?

Edited by paladisious: 25/3/2016 12:48:58 AM

??

???

You're far brighter than this, pal. This isn't approved of, let alone sanctioned, by Islamic leaders. The same for the vast majority of Muslims.

You might as well look at the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland and say the same thing about Catholics. Or the Loyalist paramilitaries and say the same things about Protestants.

It's immensely unfair on the vast majority of those in the Muslim community. And attitude like that is fuel for extremist elements. They prey upon the marginalised.

By making that comment, you'are marginalising people.

Don't you see that many Muslims can say exactly that and be scarcely no more wrong than you are?

Our governments have been responsible for slaughtering far more Muslim civilians in the Middle-East over the last fifteen years than Islamic extremists have slaughtered innocent civilians from Western nations.

As soon as you look at it that way, "we" don't actually have much of a lead in terms of moral high ground.

Look at your language. "We". By implication that's "us" and "them".

You're doing exactly what George W. Bush wanted when he said you're either with him or against him in his war against terror.

It's a false dichotomy. And so many people have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

Have you considered the possibility that you, most non-Muslims, most Muslims, me and countless others need not exist in the category of "us" or "them".

We can have our own category (if we even need a category in the first place). You can denounce acts of terror committed by Islamic extremists and denounce the actions of the West in terms of what happens in Abu Ghraib, etc.

It's not rocket science.

Haven't you heard of the Old Testament?

You'll find much the same written there.

?

if there was zero Muslims being killed by US bombs, there still be terrorism attack in Belgium

just because A and B look link to you, doesn't mean they are

Scott21

In the Old Testament during the conquest of Canaan, God commands the Israelites to slay anything that can draw breath. It basically amounts to genocide.

Deut 20:16-18

One of multiple examples of such violence perpetrated against enemies of the Israelites.

If one chooses to read the Bible as selectively as some of us read the Quran, one reaches the conclusion it is every bit as violent and culpable of inciting violence against non-believers.

It was a brutal age, that's all there is to it.

Funnily enough, in this day and age, Christians are every bit as violent as Muslims.

He took a quote from the Quran and you end up countering not by saying "yes it is bad", but ".... but but but what about what they do over there" .

It seems odd to me.

what does that have to do with anything?

Edited by scott21: 23/3/2016 01:41:06 AM

Depends how far back we go. If Iraq had never been invaded (US bombs), ISIS/ISIL would not be causing the headaches they are. The Middle-East would be a lot tidier and a lot fewer people would hate the West and thus these attacks would not occur in the first place.

I apologise if I haven't explained myself properly. I thought it was self-evident as this argument has been done to death.

His quote from the Quran is no more damning of Islam than quotes from the Bible are of Christianity.

11.mvfc.11 is culpable of a highly selective reading of the Quran which misrepresents the nature of it.

It's no more (or less) violent than Christianity.

Most Muslims find the violent aspects of the Quran every bit as abhorrent as the idea that the first born sons of Egyptians should die.

These texts were written in a violent age. To cherrypick violent aspects of them and suggest they are indicative of the religion as a whole is misleading and irresponsible.

The sad thing, in the wake of these attacks, is emotions often get the better of us.

Thoughts and prayers to the victims. Then we keep calm and listen to this great man.

[youtube]nxNJLkIkYQM[/youtube]

Why do you keep bringing up Christians?

Thats why religion is bad.

Pretty bad rationale to make excuses for muslim violence by bringing up
the christian argument though.

I can say to you that although most muslims are peace loving law abiding people, theres always that fringe element in every country that does not conform with secular society and wants to turn the state into their utopian caliphate

All religions are bad...but islam is the worst one of them all

As i said im sure most muslims are law abiding people...but the ideology is a violent one, and the ones that follow it to the letter are the ones that place their god above human life


Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 02:15:55 AM

Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 02:17:09 AM

In response to the misinformed insinuation that Islam is a religion of violence, I pointed out that it is no more or less a religion of violence than various forms of Christianity are religions of violence.

Nominally, at least, many of us are Christian. Our leaders certainly are (Cameron, Obama, Turnbull). The United Kingdom is formally aligned with an established Church of England.

You brain hurts me

Good grief. Please don't misrepresent my opinion so. I never said it was by any means acceptable to blow people up in an airport. I said this violence, probably perpetrated in the name of Islam, is no more representative of Islam than violence committed by the Privisional IRA/Loyalist paramilitaries is representative of the Catholic or (various) Protestant religions.

You're most entitled to believe religion is bad and the world would be better off without it. It's not the most unhealthy of viewpoints. Personally, I disagree, being a classic liberal and devotee of JS Mills.

Edited by quickflick: 23/3/2016 02:19:04 AM

Sorry mate. I just think it's necessary to stand firm against the populist anti-Muslim sentiment which grows in the wake of these tragedies. I don't like seeing the views and intentions of people (and ideas) misrepresented.

if you don't believe that religion is bad then you cant draw parallels between IRA violence and muslim violence because the only thing that binds that argument is religion....nothing else.
you might not like anti muslim sentiment and that is your right...but what right have you tell people what to think ,especially if their personal experiences with muslims have been overwhelming negative.

let people form their own experiences of what they hold true...its something that people of the left persuasion fail to grasp.

Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 02:27:34 AM

Let's see. About 800 years of occupation of Ireland by Britain (going back before the Reformation) might have something to do with it, too.

Nothing?

Ahhh yes the chief deflectionist

Catholics vs Protestents...religion much?

i wonder why quickflick thinks hes a great man?...bit easy to say keep calm when he wasnt the one been blown to smithereens:-"


Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 02:35:12 AM

So you're saying all Republicans were Catholics and all Loyalists were Protestants?

I think you'll find that's not the case.

As it happens, certainly religious divide played no small part in that conflict. But you said "nothing else" did. This is bullshit.

It comes down to centuries of subjugation of the Irish people, huge degrees of inequality and the inevitable (and disproportionate) resistance against this.

Among others, Charles Stewart Parnell (leader of the Republican movement in the late 19th Century) was Protestant. Likewise, plenty of members of the British Army engaged in combat with the Provisional IRA were Catholic.

nice way to sidetrack me into a different topic. stick to the original topic.
its quite clear you are a marxist...i think its something we can both agree on.

Somehow i get the feeling that had it been a christian that commited the act, your defense of not tarring everyone with the same brush would not be as strident....since christians are not as fervent as you about marxism

Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 03:00:41 AM

Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 03:01:55 AM

Every right. When somebody takes to a public forum to spread misinformation, you have every right to counter it. You even have a duty to do so. It's irresponsible to let impressionable people be so easily misled.



Those being blown to smithereens and their loved ones have all my sympathy.

Those who aren't being blown to smithereens but are just looking to stir up the emotions of the ignorant need to be told to jog on.

At times like these, it behoves those of us not affected by these tragedies to act dispassionately (in terms of policy) but with full consideration of the suffering of the innocent people involved.

Only then are reasonable decisions made.

Edited by quickflick: 23/3/2016 03:26:43 AM

Nice try. I think I told you of my political convictions earlier



Did you really want me to have to spell it out?

I'm a proponent of the individual's rights. I prize these above all rights. It's the duty of every government to guarantee and to protect these rights. When these rights are not protected (and when government violates these rights), the government loses its legitimacy. Classic John Locke and JS Mills.

Thus, I'm not exactly a left-winger either (beyond having a lot of admiration for the Scandinavians). I'm not right-wing or left-wing. And I think most people would be well-advised to dispense with labelling things "left" or "right". Quite apart from the fact often they're incorrectly labelled. It's also reductive.

In the wake of the Russian Revolution, I wish Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada, France, etc. had mustered as big as army as possible and sent it into Russia to vanquish the Bolsheviks once and for all. This would have been no small undertaking. And, after the losses sustained in the First World War, it was a bridge too far.

These are hardly the views of a Marxist.

The Old Testament is part of the bible as historical reference of the beliefs prior to Christ. By definition there were no Christians in the Old Testament and there are no incitements to violence in the New Testament or the teachings of Christ. Contrast this with the koran, where Mohammed constantly incites violence, rape and murder. The violence and incitement grow worse after the migration and conquest of Mecca, and wherever two verses are contradictory the later verse (chronologically, not in order in the koran) takes precedent.

Your moral relativism is complete shit, Jesus did not invite anyone to violence, don't lecture us about Christianity when you know nothing of it.