were livestock, thinks non-Muslims are inferior, or wants to kill homosexuals. And while most Muslims (at least in the Western world) do not think that way, they don't in spite of their religion, not because of it. I will defend Muslims from attack by racists, but I can do so while at the same time hating their religion. You seem to differ, here. You cannot seem to separate the people and their theology and so think a defense of Islam is you defending Muslims.
Your intentions are now doubt good, but defending it is something that goes against everything you should stand for as a leftist.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
"Nice list there but all it does is show a list of actions where other nations did some maybe questionable things to other nations not a religion killing other religions because they cannot tolerate any other bar their own".
Yes, I suppose you could suggest killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis was "maybe questionable".
I am clearly not comparing religions here i.e. Islam with Christianity because I agree with Mr Slater that Islam has not gone through a similar phase as Christianity did in the Renaissance and in many of the countries where Muslims live in Asia, there is little or no government, life is harsh and brutal and religion is all that they have got to get them through in the same way as it was for peasants in England centuries ago.
What I am saying is that in a situation where for many Muslims, religion is their key strength and identifier, an attack of which I listed many, many of, is likely to be met with a defence or retaliation which is religious in connotation. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russian army is hardly going to be met by the Afghani army is it? It was met by an uprising and guerrilla war which was in many cases religious in connotation.
"the evil westerners argument doesn't hold any water of justification as Islam has been murdering their own populace and other religions before we got involved."
Well if you are saying "Wars have happened through the centuries" as you appear to be saying , then clearly I can't disagree. This has nothing to do with the huge number of attacks by the US and its allies on Muslim countries and it's resulting reactions.
Such wars between religious groupings will go on. "For example 90% of the Burmese population is Buddhist. The Christian and Muslim populations face religious persecution and it is hard, if not impossible, for non-Buddhists to join the army or get government jobs, the main route to success in the country. Such persecution and targeting of civilians is particularly notable in Eastern Burma, where over 3000 villages have been destroyed in the past ten years.[ More than 200,000 Rohingya Muslims have settled in Bangladesh, to escape persecution, over the past 20 years"
All I am requesting is a bit more balance and a bit less one-sidedness re. the evil Islam line that so often surfaces on this board.
Yes, I suppose you could suggest killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis was "maybe questionable".
I am clearly not comparing religions here i.e. Islam with Christianity because I agree with Mr Slater that Islam has not gone through a similar phase as Christianity did in the Renaissance and in many of the countries where Muslims live in Asia, there is little or no government, life is harsh and brutal and religion is all that they have got to get them through in the same way as it was for peasants in England centuries ago.
What I am saying is that in a situation where for many Muslims, religion is their key strength and identifier, an attack of which I listed many, many of, is likely to be met with a defence or retaliation which is religious in connotation. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russian army is hardly going to be met by the Afghani army is it? It was met by an uprising and guerrilla war which was in many cases religious in connotation.
"the evil westerners argument doesn't hold any water of justification as Islam has been murdering their own populace and other religions before we got involved."
Well if you are saying "Wars have happened through the centuries" as you appear to be saying , then clearly I can't disagree. This has nothing to do with the huge number of attacks by the US and its allies on Muslim countries and it's resulting reactions.
Such wars between religious groupings will go on. "For example 90% of the Burmese population is Buddhist. The Christian and Muslim populations face religious persecution and it is hard, if not impossible, for non-Buddhists to join the army or get government jobs, the main route to success in the country. Such persecution and targeting of civilians is particularly notable in Eastern Burma, where over 3000 villages have been destroyed in the past ten years.[ More than 200,000 Rohingya Muslims have settled in Bangladesh, to escape persecution, over the past 20 years"
All I am requesting is a bit more balance and a bit less one-sidedness re. the evil Islam line that so often surfaces on this board.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Woolwich Attack
[quote]I think there's more to it than that. G.K. Chesterton said that when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything. People may not believe in God any more but they believe in astrology, Tarot cards, fortune tellers and mediums which one might argue are equally spurious.[/quote]
They are equally spurious. Still, many people who believe in mediums must believe in an afterlife.......which they get from religion. As for Tarot cards and astrology.......I'm not sure a belief in these things increases as a belief in God decreases.
[quote]The Muslim aim is to take over the world. Indeed, it is a Muslim's "job" to proselytise.[/quote]
It is the aim for most religions. Each one thinks it's on the right path and wants everyone else on board too.
They are equally spurious. Still, many people who believe in mediums must believe in an afterlife.......which they get from religion. As for Tarot cards and astrology.......I'm not sure a belief in these things increases as a belief in God decreases.
[quote]The Muslim aim is to take over the world. Indeed, it is a Muslim's "job" to proselytise.[/quote]
It is the aim for most religions. Each one thinks it's on the right path and wants everyone else on board too.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Porn Baron
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Anjem-Choudary
This guy is dangerous and we should make his life uncomfortable.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater
[quote]For example the ones that send their troops to invade a country like Iraq as part of an illegal war bolstered by a dodgy dossier and that results in anything between 100,000 and a million Iraqi deaths depending on which survey you believe.[/quote]
You do know that most Iraqi deaths were Muslims killing other Muslims based on what type of Muslim you were, right?
It's not the big bad 'ole Americans that are planting bombs outside Shia Mosques, primed to go off just after afternoon prayers. But ignore that big nugget because it doesn't fit in with your agenda.
You do know that most Iraqi deaths were Muslims killing other Muslims based on what type of Muslim you were, right?
It's not the big bad 'ole Americans that are planting bombs outside Shia Mosques, primed to go off just after afternoon prayers. But ignore that big nugget because it doesn't fit in with your agenda.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater
"You'd have more of an argument if Islamists were only attacking the west, but as I said":
No I wouldn't. That is a different situation.
My reply to Gentleman may help
For example, you cite Muslims fighting Hindus in India.
Take for example, the holy site of Ayodhya which is at the epicentre of communal hostility stoked by Hindu nationalists in defiance of modern India's founding tradition of secular tolerance. In 1992, the city became the focus of the worst communal violence since India's partition 45 years earlier, when 2,000 people died in clashes after Hindu nationalists ? including members of what is now the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ? tore down the 16th century Babri mosque. Hindus claim the mosque had originally been built on the site of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Rama. Ever since then, the Hindu nationalist movement has been pushing to build a new Hindu temple where the mosque once stood etc etc. Over a million Hindus and Muslims died as part of the Partition of India.
"secularists and Buddhists in Thailand"
Well there are two sides to every story, are there not?
"When a British-born Nigerian, with Christian parents and a Christian upbringing, converts to Islam and starts talking about Afghanistan as 'our lands' he is not doing so based on his British nationality, nor his Nigerian roots. Nor is it really about principles. He didn't, for instance, target an oriental-looking guy and hack his head off in protest at China's long-standing annexation of Tibet. It is because he converted to that religion I described in the previous paragraph."
Again read my reply to Gentleman. Just as there are horrific eye for an eye type stories in the Old Testament so there are in the Koran. Just as some born again Christians take literally the meaning of every word of the Old Testament so there are Muslims who do the same with the Koran.
Now you will probably say there is only one interpretation of the Koran but it has to be said there are a whole lot more stonings of women for adultery in Afghanistan then there are in England. Yes there are honour killings but they are not limited to Muslims. You also get Sikh and Hindu killings.
"You cannot seem to separate the people and their theology and so think a defense of Islam is you defending Muslims."
Obviously I am not doing that.
No I wouldn't. That is a different situation.
My reply to Gentleman may help
For example, you cite Muslims fighting Hindus in India.
Take for example, the holy site of Ayodhya which is at the epicentre of communal hostility stoked by Hindu nationalists in defiance of modern India's founding tradition of secular tolerance. In 1992, the city became the focus of the worst communal violence since India's partition 45 years earlier, when 2,000 people died in clashes after Hindu nationalists ? including members of what is now the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ? tore down the 16th century Babri mosque. Hindus claim the mosque had originally been built on the site of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Rama. Ever since then, the Hindu nationalist movement has been pushing to build a new Hindu temple where the mosque once stood etc etc. Over a million Hindus and Muslims died as part of the Partition of India.
"secularists and Buddhists in Thailand"
Well there are two sides to every story, are there not?
"When a British-born Nigerian, with Christian parents and a Christian upbringing, converts to Islam and starts talking about Afghanistan as 'our lands' he is not doing so based on his British nationality, nor his Nigerian roots. Nor is it really about principles. He didn't, for instance, target an oriental-looking guy and hack his head off in protest at China's long-standing annexation of Tibet. It is because he converted to that religion I described in the previous paragraph."
Again read my reply to Gentleman. Just as there are horrific eye for an eye type stories in the Old Testament so there are in the Koran. Just as some born again Christians take literally the meaning of every word of the Old Testament so there are Muslims who do the same with the Koran.
Now you will probably say there is only one interpretation of the Koran but it has to be said there are a whole lot more stonings of women for adultery in Afghanistan then there are in England. Yes there are honour killings but they are not limited to Muslims. You also get Sikh and Hindu killings.
"You cannot seem to separate the people and their theology and so think a defense of Islam is you defending Muslims."
Obviously I am not doing that.