Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
davepoth said:
Yes, but if the step required to do so is to recognise that Islam needs to be handled more harshly than any other religion then we are not really able to do so under the law as it is.
This and other posts of a similar nature are well meaning to the resolution but are not what needs to be done in the short term. We can sit round having cups of tea discussing medieval ME history and the inns and outs of 'how we caused this' and the inside leg measurement of the effect it will have etcHowever by the time taken for anything to materialise we will all be either praying 5 times a day to Mo or have been beheaded.
There is only one way forward now, there are no other options.
davepoth said:
AJS- said:
Dave
I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
We did that in 1948.I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-r...
Changing that is a very big step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religi...
AJS- said:
This lofty equating of Islam with 'all religions' is a big mistake. It's not Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus slaughtering innocent civilians in the name of their creed, it's overwhelmingly Islamists.
Not all false beliefs are created equal. A false belief that the moon is made of cheese is likely to be more benign than a false belief that you are under a divine obligation to cleanse the world of non-believers. Yes you can spend ages arguing with the moon made of cheese guy and win the argument, but it's all for nought of the angel of death gets there in the interim.
If when confronted with it, you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't conform with your own outlook as being false and contemptible then you're well on the way to your own brand of intolerant zealotry. And perhaps worse you're blindsiding yourself to the very specific dangers which that threat poses. I don't know of anyone who was killed for not accepting that the moon was made of cheese.
The notion that everyone will ultimately yield to your superior ideas when they have enough rational argument and consumer goods is a foolish conceit. It's the notion summed up so well by the line in Full Metal Jacket 'Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out.' It's false. Blind belief can be a hugely powerful motivator for people who aren't rational to start with.
This is why religion is largely accorded some respect which is greater than the merits of it's arguments alone. It's not just some theory people have dreamed up in a vacuum. It's deeply ingrained over generations of their family and their community, and it deals with profound questions of life and death, existence and morality.
If large numbers of people are prepared to kill and be killed for the same cause, it lends it no legitimacy to examine that cause more closely. When you do that with Islam a quiet different picture emerges from the one we as a society seem to be casually assuming.
All abrahamic religions have the same basic belief: that the believers are the chosen people.Not all false beliefs are created equal. A false belief that the moon is made of cheese is likely to be more benign than a false belief that you are under a divine obligation to cleanse the world of non-believers. Yes you can spend ages arguing with the moon made of cheese guy and win the argument, but it's all for nought of the angel of death gets there in the interim.
If when confronted with it, you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't conform with your own outlook as being false and contemptible then you're well on the way to your own brand of intolerant zealotry. And perhaps worse you're blindsiding yourself to the very specific dangers which that threat poses. I don't know of anyone who was killed for not accepting that the moon was made of cheese.
The notion that everyone will ultimately yield to your superior ideas when they have enough rational argument and consumer goods is a foolish conceit. It's the notion summed up so well by the line in Full Metal Jacket 'Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out.' It's false. Blind belief can be a hugely powerful motivator for people who aren't rational to start with.
This is why religion is largely accorded some respect which is greater than the merits of it's arguments alone. It's not just some theory people have dreamed up in a vacuum. It's deeply ingrained over generations of their family and their community, and it deals with profound questions of life and death, existence and morality.
If large numbers of people are prepared to kill and be killed for the same cause, it lends it no legitimacy to examine that cause more closely. When you do that with Islam a quiet different picture emerges from the one we as a society seem to be casually assuming.
They all, at one time and currently, have killed because of their beliefs. To suggest that islam is in some way worse is not correct. It is the one that gives the UK most problems but in other parts of the world, there is religious bigotry from christians, and other religions.
Religions don't deal with any questions as profound as life, death and existence, they just invent answers, and answers that change with the years. As for morality - that is the one thing that religions avoid. There can be no morality in a religion, only doctrine.
We can dismiss something that is presented without evidence. As mentioned by many people, the extraordinary claims of religion require extraordinary proof.
In disbelief of a religion we are joined by the vast majority of the population of the world, all rather obviously.
Once 'respect' is seen not as a right but as something entirely in the giver's remit, then we might get somewhere.
One of the main enforcers of religious belief is the continual reinforcement, provided by the likes of us.
We all know that the graves didn't open and all the dead in Judea rise up, and we must show that belief in such a thing is the same as believing the moon is constructed of a dairy product. There is a whole series of beliefs that are just as illogical and proveably wrong in all religions.
All religions were, of course, just dreamed up. All false beliefs are created equal: they are fantasy.
You are spot on with regards zealotry of the irreligious. We should not force 'our', as you say superior, beliefs on others. People can believe what they want, but they must conform to the accepted norms of society or suffer the consequences, in the same way a thief or murderer would, regardless of their beliefs. We should not act as agents or recruiters for the religions.
Anyone can believe what they want.
V6Pushfit said:
There is only one way forward now, there are no other options.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMWZJlA0QAAJS- said:
turbobloke said:
AJS- said:
Dave
It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
Surely rejection of Sharia Law involves "handling" a particular religion "more harshly"? Do we really need to reject Halakhah, Nishkam Sewa and the Ten Commandments (by way of examples) to be seen to be equal?It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
ETA unless you meant something different?
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 22 November 18:28
A better way to word it would be accepting that the democratic secular law of the land takes precedence over any religious law.
I guess my 'Islamophobia' got ahead of me. For some reason Jews, Sikhs and Calvinists slipped my mind.
ISWYM
Derek
The point is that anyone can believe what they want about who we are, where we came from and why we're here so long as they can do so *within the confines of the just laws of a secular society.*
Nobody who truly believes in Islam can do this, because it is expressly prohibited by the core text and 1,400 years of practice.
The point is that anyone can believe what they want about who we are, where we came from and why we're here so long as they can do so *within the confines of the just laws of a secular society.*
Nobody who truly believes in Islam can do this, because it is expressly prohibited by the core text and 1,400 years of practice.
Sky-fairy cults can incite others to kill. The Buddhists atrocities against Muslims is an interesting one that I wouldn't have previously thought possible, but at the end of the day, these sorts of beliefs are anathema to coherent thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_ter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violenc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_ter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violenc...
Halb said:
Sky-fairy cults can incite others to kill. The Buddhists atrocities against Muslims is an interesting one that I wouldn't have previously thought possible, but at the end of the day, these sorts of beliefs are anathema to coherent thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_ter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violenc...
Completely false equivalence on every count.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_ter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violenc...
But let's humour it as far as the Table of Contents
Christian said:
1 Historical
1.1 Gunpowder Plot
1.2 Pogroms
1.3 Ku Klux Klan
2 Contemporary
2.1 Africa
2.1.1 Central African Republic
2.1.2 Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2.2 India
2.2.1 Tripura
2.2.2 Nagaland
2.3 Lebanon
2.4 United States
2.5 Global ideologies
3 See also
4 References
5 Bibliography
6 Further reading
1.1 Gunpowder Plot
1.2 Pogroms
1.3 Ku Klux Klan
2 Contemporary
2.1 Africa
2.1.1 Central African Republic
2.1.2 Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2.2 India
2.2.1 Tripura
2.2.2 Nagaland
2.3 Lebanon
2.4 United States
2.5 Global ideologies
3 See also
4 References
5 Bibliography
6 Further reading
Jewish said:
Contents
1 Terminology
2 History
2.1 Zealotry in the 1st century
3 Since 1948
4 Individuals
5 See also
6 Footnotes
7 References
1 Terminology
2 History
2.1 Zealotry in the 1st century
3 Since 1948
4 Individuals
5 See also
6 Footnotes
7 References
Buddhist said:
Contents
1 Teachings, interpretations, and practices
2 Regional examples
2.1 South-East Asia
2.1.1 Thailand
2.1.2 Myanmar
2.2 South Asia
2.2.1 India
2.2.2 Sri Lanka
2.3 East Asia
2.3.1 Japan
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
1 Teachings, interpretations, and practices
2 Regional examples
2.1 South-East Asia
2.1.1 Thailand
2.1.2 Myanmar
2.2 South Asia
2.2.1 India
2.2.2 Sri Lanka
2.3 East Asia
2.3.1 Japan
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
ROP said:
Contents
1 History
2 Motivations and Islamic terrorism
2.1 Profiles of terrorists
2.2 Western foreign policy
2.3 Religious motivation
2.3.1 Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith
2.3.2 Sunna and Jihad
2.4 Societal motivations
2.5 Economic motivations
2.5.1 Citizenship issues
2.6 Ideology
2.7 Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology
2.8 Identity-based frameworks for analyzing Islamist-based terrorism
3 Muslim attitudes toward terrorism
3.1 View of Islamic law
3.2 Opinion surveys
4 Examples of organizations and acts
4.1 South America
4.1.1 Argentina
4.2 Central Asia
4.2.1 Afghanistan
4.2.2 Tajikistan
4.2.3 Uzbekistan
4.3 Eastern Europe
4.3.1 Russia
4.3.2 Turkey
4.4 Europe
4.5 Middle East / Southwest Asia
4.5.1 Iraq
4.5.2 Israel and the Palestinian territories
4.5.3 Lebanon
4.5.4 Saudi Arabia
4.5.5 Yemen
4.6 North Africa
4.6.1 Egypt
4.6.2 Algeria
4.7 North America
4.7.1 Canada
4.7.2 United States
4.8 South Asia
4.8.1 Bangladesh
4.8.2 India
4.8.3 Pakistan
4.9 Southeast Asia
4.9.1 Indonesia
4.9.2 Thailand
4.9.3 The Philippines
4.10 Transnational
5 Tactics
5.1 Suicide attacks
5.2 Hijackings
5.3 Kidnappings and executions
5.3.1 Kidnapping as political tactic
5.3.1.1 Islamist self-justifications
5.3.2 Kidnapping as revenue
5.3.3 Kidnapping women for sex
5.3.4 Islamist self-justification
5.3.4.1 Kidnapping as psychological warfare
5.4 Internet recruiting
5.5 Selected attacks
6 U.S. State Department list
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
1 History
2 Motivations and Islamic terrorism
2.1 Profiles of terrorists
2.2 Western foreign policy
2.3 Religious motivation
2.3.1 Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith
2.3.2 Sunna and Jihad
2.4 Societal motivations
2.5 Economic motivations
2.5.1 Citizenship issues
2.6 Ideology
2.7 Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology
2.8 Identity-based frameworks for analyzing Islamist-based terrorism
3 Muslim attitudes toward terrorism
3.1 View of Islamic law
3.2 Opinion surveys
4 Examples of organizations and acts
4.1 South America
4.1.1 Argentina
4.2 Central Asia
4.2.1 Afghanistan
4.2.2 Tajikistan
4.2.3 Uzbekistan
4.3 Eastern Europe
4.3.1 Russia
4.3.2 Turkey
4.4 Europe
4.5 Middle East / Southwest Asia
4.5.1 Iraq
4.5.2 Israel and the Palestinian territories
4.5.3 Lebanon
4.5.4 Saudi Arabia
4.5.5 Yemen
4.6 North Africa
4.6.1 Egypt
4.6.2 Algeria
4.7 North America
4.7.1 Canada
4.7.2 United States
4.8 South Asia
4.8.1 Bangladesh
4.8.2 India
4.8.3 Pakistan
4.9 Southeast Asia
4.9.1 Indonesia
4.9.2 Thailand
4.9.3 The Philippines
4.10 Transnational
5 Tactics
5.1 Suicide attacks
5.2 Hijackings
5.3 Kidnappings and executions
5.3.1 Kidnapping as political tactic
5.3.1.1 Islamist self-justifications
5.3.2 Kidnapping as revenue
5.3.3 Kidnapping women for sex
5.3.4 Islamist self-justification
5.3.4.1 Kidnapping as psychological warfare
5.4 Internet recruiting
5.5 Selected attacks
6 U.S. State Department list
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
The whole concept of killing non-believers is an odd one.
The knowledge of being one of the chosen few and "saved"/given a place in paradise should surely be enough for any believer? Why would they care if people at the other side of the world (unknown at the time of writing of the big religious texts) were believers or not?
- Of course, people at the other side of the world didn't believe exactly the same thing because the holy texts were written by men, not handed down by a god to all people.
Being told to go out and convert or murder non-believers is a fairly transparent attempt at spreading influence and power, nothing else. If this is not obvious to some people, then they are deluded.
The knowledge of being one of the chosen few and "saved"/given a place in paradise should surely be enough for any believer? Why would they care if people at the other side of the world (unknown at the time of writing of the big religious texts) were believers or not?
- Of course, people at the other side of the world didn't believe exactly the same thing because the holy texts were written by men, not handed down by a god to all people.
Being told to go out and convert or murder non-believers is a fairly transparent attempt at spreading influence and power, nothing else. If this is not obvious to some people, then they are deluded.
MC Bodge said:
The whole concept of killing non-believers is an odd one.
The knowledge of being one of the chosen few and "saved"/given a place in paradise should surely be enough for any believer? Why would they care if people at the other side of the world (unknown at the time of writing of the big religious texts) were believers or not?
- Of course, people at the other side of the world didn't believe exactly the same thing because the holy texts were written by men, not handed down by a god to all people.
Being told to go out and convert or murder non-believers is a fairly transparent attempt at spreading influence and power, nothing else. If this is not obvious to some people, then they are deluded.
Ask 1.6 billion Muslims.The knowledge of being one of the chosen few and "saved"/given a place in paradise should surely be enough for any believer? Why would they care if people at the other side of the world (unknown at the time of writing of the big religious texts) were believers or not?
- Of course, people at the other side of the world didn't believe exactly the same thing because the holy texts were written by men, not handed down by a god to all people.
Being told to go out and convert or murder non-believers is a fairly transparent attempt at spreading influence and power, nothing else. If this is not obvious to some people, then they are deluded.
Halb
I feel pretty safe from Jewish, Buddhist and even Christian terrorists.
AJS- said:
Halb
I feel pretty safe from Jewish, Buddhist and even Christian terrorists.
I feel safe from Christian terrorists now. This is after those silly fellows attempted to bomb my town twice, succeeded once. But they have been dealt with in a sensible manner. That has now been swapped for terrorists of the Muslim brand, same sI feel pretty safe from Jewish, Buddhist and even Christian terrorists.
t different day.What was the sensible way?
If I can assume you mean the IRA, the sensible way was to understand what they wanted and what their grievances were and address them in a way that didn't compromise our legitimate goals and grievances to an unacceptable degree.
I would encourage anyone to do the same with radical Islam, and await the conclusions with interest.
If I can assume you mean the IRA, the sensible way was to understand what they wanted and what their grievances were and address them in a way that didn't compromise our legitimate goals and grievances to an unacceptable degree.
I would encourage anyone to do the same with radical Islam, and await the conclusions with interest.
AJS- said:
Derek
The point is that anyone can believe what they want about who we are, where we came from and why we're here so long as they can do so *within the confines of the just laws of a secular society.*
Nobody who truly believes in Islam can do this, because it is expressly prohibited by the core text and 1,400 years of practice.
Yet the majority of muslims seem to. The point is that anyone can believe what they want about who we are, where we came from and why we're here so long as they can do so *within the confines of the just laws of a secular society.*
Nobody who truly believes in Islam can do this, because it is expressly prohibited by the core text and 1,400 years of practice.
We live in a country where the christian church is part of the establishment by law, but very few people actually believes the rubbish. They just say they do through peer pressure and expectations. I've got the feeling that an open education system, without religious bias, could do the same for every religion.
We've got to hope I'm right. The alternative is too terrible to consider. Let's give it a go at least.
After decades of using force, eventually the Good Friday agreement of 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreemen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_pea...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreemen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_pea...
Derek Smith said:
Yet the majority of muslims seem to.
We live in a country where the christian church is part of the establishment by law, but very few people actually believes the rubbish. They just say they do through peer pressure and expectations. I've got the feeling that an open education system, without religious bias, could do the same for every religion.
We've got to hope I'm right. The alternative is too terrible to consider. Let's give it a go at least.
So the response to Islamic terrorism is to cancel Christmas Carols and the Easter Holidays?We live in a country where the christian church is part of the establishment by law, but very few people actually believes the rubbish. They just say they do through peer pressure and expectations. I've got the feeling that an open education system, without religious bias, could do the same for every religion.
We've got to hope I'm right. The alternative is too terrible to consider. Let's give it a go at least.
No, let's not give that a go.
Let's look first at the stated beliefs and history of the people who have waged war on us and see if there are any clues in that.
Halb said:
I feel safe from Christian terrorists now. This is after those silly fellows attempted to bomb my town twice, succeeded once. But they have been dealt with in a sensible manner. That has now been swapped for terrorists of the Muslim brand, same st different day.
The IRA weren't fighting to convert people to Catholicism or kill non-believers when they bombed Warrington, they were trying to achieve a united Ireland through violent means.t different day.MC Bodge said:
The IRA weren't fighting to convert people to Catholicism or kill non-believers when they bombed Warrington, they were trying to achieve a united Ireland through violent means.
They had a goal. They used violence to achieve that goal, in what they saw as 'reprisals'. The Islamic lot have a goal and are using their attacks on their targets as 'reprisals'.And
on knowing the town, sincerely.AJS- said:
This lofty equating of Islam with 'all religions' is a big mistake. It's not Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus slaughtering innocent civilians in the name of their creed, it's overwhelmingly Islamists.
Not all false beliefs are created equal. A false belief that the moon is made of cheese is likely to be more benign than a false belief that you are under a divine obligation to cleanse the world of non-believers. Yes you can spend ages arguing with the moon made of cheese guy and win the argument, but it's all for nought of the angel of death gets there in the interim.
If when confronted with it, you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't conform with your own outlook as being false and contemptible then you're well on the way to your own brand of intolerant zealotry. And perhaps worse you're blindsiding yourself to the very specific dangers which that threat poses. I don't know of anyone who was killed for not accepting that the moon was made of cheese.
The notion that everyone will ultimately yield to your superior ideas when they have enough rational argument and consumer goods is a foolish conceit. It's the notion summed up so well by the line in Full Metal Jacket 'Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out.' It's false. Blind belief can be a hugely powerful motivator for people who aren't rational to start with.
This is why religion is largely accorded some respect which is greater than the merits of it's arguments alone. It's not just some theory people have dreamed up in a vacuum. It's deeply ingrained over generations of their family and their community, and it deals with profound questions of life and death, existence and morality.
If large numbers of people are prepared to kill and be killed for the same cause, it lends it no legitimacy to examine that cause more closely. When you do that with Islam a quiet different picture emerges from the one we as a society seem to be casually assuming.
Good post, and hopefully the cracks are beginning to appear.Not all false beliefs are created equal. A false belief that the moon is made of cheese is likely to be more benign than a false belief that you are under a divine obligation to cleanse the world of non-believers. Yes you can spend ages arguing with the moon made of cheese guy and win the argument, but it's all for nought of the angel of death gets there in the interim.
If when confronted with it, you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't conform with your own outlook as being false and contemptible then you're well on the way to your own brand of intolerant zealotry. And perhaps worse you're blindsiding yourself to the very specific dangers which that threat poses. I don't know of anyone who was killed for not accepting that the moon was made of cheese.
The notion that everyone will ultimately yield to your superior ideas when they have enough rational argument and consumer goods is a foolish conceit. It's the notion summed up so well by the line in Full Metal Jacket 'Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out.' It's false. Blind belief can be a hugely powerful motivator for people who aren't rational to start with.
This is why religion is largely accorded some respect which is greater than the merits of it's arguments alone. It's not just some theory people have dreamed up in a vacuum. It's deeply ingrained over generations of their family and their community, and it deals with profound questions of life and death, existence and morality.
If large numbers of people are prepared to kill and be killed for the same cause, it lends it no legitimacy to examine that cause more closely. When you do that with Islam a quiet different picture emerges from the one we as a society seem to be casually assuming.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has admitted the terror attacks in Paris made him "doubt" the presence of God.
"Yes. Saturday morning - I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: 'God why - why is this happening? Where are you in all this?' and then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt."
Powerful words from a true believer there, especially the talking and engaging to God bit.
Anyone here know how I can obtain a few moments talking and engaging with God? I've got more than a few questions that I'd like answers to. Surely by now God would have a mobile phone for texting, or be on facebook or twitter?
Where is He?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff