Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

But you can't detach the one from the other. You don't go on a suicide mission unless you believe that you will be rewarded in the afterlife. All these jihadists are not simply depressed young men who are fed up of living, they have a genuine belief that their actions will result in them entering the afterlife, and that is why you cannot separate the religion and the terrorism.

As for us inventing concentration camps, yes, that is true, but they were nothing more than dreadfully managed internment camps for civilian populations who were hostile to us. The starvation was not a deliberate policy. It is anachronistic also to bring them into the discussion.

cough cough kamikaze pilots cough cough

religion is an easy way to convince people to do stupid shit but so is nation, state and race. i'd argue any identity can, they're powerful things that give meaning to the chaos. they just require the circumstances to flourish. circumstances like defending the glorious nipponese empire. or defending the faith from self-styled crusaders

 

[Womble98]

What about the Tibetans who burned themselves alive in protest against China. Did they believe they were going to heaven?

You need to stop pretending this sort of shit is exclusive to Muslims, livin in a proper bubble mayte. Getting tedious af.

Yes they did, many of them were monks and Buddhism has a long history of the whole separating yourself from your body. I can't explain it very well, I am not that educated on Buddhist beliefs.

cough cough kamikaze pilots cough cough

religion is an easy way to convince people to do stupid shit but so is nation, state and race. i'd argue any identity can, they're powerful things that give meaning to the chaos. they just require the circumstances to flourish. circumstances like defending the glorious nipponese empire. or defending the faith from self-styled crusaders

I think the fact that these suicide bombers have often expressed prior to their acts that they are going to go to paradise shows the reason for it.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

oh come off it. they died protecting a fascist dictatorship, dress it up how u like, but they martyred themselves for a state, not a religion. you're insufferable

 

[Womble98]

oh come off it. they died protecting a fascist dictatorship, dress it up how u like, but they martyred themselves for a state, not a religion. you're insufferable

You clearly don't understand how the tibetan struggle is tied to the religious views of tibetans. Self-immolation is a time honoured tradition in Buddhist belief. Read about it.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i was (quite clearly) referring to kamikaze pilots

 

[G.B]

I am not that educated.

 

[Womble98]

I'm a moron

 

[Saddlerrad]

This is becoming tiring now after staying on track for the most part. Some of you need to grasp the term 'respect' and read it up in the dictionary. Think of what the family members and friends of each victim is thinking. It puts these childish debates and point scoring tactics to bed rather quickly.

Get a grip of yourselves.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i wonder...

edit: say NO to censorship #ian4mod

 

[mnb089mnb]

This is becoming tiring now after staying on track for the most part. Some of you need to grasp the term 'respect' and read it up in the dictionary. Think of what the family members and friends of each victim is thinking. It puts these childish debates and point scoring tactics to bed rather quickly.

Get a grip of yourselves.

It's the politics section of a football message board, not the UN security council.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

considering we have a rape denier and a dude from walsall as admins i should bloody well hope so

 

[Blitzballer]

^ You take this forum stuff way too seriously Ian

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i am actually LIVID right now

 

[HertsWolf]

Me too. I went "Tsk" just now. That's outrage in Hampshire. (That's taken the wind out of our sails)

 

[Saddlerrad]

It's the politics section of a football message board, not the UN security council.

Yeah, but it's just needless, the event has happened now - dragging the entire thread through mud to get meaningless points across just ruins what had previously been a pretty good debate. We don't need it.

 

[HertsWolf]

But you can't detach the one from the other. You don't go on a suicide mission unless you believe that you will be rewarded in the afterlife. All these jihadists are not simply depressed young men who are fed up of living, they have a genuine belief that their actions will result in them entering the afterlife, and that is why you cannot separate the religion and the terrorism.

People taking religion to an extreme doesn't mean that all (or, in this case, hardly any) people of the same faith, hair colour, surname, nationality are going to do the same, nor even that they would support others who would. We didn't ban Irish people or Catholics (or Protestants) from the UK during the Troubles. Over the centuries, many people have used the name of religion to do terrible things: these "loser scum" in the Sinai, Paris, Mali, Nigeria are doing the same.

As for us inventing concentration camps, yes, that is true, but they were nothing more than dreadfully managed internment camps for civilian populations who were hostile to us. The starvation was not a deliberate policy. It is anachronistic also to bring them into the discussion.

You might want to talk to people whose relatives were in them before writing them off as "just" anything. It is certainly not anachronistic to bring British-invented concentration camps into the discussion. You have been consistently playing a 'Muslim is bad' agenda: in bringing up the bombing of villagers and the use of concentration camps to suggest that fairly abhorrent behaviour knows no religious or national borders. You are probably aware of, but interestingly silent on, the anti-Muslim violence by Buddhists in Myanmar in recent years.

I think the fact that these suicide bombers have often expressed prior to their acts that they are going to go to paradise shows the reason for it.

Which ones were you chatting to? The suicide bombers on Paris, or other ones? If a nutter says "voices from God told me to murder that man on the bus", do you press him to tell you which faith he is from in order to punish people of that religion? Or do you recognise that there are some who are evil/deranged/whatever and punish/deal with the individual?

Would it perhaps be worth, as an exercise, mentally create two new religions: NuttyIslam and NuttyChristianity. Put all the extremists into those new religions and "deal" with them. You may well suggest that many of the NuttyIslamists and NuttyChristians come from Islam and Christianity. In fact, evidence from a number of recent terror attacks suggest that some of the extremists actually converted - one in the 7/7 attack,the shoe-bomber, one of the terrorists in the Paris attacks is being portrayed as someone who never had the slightest interest in religion. But even if they did, it's simply not pragmatic nor desirable to mistrust a quarter of the world's population.

Rather than look for simple ways to recognise terrorists (there probably aren't any), particularly by demonising or casting suspicion an entire global faith, our efforts may perhaps be better focused on the few...the preachers of hate, those who show verbal and written evidence that they are going to do stuff.

 

[HertsWolf]

Yeah, but it's just needless, the event has happened now - dragging the entire thread through mud to get meaningless points across just ruins what had previously been a pretty good debate. We don't need it.

Hmm. I think it is valuable discussion, personally. I disagree with G-Dragon and MorDon and others, but I respect their views even if I don't agree with them. The occasional insult happens in any debate and is usually only said in the heat of the moment.

 

[Womble98]

People taking religion to an extreme doesn't mean that all (or, in this case, hardly any) people of the same faith, hair colour, surname, nationality are going to do the same, nor even that they would support others who would. We didn't ban Irish people or Catholics (or Protestants) from the UK during the Troubles. Over the centuries, many people have used the name of religion to do terrible things: these "loser scum" in the Sinai, Paris, Mali, Nigeria are doing the same.


You might want to talk to people whose relatives were in them before writing them off as "just" anything. It is certainly not anachronistic to bring British-invented concentration camps into the discussion. You have been consistently playing a 'Muslim is bad' agenda: in bringing up the bombing of villagers and the use of concentration camps to suggest that fairly abhorrent behaviour knows no religious or national borders. You are probably aware of, but interestingly silent on, the anti-Muslim violence by Buddhists in Myanmar in recent years.


Which ones were you chatting to? The suicide bombers on Paris, or other ones? If a nutter says "voices from God told me to murder that man on the bus", do you press him to tell you which faith he is from in order to punish people of that religion? Or do you recognise that there are some who are evil/deranged/whatever and punish/deal with the individual?

Would it perhaps be worth, as an exercise, mentally create two new religions: NuttyIslam and NuttyChristianity. Put all the extremists into those new religions and "deal" with them. You may well suggest that many of the NuttyIslamists and NuttyChristians come from Islam and Christianity. In fact, evidence from a number of recent terror attacks suggest that some of the extremists actually converted - one in the 7/7 attack,the shoe-bomber, one of the terrorists in the Paris attacks is being portrayed as someone who never had the slightest interest in religion. But even if they did, it's simply not pragmatic nor desirable to mistrust a quarter of the world's population.

Rather than look for simple ways to recognise terrorists (there probably aren't any), particularly by demonising or casting suspicion an entire global faith, our efforts may perhaps be better focused on the few...the preachers of hate, those who show verbal and written evidence that they are going to do stuff.

I didn't say that all people of the religion think that, so to suggest that I did is again disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of Muslims do agree with the actions of IS. Why do they agree with them? Are they all mentally unhinged? Quite possibly, but I think it is more likely that it is because they see their religion as backing up their actions.


Anti-Muslim violence in Burma is irrelevant because it wasn't Burmese people who were attacked in Paris by Muslims, it was westerners. France didn't even go to war in Iraq yet has been targetted on mass because of its actions in Syria, against IS. Your side in in this argument is is more than willing to tell us after every attack that we have no right to be angry with the majority of Muslims (and we don't), but you are perfectly willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning that western imperialism is the cause of this and all westerners are therefore guilty. It is absurd.

Concentration camps have nothing to do with it. Your logic seems to be, because we did something bad a while ago it is understandable that they are doing something bad so we can't blame their religion for it.

 

[HertsWolf]

I didn't say that all people of the religion think that, so to suggest that I did is again disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of Muslims do agree with the actions of IS. Why do they agree with them? Are they all mentally unhinged? Quite possibly, but I think it is more likely that it is because they see their religion as backing up their actions.


Anti-Muslim violence in Burma is irrelevant because it wasn't Burmese people who were attacked in Paris by Muslims, it was westerners. France didn't even go to war in Iraq yet has been targetted on mass because of its actions in Syria, against IS. Your side in in this argument is is more than willing to tell us after every attack that we have no right to be angry with the majority of Muslims (and we don't), but you are perfectly willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning that western imperialism is the cause of this and all westerners are therefore guilty. It is absurd.

Concentration camps have nothing to do with it. Your logic seems to be, because we did something bad a while ago it is understandable that they are doing something bad so we can't blame their religion for it.

I think I've made the point in earlier responses. You have no evidence to suggest that a "substantial minority" supports IS so there's a not a lot of point debating it really. Actually, I am not sure I even disagree with that statement, but there's a huge leap between sympathy and suport and again between support and action.

However, I believe you can't categorise 25% of the world's population as reason for additional scrutiny with no further reason. Thos that support them are probably not mentally unhinged: they probably hear a lot about civilians killed by drone attacks, bombing raids, etc.

I am certainly not "willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning" and it is actually quite odious to suggest that I do. I believe there are different and more effective ways to tackle the issue of terrorism than your blanket generalisations about Muslims. I believe that we are an intelligent and wise society that can devise methods of tackling both the direct and indirect sources and causes of terrorism without giving in to the terrorist's desired outcome of interfaith hatred and conflict.

Again, concentration camps were introduced to the debate to show that not all that Britain and the West is wholesome and free of long-term guilt. Along with the bombing of Omani villages and the shelling of refugee camps. Two wrongs never make a right.

 

[Womble98]

I didn't say that you accepted IS's reason, I said many on your side do.

 

[HertsWolf]

I didn't say that you accepted IS's reason, I said many on your side do.

You wrote "you are perfectly willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning"

I've highlighted the text (for a second time) so that you can understand what you said. Which part am I misunderstanding?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I didn't say that you accepted IS's reason, I said many on your side do.

don't be fucking stupid. there's a difference between understanding the reasons behind something and agreeing with them. i understand why someone would punch their missus if he caught her cheating, doesn't mean it's right at all. an act can be disproportionate and unforgivable, but unless u believe in one dimensional characters of pure good and pure evil, all actions have a degree of logic behind them

 

[mnb089mnb]

You wrote "you are perfectly willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning"

I've highlighted the text (for a second time) so that you can understand what you said. Which part am I misunderstanding?

MorDon has a habit of writing something and then saying he didn't really mean that.

It makes any sort of meaningful communication very difficult.

 

[Stevencc]

 

[Womble98]

Don't fucking misquote me, it is boring as fuck.

Your side in in this argument is is more than willing to tell us after every attack that we have no right to be angry with the majority of Muslims (and we don't), but you are perfectly willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning that western imperialism is the cause of this and all westerners are therefore guilty. It is absurd.

Same sentence, still (clearly) referring to your side.

 

[mnb089mnb]

This argument doesn't have two sides. It's more complicated than that.

 

[Abertawe]

MorDon is a very angry individual.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

there's the LGBTQ peace-loving, inclusive pc brigade, and there are the righteous warriors of light, shooting out truth bombs at columns of mujahideen disguised as refugee children

 

[HertsWolf]

Don't fucking misquote me, it is boring as fuck.
Same sentence, still (clearly) referring to your side.

..., but you are perfectly willing to understand and accept IS's reasoning that western imperialism is the cause of this and all westerners are therefore guilty. It is absurd..

Calm down. It's difficult to misquote you (or even "fucking misquote you") whether it is "boring as fuck" or not.
All I am doing is...ummm...posting 'Reply' on the exact sentence you wrote. I am not paraphrasing you, I am not translating you, I am not making it up.

Your first paragraph reads "Your side in in this argument is is more than willing to tell us after every attack that we have no right to be angry with the majority of Muslims (and we don't),..." [I have edited it for sense, as clearly you are too lazy to do so]

I have no side. I am pointing out what I have read and discussed on the subject. It's not a 'side'. With all due respect, I'm not telling you what right you do or don't have. Freedom of speech provides you with the right to type out any old garbage. And you do. Good for you. If you had written "but that side is perfectly willing to understand and accept..." then it would have been clear. But you didn't. It was "you are".

As has already been explicitly stated by someone else, understanding something does not mean you accept it. I understand the reasons apartheid started in South Africa (having studied it) but I have never accepted it as legitimate or reasonable or anything other than a monstrous policy designed to humiliate and break people.

 

[TheMinsterman]

I didn't say that you accepted IS's reason, I said many on your side do.

There is a difference between understanding and accepting the role of western imperialism in the region in longstanding tensions and somehow equating that to be the fault of westerners as a whole group when the majority have little influence on foreign policy, especially foreign policy in a different time and context. It's possible to appreciate the shortcomings of our political bodies over the last 150 years without sympathising with ISIS to a point that almost justifies their behaviour. If you don't understand where your enemies motivations are coming from, you can't adequately respond to it in an effective manner.

There is a tendency on the extremes of both "sides" to make sweeping generalisations about the opposite, some believe anybody critical of Islam is a goose stepping fascist extremist whilst their opposites believe anybody who appreciate the nuances of politics in the Middle East, including their countries own roles in it, is a ISIS hugging terrorist apologist. Neither is really that accurate to describe most people and is a wholly unhelpful diversion from the debate.