Well, we can blame Iraq, we can blame Afghanistan, we can blame Western Imperialism.
But at the end of the day - these people just hate us and our way of life. They don't believe in secularism - they believe in creating a global Islamic caliphate. At the end of the day it is a problem within Islam and it is time for British muslims to start routing out these people.
It is also time to reassess multiculturalism - first things first - no more religious schools - every, EVERY school should be secular. End of.
Thankfully, so far, they seem to be rather hapless in the bomb making department. But be careful folks - I don't think we've seen the end of this....
Full Version: Uk Bombs
i couldn't think of a worse car to use for a bomb than a mercedes. they're sturdy as fuck, you'd think they were armour plated. surely your best bet is to buy an old banger out of the trade-it that is going to fly in all directions.
it's going to be a long summer of disruption for people who want to fly anywhere. and a long summer for the muslim community in britain, like it or not, there will be repercussions in some cities.
it's going to be a long summer of disruption for people who want to fly anywhere. and a long summer for the muslim community in britain, like it or not, there will be repercussions in some cities.
Thank you Bob. Apologies to Sarah Lady. Once again the people of the UK demonstrate what real courage.
The BBC, for all its flaws, is still superior to any American Publication. You dont see articles like this in the states. Bob, where are the British Muslims
British Muslim and 7/7 hero
That image of Paul Dadge helping injured passenger Davinia Turrell to safety has become one of the most well-known images of the July 7 bombings in London.
A year on from the attacks he strongly feels he wants to talk about it with British Muslims. Yorkshire lad Azeem Hussein, 20, is a Muslim and he condemns what happened. We got them together to talk it all out face-to-face.
Here are some quotes from their conversation. Listen to them talking and have your say at the bottom of the page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azeem
A week after the attack, I saw some some white people who I knew, and I said hello and they just turned the other way, and ignored me... I asked them 'Is there a problem?'
And they said 'Oh we don't want to associate with you. Muslims carried out these attacks.' And I tried to explain to them that it was just a minority but they weren't having none of it.
They said 'It's part of your religion.' It's not part of our religion, that's not Jihad.
Paul
What is Jihad?
Azeem
Jihad means a struggle of the soul. Certainly not the way they did it, that's not Jihad... there's no way you're going to heaven for killing innocent people, not a chance in hell.
If you don't know anything about Islam and somebody says four lads blew up London for the name of their religion, you're going to think well, these Muslims are freaks.
You've got to see what it is - the war in Iraq is giving them an excuse really, because Muslims are like a brotherhood. If you tell them you say 'Look, they're killing your brothers for nothing, you've got to do something about it.'
Then some people are naïve enough to believe they have to do something about it.
It's like the English football team, you probably have 50,000 supporters and 100 hooligans. If you go to a World Cup everybody thinks the English are hooligans when they're not.
Paul
When I met Azim today, he's here in his England shirt and you walk into his shop here, he's got the flag in the shop. It's that kind of thing that builds that confidence back.
Mohammed Siddique Khan described in his video that he was a soldier of war and was going to go to the Gardens of Paradise...
Azeem
I don't think so. Killing an innocent - there is no Paradise for that. They think if they do this they're a soldier of God but I don't think so, not in my opinion.
Paul
I was extremely frustrated that people who have grown up in the UK, who have played cricket in the UK and worked as teachers in the UK have then blown up their fellow humans.
Azeem
When I learned it was a Muslim I was quite disgusted actually. Our parents have been in this country, trying to make a name for us, trying to integrate with the community and what they've done is they've blown it away in five seconds.
The actions of these four people who were brainwashed I think has wrecked relations.
Do you feel any differently towards Muslims? I'd understand if you did, obviously.
Paul
It's not changed my opinion of Muslims at all. I personally thought these people were disillusioned.
But I do think there's a level of apprehension now looking at people in the Muslim community because we know there are people underground who have the same aims and beliefs as the bombers from 7 July.
Azeem
It's like a gang thing on a big level really. Tony Blair and his gang go and kill people in Iraq. And then these people over here recruit a little gang and come and kill people here.
I'm a Muslim myself and even I think differently of Muslims now because I didn't know people were capable of doing stuff like this.
And especially not in the UK because we've been brought up here, the last thing we want to do is turn our back on it. We all need to come together, come as one.
Let everybody know we won't stand for terrorism and the people who do want to carry out the attacks will feel isolated.
Paul
I think it's extremely important now moving forward that people are educated at grassroots level you know, we need to sit down talk to the people who do feel that way.
Azeem
I understand that but getting through to these people will be very hard, same way as getting through to a football hooligan, telling him not to cause trouble.
I think the only way to get through to them will be to get through to their leaders. And the only people who can do that are the country's leaders - who are killing all these people in Iraq.
It doesn't start from us, we're just numbers. It's the people at the top that need to make a difference and they don't seem to be doing so.
* Have your say
Further Information:
The BBC, for all its flaws, is still superior to any American Publication. You dont see articles like this in the states. Bob, where are the British Muslims
British Muslim and 7/7 hero
That image of Paul Dadge helping injured passenger Davinia Turrell to safety has become one of the most well-known images of the July 7 bombings in London.
A year on from the attacks he strongly feels he wants to talk about it with British Muslims. Yorkshire lad Azeem Hussein, 20, is a Muslim and he condemns what happened. We got them together to talk it all out face-to-face.
Here are some quotes from their conversation. Listen to them talking and have your say at the bottom of the page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azeem
A week after the attack, I saw some some white people who I knew, and I said hello and they just turned the other way, and ignored me... I asked them 'Is there a problem?'
And they said 'Oh we don't want to associate with you. Muslims carried out these attacks.' And I tried to explain to them that it was just a minority but they weren't having none of it.
They said 'It's part of your religion.' It's not part of our religion, that's not Jihad.
Paul
What is Jihad?
Azeem
Jihad means a struggle of the soul. Certainly not the way they did it, that's not Jihad... there's no way you're going to heaven for killing innocent people, not a chance in hell.
If you don't know anything about Islam and somebody says four lads blew up London for the name of their religion, you're going to think well, these Muslims are freaks.
You've got to see what it is - the war in Iraq is giving them an excuse really, because Muslims are like a brotherhood. If you tell them you say 'Look, they're killing your brothers for nothing, you've got to do something about it.'
Then some people are naïve enough to believe they have to do something about it.
It's like the English football team, you probably have 50,000 supporters and 100 hooligans. If you go to a World Cup everybody thinks the English are hooligans when they're not.
Paul
When I met Azim today, he's here in his England shirt and you walk into his shop here, he's got the flag in the shop. It's that kind of thing that builds that confidence back.
Mohammed Siddique Khan described in his video that he was a soldier of war and was going to go to the Gardens of Paradise...
Azeem
I don't think so. Killing an innocent - there is no Paradise for that. They think if they do this they're a soldier of God but I don't think so, not in my opinion.
Paul
I was extremely frustrated that people who have grown up in the UK, who have played cricket in the UK and worked as teachers in the UK have then blown up their fellow humans.
Azeem
When I learned it was a Muslim I was quite disgusted actually. Our parents have been in this country, trying to make a name for us, trying to integrate with the community and what they've done is they've blown it away in five seconds.
The actions of these four people who were brainwashed I think has wrecked relations.
Do you feel any differently towards Muslims? I'd understand if you did, obviously.
Paul
It's not changed my opinion of Muslims at all. I personally thought these people were disillusioned.
But I do think there's a level of apprehension now looking at people in the Muslim community because we know there are people underground who have the same aims and beliefs as the bombers from 7 July.
Azeem
It's like a gang thing on a big level really. Tony Blair and his gang go and kill people in Iraq. And then these people over here recruit a little gang and come and kill people here.
I'm a Muslim myself and even I think differently of Muslims now because I didn't know people were capable of doing stuff like this.
And especially not in the UK because we've been brought up here, the last thing we want to do is turn our back on it. We all need to come together, come as one.
Let everybody know we won't stand for terrorism and the people who do want to carry out the attacks will feel isolated.
Paul
I think it's extremely important now moving forward that people are educated at grassroots level you know, we need to sit down talk to the people who do feel that way.
Azeem
I understand that but getting through to these people will be very hard, same way as getting through to a football hooligan, telling him not to cause trouble.
I think the only way to get through to them will be to get through to their leaders. And the only people who can do that are the country's leaders - who are killing all these people in Iraq.
It doesn't start from us, we're just numbers. It's the people at the top that need to make a difference and they don't seem to be doing so.
* Have your say
Further Information:
"Azeem
Jihad means a struggle of the soul. Certainly not the way they did it, that's not Jihad..."
Hmmmm. I'm not so sure that Jihad is always peaceful - the jury is definitely still out on that. Like all religion so much is up to interpretation. Put it this way - the Jihadi's certainly believe that Jihad is violent.
Certainly the islamist militants consider themselves moral and religious crusaders.
I just read this in today's Observer - worth quoting in full i think
Jihad means a struggle of the soul. Certainly not the way they did it, that's not Jihad..."
Hmmmm. I'm not so sure that Jihad is always peaceful - the jury is definitely still out on that. Like all religion so much is up to interpretation. Put it this way - the Jihadi's certainly believe that Jihad is violent.
Certainly the islamist militants consider themselves moral and religious crusaders.
I just read this in today's Observer - worth quoting in full i think
QUOTE
My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
Hassan Butt
Sunday July 1, 2007
Observer
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
Hassan Butt
Sunday July 1, 2007
Observer
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Indeed - we should be quite clear here. The Quran is quite clear on violent jihad
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. "
There is no misinterpretation by violent jihadists. The may be fundamentalists - but it is there - make no mistake. Attempts to portray jihad as solely personal are, alas, wishful thinking by more enlightened muslims.
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. "
There is no misinterpretation by violent jihadists. The may be fundamentalists - but it is there - make no mistake. Attempts to portray jihad as solely personal are, alas, wishful thinking by more enlightened muslims.
Well, I can't quote the bible but I'm sure it has similar violence inciting passages. Doesn't mean I'm violent, does it?
But I have to admit I do wonder about the motives of these people that are willing to blow themselves up...for what? killing other people, preferably of a different faith? Do they really think that'll bring the islamic paradise on earth closer?
Fuckers.
But I have to admit I do wonder about the motives of these people that are willing to blow themselves up...for what? killing other people, preferably of a different faith? Do they really think that'll bring the islamic paradise on earth closer?
Fuckers.
I am curious, does anyone here have any Muslim friends or close acquaintances?
I work with this computer who is Turkish But he is getting his MS at St. johns and he likes to go out for beers after work. He seems pretty assimilated. In fact he got a little pissed when I seemed surprise when he asked me to join him. "I thought Muslims don't drink" Thats BS. plenty of us drink"
I work with this computer who is Turkish But he is getting his MS at St. johns and he likes to go out for beers after work. He seems pretty assimilated. In fact he got a little pissed when I seemed surprise when he asked me to join him. "I thought Muslims don't drink" Thats BS. plenty of us drink"
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Jul 1 2007, 11:19 AM) 
Well, we can blame Iraq, we can blame Afghanistan, we can blame Western Imperialism.
But at the end of the day - these people just hate us and our way of life. They don't believe in secularism - they believe in creating a global Islamic caliphate. At the end of the day it is a problem within Islam and it is time for British muslims to start routing out these people.
It is also time to reassess multiculturalism - first things first - no more religious schools - every, EVERY school should be secular. End of.
Thankfully, so far, they seem to be rather hapless in the bomb making department. But be careful folks - I don't think we've seen the end of this....
This is worth reading (don't worry its not from "Spiked"):
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=9635
It shows the interplay of different factors in creating the Jihadist mindset and also emphasises the diversity within Islam. It also (incidentally) shows that British Jihadism pre-dated the invasion of Iraq.
However, it is important to restate the point that the terrorists are not representative of mainstream Islam in this country; and the secularisation of education won't help if as this (and much other evidence) suggests, the malign influences lie outside school.
Well, we can blame Iraq, we can blame Afghanistan, we can blame Western Imperialism.
But at the end of the day - these people just hate us and our way of life. They don't believe in secularism - they believe in creating a global Islamic caliphate. At the end of the day it is a problem within Islam and it is time for British Muslims to start routing out these people
I think there is some truth to that. However it should be noted that Canada and the Scandinavian countries have large Muslim populations and no attacks. So Maybe Iraq is a factor.
I am not sure how we define Multiculturalism. I think the premise that all cultures are ok and equal is nonsense! Its not ok to beat your wife or daughters I don't care what your book or leaders say. Homophobia and Antisemitism are not acceptable I do not care where you are form. I think Europe has an advantage in promoting secular values and stating to these folks "If you can't accept these tenets you can't stay here."
But at the end of the day - these people just hate us and our way of life. They don't believe in secularism - they believe in creating a global Islamic caliphate. At the end of the day it is a problem within Islam and it is time for British Muslims to start routing out these people
I think there is some truth to that. However it should be noted that Canada and the Scandinavian countries have large Muslim populations and no attacks. So Maybe Iraq is a factor.
I am not sure how we define Multiculturalism. I think the premise that all cultures are ok and equal is nonsense! Its not ok to beat your wife or daughters I don't care what your book or leaders say. Homophobia and Antisemitism are not acceptable I do not care where you are form. I think Europe has an advantage in promoting secular values and stating to these folks "If you can't accept these tenets you can't stay here."
Hmmm...
Well, on a more practical level, I am arriving at Heathrow on July 4th on a US flight originating out of Washington. Not much chance of THAT being a symbolic target...
In the unfortunate event I find my arse and other important parts scattered over the Atlantic or southern England, let it be put on record that I was bloody annoyed.
Assuming things work out more acceptably, by Wednesday afternoon I should be having a nice cup of tea with my Mum and Dad...
Well, on a more practical level, I am arriving at Heathrow on July 4th on a US flight originating out of Washington. Not much chance of THAT being a symbolic target...
In the unfortunate event I find my arse and other important parts scattered over the Atlantic or southern England, let it be put on record that I was bloody annoyed.
Assuming things work out more acceptably, by Wednesday afternoon I should be having a nice cup of tea with my Mum and Dad...
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 1 2007, 09:06 PM)
Well, we can blame Iraq, we can blame Afghanistan, we can blame Western Imperialism.
But at the end of the day - these people just hate us and our way of life. They don't believe in secularism - they believe in creating a global Islamic caliphate. At the end of the day it is a problem within Islam and it is time for British Muslims to start routing out these people
I think there is some truth to that. However it should be noted that Canada and the Scandinavian countries have large Muslim populations and no attacks. So Maybe Iraq is a factor.
I am not sure how we define Multiculturalism. I think the premise that all cultures are ok and equal is nonsense! Its not ok to beat your wife or daughters I don't care what your book or leaders say. Homophobia and Antisemitism are not acceptable I do not care where you are form. I think Europe has an advantage in promoting secular values and stating to these folks "If you can't accept these tenets you can't stay here."
I guess when you say Scandinavian countries you're not including Denmark? We were a big player in the war on Iraq and have a rabidly anti-muslim party at the centre of government and most people are convinced that it is not a question of if a terrorist attack occurs but when.
'Rabidly ant-muslim' isn't that a tad harsh?
As an atheist and proggresive centre left person I grow very tired of religous bigots, honour killing, forced AND arranged marriages, ritual slaughter is a much worse way to kill animals.
I dislike the homophobic and sexist nature of a wider section of islam not just the fringe element of bombers.
Unless Islam undergoes an enlightenment like christianity did it will continue to be objectively backward.
The values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of freedom of the press, representative democracy are worth defending. I'm sick of seeing women degraded in oppresive forms of dress, coverd head to toe in black, it's an ugly way to treat women even if some of them practice self oppresion.
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
I'm off to buy the Satanic Verses, book burning scum.
I dislike the homophobic and sexist nature of a wider section of islam not just the fringe element of bombers.
Unless Islam undergoes an enlightenment like christianity did it will continue to be objectively backward.
The values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of freedom of the press, representative democracy are worth defending. I'm sick of seeing women degraded in oppresive forms of dress, coverd head to toe in black, it's an ugly way to treat women even if some of them practice self oppresion.
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
I'm off to buy the Satanic Verses, book burning scum.
QUOTE
Unless Islam undergoes an enlightenment like christianity did it will continue to be objectively backward
I'm sure you say this with a massive dose of cynicism, I hope....
I'm a catholic but to qualify the catholic church as enlighted really makes me vomit.
Whatever the argument, watching policeman walking around Birmingham city centre with guns this morning was a pretty sickening sight. It kind of hits home as to the utter insanity of the world we live in.
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 2 2007, 11:01 AM)
QUOTE
Unless Islam undergoes an enlightenment like christianity did it will continue to be objectively backward
I'm sure you say this with a massive dose of cynicism, I hope....
I'm a catholic but to qualify the catholic church as enlighted really makes me vomit.
Well a degree of healthy cynicism I hope, but I do consider judeochristian society to be essentially more moderate but I'm sure you can imagine I have often criticised christianity also as I'm critcal of much of religion.
I think backward people don't need a specific religion or belief for their zealous hatred.
There are terrorists that fight for
- nationalism (ETA)
- animal rights (Dutch wannabe prime minister Fortuyn was killed by an animal rights activist)
- End of the world idiots (the US is filled with them)
- Anti-abortionists (talking about religious nutters...)
- Muslim jihadis
And the list goes on and on.
The topic of this tread however, was WHAT THE FUCK TO THESE PEOPLE THINK? What do you want to achieve by blowing yourself into smithereens and taking other people with you?
I really don't understand
There are terrorists that fight for
- nationalism (ETA)
- animal rights (Dutch wannabe prime minister Fortuyn was killed by an animal rights activist)
- End of the world idiots (the US is filled with them)
- Anti-abortionists (talking about religious nutters...)
- Muslim jihadis
And the list goes on and on.
The topic of this tread however, was WHAT THE FUCK TO THESE PEOPLE THINK? What do you want to achieve by blowing yourself into smithereens and taking other people with you?
I really don't understand
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 1 2007, 09:28 PM)
I am curious, does anyone here have any Muslim friends or close acquaintances?
I work with this computer who is Turkish But he is getting his MS at St. johns and he likes to go out for beers after work. He seems pretty assimilated. In fact he got a little pissed when I seemed surprise when he asked me to join him. "I thought Muslims don't drink" Thats BS. plenty of us drink"
Yes, have quite a few muslim friends - only one of them doesn't drink (but he smokes shisha like you wouldn't believe and tells the most haram jokes!).
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 2 2007, 12:02 PM)
I think backward people don't need a specific religion or belief for their zealous hatred.
I disagree - they DO need a specific (fundamentalist) belief - just not necessarily religion.....
QUOTE(Mick H @ Jul 2 2007, 10:22 AM)
Unless Islam undergoes an enlightenment like christianity did it will continue to be objectively backward.
Christianity didn't become enlightened. But many people did.
And it was the rediscovery of pre-christian and Arab learning that helped it along.
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 1 2007, 05:14 PM)
Well, I can't quote the bible but I'm sure it has similar violence inciting passages. Doesn't mean I'm violent, does it?
No. But for fundamentalist, literalist Christians the Bible gives plenty of instructions on who to kill:
6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;Deuteronomy 13
7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die;
Great discussion folks Thanks. Its true Christianity did not become enlightened people become enlightened. If anything comes from all of this,it proves the need for Secular Society!
We can only hope that Muslims will assimilate into European society and give up the fanatical practices of Islam. If not, you folks have a problem.
The US is a different matter. Because, Americans consider themselves a "Christian Nation", we automatically put ourselves on a level of confrontation. The war of Terrorism has been re framed as a new "Crusades"
The Crusades brought the world the "Black Plague"
You folks in the UK have my greatest respect as you have dealt with these matter professionally and not allowed yourselves to be terrorized - thus resisting the propaganda Rupert Murdoch is spewing from his media empire. (Can you pleae take him back?)
We can only hope that Muslims will assimilate into European society and give up the fanatical practices of Islam. If not, you folks have a problem.
The US is a different matter. Because, Americans consider themselves a "Christian Nation", we automatically put ourselves on a level of confrontation. The war of Terrorism has been re framed as a new "Crusades"
The Crusades brought the world the "Black Plague"
You folks in the UK have my greatest respect as you have dealt with these matter professionally and not allowed yourselves to be terrorized - thus resisting the propaganda Rupert Murdoch is spewing from his media empire. (Can you pleae take him back?)
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 2 2007, 01:31 PM)
Great discussion folks Thanks. Its true Christianity did not become enlightened people become enlightened. If anything comes from all of this,it proves the need for Secular Society!
We can only hope that Muslims will assimilate into European society and give up the fanatical practices of Islam. If not, you folks have a problem.
I think it is important to say here that the vast majority of muslims are not fundamentalists.
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 2 2007, 01:31 PM)
You folks in the UK have my greatest respect as you have dealt with these matter professionally and not allowed yourselves to be terrorized - thus resisting the propaganda Rupert Murdoch is spewing from his media empire. (Can you pleae take him back?)
he's nothing to do with us!!!!!!!
Yeah, we have the Aussies to thank for Murdoch!
jamesleo said - We can only hope that Muslims will assimilate into European society
Assimilation's fine as long as the people doing it can retain their own identity, something which their offspring will find a lot easier as they'll have twin cultural identities.
'course the funny thing about assimilation is that neither white australian migrants nor the early settlers in the USA managed to assimilate with the native population
Assimilation's fine as long as the people doing it can retain their own identity, something which their offspring will find a lot easier as they'll have twin cultural identities.
'course the funny thing about assimilation is that neither white australian migrants nor the early settlers in the USA managed to assimilate with the native population
'course the funny thing about assimilation is that neither white Australian migrants nor the early settlers in the USA managed to assimilate with the native population roll eyes.gif
Fascinating observation Jon. Barbara, so good to know you are still here. So good to be back. I am tired of fighting with all of those Libertarians on the Thom Hartmann site
Fascinating observation Jon. Barbara, so good to know you are still here. So good to be back. I am tired of fighting with all of those Libertarians on the Thom Hartmann site
QUOTE(readytoswing @ Jul 2 2007, 08:34 AM)
'Rabidly ant-muslim' isn't that a tad harsh?
The Danish People's Party who often gets a casting vote in the in the government (a coalition of The Liberal Party [as in neo-liberal], The Conservatives and the Danish People's Party) is a nationalist party with a decidedly anti-muslim rhetoric and policies. The leader, Pia Kjærsgaard, once took a somebody to court for calling her a racist. The court decided in against the DPP's leader.
So, no, not remotely harsh.
QUOTE(Mick H @ Jul 2 2007, 09:22 AM)
As an atheist and proggresive centre left person I grow very tired of religous bigots, honour killing, forced AND arranged marriages, ritual slaughter is a much worse way to kill animals.
I dislike the homophobic and sexist nature of a wider section of islam not just the fringe element of bombers.
Unless Islam undergoes an enlightenment like christianity did it will continue to be objectively backward.
The values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of freedom of the press, representative democracy are worth defending. I'm sick of seeing women degraded in oppresive forms of dress, coverd head to toe in black, it's an ugly way to treat women even if some of them practice self oppresion.
Totally agree. Though I think there are plenty of Christians who would like to put women where fundamentalist Islam puts them.
QUOTE(Mick H @ Jul 2 2007, 09:22 AM)
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
You start by saying that we should defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defends the very same idea of cultural diversity which you so despise.
A society that can't tolerate difference (within legal boundaries, of course) is either fascist or totalitarian or heading in that direction. And, frankly, I find that a very scary idea.
Radical Islam wants to crush difference and individuality, in the same way that fascism does and Stalinist socialism.
Christ, has the left learned nothing from the former Eastern block countries' failures!
Our message to those who wish to destroy our way of life and freedoms is that we will not be intimidated by terror
Jacqui Smith
Home Secretary
Another act of courage.
I think Western Countries (I add the USA hesitantly) have to find a way to confront Radial Islam about its values that are contrary to Western Society (violence, treatment of women, homophobia possibly antisemitism)
without catering to Xenophobia
Jacqui Smith
Home Secretary
Another act of courage.
I think Western Countries (I add the USA hesitantly) have to find a way to confront Radial Islam about its values that are contrary to Western Society (violence, treatment of women, homophobia possibly antisemitism)
without catering to Xenophobia
What the fuck is up with this?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3336148
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3336148
QUOTE
As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
QUOTE(LeftintheUS @ Jul 2 2007, 07:59 PM)
What the fuck is up with this?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3336148
QUOTE
As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
Wecome to American Journalism It interesting that there are so few State Dept, Homeland Security, FBI whatever who speak Arabic so I do not know who translated it Why Prague?
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 2 2007, 12:02 PM)
I think backward people don't need a specific religion or belief for their zealous hatred.
There are terrorists that fight for
- nationalism (ETA)
- animal rights (Dutch wannabe prime minister Fortuyn was killed by an animal rights activist)
- End of the world idiots (the US is filled with them)
- Anti-abortionists (talking about religious nutters...)
- Muslim jihadis
And the list goes on and on.
The topic of this tread however, was WHAT THE FUCK TO THESE PEOPLE THINK? What do you want to achieve by blowing yourself into smithereens and taking other people with you?
I really don't understand
It's also not that long ago that there were terrorists supposedly fighting for Socialism (RAF, JRA, Brigate Rosse et cetera) and a century ago there were those who fought for anarchism.
That was my point. Give a zealot a goal and they'll die for it.
Fuckers
Fuckers
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 2 2007, 08:48 PM)
That was my point. Give a zealot a goal and they'll die for it.
Fuckers
Have you folks read my post on US vs UK The Culture of Fear.
Please read it and respond
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 2 2007, 09:48 PM)
That was my point. Give a zealot a goal and they'll die for it.
Fuckers
Mandela was still alive, last time I saw him
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 2 2007, 10:41 PM)
Have you folks read my post on US vs UK The Culture of Fear.
QUOTE
In the USA, Fox Five would be going out their way to scare the "crap out of us" Politicians like Rudy Guliani would be all over the place exploiting this to the MAX.
Republicans would be blaming Democrats and the reverse Hilary would be out there coming up with some position statement about terrorism.
I think the Brits have a lot to teach us
...and to think the Yanks saved our arses in 2 world wars
I guess one factor is because England's been exposed to more terrorism than the USA.
Our exposure to the IRA from the 70's onward helped us come to terms with what these attacks meant to our way of life,
and I can't think (until recently) a time when America has had any experience of terrorist attacks.
[quote name='Mick H' post='219049' date='Jul 2 2007, 09:22 AM']
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
[/quote]
You start by saying that we should defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defends the very same idea of cultural diversity which you so despise.
A society that can't tolerate difference (within legal boundaries, of course) is either fascist or totalitarian or heading in that direction. And, frankly, I find that a very scary idea.
Radical Islam wants to crush difference and individuality, in the same way that fascism does and Stalinist socialism.
Christ, has the left learned nothing from the former Eastern block countries' failures!
[/quote]
What a good job I'm defending liberal democracy, I am repulsed by stalinism/fascism or islamist totalitarianism.
I call for more uniformity and assimilation and less diversity, Chairman Mao wanted to let a thousand flowers bloom (that is before he then got out the industrial weedkiller)
Wanting more of something (in this case western values and lifestyle) is not the same as wanting dull uniformity, it's liberal democracy that defends difference but the political idea of diversity seems to presume all cultures and values are equal, I don't think they are.
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
[/quote]
You start by saying that we should defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defends the very same idea of cultural diversity which you so despise.
A society that can't tolerate difference (within legal boundaries, of course) is either fascist or totalitarian or heading in that direction. And, frankly, I find that a very scary idea.
Radical Islam wants to crush difference and individuality, in the same way that fascism does and Stalinist socialism.
Christ, has the left learned nothing from the former Eastern block countries' failures!
[/quote]
What a good job I'm defending liberal democracy, I am repulsed by stalinism/fascism or islamist totalitarianism.
I call for more uniformity and assimilation and less diversity, Chairman Mao wanted to let a thousand flowers bloom (that is before he then got out the industrial weedkiller)
Wanting more of something (in this case western values and lifestyle) is not the same as wanting dull uniformity, it's liberal democracy that defends difference but the political idea of diversity seems to presume all cultures and values are equal, I don't think they are.
Edited (deleted) as I didn't get across what I wanted to say properly.
QUOTE(Jon @ Jul 2 2007, 02:28 PM)
jamesleo said - We can only hope that Muslims will assimilate into European society
Assimilation's fine as long as the people doing it can retain their own identity, something which their offspring will find a lot easier as they'll have twin cultural identities.
Sorry but I think that you'll find that all of the 7/7 bombers were born in Britain. The 'offspring' as you put them are often more 'radical' than their parents.
QUOTE(Jon @ Jul 3 2007, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 2 2007, 09:48 PM)
That was my point. Give a zealot a goal and they'll die for it.
Fuckers
Mandela was still alive, last time I saw him
Mandela is not a zealot. My point still stands YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED!
QUOTE(Leontien @ Jul 3 2007, 03:29 PM)
Mandela is not a zealot. My point still stands YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED!
Technically true, I've just looked up Zealot (from under my stone of defeat)
But as the Zealots were... (encyclopedia time)
Jewish political movement in the 1st century BCE which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the country by force of arms during the Great Jewish Revolt (CE 66-70).
... which isn't too disimilar too the ANC's military wing aims, which brings me to Mandela.
[quote name='Mick H' date='Jul 3 2007, 09:28 AM' post='219191']
[quote name='Mick H' post='219049' date='Jul 2 2007, 09:22 AM']
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
[/quote]
You start by saying that we should defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defends the very same idea of cultural diversity which you so despise.
A society that can't tolerate difference (within legal boundaries, of course) is either fascist or totalitarian or heading in that direction. And, frankly, I find that a very scary idea.
Radical Islam wants to crush difference and individuality, in the same way that fascism does and Stalinist socialism.
Christ, has the left learned nothing from the former Eastern block countries' failures!
[/quote]
What a good job I'm defending liberal democracy, I am repulsed by stalinism/fascism or islamist totalitarianism.
I call for more uniformity and assimilation and less diversity, Chairman Mao wanted to let a thousand flowers bloom (that is before he then got out the industrial weedkiller)
Wanting more of something (in this case western values and lifestyle) is not the same as wanting dull uniformity, it's liberal democracy that defends difference but the political idea of diversity seems to presume all cultures and values are equal, I don't think they are.
[/quote]
Not at all. All values are not equal by their very nature but democracy and human rights is the space within which we hold that debate. We can have a diverse multi-cultural society but have some core, overarching values such as respect for the law, the individual and democracy which will guarantee this diversity. Arguably, there is not enough respect for diversity in the UK if young kids like the 7/7 bombers can be recruited to carry out such murderous acts. Let's also not confuse diversity with the kind of separate development that takes place when groups of people become "ghettoised." What you seem to be suggesting smacks of the defeatism of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech.
Can we also stop presuming that enlightenment values such as respect for the individual are a primarily Western European idea in origin. The same ideas predate the European enlightenment in some non-western cultures. Read Edward Said's "Orientalism".
[quote name='Mick H' post='219049' date='Jul 2 2007, 09:22 AM']
The choice is narrow minded religion or universal rights, we should have more uniformity and less diversity.
Diversity is at odds with equality of opportunity. If you go down the equal but different route what you end up with is inequality and the bombers trying to bomb us into the caliphate.
[/quote]
You start by saying that we should defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defends the very same idea of cultural diversity which you so despise.
A society that can't tolerate difference (within legal boundaries, of course) is either fascist or totalitarian or heading in that direction. And, frankly, I find that a very scary idea.
Radical Islam wants to crush difference and individuality, in the same way that fascism does and Stalinist socialism.
Christ, has the left learned nothing from the former Eastern block countries' failures!
[/quote]
What a good job I'm defending liberal democracy, I am repulsed by stalinism/fascism or islamist totalitarianism.
I call for more uniformity and assimilation and less diversity, Chairman Mao wanted to let a thousand flowers bloom (that is before he then got out the industrial weedkiller)
Wanting more of something (in this case western values and lifestyle) is not the same as wanting dull uniformity, it's liberal democracy that defends difference but the political idea of diversity seems to presume all cultures and values are equal, I don't think they are.
[/quote]
Not at all. All values are not equal by their very nature but democracy and human rights is the space within which we hold that debate. We can have a diverse multi-cultural society but have some core, overarching values such as respect for the law, the individual and democracy which will guarantee this diversity. Arguably, there is not enough respect for diversity in the UK if young kids like the 7/7 bombers can be recruited to carry out such murderous acts. Let's also not confuse diversity with the kind of separate development that takes place when groups of people become "ghettoised." What you seem to be suggesting smacks of the defeatism of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech.
Can we also stop presuming that enlightenment values such as respect for the individual are a primarily Western European idea in origin. The same ideas predate the European enlightenment in some non-western cultures. Read Edward Said's "Orientalism".
I messed up that last post I did, so I deleted it.
Sarah Lady shouted down Jamesleo because he put something about the UK bombs in the multi ethnic London thread. Fair enough in one way (though the way of doing it was a bit ott I thought). But of course there is SOME connection. To shout people down for even hinting at it, is not the thing to do IMO, (and actually a problem in itself).
It's how many ordinary people think about things. You don't have to agree with them, but it is a legitimate point of view perhaps.
Our present wide open multi-cultural society is made up of all kinds of people. That includes asylum seekers from Islamic countries, who are wanted in their own countries for islamasist activities.
It also includes people coming from very violent places like Somalia and Algeria.
People from Saudi Arabia come here in numbers every summer, (as I saw at the demonstration at the Regents Park Mosque in 2001,) and many of them must have islamasist leanings. (The Regents Park Mosque - built with Saudi money I think - is nearby the Edgware Rd area which has a large number of semi-permanent/temporary residents from the Gulf).
That we have thousands of people coming and going from Pakistan all the time, is part of the issue.
You can't shout people down just for raising a point like that.
Sarah Lady shouted down Jamesleo because he put something about the UK bombs in the multi ethnic London thread. Fair enough in one way (though the way of doing it was a bit ott I thought). But of course there is SOME connection. To shout people down for even hinting at it, is not the thing to do IMO, (and actually a problem in itself).
It's how many ordinary people think about things. You don't have to agree with them, but it is a legitimate point of view perhaps.
Our present wide open multi-cultural society is made up of all kinds of people. That includes asylum seekers from Islamic countries, who are wanted in their own countries for islamasist activities.
It also includes people coming from very violent places like Somalia and Algeria.
People from Saudi Arabia come here in numbers every summer, (as I saw at the demonstration at the Regents Park Mosque in 2001,) and many of them must have islamasist leanings. (The Regents Park Mosque - built with Saudi money I think - is nearby the Edgware Rd area which has a large number of semi-permanent/temporary residents from the Gulf).
That we have thousands of people coming and going from Pakistan all the time, is part of the issue.
You can't shout people down just for raising a point like that.
Not at all. All values are not equal by their very nature but democracy and human rights is the space within which we hold that debate. We can have a diverse multi-cultural society but have some core, overarching values such as respect for the law, the individual and democracy which will guarantee this diversity. Arguably, there is not enough respect for diversity in the UK if young kids like the 7/7 bombers can be recruited to carry out such murderous acts. Let's also not confuse diversity with the kind of separate development that takes place when groups of people become "ghettoised." What you seem to be suggesting smacks of the defeatism of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech.
I have consistently defended liberal democracy etc on this thread and attacked religous bigots on it. To defend our liberal western lifestyle we defeated the Fascists in WW2. The Stalinists in the Cold War and the Islamist totalitarians will go the same way because people want to live in a society in which they are free to cast their vote and read the newspaper of their choice etc.
We used internment of various people in WW2 and spys to fight the cold war etc This type of thing we might need to do again to safeguard our fundamental freedoms.
Please stop saying that what I suggest could lead to something or smacks of something else. I'm right in the centre with moderate views.
Rather than not enough respect for diversity I would contend there is not enough respect for western values. however I am not a defeatist as you suggest rather I believe the over whelming majority black and white will rally and defeat the small amount of religous zealots.
It's just that I have always felt that equality of opportunity and anti racism have more to offer than vague notions of multi culturalism and diversity. I'm clearly not against multiculturalism ( I have travelled abroad tried to speak the language and eat all kinds of food, listened to all kinds of music etc etc etc) or Diversity (it would be a extremely dull world if we were all the same) But I don't see how we build even a slightly more equal society (and I am a realist we will never reach a socialist nirvana) if we are constantly "celebrating our differences", thats what the bigots want ghettoised communities.
I said earlier that I would buy the Satanic Verses I'll buy a takeaway curry to eat at the same time.
I have consistently defended liberal democracy etc on this thread and attacked religous bigots on it. To defend our liberal western lifestyle we defeated the Fascists in WW2. The Stalinists in the Cold War and the Islamist totalitarians will go the same way because people want to live in a society in which they are free to cast their vote and read the newspaper of their choice etc.
We used internment of various people in WW2 and spys to fight the cold war etc This type of thing we might need to do again to safeguard our fundamental freedoms.
Please stop saying that what I suggest could lead to something or smacks of something else. I'm right in the centre with moderate views.
Rather than not enough respect for diversity I would contend there is not enough respect for western values. however I am not a defeatist as you suggest rather I believe the over whelming majority black and white will rally and defeat the small amount of religous zealots.
It's just that I have always felt that equality of opportunity and anti racism have more to offer than vague notions of multi culturalism and diversity. I'm clearly not against multiculturalism ( I have travelled abroad tried to speak the language and eat all kinds of food, listened to all kinds of music etc etc etc) or Diversity (it would be a extremely dull world if we were all the same) But I don't see how we build even a slightly more equal society (and I am a realist we will never reach a socialist nirvana) if we are constantly "celebrating our differences", thats what the bigots want ghettoised communities.
I said earlier that I would buy the Satanic Verses I'll buy a takeaway curry to eat at the same time.
One point of information I find most disturbing is many of the folks involved were Physicians!
I am sorry for my idealistic naivety but doctors are suppose to save lives and treat the sick. They are suppose to be the most educated among us. If these people were members of some Bedouin tribe that had no education or exposure to western civilization and fell under the spell of Imman's oratory that would be one thing. But doctors are suppose to be above that. I recognize that Che Guevara was a doctor but he became a guerrilla fighter as a last resort. These folks, to my understanding, had well paid positions and had the best your country had to offer. What was their grievance and why did they believe this was to only way to resolve it?
I am sorry for my idealistic naivety but doctors are suppose to save lives and treat the sick. They are suppose to be the most educated among us. If these people were members of some Bedouin tribe that had no education or exposure to western civilization and fell under the spell of Imman's oratory that would be one thing. But doctors are suppose to be above that. I recognize that Che Guevara was a doctor but he became a guerrilla fighter as a last resort. These folks, to my understanding, had well paid positions and had the best your country had to offer. What was their grievance and why did they believe this was to only way to resolve it?
Please don't mention Che Guevara in the same breath as these lunatics.
QUOTE(readytoswing @ Jul 4 2007, 11:52 AM)
Please don't mention Che Guevara in the same breath as these lunatics.
I did mean to disrespect Guevara's name. Whatever Guevara did he did so believing he was making a better world for everyone. These lunatics are concerned with making Sharia law the law of the land. He acted against poverty and injustice not to impose some literal interpretation of some ancient text.
I hate to confess my prejudice but every time I see a women veiled - hajaib I am not comfortable. I see it as a symbol of repression. I shouldn't think that way but I do.
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Jul 1 2007, 12:53 PM)
Indeed - we should be quite clear here. The Quran is quite clear on violent jihad
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. "
There is no misinterpretation by violent jihadists. The may be fundamentalists - but it is there - make no mistake. Attempts to portray jihad as solely personal are, alas, wishful thinking by more enlightened muslims.
If you read the stuff that's been written about Mohammed Siddique Khan and heard the interview with the former friend of the Glasgow supect, as well as the other decent journalism and history, it's quite clear that:
1. As with Christianity and Judaism, there are various schools of thought within Islam. The Koran, like the Bible is open to theological interpretation.
2. The Islamist terrorists are a tiny minority within World Islam and the UK.
3. The roots of Islamist terrorism are partly theological, partly ideological and partly a response to the situation in various countries.
4. Islam has a history over more than a thousand years that is more noteable for its peaceful coexistence with other religions than conflict; most of the violence associated with the Middle East and Asia actually emerged at a time when the decline of various empires coincided with the development of secular nationalism. That is significant.
My impression, for what it's worth, is that there is less sympathy for the Jihadists across the UK Muslim community than there was for the aims of the IRA within the Irish Nationalist/Republican community in the Eighties.
We have to build on that and help the majority of Muslims to mobilise within their own community against the terrorists. Secularising education will only alienate the people we need to engage, and won't help because the ideas that have to be challenged are propagated outside formal education.
I don't think that traditional multiculturalist policies foster integration: we need to promote unity based on mutual respect and shared values. However, I don't think that multiculturalism has produced the terrorists any more than British foreign policy has.
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 4 2007, 01:07 PM)
I did mean to disrespect Guevara's name. Whatever Guevara did he did so believing he was making a better world for everyone.
I hate to say it - but the jihadists believe that as well.
QUOTE(JBoyd @ Jul 4 2007, 01:58 PM)
1. As with Christianity and Judaism, there are various schools of thought within Islam. The Koran, like the Bible is open to theological interpretation.
I just don't buy this.
Both the Bible and the Koran say some pretty hideous things. Both call for the death of apostates. There is no other way to interpret it. What liberal theology does is to conveniently ignore it.
The fact is that both the Bible and the Koran offer succour for fundamentalists. Attempts to try and temper that by liberals by claiming it is all about interpretation is just bullshit.
Either the books ay that it is ok to kill people or they don't. And frankly, they both do - if someone takes that literally then it cannot be contended that it is not Islamic/Christian when it clearly is.
Moderate Christains/Muslims are in a quandry - the fact is the books that they attempt to draw their theological codes are full of nastiness - but if they admit it the house of cards falls down.
Now I'm not saying religion is the only dogma that people will kill for, but I find it really irritating that people of all religions claim that God is love and peace when the books he is alleged to have written/help written are full of violence.
best rumour i heard today, went something like this....
so, MRSA....
so, MRSA....
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Jul 4 2007, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE(jamesleo @ Jul 4 2007, 01:07 PM)
I did mean to disrespect Guevara's name. Whatever Guevara did he did so believing he was making a better world for everyone.
I hate to say it - but the jihadists believe that as well.
QUOTE(JBoyd @ Jul 4 2007, 01:58 PM)
1. As with Christianity and Judaism, there are various schools of thought within Islam. The Koran, like the Bible is open to theological interpretation.
I just don't buy this.
Both the Bible and the Koran say some pretty hideous things. Both call for the death of apostates. There is no other way to interpret it. What liberal theology does is to conveniently ignore it.
The fact is that both the Bible and the Koran offer succour for fundamentalists. Attempts to try and temper that by liberals by claiming it is all about interpretation is just bullshit.
Either the books ay that it is ok to kill people or they don't. And frankly, they both do - if someone takes that literally then it cannot be contended that it is not Islamic/Christian when it clearly is.
Moderate Christains/Muslims are in a quandry - the fact is the books that they attempt to draw their theological codes are full of nastiness - but if they admit it the house of cards falls down.
Now I'm not saying religion is the only dogma that people will kill for, but I find it really irritating that people of all religions claim that God is love and peace when the books he is alleged to have written/help written are full of violence.
I know we've done religion vs secularism before, and there is danger in going over old ground here, however, with all due respect, I think that you are falling into the same trap that Richard Dawkins falls into, which is to caricature religion to fit your particular view of it.
All of the three Abrahamic religions draw on both their sacred texts (the Bible and the Koran) and theological discussion: indeed as religions, they are almost as much the product of centuries of interpretation as of the original texts. The Bible is full of contradictions, anomalies and text that is nonsensical outside its historical context. Theology has sought to make sense of this and in doing so has led to the emergence of sects and traditions that dispute each other’s interpretations.
The parts of the Bible and the Koran that advocate violence have to be reconciled with those that argue for peace and compassion: clearly either can be seen to take precedence, however, most Christians would argue that the Sermon on the Mount and “Love thy neighbour as thyself” are the more authoritative lessons, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject the call to Jihad. There is no great quandary for Liberal or Moderate Christians, Jews or Muslims in choosing to reject scriptures that advocate violence.
Secularists like Dawkins, however, have to present the texts that are “hideous” as the “true” face of religion, or else their argument falls apart: thus in the C4 series, he spent 30 seconds with the liberal Bishop of Oxford, ignored what he had to say, then raced away with some comment about liberal Christians “abandoning Faith as well as Reason”, to interview more bigots from the Deep South, in the hope that he could provoke one of them into trying to burn him alive.
If I were to suggest that the true interpretation of evolutionary theory lay in “Social Darwinism” and with those who used “the survival of the fittest” to promote racism, it would be unjust and unfair; more to the point, it would be grossly inaccurate, but that is exactly the way that Dawkins and his followers approach religion. It is actually a kind of bigotry.
And then there is the distortion of historical fact that underpins the Dawkins thesis which airbrushes out the role of secularism in modern “religious” conflict, but that’s another debate.
[quote name='JBoyd' date='Jul 4 2007, 10:41 PM' post='219392']
[quote name='barmyrob' post='219339' date='Jul 4 2007, 02:55 PM']
[quote name='jamesleo' post='219326' date='Jul 4 2007, 01:07 PM']
I did mean to disrespect Guevara's name. Whatever Guevara did he did so believing he was making a better world for everyone.
[/quote]
I hate to say it - but the jihadists believe that as well.
[quote name='JBoyd' post='219334' date='Jul 4 2007, 01:58 PM']
1. As with Christianity and Judaism, there are various schools of thought within Islam. The Koran, like the Bible is open to theological interpretation.
[/quote]
I just don't buy this.
Both the Bible and the Koran say some pretty hideous things. Both call for the death of apostates. There is no other way to interpret it. What liberal theology does is to conveniently ignore it.
The fact is that both the Bible and the Koran offer succour for fundamentalists. Attempts to try and temper that by liberals by claiming it is all about interpretation is just bullshit.
I think Islam has a unique problem in that the revelations and presentations come from one source. The belief is that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammad and gave him this revelation which we now call the Quran. Christianity has different apostles giving different time and dates and personal differences in the texts. Judaism has even greater interpretations as it is recognized among Hebrew Scholars that there was a period of Oral History called the Oral Torah and discrepancies occur. Islam does not allow for that.
E
[quote name='barmyrob' post='219339' date='Jul 4 2007, 02:55 PM']
[quote name='jamesleo' post='219326' date='Jul 4 2007, 01:07 PM']
I did mean to disrespect Guevara's name. Whatever Guevara did he did so believing he was making a better world for everyone.
[/quote]
I hate to say it - but the jihadists believe that as well.
[quote name='JBoyd' post='219334' date='Jul 4 2007, 01:58 PM']
1. As with Christianity and Judaism, there are various schools of thought within Islam. The Koran, like the Bible is open to theological interpretation.
[/quote]
I just don't buy this.
Both the Bible and the Koran say some pretty hideous things. Both call for the death of apostates. There is no other way to interpret it. What liberal theology does is to conveniently ignore it.
The fact is that both the Bible and the Koran offer succour for fundamentalists. Attempts to try and temper that by liberals by claiming it is all about interpretation is just bullshit.
I think Islam has a unique problem in that the revelations and presentations come from one source. The belief is that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammad and gave him this revelation which we now call the Quran. Christianity has different apostles giving different time and dates and personal differences in the texts. Judaism has even greater interpretations as it is recognized among Hebrew Scholars that there was a period of Oral History called the Oral Torah and discrepancies occur. Islam does not allow for that.
E
QUOTE(nevski @ Jul 4 2007, 05:41 PM)
best rumour i heard today, went something like this....
so, MRSA....
Ironically, it's not as if the NHS needs anymore bad press....
have we had a myth-breaking MRSA thread yet? that could've been an interesting one.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.