Explosion In London

[eyrei]

I cannot see this being perpetrated by anyone other than the usual racist mob who may feel emboldened. I would imagine the authorities are keeping a very close eye on racist activists who may be spoiling for some direct action.

I'm sure you are right, but it is disheartening to see racist violence from what some would claim to be a much more advanced civilization that is apparently completely blameless in all of this.

 

[Darkness]

Sad that the political correctness we now have to comply to exempts Islam from criticism, but if someone wishes to tear apart, say, Christianity, then no one would blink twice.

You do realize that it's not that difficult to distinguish between political correctness and rational thought, do you?


I really wonder when (or rather: if) some of you (no offense intended!) start to realize that Islam is not the problem here... In every group/religion/nation, etc. there are always extremists and idiots that pervert perfectly good principles towards warped and destructive ideas. That is also the case with what people tend to call "Islamic terrorism". The "religious" ideas of these people are basically founded on ideas that are so much twisted away from the true Islamic culture, that all they really have in commen is an extremely distant common starting point, which is about as distant from the true Islamic culture as Humans are distantly related to, for example, mice, in the Evolution Theory...

 

[wit>trope]

Cierdan, if it is your desire to rot away in ignorance......

Any religion (or other idelogies) can inspire people to commit acts of terrorism. So far, in my country, the catholics outrank the muslims with victims of terror, 10.000 vs 1.

I know that there are Muslims who admit that most terrorists are Muslim. If even THEY admit it, it must be true. So while most Muslims may not be terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims and since Muslims are much less than 50% of the world population, it mathematically follows that Muslims are disproportionately represented among terrorists. IOW, statstically Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than non-Muslims (whether this is due to their genes, religion, economic situation, political oppression or what have you -- it's a statistical, mathematical fact)

 

[wit>trope]

Sorry, cierdan, I'm not even going to read your links from catholic.com that are supposed to enlighten me about Islam...

The second link quotes an eminent FRENCH sociologist so that's reason enough for you and also the French people (like Marla) to read it. But your choice

 

[eyrei]

I know that there are Muslims who admit that most terrorists are Muslim. If even THEY admit it, it must be true. So while most Muslims may not be terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims and since Muslims are much less than 50% of the world population, it mathematically follows that Muslims are disproportionately represented among terrorists. IOW, statstically Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than non-Muslims (whether this is due to their genes, religion, economic situation, political oppression or what have you -- it's a statistical, mathematical fact)

Wouldn't people that drop bombs as opposed to carry bombs into civilian areas also count as terrorists? I'm pretty sure most of them aren't Muslims...but that is really beside the point anyway, since we are right and they are wrong...

 

[wit>trope]

Provolution has an important point.
We should separate the Islam from the Arab culture. In Holland half of the muslims come from Morocco (Arabs) and half from Turkey. Turkish Dutch are bloody unlikely to be linked with muslim extremism.

Thorough and decent criticism of today's Arabian culture is in place here. It stinks, doesn't it?

For the lefties here:
-Imagine being a left-wing paper publisher in any Arab nation
-Imagine being a homosexaul in any Arab nation
-Imagine being a ambitious woman, in any Arab nation

Not one single Arab nation knows either Freedom or democracy.

Also, most Muslims are not Arabs. Most Arabs are Muslims of course. Non-Arab Muslim countries include Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

 

[wit>trope]

Wouldn't people that drop bombs as opposed to carry bombs into civilian areas also count as terrorists? I'm pretty sure most of them aren't Muslims...but that is really beside the point anyway, since we are right and they are wrong...

You might argue that the Dresden bombing was terrorism or that other similar fire bombings during WWII were or maybe that the atomic bombings were, but that doesn't go on anymore. Collateral damage is very different from what happened in Dresden, etc. where perhaps civilians were actually targeted as a means to demoralize them.

 

[wit>trope]

Let me end this off-topic session with the correction of your statement. Pim Fortuyn was murdered (most likely; the guy who shot him never told why) because he had no desire to outlaw pharmaceutical tests on animals. The murderer, Volkert vdG was a legal expert who specialised in bringing farmers who were cruel to animals to justice and he often won his courtcases. Because of his strong focus on animal-rights it is generally assumed Pim Fortuyn was murdered because of this. It has 0% connection to religion.

Not according to the murderer's own words:

Volkert van der Graaf confessed in court months later to Holland's first political assassination since WW II, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn "to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution." Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. Van der Graaf said: "I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn

 

[eyrei]

The second link quotes an eminent FRENCH sociologist so that's reason enough for you and also the French people (like Marla) to read it. But your choice

You mean "Endless Jihad"? Give me a break. First, I couldn't find anything even saying who wrote that piece of historical revisionism which says:

The fact that in Christianity church and state are distinct means that as a religion Christianity has less potential for violence since it is not called upon to use force in the way a state is. This, coupled with Jesus’ own example and his "love thy enemy" teachings (e.g., Matt. 5:44), gives Christianity less innate potential for violence.

If you actually want to learn about your 'enemies', I suggest you do your research somewhere other than Catholic websites. They are going to tell you what you want to hear, not what actually is.

 

[eyrei]

You might argue that the Dresden bombing was terrorism or that other similar fire bombings during WWII were or maybe that the atomic bombings were, but that doesn't go on anymore. Collateral damage is very different from what happened in Dresden, etc. where perhaps civilians were actually targeted as a means to demoralize them.

So we should ignore the fact that they may really dislike us because we kill a lot of noncombatants in their nations because it makes us feel better? If someone's wife, child, father, mother, brother, etc is killed as 'collateral damage' from a US airstrike, does that make them less dead to him? Ever consider that might make him angry enough to blow himself up to take a few of the people who murdered his family with him?

You might even consider that civilians are simply collateral damage for terrorist strikes, with disruption of the targetted society being the main objective.

I'm not defending people that blow up bombs in cities to kill random people. But I am telling you that things can be seen from more than one viewpoint, and if you aren't willing to pay attention, you will keep going down the wrong path when trying to find a solution.

 

[Gelion]

You might argue that the Dresden bombing was terrorism or that other similar fire bombings during WWII were or maybe that the atomic bombings were, but that doesn't go on anymore. Collateral damage is very different from what happened in Dresden, etc. where perhaps civilians were actually targeted as a means to demoralize them.

How about Holocost and genocide of Slavs by Hitler? Wasn't he a Christian?

 

[CurtSibling]

Adolf was a roman catholic by education, but I think he strayed from their ideals a little bit!

 

[CurtSibling]

Not one single Arab nation knows either Freedom or democracy.

Indeed, and herein lies the crux of the matter!

 

[chancellor_dan]

I eagerly await RikMeleet's response to cierdan's findings.
It proves beyond doubt my point that people like our Dutch friends here are prepared to blatantly lie to protect Islamic fanaticism.

 

[fe3333au]

Ooops I must have wandered into the wrong thread ... thought this one was concentrating issues directly related to the London bombing ... I must be in one of the numerous other OT discussions where the same arguments are regurgitated back and forth ...

I have just heard on one of our less reputable cheque book jouno programmes on commercial tv that the general agreement is that the bombs were all initiated via specific mobile telephone signal ... is this what others have heard?

 

[CurtSibling]

I eagerly await RikMeleet's response to cierdan's findings.
It proves beyond doubt my point that people like our Dutch friends here are prepared to blatantly lie to protect Islamic fanaticism.

Methinks you are twisting it somewhat...

.

 

[chancellor_dan]

Methinks you are twisting it somewhat...

.

He said Fortuyn wasn't murdered because of anything to do with Islam. The guy who shot Fortuyn said it was to do with Islam.

I rest my case.

 

[Gelion]

Adolf was a roman catholic by education, but I think he strayed from their ideals a little bit!

Well this logic applies to Islamic fanatics then doesn't it?

 

[Darkness]

Not according to the murderer's own words:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn

Funny link, but the prosecutor and the judge (and just about everybody else) apparently thought otherwise...

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2003/000282.html

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2002/0000168.html

And the man's history also suggests motives unrelated to Islam...

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2002/000168.html

 

[JoeM]

Ooops I must have wandered into the wrong thread ... thought this one was concentrating issues directly related to the London bombing ... I must be in one of the numerous other OT discussions where the same arguments are regurgitated back and forth ...

Yes, unfortunately there are as many rednecks in the UK as everywhere else in the world. As long as they don't act on it, they'll stay out of jail.

I have just heard on one of our less reputable cheque book jouno programmes on commercial tv that the general agreement is that the bombs were all initiated via specific mobile telephone signal ... is this what others have heard?

Unlikely, as they were underground and we don't have an underground mobile system *yet*.