Meanwhile in London: Beheading in broad daylight

[Gorth]

My memory may be a bit fuzzy, but I seem to remember that part of the legitimacy is that you are easily identifiable as a "combatant" before you start randomly killing people, even if your targets are in uniform.

 

I'm fairly sure the UK killers didn't go around in uniforms (or even armbands or similar) that identified them visually as belonging to a faction officially at war with the UK. There is a reason why getting caught "out of uniform" is a bad idea in a war zone.

 

This wasn't war. It wasn't terrorism either. It was "simple" murder by deranged individuals, most likely with too much time on their hands and listening too much to local demagogues.

[Zoraptor]

There's an exclusion against being in uniform if you're in your own country and not part of an organised army. It's specifically to protect armed resistance to invaders and those in civil wars so that you don't end up with people claiming all the rebels or resisters they executed was justified by them not being in uniform.

 

I wouldn't classify it as an act of war either, I just don't think it's unjustified that they would view it as such and certainly don't think it's terrorism.

[Zoraptor]

The reason if was terrorism is these were British residents, probably living on British dole, attacking their own country. Also any combatants not fighting for a government are illegal, although I guess there's a question who makes the law.

Second part is already addressed, but the first part is just... Terrorists of 1776 who attacked their own country, terrorists of 1861 who attacked their own country, terrorist mujahedin in 1980, terrorist rebels in Syria now, terrorist rebels in Libya (presumably supported by terrorist west as well), the possibilities are endless.

[Rostere]

"Terrorist" has become such a meaningless word nowadays. It pretty much seems to include everyone who is fighting and not wearing a uniform.

 

I guess these recent events also give reason for servicemen to be armed while at home? In order to protect themselves from armed groups. Really, this would be the next logical extension of the "War on Terror".

Edited May 27, 2013 by Rostere

[Hassat Hunter]

Actually the terrorists had a gun, it's the civilians who were unarmed and helpless. Also Boston was a bombing, bombs are already illegal.

I was talking about the camping shootout (dead cop and all), not the bombing.

[Hassat Hunter]

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

Heck, they caused the entire Dark Ages. And the crusades?

 

How much years of technical and scientific progress did we miss out since everyone contradicting an ancient book (the bible) got burned alive?

[Drowsy Emperor]

Where did you learn your history from, Monty Python?

Edited May 27, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Blarghagh]

It's simplistic to say they caused the dark ages, but Christianity was a  part of the fall of Rome, the defacto start of the dark ages and it certainly was a contributing factor to the lack of knowledge and surplus of bloodshed during that time. The problem with proving or disproving that claim is that there is no real definition of the "dark ages", but considering the Christian church fought pretty much all progress throughout history since the decline of the Roman Empire I'd say he's accurate enough, hyperbole aside.

 

That's neither here nor there, however, because the point that has been made that Christianity was historically evil* is about the most irrelevant thing in this thread. If your response against veiled accusations that Islam is evil* is "well, Christians weren't sweethearts for all of history either" then you need better arguments, specifically arguments that do not actually confirm what you're arguing against in the first place.

 

*Hyperbole, just in case no one realized. I will not generalize Muslims or Christians as evil because I am not a moron.

[NOK222]

About that post earlier that said a lot of Muslims blame the West for the fall of their great civilization. It's really the Mongols' fault. Specifically the Ikhanate. 

Edited May 27, 2013 by NKKKK

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Ah it would seem the much vaunted British politeness has gone out of fashion. How touchy they grow when the horror is on their own cut lawns but oh so casually glossed over when people die in droves somewhere not so far away, written off as collateral damage. If you're incapable of showing sympathy, expect none in return.

Ah, that's everyone really and it does make sense - what do some strange villagers across the world who share none of your customs matter to you ? Not much compared to someone in your city getting wasted. Hell, think smaller, even within a city people just shrug off violent murders as long they're not too heinous (and the victim is the 'right' type).

 

 

Sure, but I had to underline the hypocrisy of on one hand criticizing me for being outspoken against the islamization of europe by bleating the usual line: "its only extremists, but Ahmad is a moderate and he's a very good friend of mine, and you're the BAD white extremist that's rocking this nice boat we're on" while on the other hand giving unconditional support to military action that has shown itself unwilling and incapable of discriminating between those nice lines. On one hand he's criticizing me for my position (and I'm not advocating wars or any sort of offensive military action - merely strict immigration policies and deportations), on the other he's justifying policies that have left a lot of those same muslims, "extremist" and "moderate" alike very much dead.

 

That my friend, is a steaming mountain of bull****, and no one in the muslim world is fooled. The schizophrenic idea that giving minorities a special status and EU citizenship is somehow going to make them forget that not so far away, people of their own faith, maybe cousins or relatives are being bombed to dust is naive and whomever adopts it deserves to have it blow up in their face.

 

Which is precisely what's happening. Really what EU and US is doing is trying to buy internal peace with political correctness, while at the same time pursing policies that incite its minority populations.

 

The  hypocrisy grows to ever more obscene levels in this situation considering that I on the other hand have the indirect historic experience of islamic invasion and domination and have a very good idea of what "coexistence" looks like whereas the only historical experience he can draw upon is one of colonialism and the recent oil grab wars - and has the gall to preach democracy and tolerance at the same time.

I guess tolerance comes easy when your armies are keeping the "barbarians" in check.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

The reason if was terrorism is these were British residents, probably living on British dole, attacking their own country. Also any combatants not fighting for a government are illegal, although I guess there's a question who makes the law.

Second part is already addressed, but the first part is just... Terrorists of 1776 who attacked their own country, terrorists of 1861 who attacked their own country, terrorist mujahedin in 1980, terrorist rebels in Syria now, terrorist rebels in Libya (presumably supported by terrorist west as well), the possibilities are endless.

 

In 1776, they declared their own country and fought in uniform. If someone was simply going around killing British soldiers, it would be considered murder, and retroactively terrorism, although I guess that concept didn't exist back then.

[alanschu]

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

 

He'll ignore them or point out that they are "politically motivated" rather than religiously.

 

[alanschu]

It's simplistic to say they caused the dark ages, but Christianity was a  part of the fall of Rome, the defacto start of the dark ages and it certainly was a contributing factor to the lack of knowledge and surplus of bloodshed during that time. The problem with proving or disproving that claim is that there is no real definition of the "dark ages", but considering the Christian church fought pretty much all progress throughout history since the decline of the Roman Empire I'd say he's accurate enough, hyperbole aside.

 

That's neither here nor there, however, because the point that has been made that Christianity was historically evil* is about the most irrelevant thing in this thread. If your response against veiled accusations that Islam is evil* is "well, Christians weren't sweethearts for all of history either" then you need better arguments, specifically arguments that do not actually confirm what you're arguing against in the first place.

 

*Hyperbole, just in case no one realized. I will not generalize Muslims or Christians as evil because I am not a moron.

 

The point about religiously Christian motivated crimes is to point out that all religions have some level of people that are willing to do horrific things in the name of their religion.

 

An important thing, IMO, to note about the comparison is the relative age of each religion.  Think of how old Christianity was when it was doing all sorts of atrocities.  Now think about how old Islam is.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

He'll ignore them or point out that they are "politically motivated" rather than religiously.

That is really the point, they are politically motivated. Religion is simply the excuse people use to justify being terrible people.

[Malcador]

The point about religiously Christian motivated crimes is to point out that all religions have some level of people that are willing to do horrific things in the name of their religion.

 

An important thing, IMO, to note about the comparison is the relative age of each religion.  Think of how old Christianity was when it was doing all sorts of atrocities.  Now think about how old Islam is.

Well that and how those things would be viewed in their time as opposed to ours. I guess it'll be a fun 600 years, though.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Malcador

[Hassat Hunter]

Where did you learn your history from, Monty Python?

It's called a school.

You sometimes learn stuff there.

 

Like how close the Mongols and European Crusaders came to wiping out the Islam when the Mongols backed down due to their Khan falling ill. It could have been very different if that didn't happen.

 

Although I dread to think of a world where Christinanity was still strong as back then.

That's neither here nor there, however, because the point that has been made that Christianity was historically evil* is about the most irrelevant thing in this thread. If your response against veiled accusations that Islam is evil* is "well, Christians weren't sweethearts for all of history either" then you need better arguments, specifically arguments that do not actually confirm what you're arguing against in the first place.

I am not really arguing against any religion, more against religions in common. They're used for fanatics for death and destruction, hold back people's evolving scientifically by holding to outdated religious texts, may it be bible or koran, even nowadays discriminate certain population groups like woman or gays.

And both religions do that nowadays.

I have no problems with believing in a higher being, but I do object with adhering to severly outdated texts that somehow tell us what we are supposed to do. Even if a lot of the stuff in their has already been proved to be wrong (but hey, you can just put your hands over your ears and lalala as creationalist when it's proven evolution is true, right?)

Especially if that means death and descrimination. And what for? Because of a 2000 year old book?

The point about religiously Christian motivated crimes is to point out that all religions have some level of people that are willing to do horrific things in the name of their religion.

 

An important thing, IMO, to note about the comparison is the relative age of each religion.  Think of how old Christianity was when it was doing all sorts of atrocities.  Now think about how old Islam is.

Yeah, the point I wanted to get across. Most Christians are very keen to point out how bad the Islam is, without realising that, well, their religion is the very same thing, and does the very same stuff too.

Best would be just if people could believe in God without using the Bible or Koran, and thus it's believe in an actual higher being, not a 2000-year old book being right on it's 2000-year old interpration of how society should be. But I suppose it's wishful thinking that ever happens.

 

And in other news; An American Military killed 1 and injured 5 in a random shooting spree in Texas.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Obviously no one here has read both the Koran and the New Testament because the tone, the message and the content is so completely different that no one in their right mind would lump the two religions together.

 

Anyone who thinks that there is no difference between the mindset of a believer who venerates a prophet/son of God that said "turn the other cheek", and "thou shalt not kill" and the believer of a prophet who was also at the same time a warlord, who personally participated in the execution of Jews and other tribes and explicitly permits the killing of "unbelievers" - "slay them where you find them" is both deluded and ignorant of history.

And before someone drags out the Old Testament, Christianity is not the old testament and everything that contradicts the new in it is superseded by the message of the new.

[Walsingham]

No. I can't hold fire any longer.

 

Wait, no. I got it back under control again.

[TrashMan]

 

It's called a school.

You sometimes learn stuff there.

 

And you sometimes learn ****.

 

If you truly dig deep, then even a cursory glance will tell you just how redicolously overblown the whole "evil of dark ages is". Tons and tons and tons of lies, half-truths and myths.

 

Christianity wasn't the bane of science. It didn't stiffle growth. It perserved knowledge and many scientists were in fact monks. The net effect of Christianity on science is pretty much neautral.

 

Likewise, life wasn't terribly short (people could live as old as they do today), people weren't filth-ridden, dirty beggars in rags (every larger city had baths - a legacy from the roman imperium), plate armor wasn't so heavy you had to be lifted onto a horse by a crane, there were towns with working sewer systems back then, people didn't have sex trough sheets with holes, the Crusades weren't a testament to hate and intolerance, etc, etc...

 

I can go on an on listing examples

 

[TrashMan]

Obviously no one here has read both the Koran and the New Testament because the tone, the message and the content is so completely different that no one in their right mind would lump the two religions together.

 

Actually I have. Was working at a bookstore and had tons of book to read.

 

You are right that the tone is different.

The Koran is much more direct, commanding and strict in tone.

But the general underlaying basics are the same.

 

It's not a stretch to think the muslims and christians basicly worhip the same God, but under a different name and in different ways.

Edited May 28, 2013 by TrashMan

[Walsingham]

Asserting that the tone of any Holy Book defines the social, cultural, and philosophical decision making of its official adherents is mendacious at best. I'm down as Church of England, my holy book includes the old testament. The clue is in the ****ing name. Yet one of my favourite foods is prawn curry. The new testament says "Thou shalt not kill" and I was signed up for the Army.

 

The rationale for what you're saying is irrelevant, however. The logical destination of your reasoning is a religious war involving billions that could not end in any way other than extermination. I reject that destination. I reject your logic. I reject you.

 

And now I want prawn curry.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Lol, religious war of extermination? Seriously? The kind of war that didn't happen even when Christianity and Islam were the defining ideas behind their respective societies? 

Don't be silly and stop living in WH40K.

 

The only outcome of what I'm proposing is a relationship based on the principles of parity, and parity in this case being a check on immigration and a stop on the political correctness that is "empowering" people in the wrongest way possible by putting them beyond criticism. On the other hand parity would also mean the cessation of meddling in the affairs of Islamic countries, a point on which you're very keen on avoiding.

 

That position is far more open and honest than talking democracy and making war.

[Rosbjerg]

After having studied Middle Eastern history (my focus) I've become less and less an advocate for immigration from that region and Africa. Simply because I don't feel it'll help either the Middleeast in general or Europe. They need able bodied men and their educated, while the labor problems we have can be mitigated with a more natural movement of people within Europe (East to West). As it stands now we receive the torture victims, traditionalists, uneducated farmers and religious people - and the well educated who have an easy time fitting in (but have a PR problem due to the affiliation with the first group)..

 

The first group gets a huuge culture shock when they arrive, quite obviously and have a hard time adapting to what they feel is a decadent society - while apparently most Europeans see them as backwards and ignorant. It's a horrible mix. I wish we could take them in and integrate them better and especially if we could share with them the best of our culture and take the best from theirs. And both emerge stronger from the interaction. But it's become such a polluted topic that any reasonable approach is basically beyond our reach now. So better to cut our losses for everyone's sake.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Obviously no one here has read both the Koran and the New Testament because the tone, the message and the content is so completely different that no one in their right mind would lump the two religions together.

 

Actually I have. Was working at a bookstore and had tons of book to read.

 

You are right that the tone is different.

The Koran is much more direct, commanding and strict in tone.

But the general underlaying basics are the same.

 

It's not a stretch to think the muslims and christians basicly worhip the same God, but under a different name and in different ways.

 

 

Its  not a stretch because its the same God, the Koran is just built on the foundation laid out by the Old Testament and to a much lesser extent, the New Testament. 

 

But, I found it much more like the old testament in tone, very harsh and strict and unforgiving. Which is why I think it leads to a very different philosophy - for those that care to think into those matters. 

 

The perpetual war of conversion against the animist (and other "primitive" religions) blacks of central Africa by the muslim north even today in the 21st century means that old practices have neither been abandoned nor forgotten. 

 

Really what people in the west ignore is that Christianity has been systematically driven out of society by various factors and is no longer the force it once was. Islam wasn't. When I was in Abu Dhabi there were 100+ channels of people reading the Koran 24/7, people prayed regularly 5 times per day, and people of other faiths had to adhere to things like the Ramadan, by going to segregated places in restaurants to eat.

In other countries european women have to go out covered in public.

 

That's all fine - its their god given right. 

 

But if someone tried to enforce similar Christian practices in Europe, theoretically, the outcry would literally blow the heavens. Okay so we're more "progressive" - we don't need that anymore.

 

But where's the parity and mutual respect? Why can't others in muslim countries enjoy the exact same freedoms as everyone else does in europe?

I had some coptic (egyptian christian) friends here in Belgrade and they often told me how difficult life was for them in Egypt on account of religious persecution.

I see it as very one sided.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Drowsy Emperor]

After having studied Middle Eastern history (my focus) I've become less and less an advocate for immigration from that region and Africa. Simply because I don't feel it'll help either the Middleeast in general or Europe. They need able bodied men and their educated, while the labor problems we have can be mitigated with a more natural movement of people within Europe (East to West). As it stands now we receive the torture victims, traditionalists, uneducated farmers and religious people - and the well educated who have an easy time fitting in (but have a PR problem due to the affiliation with the first group)..

 

The first group gets a huuge culture shock when they arrive, quite obviously and have a hard time adapting to what they feel is a decadent society - while apparently most Europeans see them as backwards and ignorant. It's a horrible mix. I wish we could take them in and integrate them better and especially if we could share with them the best of our culture and take the best from theirs. And both emerge stronger from the interaction. But it's become such a polluted topic that any reasonable approach is basically beyond our reach now. So better to cut our losses for everyone's sake.

 

Very much so. Its become forbidden to discuss the matter in a reasonable manner without raising a ****storm of accusations. The climate is so unhealthy it actually helped create a monster like Breivik and in Hungary, it even had a hand (along with the economic crisis) in bringing a more or less openly fascist party to power. 

 

The people to blame are really the economic interest groups that have such a huge impact on the workings of the EU institutions. I suspect they're the ones pushing for immigration because their companies need ever cheaper labor, overall societal stability be damned.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor