Buying bread from a man in Brussels
He was six foot four and full of muscle
I said, "Do you speak my language?"
He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich

And he said, "I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover", yeah

Bin Laden had a few wives, a rich daddy, and has seen more money than most of us ever will.
Quickflick destroyed his own argument right there.

You can't look at me with a straight face and tell me the members of the PLO aren't muslim.
Why is that the Left can make concessions for Che Gueverra to be symbolised as some of cult hero when he was a cold blooded murderer.

Edited by SocaWho: 23/3/2016 10:24:58 AM

Al Qaeda did develop in the 90s, their doctrine, training and techniques. They declared war on America and conducted many terrorist attacks including the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Centre. 0/10

The Palestinian groups you referenced as secular nationalists in the 80s all had an Islamic bent, as reflected in their names. Fateh - Arafats leadership group of the PLO means conquest. HAMAS is an acronym for religious zeal derived from Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, which translates as the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hezbollah - Party of God and most obviously of all Islamic Jihad. 0/10

Flame away morons. All it does is make me pity you.


Feel for the victims and their families, hope they are well supported.

Feel for the families of the victims of the next attack, which will be enabled by your obfuscation and moral grandstanding. You do not care how many people have to be blown up as long as you get to feed your moral vanity.

Feel for those too and anyone else that has died due to politics/ideology/hate.

Edited by mcjules: 23/3/2016 10:46:08 AM

So basically wat just happened in Paris, Brussels and Sydney.

Gotcha.

You misread what I wrote - I said "If it was something inherent to the religion itself, why did it develop in the 1990s?" I am saying that they developed in the 1990s. I was asking why then, as opposed to any other time in history. You are arguing my point by saying "Al Qaeda did develop in the 90s". My point is that it is not just religion in a vacuum.

Hamas and the Fatah hate each other, and have been opposed to each other for long periods. Especially back in the 1980s. It was only in 2003 that any reference to religion was in the PLO charter. I certainly would agree that Hamas is driven by religious ideology. But Hamas was only founded in 1987, so they obviously were not involved in the plane hijacking etc that occurred earlier on.

Obviously the individual members of the PLO may be muslim, but that is because Palestinians are muslim. The point is that islam was not their driving ideology for most of their history (especially while Arafat was alive. Their driving ideology was pan-arab nationalism and "anti-Zionism" (in their words).

A much longer list than that.

And Crusader, you really are pathetic, keep torching that strawman.

Recently came back from Paris and they are crawling all over the place harassing and husseling locals through intimidation.

Religion of peace lol. Just because Waleed jumps on his high horse and cries not all of us does not mean that this is becoming more and more a regular occurance.

I find it hilarious how the French President Holland says we need a "long cold bloody war", when he's part of the establishment that sympathises with mass immigration and formation of muslim ghettos .

Don't tell McJules, he'll lecture on what its really like over there based on his artistic imagination. :lol: ...even if he might not have been there

You really have no understanding of history do you? "Islamification" of terror is a phenomenon of the 1990s, which grew out of the Russian invasion, occupation, and subsequent withdrawal from Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Prior to that, the terrorist movements in the middle east were not driven by religion, in fact many regimes and groups had prominent Christians within their organisations.

It was predominantly an identity of anti-Zionism driven by opposition to Israel.

Do you actually have any relevant contributions to make? I am happy to learn of any inaccuracies in what I have said.

Or are you just going to rely on posting lame memes?

Have you ever read about how the Crusades came about ?....I think your knowledge of history only dates back to 1900...anything before that is well quite frankly non existent.

I was talking about the history of the PLO, not the history of Palestine.

I am well aware of the history of the region. Perhaps you should read what people are actually posting, before going on a tangent.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 23/3/2016 11:43:12 AM

Edited by AzzaMarch: 23/3/2016 11:43:42 AM

When your argument is to compare to something that happened over 6 centuries ago then you've already lost.

I dont blame Islam or religion but it is what it is. The so called majority remain silent will the minority run riot.

This.

Stay relevant to whats happening now. And dont bring up IRA. Their goal was not to establish catholicism worldwide but to liberate Ireland from the British. Don't bring up Hitler. His goal was to establish a world for the master race.

Bullshit strawman arguments are bullshit.

Analogies and comparisons are relevant depending on the point you are trying to make.

If you are trying to illustrate the propensity of humanity's capacity for inhumanity across multiple contexts, it is perfectly valid.

But I agree with the general viewpoint that oppression in one area/context doesn't explain terrorist attacks elsewhere in location or time.

What does explain things is understanding the context in which the ideology developed. The afghan war in the 1980s was the ground zero of the development of Islamic terror today.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 23/3/2016 12:30:56 PM

The annoying part of these attacks is it gives legitimacy (perceived) to the upcoming inevitable right wing fear mongering from Turnbull, Cruz/Trump, et al. (heck, Cruz has already jumped on it & so has Turnbull to a lesser extent regarding border force striking)
Murdoch media + 'terror' attacks - long term free kicks for the right wing. No wonder they do nothing in opposition & very little structurally & strategically when in government

Terrorism isn't exclusive to religion or to a certain religion. It permeates ideologies: from anarchists and fundamentalist Muslims, leftist and conservative groups, ethnic groups to religious groups. The vast majority of terrorism over history has been politically-motivated. If you have a social/political/economic system where an impassioned minority have, according to them, been repressed then they, if they have access to weaponry, will most likely indulge in terrorist or anti-state activities.

ISIL however is different. They have a political motive that is intrinsically linked to their religious motive: the introduction of a Salafist, Sharia Law enforced caliphate. Why they exist IMO has more to do with recent geo-political movements and actions in the Middle East more so than the religion itself (although of course they draw inspiration from its darker passages). The poor socio-economic status of that area, coupled with the decades long series of Western intervention and the radicalization of Islamic sects have created a perfect storm for a group like ISIL to sprout up.

I'm doing a political science course at uni on global terrorism and simply stating Islam as the root cause or problem is simply illogical and untrue, there are many factors involved.

That's great to hear. I wish you all the best.
I am keen to learn & encourage you to make more contributions, as you are & will become more educated on the area than most who post on here.

I do not prescribe to this nonsense of blaming Islam as a whole.

However, reading comments on various sites with worldwide members, it shocks me to the core how Muslims (sorry MVFCArsenal) are looking for every excuse under the sun to deflect this back at Western society. Some of the more common comments of note:

- Europe is responsible for killing many more Muslims than a few bomb blasts, stop crying.
- This happens because western media under-reports on violence in muslim countries.
- Blame America and their foreign policy.
- If Belgium was more welcoming of Muslims and gave them better jobs this wouldn't be happening.
- This is Israel's fault

On behalf of the western world, I am sorry, it is our fault that several radical muslims decided to murder 37 (so far?) innocent people going about their daily business.

3 pages in and so far i've learnt that any god who wants people to follow him by writing a book about himself telling everyone it's okay to rape and thief is a f***ing nutcase.

Any god who has to ask someone else to come down and explain that what he said shouldn't be taken literally and should only be interpretted to suit what is happening at the current time is a f***ing idiot.

Star Wars, The Qur'an and The Bible. All great works of fiction.

Edited by redshirtwilly: 23/3/2016 01:28:45 PM

Pens down everyone. We've got an expert.



Just kidding.

This.

Like when the Danish cartoons were printed. This was the fault of the cartoonists because it was a 'provocation', because you know when doodling stuff on paper/writing satire the next logical step is to have someone commit a massacre.

Agree with this. But I do think since Charlie Hebdo that mentality has declined to some extent.

It is a shame that the debate is often discussed in such polarising terms.

It is possible to not be bigoted against muslims generally and recognise the impact of geopolitics on the development of the current situation, and yet also recognise that the 'provocations of the west' are merely a pretext for extremists to use to try and rally support around.

Its even possible to have a personal opinion which disagrees with the Danish cartoons and what Charlie Hebdo does, yet still recognise that they have an absolute right to draw whatever pictures they want without risking being murdered.

As much as I think Mormonism is a ridiculous religion, you don't see Mormons firebombing "The Book of Mormon" performances. If you are going to argue that criticism of an ideology is a provocation, you need to be consistent in your outrage.

As someone who is an atheist living in a secular country, blasphemy is not a basis to curtail speech.