Would be interested in people's comments on this video, especially the chart that is progressively shown e.g. @7:39 (but the video explains it systematically).

It addresses two common themes that just seem to go round and round in forum discussion on this topic.

[youtube]Sz2tTDFmCzY[/youtube]

https://youtu.be/Sz2tTDFmCzY

Edited by uncle sepp: 21/11/2015 03:11:17 PM

Edited by uncle sepp: 21/11/2015 03:15:10 PM

"You can't call acts of terror Islamic."

Bullshit. The Quran asks for killing non-believers, and people are surprised when people who actually read it go out and kill non-believers. The Bible asks for the same thing, the difference is that when someone like Breivik commits a similar atrocity, the press just say "he's not a real Christian".

In my honest opinion, the moderate religious people are more to blame than the people who commit the massacres. Even though they personally don't believe the ultra-insane shit that these books contain, they are 99% of the ones who spread the ultra-insane shit that the books contain to their children, and as such, to the next generation.

There's no surprise that pretty much every academic study of all time shows that there's a direct correlation between low education and higher religious beliefs.

If only there were a way to see the world that wasn't through the eyes of illiterate peasant farmers who thought bats were birds and thought that the moon was a source of light.

TLDR; Stop indoctrinating children with books that say raped women should be executed and that non-believers should be decapitated, otherwise it might just actually happen.

Edited by Draupnir: 21/11/2015 03:19:25 PM

Technically it's the Torah where Yahweh commands the Israelites to kill people... So really, it's Jewish extremists you should be worrying about, not Christian ones ;)

Social media is full of comments like this in the wake of a tragic attack like Paris and its just absolute bullshit. You know who says Anders Breivik isn't a "real Christian"? Anders Breivik does. The guy is on record as saying he's never identified as a Christian.

I hate the vitriol directed towards the Muslim community as much as the next person, but I find those who try to defend them by making a comparison with a similar scale atrocity committed by a white guy, or by someone with links to a more accepted faith, are reaching really hard to make a point that just doesn't work and is completely unnecessary.

The worst people in all of this are the people who completely ignore the huge part religion plays in this issue and instead blames Western politics.

I saw it again on the BBC this morning where what I can only assume was a muslim man deflected all criticism levelled at Islam towards the politics of France.

Brining up the Crusades is ridiculous. They were hundreds of years ago.

Religion is the problem.

To me, religion (and in this case) islam obviously has a strong role to play in all of this but I don't think it very often starts it. People feeling marginalised draws people to these sorts of groups. That's why you get arguments about the west making it worst and french politics being blamed.

Keep people happy and give them self worth, and the vast majority will want no part in it.

I always find it funny how the people who will leap to the defence of muslims and their belief in Islam after events like Paris will also take shots at Christianity at any chance. They will openly come across as verhenltly anti-religion and be bemused at why people would be Christian, but then jump at the chance to 'stand-up' for muslims. Bewilders me a bit.

But then on the on the other side of the spectrum you get the lock up the borders 'patriots' who wouldn't even know the second verse to the national anthem.

Fuck all religions...
People can practise it as long as they don't hurt nobody.
But I see it as what holds back progress of the Human Race.
Science is the answer.

Dunno about that being the reason for him killing those people though.

Hitler was 100% Christian but it had nothing to do with him invading Russia.

Let's just put this one to bed:



Wriggle your way out of that one. Yes he is a crazy, crazy guy, but you just cannot argue your way out of the fact that his Christian beliefs were central for him doing what he did.

Maybe I'm wasting my time, but I'll have a go ...

The fallacy of your comment is that you are defining Christianity by what Anders Breivik says. Christianity was defined 2,000 years ago by what Jesus Christ said and did. And you, paladisious, choose to ignore that and say that what Breivik says is true?

Jesus warned against people who thought they were on his side, but were not. They're called hypocrites. Jesus said: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

I think it's plain, even to you, that killing 77 people in cold mass murder is not "the will of the Father in heaven". Jesus plainly told Peter, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight ..." (John 18:36).

I am assuming you've come from a background where the Christians you had in your life really @issed you off, to the extent that you hate Christianity. But that shouldn't prevent you from thinking logically that a person who commits mass murder is not following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

Even if you don't fully accept Christ as Lord, at least have the common sense to put up strong arguments.

Oh, and before you start quoting from the Old Testament, there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments (the New Testament being the part that's about Jesus' life and ministry).

Edited by uncle sepp: 21/11/2015 10:43:34 PM

You bring up those quotes from the man and then I can also find this:



I don't think it can be put to bed, or why you think I need to 'wriggle my way out of' this for that matter. My point wasn't about defending Christianity, I was whinging about how annoying I find the behaviour that Damonzzz elaborated on well in his post above.

As you say the guy is an absolute nutter, you can find quotes of him denying he's religious, quotes saying he is 100% religious, others saying he's into Darwinism and has at times considered himself agnostic, he even claims to be a Freemason member FFS. The guy contradicts himself so fucking much, the insanity is strong.

If you read his manifesto though his attraction to Christianity isn't about faith or personal belief, it is purely an anti Islam thing, he views Christianity as the best chance of opposing Islam and uniting 'cultural Christian Europeans' together to prevent the spread of Islam and Marxism. When he says Christian he means white, it really is just a way to group white Europeans together in his mind, just look at this quote:



"Christian cultural heritage" = white Europe. The guy doesn't give a fuck about the faith, nor does he hold any actual beliefs and is pretty clear about it, he's a right wing extremist who is seriously afraid of Islam and Marxism encroaching upon European culture and views Christianity as the best hope of uniting "European moderates".

Uncle Sepp is the equivalence of Murdoch Rags...but on opposite ends of the spectrum.

They can both get fucked as far as Im concerned since they don't have a inkling interest in football.

Edited by SocaWho: 22/11/2015 02:44:28 PM

I'm relieved that Uncle Sepp's interpretation of Christianity is a peaceful one.

Tell me anything good that comes out of indoctrination of children....

or how about this scenario...if there is an Athiest and a Christian.

1) Person A is an Athiest and has been his/her whole life...helps charity...does volunteering...but has never committed a single crime on this Earth.
2) Person B is a Born Again Christian who has murdered people in the past but has repented his sins and converted to Christianity and has asked for forgiveness to God for his past misdeeds.

Does Person B go to heaven because they believe in God and Person A doesn't because they are an Athiest?

Mind you I dislike religion so Im not picking on the one religion.


Edited by SocaWho: 22/11/2015 03:46:45 PM

This isn't directed at you personally, just a general comment because it seems to be a popular topic when it comes to attributing the cause of these sorts of horrific attacks.

Something that concerns me about this is how people seem to think only Muslims are marginalised and use it to somehow pass some of the blame back on to the countries where these attacks are occurring.

I made a comment on FB which attracted super-hatred that went something along the lines of "why aren't the bogans rising up because they're marginalised?". What I noticed in response was that somehow the marginalization of muslims was completely different. Muslims aren't the only minority in France. The response in many cases seems to be that western countries need to adapt to support the minorities (Muslims). I find that rather rich given how many minorities have on the most part adapted peacefully to the French way of life.

While marginalization is certainly a factor, I find it entirely pathetic that we are expected to buy this excuse.

Well something these marginalized muslims have that the bogans don't is a well funded organisation overseas that is capable of assisting them.

ISIS themselves came about because comfortable middle class sunni muslim Iraqis suddenly found themselves marginalised by the US backed Shia government. They are the majority so I don't necessarily think this is wrong but the instability in the region after a collapse of a regime provides a vacuum that such organisations can establish a foothold.

A few notes on the above.

Science is not in opposition with religion. Science just is. Religion opposes science because it undermines its mythology.
Science isn't the answer to religion, no religion is the answer.

Ad-nauseam spamming of social media telling me terrorists are assholes - not Muslims. I agree they are assholes, I agree they are using islam to justify there motives. BUT they ARE using Islam to justify there motives.

Whether or not they twist the koran to fit their objective, they are being inspired by it to commit the act.
ISIS is not the face of Islam any more than the KKK are for christians, but they both exist and both do horrible things in the name of your gods.

Trying to distance the terrorists from the religion is misguided. Especially in Meme form :roll:

Doesn't this indicate a wider problem with Muslim countries and their leaders/power brokers then? I.E some rich and powerful ones are all too happy to watch terror unfold in the west?



Indeed. Suddam was a monster but his regime managed for the most part to keep the peace. The USA and it's people trying to impose democracy failed miserably.

Middle class Iraqis turned into ISIS? :shock:

Definitely issues with some countries in the middle east. Maybe not always the governments in question but wealthy people willing to support these sorts of organisations in other middle eastern countries along religious/political lines.


Yes and it hasn't helped that Syria also has fallen into disarray too.

Yes and some of the elite too :shock: :shock:

Lol @ the attempt to make Anders Brevik Christian. He explicitly said in his manifesto that he doesn't believe in God or Jesus. He means the same thing that Dawkins means when Dawkins calls himself "a cultural Anglican". You want to call Brevik Christian, you better start calling Dawkins Christian.

Edited by kamaryn: 23/11/2015 12:18:28 PM

the key thing is employment....if you have higher unemployment you have people more at risk at radicalization.
people cant be at two places at the same time...if they are out of work
then they can be sitting around at home or more likely to get up to no good.
yes its good to be charitable to help people escape wartorn countries but if the jobs arent there for these people then you cannot suggest that the solution for those people is to be on welfare for the rest of their lives....everyones a loser

Edited by Socawho: 23/11/2015 12:11:46 PM

:shock: Wow, makes you think anyone could be radicalised no matter how educated they are :shock:

Um... the reason he massacred the "Young Labour Party" retreat in Norway was because he opposed their policy of multiculturalism. He is blatant about what he did, and he did it for what he saw as the defence of Christianity and "European Christian values".

There does seem to be these weird opinions floating about on these issues.

My 2 cents:

Of course ISIS is driven by their religious beliefs. So it is "about religion". However, obviously most muslims don't share the beliefs promoted by ISIS.

Much like as has been mentioned, Anders Brievik was driven by his version of Christianity. His views are obviously not shared by most Christians.

However, it is pointless looking at these things without analysing the context in which they occurred.

Western military intervention/ imperialism is not responsible for what is happening now, of course not.

However, the long history of the middle east does help to explain how the conditions for the creation of ISIS came to be.

And this is useful. Not to try and pin the blame, but in order to look at how we can stop these groups from flourishing in the future.

Yes. And he defined his "European Christian values" as having nothing to do with believing in God, or Jesus. In other words, it was purely about culture, not religion. Dawkins describes himself the same way: "a cultural Anglican". If you want to say Brevik was Christian, you have to say Dawkins is Christian.

Following from my last post, some examples of what I am saying are:

- Most of the countries in the middle east were artificial creations Post-WW1. Especially Iraq - in reality that should have been 3 countries - Kurdish, Sunni & Shia.

- We in the west associate the concept of "Secular" govt as being free of corruption, having rule of law, and being free of interference by religions. However, for many people in the middle east, if you ask them what "secular" is - they will answer that Saddam Hussein and Al-Sisi in Egypt are secular. Secularism is taken as militarism, authoritarian, and repressive. And these people were/are kept in power through funding by the USA.

There are good reasons why the USA does this - stability etc. However, the average person living at the sharp end would not be sympathetic.

- The Iraq war which deposed Saddam, created the chaos and 'failed state' conditions which allowed ISIS to be created.

None of the above justifies anything ISIS has done, or is meant to say we shouldn't do anything about it. But it is important to understand how these things come about if you want to combat it.