Incident at London Bridge

[Balls Of An Ox]

Here's a partial list...."[/I]

That's amazing Quranic knowledge!! I should've had you as my teacher rather than that guy I went to at Colliers Wood Mosque! I might not have been "the problem" then! [emoji16] [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[JoshBCFC]

Here's a partial list...

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."



Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

3:56 is talking about people who plotted to kill Jesus. 8:12 is talking about a battle vs some people who had tortured them, beaten them and killed some of them. He's also giving instructions to angels at this point.

Source: See the first answer

 

[sl1k]

First it's important that we can appreciate the state/condition of the human mind/consciousness from this time and place. The revelations are to an illiterate man from a broken, tribalistic society "obdurate in disbelief and hypocricy and more likely to not know the limits which God has sent down to his messenger." [9:97]

It's also important to not hold double standards in regards to how we look at the Quran and other holy books of the time.

Here's a partial list...

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

The passage in it's entirity:

3:55 [Mention] when God said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to God alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
3:56 And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.”
3:57 But as for those who believed and did righteous deeds, He will give them in full their rewards, and God does not like the wrongdoers.

This verse references God’s wrath on the people who disbelieved in Jesus. The passage does not endorse Muslims to commit violence.

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."

“The promise of casting awe and fear into the hearts of the disbelievers in this verse was made in the background of the battle of Uhud when the disbelievers of Arabia marched back to Makkah without any obvious reason and inspite of defeat overtaking Muslim (Baydawi). However, after having covered a certain distance on their way to Makkah, they awoke to their folly. When they thought of marching back to Madinah, Allah Almighty filled their hearts with such awe and fear that they could not muster the courage to do so."

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

The full passage:

4:74 So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward.
4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of God and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?”
4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.
4:77 Have you not seen those who were told, “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah”? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear God or with [even] greater fear. They said, “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time.” Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears God. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].”

Telling Muslims to defend innocent civilians.

Commentary by Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

“What is wrong with you, that you do not fight: this is an interrogative of rebuke, in other words, there is nothing to prevent you from fighting, in the way of God, and for, the deliverance of, the oppressed men, women, and children, whom the disbelievers persecuted and prevented from emigrating. Ibn ‘Abbās, may God be pleased with him and his father, said, ‘My mother and I were among them’; who say, supplicating, ‘O, our Lord, bring us forth from this town, Mecca, whose people are evildoers, through unbelief, and appoint for us a protector from You, to take charge of our affair, and appoint for us from You a helper’, to defend us against them. God responded to their supplication and facilitated escape for some of them, while others remained behind until Mecca was conquered — in charge of them the Prophet (s) placed ‘Attāb b. Asīd, who proceeded to seek justice for the wronged from those that had wronged them.” [1]

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

The next verse is:

4:90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

Once hostilities cease, they must be left alone.

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

and:

8:15 – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

This is at the Battle of Badr. Makkah pagans travelling with a party of 1000 to attack the prophet's community of 300.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

From when Byzantine empire began to mobilise troops to attack the Muslims.

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

The Banu Qurayza, Banu’l-Nadir, Fadak and Khaybar (Jewish tribes) who allied themselves with the pagan Arabs of Makkah in order to exterminate the Muslim community.

Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... "I have been made victorious with terror."

Sahih Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

I don't do hadiths. These are books compiled by men 200 years after his death making it impossible to dinstinguish which ones are genuine and which ones were fabricated by political figures and others to push their own views/causes. This period also happens to be the time when an ideological war between The Rationalists (intellectuals that reasoned and debated, promoted critical thinking - Qadaris, Mutazilites, Hanafis) and Traditionists (those who furthered a culture of unquestioning obedience and became obsessed with the hadiths - the shafi schools, and the extremist types of the Hanbali school (later to evolve in to modern wahhabism)).

For loads of historical reasons (including the libraries and manuscripts the mongols destroyed in the 1258 sacking of Baghdad, the 80,000 books Spanish Inquisitor Ximenex de Cisneros destroyed in 1499 which included collaborations between Muslims Christians and Jews (these libraries and collections were mostly the works of the Rationalists)), the Traditionists won after 200 years of infighting and other events which went on to cement it.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

The problem has got to a point now where it’s hard to stop these regular attacks. There have been 4 this year in the UK but across Europe they are very common.

Number one we need to identify the problem (radical Islam). And understand that many followers of Islam do read the books and will follow what is in them (death to the disbelievers).

Maybe only 5-10% of Muslims will follow the books. But now Europe’s Islamic populations are so huge (and rapidly increasing) we will have a steady conveyer belt of radical Muslim’s wanting to murder all non-believers. Nothing much we can do about this. Exactly as the Labour Mayor of London states “part and parcel”.

Obviously we could have done something to stop this in the past, but whenever someone speaks up the dreaded RACIST word is thrown about to stop debate.

So we could stop doing that I suppose? And listen to people with genuine concerns? Don’t ban people you disagree with on forums – listen to them, they might have a point.

On a wider scale Trump has good suggestions. Travel bans. Detailed background searches (I can still hear the left screaming in pain over these perfectly OK suggestions).

We could close down all extremists mosques. Expel extremists here. Jail ISIS supporters.

But the main thing we need to do is control our borders. Yes, we will have the regular attacks – not much we can do about that – but if you don’t think this will and can get ALOT worse, then you are extremely naive. A couple of attacks a year is not really a problem (part and parcel) – but let’s not make it worse. Let’s protect Europe.

I'm afraid Brexit hasn't made us many friends in Europe. I don't need to point out that on Tuesday we're going to the polls on the very issue of Britain disengaging from the EU. Britain is going to bail out on Europe and at present we are many years away from getting agreement (if any is achievable) on whatever co-operative security arrangements can be made for the future. In the meantime, a number of very genuine security liaison programmes may be held in abeyance. It's not a very stable situation.

I must say I disagree with a lot of what you say. I don't think anybody wants to stifle genuine debate and I believe our leaders would be willing to engage in constructive dialogue if there was any to be had.

Unfortunately, ISIS and other such groups have no coherent doctrine or any sort of established political hierarchy to engage in discussion with. Quite simply, the individuals who commit these acts are the most basic form of criminal. They must be treated as such, hunted down then be tried and if found guilty, convicted according to the law.

Let's make a little comparison here with previous terror campaigns in this country, namely, the Irish "Armed Struggle". The IRA and Sinn Fein had a clear aim: The unification of Ireland and an end to British rule in the north. They had a political leadership in control of a paramilitary wing. This was something we could do something about. ISIS are a disparate, loosely connected group whose only aim is to cause mayhem and disruption to, as you suggest, those they see as apostate.

They attract followers from the disaffected, the fanatical, the easily manipulated and anybody else who has a grudge to bear. Apart from ISIS, many attacks are carried out by radicalised individuals and groups from individual countries own populations.

You can't close your borders to people who are already here.

I'm afraid I have to say that banning Muslims from Britain is a complete and utter non-starter. It's neither legal, practical or even logistically possible. You can forget that for a start. And that's not "Political Correctness Gone Mad", it's realism of a very sane nature.

In order to impose the law we must first obey the law. We cannot become what we behold.

I think there is a certain amount of overreaction to recent events. If we make another comparison to the activities of the IRA, what we have here is relatively low-level. The recent attacks have been low-tech, un-coordinated and have achieved relatively minimal disruption and casualties. In truth, the response of the news media has been out of all proportion to the actual events. There has been near-hysteria in some quarters.

I am sympathetic to those who have suffered and I'm not trivialising the events themselves, but compared the levels of death and injury, and damage to property caused by the IRA, what we have here is minimal.

As I said in a previous post, the perpetrators have had to change tactics because Intelligence Led Policing has been effective in thwarting a number of plots. We have disrupted the effectiveness of their communications and therefore their level of flexibility. We must now respond further and apply the squeeze to their new tactics.

I believe that the vast, overwhelming majority of the British Muslim population deplores the attacks carried out in the name of their religion. I think many good, decent Muslims probably already provide a lot of useful intel to the police and intelligence services on the quiet and we must encourage more to do likewise.

Alienate and isolate the criminals, apply intensive, well resourced, joined-up policing to the problem and at the same time show that British Muslims are a part of our community. Win their hearts and minds over. Make them a part of the solution and fewer and fewer will be recruited to the criminal cause. If we can strangle the problem at it's point of recruitment it will do more to resolve the problem than any amount of draconian measures which would only exacerbate things.

In my opinion a calm head, a co-ordinated response and a joined-up strategy will win out over hot heads and knee-jerk reactions any time.

 

[Balls Of An Ox]

....

I believe that the vast, overwhelming majority of the British Muslim population deplores the attacks carried out in the name of their religion...

Most of us do, just like everyone else. Because just like everyone else we're British and proud of it!!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

This is from ISIS... After Omar Mateen shot up the gay club in the US. This is why the terror attacks occur. Do not believe FAKE NEWS, do not believe The Left. Listen to them. They are perfectly clear. The paragraphs after #6 are key.

Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah.

As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet again – why we hate you and why we fight you.

1) We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

2) We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted

3) In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator. You witness the extraordinarily complex makeup of created beings, and the astonishing and inexplicably precise physical laws that govern the entire universe, but insist that they all came about through randomness and that one should be faulted, mocked, and ostracized for recognizing that the astonishing signs we witness day after day are the creation of the Wise, All-Knowing Creator and not the result of accidental occurrence.

4) We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion. As long as your subjects continue to mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah

5) We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth.

6) We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the Areason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you. What’s equally if not more important to understand is that we fight you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger.

We fight you in order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of Islam, and to liberate you from the constraints of living for the sake of the worldly life alone so that you may enjoy both the blessings of the worldly life and the bliss of the Hereafter. The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality. As much as some liberal journalist would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters with no logic behind our course of action, the fact is that we continue to wage – and escalate – a calculated war that the West thought it had ended several years ago.

We continue dragging you further and further into a swamp you thought you’d already escaped only to realize that you’re stuck even deeper within its murky waters… And we do so while offering you a way out on our terms. So you can continue to believe that those “despicable terrorists” hate you because of your lattes and your Timberlands, and continue spending ridiculous amounts of money to try to prevail in an unwinnable war, or you can accept reality and recognize that we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide, the very exits put forth by our Lord for the People of the Scripture: Islam, jizyah, or – as a last means of fleeting respite – a temporary truce.​

I'd happily post a link to the ISIS magazine this is taken from but it does contain images you would imagine to see in an ISIS magazine. msg me if you want a link.

 

[blademan89]

Who cares let's carry on as we are don't wanna be classed as racist.

 

[Abertawe]

Who cares let's carry on as we are don't wanna be classed as racist.

Nah not racist just thick.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Who cares let's carry on as we are don't wanna be classed as racist.

Nobody who shares sensible viewpoints on terrorism is called a racist by anybody with an ounce of credibility, I've discussed it plenty of times as a result of my area of study, nobody has called me a racist (even though I'm a big evil white straight male!).

 

[Benito]

Looking foward to the One Love London concert next week. I wonder who will they wheel out this time maybe Gary Lineker and Lily Allen can do a duet together. On the bright side this is great news for candlestick makers.

 

[Laker]

Nah not racist just thick.

I struggle with anyone who calls others "fuckwits" and "thick", and even accuses others of racism so freely. In my opinion it's unnecessary and just undermines every other post you've written. Most people here are debating well without the need to stoop to this level.

Similarly linked, I find it frustrating that "some" can't understand why others have strong views with how to deal with this. It's human nature and a completely natural reaction to innocent people's lives being lost so cheaply. While it may seem abhorrent that some want to "ban Muslims" or take this hard stance or that hard stance, it doesn't require such ridicule and disdain as is currently offered. I feel as much ridicule for those who seemingly want to do nothing to be honest.

The answer to this (if there is one) is clearly very complex. We have a liberal country for which we are all grateful and we all benefit. It would be a tragedy to lose all that. But clearly the approach taken recently by security services has failed over the last couple of months. So some middle ground, an increase in policing, even a (higher) presence at some mosques maybe, an increased level of intrusion into personal privacy..... I don't want this level of response but I'd prefer this to several more attacks.

But to take a soft approach to a hardline group with crazy intentions really seems churlish to me.

 

[markwwfc1992]

First it's important that we can appreciate the state/condition of the human mind/consciousness from this time and place. The revelations are to an illiterate man from a broken, tribalistic society "obdurate in disbelief and hypocricy and more likely to not know the limits which God has sent down to his messenger." [9:97]

It's also important to not hold double standards in regards to how we look at the Quran and other holy books of the time.



The passage in it's entirity:

3:55 [Mention] when God said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to God alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
3:56 And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.”
3:57 But as for those who believed and did righteous deeds, He will give them in full their rewards, and God does not like the wrongdoers.

This verse references God’s wrath on the people who disbelieved in Jesus. The passage does not endorse Muslims to commit violence.



“The promise of casting awe and fear into the hearts of the disbelievers in this verse was made in the background of the battle of Uhud when the disbelievers of Arabia marched back to Makkah without any obvious reason and inspite of defeat overtaking Muslim (Baydawi). However, after having covered a certain distance on their way to Makkah, they awoke to their folly. When they thought of marching back to Madinah, Allah Almighty filled their hearts with such awe and fear that they could not muster the courage to do so."



The full passage:

4:74 So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward.
4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of God and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?”
4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.
4:77 Have you not seen those who were told, “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah”? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear God or with [even] greater fear. They said, “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time.” Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears God. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].”

Telling Muslims to defend innocent civilians.

Commentary by Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

“What is wrong with you, that you do not fight: this is an interrogative of rebuke, in other words, there is nothing to prevent you from fighting, in the way of God, and for, the deliverance of, the oppressed men, women, and children, whom the disbelievers persecuted and prevented from emigrating. Ibn ‘Abbās, may God be pleased with him and his father, said, ‘My mother and I were among them’; who say, supplicating, ‘O, our Lord, bring us forth from this town, Mecca, whose people are evildoers, through unbelief, and appoint for us a protector from You, to take charge of our affair, and appoint for us from You a helper’, to defend us against them. God responded to their supplication and facilitated escape for some of them, while others remained behind until Mecca was conquered — in charge of them the Prophet (s) placed ‘Attāb b. Asīd, who proceeded to seek justice for the wronged from those that had wronged them.” [1]



The next verse is:

4:90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

Once hostilities cease, they must be left alone.



and:

8:15 – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

This is at the Battle of Badr. Makkah pagans travelling with a party of 1000 to attack the prophet's community of 300.



From when Byzantine empire began to mobilise troops to attack the Muslims.



The Banu Qurayza, Banu’l-Nadir, Fadak and Khaybar (Jewish tribes) who allied themselves with the pagan Arabs of Makkah in order to exterminate the Muslim community.



I don't do hadiths. These are books compiled by men 200 years after his death making it impossible to dinstinguish which ones are genuine and which ones were fabricated by political figures and others to push their own views/causes. This period also happens to be the time when an ideological war between The Rationalists (intellectuals that reasoned and debated, promoted critical thinking - Qadaris, Mutazilites, Hanafis) and Traditionists (those who furthered a culture of unquestioning obedience and became obsessed with the hadiths - the shafi schools, and the extremist types of the Hanbali school (later to evolve in to modern wahhabism)).

For loads of historical reasons (including the libraries and manuscripts the mongols destroyed in the 1258 sacking of Baghdad, the 80,000 books Spanish Inquisitor Ximenex de Cisneros destroyed in 1499 which included collaborations between Muslims Christians and Jews (these libraries and collections were mostly the works of the Rationalists)), the Traditionists won after 200 years of infighting and other events which went on to cement it.

The problem is sl1k , these extremists who commit these vile atrocities don't view the Quran in the more detailed version that you have just posted here, they view the cut out segments that quote the Quran as some sort of anti western death cult that suits their own personal agendas, as quoted by El Guapo. How else can they justify their actions?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

A theologian can make of the scripture just about anything they like, seemingly with the backing of an omnipotent super-being, which is what makes it so dangerous in the first place. Whether that's the original meaning of the text, assuming such a thing is possible to know, is neither here nor there really. It took hundreds of years of blood and grief to civilize Christianity in the West somewhat, and the argument for starting afresh with a new primitive desert religion by importing hundreds of thousands of people directly from the Middle East with no thought to assimilation seems to be some incoherent mumblings about Islamophobia and little else.

 

[Aber gas]

I struggle with anyone who calls others "fuckwits" and "thick", and even accuses others of racism so freely. In my opinion it's unnecessary and just undermines every other post you've written. Most people here are debating well without the need to stoop to this level.

Similarly linked, I find it frustrating that "some" can't understand why others have strong views with how to deal with this. It's human nature and a completely natural reaction to innocent people's lives being lost so cheaply. While it may seem abhorrent that some want to "ban Muslims" or take this hard stance or that hard stance, it doesn't require such ridicule and disdain as is currently offered. I feel as much ridicule for those who seemingly want to do nothing to be honest.

The answer to this (if there is one) is clearly very complex. We have a liberal country for which we are all grateful and we all benefit. It would be a tragedy to lose all that. But clearly the approach taken recently by security services has failed over the last couple of months. So some middle ground, an increase in policing, even a (higher) presence at some mosques maybe, an increased level of intrusion into personal privacy..... I don't want this level of response but I'd prefer this to several more attacks.

But to take a soft approach to a hardline group with crazy intentions really seems churlish to me.

Has he called someone a fuckwit?

 

[Aber gas]

The first priority of any government is national security. Not sure how anybody who values the safety of its people can vote Labour given Corbyn's stance on Islamic extremism. The Quran clearly justifies the killing of non-believers, oppression of women, etc. Muslims are devoted by an ideology that favours tyranny over freedom. Weak politicians and left-liberals who are conditioned by political correctness are also part of the problem. Religion of peace, nothing to do with Islam, etc.

This has all happened under May's watch, first as home sec and now as PM. Community and preventive services have all been cut to the point of crisis. If you think this is all the ramblings of a "leftie" here's a serving police officer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-wrong-police-cuts-theresa-may-a7772506.html

 

[Aber gas]

Corbyn going after the money. Saudi Arabia is undeniably funding terrorism and radicalisation in the U.K. Yet we continue to allow it alongside selling them weapons. This isn't Corbyn's policy. If you really want a more secure country then consider which party are actively arming and funding our enemy whilst blunting our ability to respond.
https://twitter.com/thepileus/status/871440223883988992

 

[Laker]

Has he called someone a fuckwit?

That was you actually on page 2 of this thread for which I apologise to Abertawe and therefore my post applies to you too.

I just think name calling is unnecessary.

 

[Habbinalan]

Learned a little more from this

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=twb

and this

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...hat-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/

I've recently been reading a novel that touches on the perverted christian inspired witch burning that went on in Northern Norway (similar to Salem and our own Witch Finder General and the Pendle witches but a bit more extreme) and coincidentally visited a site were 40 were burned. It feels like the human race has not moved on much.

I despair at what the human brain can get up to.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

It took hundreds of years of blood and grief to civilize Christianity in the West somewhat, and the argument for starting afresh with a new primitive desert religion by importing hundreds of thousands of people directly from the Middle East with no thought to assimilation seems to be some incoherent mumblings about Islamophobia and little else.

Great post. People need to grasp quickly that 10-20 attacks across Europe will now be ‘part & parcel’, probably for the rest of our lives and your children’s lives. That is the best case situation right now. But it can and will get a lot worse if we continue on the same path we have been going down and if we keep electing these same limp-wristed politicians (way to go France!!). I heard a comment on this thread about the Syrian mess being the beginning of all this Islamic extremism – ha, I suggest you pick up a history book and go back to the 7th century. This isn’t going to stop. And there’s only one way it is going to go for Europeans – worse!

That was you actually on page 2 of this thread for which I apologise to Abertawe and therefore my post applies to you too.

Just beautiful .

 

[HertsWolf]

The answer to this (if there is one) is clearly very complex. We have a liberal country for which we are all grateful and we all benefit. It would be a tragedy to lose all that. But clearly the approach taken recently by security services has failed over the last couple of months. So some middle ground, an increase in policing, even a (higher) presence at some mosques maybe, an increased level of intrusion into personal privacy..... I don't want this level of response but I'd prefer this to several more attacks.
But to take a soft approach to a hardline group with crazy intentions really seems churlish to me.

I think this is very well put. I note that already several people are alleging they tipped off the security services about concerns over the London Bridge attackers. This seems a parallel with the Manchester attacker.

I can fully understand the concerns of those who feel anger and contempt at an establishment that seems to err constantly on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with sensitive issues. There is real anger at many events over the last two decades in Britain, and characterising that anger, concern and frustration simply as racist or xenophobic is absurd: it also plays into the hands of both the extreme right and the fundamentalists for whom the discord and anxiety creates yet more deluded followers.
In many respects, Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders fill the void because they seem to "say it as it is". I suspect that, for many (but not for me personally) these firebrand politicians (like Le Pen Senior, Powell, Adams, McGuinness, Paisley before them) seem to have answers while the establishment seems to ignore the problem. It is interesting to see if Macron's alternative political framework offers something more encouraging or whether he will be 'more of the same'.

 

[HertsWolf]

This is from ISIS... After Omar Mateen shot up the gay club in the US. This is why the terror attacks occur. Do not believe FAKE NEWS, do not believe The Left. Listen to them. They are perfectly clear. The paragraphs after #6 are key.

Thanks for posting lengthy statement that shows that
a) IS are extremists
b) IS are Islamist
Without that, we would all have been none the wiser and would have no idea why these terrorists are attacking people.

I assume you now want to ban all rental vehicles as they have been used in both London attacks. There is a clear pattern here.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

Thanks for posting lengthy statement that shows that

a) IS are extremists

b) IS are Islamist

Without that, we would all have been none the wiser and would have no idea why these terrorists are attacking people.

The amount of people on forums and FAKE NEWS that state with 100% confidence that “this is exactly what the terrorists want” is rather annoying. Listen to what the terrorists say. Don’t make up lies to minimise the issues we face. Again, the key point:

our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam​

Pretty much sums it up. Death to the disbelievers.

Any other “this is exactly what the terrorists want” comments from arm chair analysts or FAKE NEWS is naïve nonsense.

 

[HertsWolf]

A theologian can make of the scripture just about anything they like, seemingly with the backing of an omnipotent super-being, which is what makes it so dangerous in the first place. Whether that's the original meaning of the text, assuming such a thing is possible to know, is neither here nor there really. It took hundreds of years of blood and grief to civilize Christianity in the West somewhat, and the argument for starting afresh with a new primitive desert religion by importing hundreds of thousands of people directly from the Middle East with no thought to assimilation seems to be some incoherent mumblings about Islamophobia and little else.

Seemingly with the backing of an omnipotent super-being? You serious? You don't think it's just some extreme fundamentalists twisting and distorting everything to their agenda? You know that when a scammer says on the phone he's from Barclaycard and you should give him your password, that he doesn't do this "with the backing of that bank"? Saying you are something, doesn't mean you are actually "it". Hence the oft-used phrase "Not in my name!".

It's ridiculous to say it took hundreds of years to civilise Christianity. People of all faiths and no faiths have persecuted each other through history (Stalin and Mao weren't Muslim or Christian). Arguably many Christians are still knee deep in blood, whether it's in Africa, the Balkans, Irish Republicans.

The part about assimilation is certainly worth discussing, and seems increasingly relevant; pity you cloak it in such Daily Express phrases.

 

[HertsWolf]

The amount of people on forums and FAKE NEWS that state with 100% confidence that “this is exactly what the terrorists want” is rather annoying. Listen to what the terrorists say. Don’t make up lies to minimise the issues we face. Again, the key point:

our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam​

Pretty much sums it up. Death to the disbelievers.

Any other “this is exactly what the terrorists want” comments from arm chair analysts or FAKE NEWS is naïve nonsense.

Thanks for putting FAKE NEWS in capitals. if you hadn't done that, we would all have wondered what you were rambling on about.
Of course, I suspect that fake news is just anything with which you disagree.

And thanks for putting the 'death to disbelievers' statement in bold so that the rest of us can appreciate the point in time at which you (and your pet puppy johnnytodd) seem to have finally understood what everyone else has known for three years.

Now can we have a conversation about solutions?

 

[Aber gas]

That was you actually on page 2 of this thread for which I apologise to Abertawe and therefore my post applies to you too.

I just think name calling is unnecessary.

That's fine, but when you see "lefty regressive" being thrown about as if it means something it's going to get a response. In your ( very good ) post you talk about undermining the debate but is using labels and presumptions about what people haven't said healthy? I can certainly understand people's anxietys and anger ( though I think it's misplaced). I find the obsession with people defending themselves against accusations of racism when no one has mentioned a bit weird too. Ultimately it comes down to personal dislike though. You find "fuckwit" distasteful whereas I find the calls to hang people and the constant dog whistle attacks on the Muslim community and people who see a different way not my cup of chai.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

I'm back on the politics board everyone for a new hot take.

The Quran is full of contradictions. Therefore it needs interpretation to be followed as a religious text. This means it is open to extremism.

Muslims are not the problem: they face the same problem we do, it is Muslims who won't submit to ISIS in Syria Iraq and across the world who are the main targets.

In ISIS' propaganda magazines which are easily available online they talk about eliminating the "greyzone", the zone in which Muslims can live side by side in the West, and co-exist. They want to make it impossible for this to happen. They don't think terrorist attacks are going to defeat us. They aim to set us and Muslims apart.

Any suggestions which criminalise people therefore simply for being Muslim are ill-thought out, reactionary, and far more dangerous than what "the regressive leftists" are saying.

 

[Balls Of An Ox]

.... And there’s only one way it is going to go for Europeans – worse!



Just beautiful .

Spare a thought for those of us that are European non-radicalised Muslims (most of us are). We're just as likely as anyone else to get caught up in an attack by the nutters, we also have the added bonus of being vilified by significant numbers of our own general communities, who see us as either outsiders or a threat just because we believe in a different God. We struggle to fit in "here" and there is no potential to "go back home". This is our home...

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Bobbin']

It was shameful. Despite the perverse truth that she herself has a degree of complicity she sought to exploit the issue by projecting a statement to appease the reactionary minds built up by her press baron masters. Look at the language of her statement properly because if the expected happens you're about to lose a whole lot of freedom's.

I'd expect her to offer condolences and condemn the violence. But some of her rhetoric - "enough is enough" "there is far too much tolerance of extremism", the attack on "big companies who provide internet-based services" - politicises the incident in quite an unpleasant way. Even if she wasn't supposed to be electioneering it would be quite crass to use a terrorist incident as cover for agenda that will involve further curbs on civil liberties.

Not to mention the fact that she's actually been Home Secretary and PM for seven years so if there's been any sort of government-level failure, she really ought to own it!

Still don't see it, can't see what she did or said that any other PM wouldn't have done. The only thing I found wrong with it was the irony of telling us to carry on as normal and then go on to say there would be no campaigning that day.

I'd expect the PM to come out and give some speech about how we won't tolerate this any longer etc and take a tough stance. Whether I believe them or not. I'm no huge fan of May but this just seems a case of jumping on her back for the sake of it.

Interestingly, no-one on here has criticised Corbyn for coming out and condemning Tory police cuts on the day when campaigning was supposed to be postponed?

 

[HertsWolf]

Still don't see it, can't see what she did or said that any other PM wouldn't have done.

I'd expect the PM to come out and give some speech about how we won't tolerate this any longer etc and take a tough stance. Whether I believe them or not.

May said "Enough is enough". That sounds really weird. It's almost like a teacher. "You've had your fun, now everyone get back inside and knuckle down". Enough is enough?

Isn't the short-term problem that just when we need every intelligence specialist doing intelligence shit, there will be an investigation into why the intelligence services appear to have ignored advice about these individuals. And so the next attack will come.
Give today's admission that armed police numbers are down under the Tories, you've got to wonder exactly what "strong and stable" means.

I think the public needs to know what practical actions will be taken, rather than some Home Counties-style eyes rolling and a sigh of tsk tsk.

 

[Jockney]

May is getting slaughtered on security by prominent members of her own party. Whatever happens on Thurs, it's hard to imagine she'll last more than another year.