Pakistan school Attack
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
2013BRM said:
This has f
k all to do with race or religion, it's a bunch of depraved sick bds who need culling as soon as possible
It has everything to do with religion, these sick bk all to do with race or religion, it's a bunch of depraved sick bds who need culling as soon as possibleds are religiously motivated.I wish apologists for religion would stop saying religious murders are nothing to do with religion. It may have nothing to do with your interpretation of religion, but that's another matter.
telegraph said:
Pretending that Islamist extremism has nothing to do with Islam simply plays into the radicals' hands: it is time to discuss religious reform
"There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror." (Prime Minister David Cameron reacting to the beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamists who shouted “Allahu Akbar" and quoted 22 verses from the Koran.)
"They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world." (David Cameron’s reaction to the massacre by Islamists in Nairobis’s Westgate shopping centre of anyone who failed to name the mother of the founder of Islam or recite verses from the Koran.)
"This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam... Let the message go out that we know Islam is a religion of peace." (Theresa May’s speech to Conservative Party Conference, 2014.)
Islamic State has "nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace." (David Cameron, denying any connection between the creation of an Islamic caliphate and Islam.)
"[The massacre in Pakistan] is nothing to do with one of the world's great religions - Islam, which is a religion of peace." (Prime Minister David Cameron speaking after a group of Taliban gunmen murdered 141, including 132 children at a school in northern Pakistan.)
Please. Enough.
The mantra that Islamism "has nothing to do with Islam" is well-intentioned. It aims to delegitimise the terrorists and strengthen the vast majority of Muslims who oppose terror. It is no doubt what the "comms" experts are telling the Prime Minister to say. But they are wrong. The unthinking, kneejerk, pro-forma and near-Orwellian denial of the deep and manifold connections between Islam and Islamism has to stop.
Forget Alistair Campbell. We have to start "doing religion" because, as I learnt in 2008-2010 when interviewing 25 young British Muslims who had taken a journey in and out of extremism, we have to start "doing" Islam if we are to defeat Islamism.
We are petrified of speaking obvious truths. When a lord recently dared to invite Muslim leaders to address the violence in the Koran, he was condemned.
This groupthink has to stop.
After the Pakistan school attack, we need to talk about Islam"There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror." (Prime Minister David Cameron reacting to the beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamists who shouted “Allahu Akbar" and quoted 22 verses from the Koran.)
"They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world." (David Cameron’s reaction to the massacre by Islamists in Nairobis’s Westgate shopping centre of anyone who failed to name the mother of the founder of Islam or recite verses from the Koran.)
"This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam... Let the message go out that we know Islam is a religion of peace." (Theresa May’s speech to Conservative Party Conference, 2014.)
Islamic State has "nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace." (David Cameron, denying any connection between the creation of an Islamic caliphate and Islam.)
"[The massacre in Pakistan] is nothing to do with one of the world's great religions - Islam, which is a religion of peace." (Prime Minister David Cameron speaking after a group of Taliban gunmen murdered 141, including 132 children at a school in northern Pakistan.)
Please. Enough.
The mantra that Islamism "has nothing to do with Islam" is well-intentioned. It aims to delegitimise the terrorists and strengthen the vast majority of Muslims who oppose terror. It is no doubt what the "comms" experts are telling the Prime Minister to say. But they are wrong. The unthinking, kneejerk, pro-forma and near-Orwellian denial of the deep and manifold connections between Islam and Islamism has to stop.
Forget Alistair Campbell. We have to start "doing religion" because, as I learnt in 2008-2010 when interviewing 25 young British Muslims who had taken a journey in and out of extremism, we have to start "doing" Islam if we are to defeat Islamism.
We are petrified of speaking obvious truths. When a lord recently dared to invite Muslim leaders to address the violence in the Koran, he was condemned.
This groupthink has to stop.
KareemK said:
It's irrelevent whether it was intended to or not.
If your kids had just been killed by (say) an IRA explosion detonated outside an army barracks you'd be screaming to the high heavens for vengenance/retribution because the IRA had planted a bomb where IT LIKELY COULD/WOULD kill innocent women and children.
Do you really think that if the West knew that a couple of very high value targets were at (say) a wedding they wouldn't attack that function by drone or cruise missile? The term "collateral damage" was actually coined by the US.
I'm sorry but dead kids are dead kids.
The rest is just spin.
It is not irrelevant. There is no moral equivalency (as you seem to be implying) between terrorists deliberately murdering children at a school, and US armed forces killing civilians in an operation with entirely different purposes, often when they are fighting an enemy who hide behind said civilians.If your kids had just been killed by (say) an IRA explosion detonated outside an army barracks you'd be screaming to the high heavens for vengenance/retribution because the IRA had planted a bomb where IT LIKELY COULD/WOULD kill innocent women and children.
Do you really think that if the West knew that a couple of very high value targets were at (say) a wedding they wouldn't attack that function by drone or cruise missile? The term "collateral damage" was actually coined by the US.
I'm sorry but dead kids are dead kids.
The rest is just spin.
Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
easytiger123 said:
It is not irrelevant. There is no moral equivalency (as you seem to be implying) between terrorists deliberately murdering children at a school, and US armed forces killing civilians in an operation with entirely different purposes, often when they are fighting an enemy who hide behind said civilians.
Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
wowOf course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
easytiger123 said:
It is not irrelevant. There is no moral equivalency (as you seem to be implying) between terrorists deliberately murdering children at a school, and US armed forces killing civilians in an operation with entirely different purposes, often when they are fighting an enemy who hide behind said civilians.
Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
I doubt that the intent behind it is the most important factor if your kid has just been killed.Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
I agree entirely that we shouldn't feel any restriction on examining their motivation nor pander to the sensitivities of any group. My only concern is that it is too easy to pigeon hole this as a religious problem and see a solution in the form of modifying or removing faith.
The perspective that "Muslims should do something about it" is simplistic. If any social group is producing young men who are going off and murdering people, then clearly that group should tackle the problem. But those social groups are clearly much smaller than an entire religion, and their problems are not specifically religious in nature. For example, I doubt anyone would seriously expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to distance himself from the behaviour of the Lord's Resistance Army or any of the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland that notionally represented different Christian factions. The protagonists may consider themselves to be religiously motivated, but the reality is that their behaviour is motivated by a pathetic lack of meaning in their lives, hopelessness and resentment. Those are the root causes, not the flag they wrap themselves in. Take away one flag and they'll wrap themselves in another.
The perspective that "Muslims should do something about it" is simplistic. If any social group is producing young men who are going off and murdering people, then clearly that group should tackle the problem. But those social groups are clearly much smaller than an entire religion, and their problems are not specifically religious in nature. For example, I doubt anyone would seriously expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to distance himself from the behaviour of the Lord's Resistance Army or any of the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland that notionally represented different Christian factions. The protagonists may consider themselves to be religiously motivated, but the reality is that their behaviour is motivated by a pathetic lack of meaning in their lives, hopelessness and resentment. Those are the root causes, not the flag they wrap themselves in. Take away one flag and they'll wrap themselves in another.
wolves_wanderer said:
I doubt that the intent behind it is the most important factor if your kid has just been killed.
Equally if your kid had just been killed you're probably not in the best mental state to make moral judgement.Judging someone's intent is obviously important. Think about the distinction between man slaughter and murder, for example.
onyx39 said:
Lost soul said:
How many young girls/boys are killed in honour killings in Pakistan every year
Hardly the same, as horrible as honour killings are, hardly this scale is it?Lost soul said:
onyx39 said:
Lost soul said:
How many young girls/boys are killed in honour killings in Pakistan every year
Hardly the same, as horrible as honour killings are, hardly this scale is it?onyx39 said:
Lost soul said:
onyx39 said:
Lost soul said:
How many young girls/boys are killed in honour killings in Pakistan every year
Hardly the same, as horrible as honour killings are, hardly this scale is it?onyx39 said:
I would expect the number to be far greater, my point is, you are not talking about over 100 people be killed at the same place / time.
So because they are spread out over 12 months its ok , is that what you are saying or do you only count sensational events as being terrible ?ATG said:
I agree entirely that we shouldn't feel any restriction on examining their motivation nor pander to the sensitivities of any group. My only concern is that it is too easy to pigeon hole this as a religious problem and see a solution in the form of modifying or removing faith.
The problem is a combination of lots of things - one of which is religion and more so a certain interpretation of a religion.I agree that blaming religion alone is wrong and it's incorrect too because if this was just a religious problem then Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia etc would be facing the same problems yet they aren't. In Pakistan's case it's a nasty mix of religion, politics and circumstance - they have paid a high price for the 'war on terror' and going back even further the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Here's an interesting piece in the Huffington Post by the former Pakistani ambassador to the US on yesterday's events and it's historical context.
Pakistan's Tolerance of Jihadis Backfires Badly
Guam said:
easytiger123 said:
It is not irrelevant. There is no moral equivalency (as you seem to be implying) between terrorists deliberately murdering children at a school, and US armed forces killing civilians in an operation with entirely different purposes, often when they are fighting an enemy who hide behind said civilians.
Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
You cannot make that statement where drones are concerned, with a drone the decision to unleash the ordnance is taken with the full knowledge that those casualties will definitely ensue, therefore prioritising the target over the civilian casualties is as conscious a decision as the toad detonating a vest in a shopping centre.Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
You should be prepared for severe criticism if you pull the trigger when you can see the "collateral damage" on the 50" plasma on the wall.
In both events a decision is taken to disregard civilians, to my mind both outcomes are wrong, the "end" does not always justify the "means" imho
It is also a question of the inevitability of fighting terrorists as opposed to doing nothing, and one of the constant themes in those who somehow seek to justify terrorism is "well, the US/UK also kill civilians and the terrorists are just fighting back in the only way they know". I'll say it again that there is no moral equivalence between the two.
easytiger123 said:
Guam said:
easytiger123 said:
It is not irrelevant. There is no moral equivalency (as you seem to be implying) between terrorists deliberately murdering children at a school, and US armed forces killing civilians in an operation with entirely different purposes, often when they are fighting an enemy who hide behind said civilians.
Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
You cannot make that statement where drones are concerned, with a drone the decision to unleash the ordnance is taken with the full knowledge that those casualties will definitely ensue, therefore prioritising the target over the civilian casualties is as conscious a decision as the toad detonating a vest in a shopping centre.Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
You should be prepared for severe criticism if you pull the trigger when you can see the "collateral damage" on the 50" plasma on the wall.
In both events a decision is taken to disregard civilians, to my mind both outcomes are wrong, the "end" does not always justify the "means" imho
It is also a question of the inevitability of fighting terrorists as opposed to doing nothing, and one of the constant themes in those who somehow seek to justify terrorism is "well, the US/UK also kill civilians and the terrorists are just fighting back in the only way they know". I'll say it again that there is no moral equivalence between the two.
ked up that sounds.BlackLabel said:
Here's an interesting piece in the Huffington Post by the former Pakistani ambassador to the US on yesterday's events and it's historical context.
Pakistan's Tolerance of Jihadis Backfires Badly
Thanks for that linkPakistan's Tolerance of Jihadis Backfires Badly
Guam said:
You cannot make that statement where drones are concerned, with a drone the decision to unleash the ordnance is taken with the full knowledge that those casualties will definitely ensue, therefore prioritising the target over the civilian casualties is as conscious a decision as the toad detonating a vest in a shopping centre.
I completely understand what you're saying, but unfortunately the World isn't as black/white as we'd like it to be. Senior insurgent leaders will nearly always be surrounded by children or will hold meetings at weddings because they are fully aware of the media backlash against Government forces killing innocents. So while they're surrounded by a bunch of kids, they'll be on the phone ordering massacres of other kids and we're not able to touch them either because we cant harm the human shields they've surrounded themselves with or because we don't have anything more surgical than a Brimstone in the area. That's if we've even managed to find them in the years we've been looking for them. This gives the Government a choice; leave the target be and let them continue orchestrating other atrocities, or take action knowing that what you're doing is terrible and you'll be eaten alive by the press the next day and used as anti-government propaganda for years to come. There is no right decision and both have terrible outcomes.
This has been largely the dilemma Israel has faced against Palestine for years. Hamas deliberately spread misinformation or reside/hold meetings in holy places so that these places are targeted, innocents are killed when the invariably heavy-handed retaliation arrives, the attack is used as propaganda to fuel further attacks on both sides and the cycle continues.
I think there are some genuinely interesting points coming out of this discussion but certainly in reference to our own foreign policy and the way the coalition forces carry it out on operations, their decisions are made up of more intelligence than we are aware of with a better knowledge than we possess of the situation. Whilst we're far from infallible and as bitter a pill as it might be to swallow, sometimes horrific decisions are made on our behalf to protect other people and sometimes in doing so we harm the very people we're trying to protect. It's little wonder that there are drone pilots suffering from PTSD. As some very small consolation, the number of civilians the West killed in drone strikes over the last 15 years is certainly less than the number of civilians we would kill in a typical air-strike 70 years ago. At least thats one muddied step in the right direction given the potency of our weapons has increased dramatically since then. It would be nice to think that in another 70 years, 'collateral damage' is a long-forgotten memory.
easytiger123 said:
Guam said:
easytiger123 said:
It is not irrelevant. There is no moral equivalency (as you seem to be implying) between terrorists deliberately murdering children at a school, and US armed forces killing civilians in an operation with entirely different purposes, often when they are fighting an enemy who hide behind said civilians.
Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
You cannot make that statement where drones are concerned, with a drone the decision to unleash the ordnance is taken with the full knowledge that those casualties will definitely ensue, therefore prioritising the target over the civilian casualties is as conscious a decision as the toad detonating a vest in a shopping centre.Of course the death of any civilian especially a child is beyond terrible, but that's a given.
You should be prepared for severe criticism if you pull the trigger when you can see the "collateral damage" on the 50" plasma on the wall.
In both events a decision is taken to disregard civilians, to my mind both outcomes are wrong, the "end" does not always justify the "means" imho
It is also a question of the inevitability of fighting terrorists as opposed to doing nothing, and one of the constant themes in those who somehow seek to justify terrorism is "well, the US/UK also kill civilians and the terrorists are just fighting back in the only way they know". I'll say it again that there is no moral equivalence between the two.
If the US decides that 10 kids and 5 women are acceptable collateral action in an operation to bomb a wedding party with 2 high value targets inside that is murder plain and simple.
No if's, no buts, it's murder. And thats how they'll take it as would you if it were your child taken out by a drone.
Any other viewpoint is wrong and ultimately plays into the hands of the Taliban/Al-Q PR machine.
Edited by KareemK on Wednesday 17th December 15:27
TKF said:
grandcherokee said:
Pak are all total scum
Lost soul said:
more proof that Pakistan is becoming a st stain on humanity
It's heart warming that Haymarket allows this freedom of speech. Of course it doesn't reflect badly on them in any way whatsoever.t stain on humanity Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff