Terrorism - how will this all end?

Terrorism - how will this all end?

Author
Discussion

BigLion

Original Poster:

1,497 posts

98 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
rscott said:
BigLion said:
Pork is viewed as 'filthy meat'.

Rscott - a direct question :

Do you without any hesitation, wish that all Muslims terrorists who plan to attack civilians, whether in ISIS or otherwise, are the absolute scum of the earth and the world would be a better place if USA drones killed them all ?
I wish there weren't terrorists of any kind, religious or otherwise.
No, I wouldn't want US drones to take them out - I'd want it to be a combined force with many countries involved. No one country should be judge and executioner over others. Ideally it'd be a UN led mission involving more than just Western countries.

Leaving it to just the US would only lead to another round of terrorists in the future who set out to get their revenge on the (in their view) evil Western country who attacked them.
Good man - I've watched and read a lot and discussed with the Kurdish asylum seekers at my local barbers as to what ISIS did to the Kurds and fellow Sunnis - totally barbaric. I genuinely felt for the Kurdish people I spoke to who were no different to myself.

I hope one day the Kurds get their homeland and the rest of the Middle East some how works through this - the world is a fked up place and the more we can galvanise ourselves around a common set of principals in relation to freedom, right to live without fear and the right to self govern the better.

The worst thing is it does feel Saudi Arabia are pulling the strings in the background and yet the West will never hold them to account on either that or the barbaric human rights record, that's when our championing of democracy is lost as we lose the moral high ground as to the rationale for our pseudo occupation of the Middle East.

One thing for sure, Blair and Bush have blood on their hands.

irocfan

40,153 posts

189 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
marshalla said:
AJL308 said:
Why? Why should I, a person who holds no religious beliefs, go out of my way to speak to someone who holds a view that I think is utterly irrational?

I have talked to religionists before and I have never been even a little bit convinced as to the need for religion and have never been convinced that it is anything other than total lunacy. It is simply completely irrelevant in 2016 in an advanced western society and history is proving such every day.
Fundamentalist Dawkinsite, huh?
and as a fundie is, ironically, not a million miles from the intolerance and judgmentalism of the like of IS

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
AJS- said:
I think the pork thingb is quite straightforward. It's safe now because we can store and cook it easily, and can clean the utensils properly etc. Without the ability to do that pork is dangerous. Of course the people prohibiting pork millenia ago didn't know the micro biology of it, but they pulled a clever trick as presumably the people who shunned pork got sick less often.

How chicken escaped this I have no idea?
I understood that pork was considered unclean because, back in the day, when butchered, un-domesticated pig meat was full of lesions and boils, so definitely unsettling and best left alone in favour of goat or camel or beef or lamb or chicken.

Trabi601

4,865 posts

94 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
I understood that pork was considered unclean because, back in the day, when butchered, un-domesticated pig meat was full of lesions and boils, so definitely unsettling and best left alone in favour of goat or camel or beef or lamb or chicken.
We don't generally eat carnivores or omnivores. Pork and fish are the only (usual - we'll ignore those who eat cat and dog) exceptions.

037

1,315 posts

146 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
[quote=AJS-]I think the pork thingb is quite straightforward. It's safe now because we can store and cook it easily, and can clean the utensils properly etc. Without the ability to do that pork is dangerous. Of course the people prohibiting pork millenia ago didn't know the micro biology of it, but they pulled a clever trick as presumably the people who shunned pork got sick less often.

How chicken escaped this I have no idea?

Laughed out loud

BigLion

Original Poster:

1,497 posts

98 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
AJS- said:
I think the pork thingb is quite straightforward. It's safe now because we can store and cook it easily, and can clean the utensils properly etc. Without the ability to do that pork is dangerous. Of course the people prohibiting pork millenia ago didn't know the micro biology of it, but they pulled a clever trick as presumably the people who shunned pork got sick less often.

How chicken escaped this I have no idea?
I understood that pork was considered unclean because, back in the day, when butchered, un-domesticated pig meat was full of lesions and boils, so definitely unsettling and best left alone in favour of goat or camel or beef or lamb or chicken.
Cut and paste:

Prototypically “clean” land animals were supposed to have four legs and cloven hooves and to chew the cud; pigs were an “abomination” because they were four legged, cloven-hoofed beasts that did not chew the cud. “Clean” beasts of the air were supposed to have feathers and to fly with wings; therefore, hopping insects were “unclean” because they had six legs, neither walked nor flew, and lacked feathers. “Clean” water animals were supposed to have fins and scales; shrimp were forbidden because, although they lived in the sea, they lacked fins and scales.

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
BigLion said:
With yet another likely terrorist attack it feels like these are happening daily.

What do people think will be the end game in say 5 years time?

Will people in the West start to feel more sympathetic towards the policies spouted by the likes of Trump, will society end up divided with Muslims seen as the common enemy despite the vast majority not condoning the violence or will we see an erosion of human rights akin to Guantanamo etc.?
7bn people on the planet so even if 0.1% are nutters you still have 7m of them running around. Simple maths.

Imho the papers do need to stop reporting attacks as "Muslim" though and simply state it as terrorism otherwise those of a feeble mind won't see the wood for the trees.

TX.

Edited by Terminator X on Tuesday 26th July 01:23

ReaperCushions

5,951 posts

183 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
B'stard Child said:
NinjaPower said:
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Respect me!


I'm easily led - sounds like fun count me in
Careful, you start out as a peace loving Pastafarian and end up as a hardline Fundalentilist.


del mar

2,838 posts

198 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Trabi601 said:
mondeoman said:
I understood that pork was considered unclean because, back in the day, when butchered, un-domesticated pig meat was full of lesions and boils, so definitely unsettling and best left alone in favour of goat or camel or beef or lamb or chicken.
We don't generally eat carnivores or omnivores. Pork and fish are the only (usual - we'll ignore those who eat cat and dog) exceptions.
Have you tried to herd a field full of Lions with two collies and a bent stick !

We farm the slow docile non aggressive creatures because they are easy to look after.

del mar

2,838 posts

198 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
BigLion said:
With yet another likely terrorist attack it feels like these are happening daily.

What do people think will be the end game in say 5 years time?

Will people in the West start to feel more sympathetic towards the policies spouted by the likes of Trump, will society end up divided with Muslims seen as the common enemy despite the vast majority not condoning the violence or will we see an erosion of human rights akin to Guantanamo etc.?
7bn people on the planet so even if 0.1% are nutters you still have 7m of them running around. Simple maths.

Imho the papers do need to stop reporting attacks as "Muslim" though and simply state it as terrorism otherwise those of a feeble mind won't see the wood for the trees.

TX.

Edited by Terminator X on Tuesday 26th July 01:23
That would make fairly dull news.

There was a terrorist attack somewhere...

What do we know of the attackers - nothing
What do we know of their motives - nothing
Did they act alone - don't know.

Not reporting the facts was one of the problems with Rotherham - Girl A's account doesn't make great reading.



Speed 3

4,486 posts

118 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
ReaperCushions said:
B'stard Child said:
NinjaPower said:
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Respect me!


I'm easily led - sounds like fun count me in
Careful, you start out as a peace loving Pastafarian and end up as a hardline Fundalentilist.
bow


grumbledoak

31,500 posts

232 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
del mar said:
Have you tried to herd a field full of Lions with two collies and a bent stick !

We farm the slow docile non aggressive creatures because they are easy to look after.
That's not true. We have bred aggression out of the herbivores we farm. We don't farm carnivores because it is uneconomic.

The pork proscriptions are probably due to cannibalism in ancient times, but no-one wants to admit that. You'll find plausible sounding long-after-the-fact explanations for circumcision too, and swimming with all your clothes on. It doesn't make them the original reasons; people just don't want to admit to cannibalism / being stupid etc. so they make up other reasons.

LeftmostAardvark

1,434 posts

163 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
7bn people on the planet so even if 0.1% are nutters you still have 7m of them running around. Simple maths.

Imho the papers do need to stop reporting attacks as "Muslim" though and simply state it as terrorism otherwise those of a feeble mind won't see the wood for the trees.

TX.

Edited by Terminator X on Tuesday 26th July 01:23
I think it's a bit late for that - public opinion (as evidenced by trump's popularity, brexit etc) is swaying to not believing a word that politicians say. This can be good in that people are starting to question what is put in front of them, but it is bad as well because they are then left to draw their own conclusions.

There was a huge political time bomb planted in the 90s, where it started to be acceptable to tell people what they should think - legislating against racial intolerance etc. That was a huge sticking plaster against what should have been a much more concerted effort of understanding, tolerance, integration through education, awareness and positive contact. It wasn't done because banning it was easier and in line with the politician's authoritarian mindset. However, that then created a dichotomy between what people did and what they thought. That nothing was done to reconcile that disparity is a massive failing and is leading us down the road we are on.

What will happen next? In my opinion, any / all of the following:

- Papers will continue to under report the mainstream Muslim community efforts to distance themselves from the extremist faction - leading to rejection and disenfranchisement of the next generation, driving them towards extremism, perpetuating the problem
- Trump will win and turn a country to glass, galvanising the other countries and driving more towards extremism
- Those who have been marginalised / left behind by politicians as their thoughts were outlawed will take matters into their own hands and start to orchestrate mosque bombings.

In each case there is only an escalation path. I struggle to see a way in which the situation can be defused. Sadly, I think there will be a three way conflict:
1. The establishment - trying to carry on their failed path and their way of life
2. The Marginalised Muslim community who embrace or have been driven to conflict (those who have been driven to conflict will be as a result of the escalation)
3. The marginalised non-Muslim community who will take matters into their own hands.

The only option for resolution is to have one of these groups massively outnumber / out power the other two. However, we all know the dangers of an authoritarian state with too much power, particularly an incompetent or corrupt one and getting to that point will lead to a LOT of bloodshed.

BigLion

Original Poster:

1,497 posts

98 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
I think we might have already lost the fight based on the results from channel 4 undertaking the most robust survey (on the matter) ever undertaken.

100,000 British Muslims support suicide bombings.

2 million British Muslim wouldn't tell authorities if someone they knew was going to Syria.

Likes Fast Cars

2,769 posts

164 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all

BigLion

Original Poster:

1,497 posts

98 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Likes Fast Cars said:
Interesting read - this may ring true:

Why do observant Muslims panic and get violently provoked at the slightest sight of “sinning” and “sinners”? Why are they so afraid of abandoning their beliefs when others, not themselves, sin? Why do they think, for instance, the sight of someone not fasting during Ramadan - someone who may not even be Muslim, or who may be sick, or who may be pregnant, etc. - and eating, drinking or smoking publicly may impair their own fasting? Why do they fear that they may be sinning when someone sitting at the next table at a restaurant is drinking alcohol? What so deeply annoys them when someone else sins? Do they think, like homosexuality, sinning can also be contagious? And are they sure they are sin-free? Is anyone?

There must be a rich menu of explanations. But one answer is probably hidden in the observant Muslim’s “conquest-fetish.” This is about his obsession with spreading his own (and only his own) practice of Islam to non-Muslim, not-Muslim-enough, and not-pious-enough lands. These lands could be a foreign country, or another Turkish city, or his own neighborhood. Call it “infidelphobia.”

Edited by BigLion on Wednesday 27th July 22:05

rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
BigLion said:
I think we might have already lost the fight based on the results from channel 4 undertaking the most robust survey (on the matter) ever undertaken.

100,000 British Muslims support suicide bombings.

2 million British Muslim wouldn't tell authorities if someone they knew was going to Syria.
The same survey said 600,000 of the UK population also supported suicide bombers and that a larger percentage of the general population wouldn't tell on someone going off to join IS.

The survey isn't the most robust ever taken - it excluded half the Muslims in the UK because they lived in areas with less than 20% Muslims.

ellroy

7,005 posts

224 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Someone made a valid point on that earlier I thought. If they're living in none Muslim areas chances are they're more integrated already. So, surely it's those who are less integrtaed that society needs to be concerned about?

BigLion

Original Poster:

1,497 posts

98 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
rscott said:
BigLion said:
I think we might have already lost the fight based on the results from channel 4 undertaking the most robust survey (on the matter) ever undertaken.

100,000 British Muslims support suicide bombings.

2 million British Muslim wouldn't tell authorities if someone they knew was going to Syria.
The same survey said 600,000 of the UK population also supported suicide bombers and that a larger percentage of the general population wouldn't tell on someone going off to join IS.

The survey isn't the most robust ever taken - it excluded half the Muslims in the UK because they lived in areas with less than 20% Muslims.
A spokesperson for Channel 4 told HuffPost UK on Monday, the programme would be “very clear” about how the survey was conducted.

“Around 50 per cent of British Muslims live in the areas we surveyed. ICM, which is one of the UK’s leading polling organisations, with a long track record of producing credible and accurate surveys, is satisfied that the results allow us to draw strong conclusions about the views of UK Muslims.

“There is no evidence to suggest that Muslims have radically different attitudes to the issues surveyed depending on whether they live in areas of more than, or less, than 20 per cent Muslim population.”

BigLion

Original Poster:

1,497 posts

98 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Some British Muslims have rejected the conclusions of the survey, which they say uses a flawed methodology because it was conducted in areas where Muslims make up more than 20% of the population, compared to 5.5% overall. They say the survey results are skewed because they are indicative of Muslims in these areas and not of British Muslims as a whole.

In an interview with CNN, however, ICM Director Martin Boon said that more than half of all British Muslims live in areas that are more than 20% Muslim and that the survey findings are sound. "In my view, this is the most rigorous survey of Muslims outside of the largest and most expensive surveys conducted by the UK government," Boon said.

The president of the British Polling Council, John Curtice, told CNN that ICM had followed standard methods of polling ethnic minorities in the UK.

Unlike many other surveys of Muslim opinion, which have usually been conducted by telephone or online, ICM used face-to-face, in-home research to question a representative sample of 1,081 Muslims across Britain.