Innocent Muslims treated like Irish in70's London

[joeSoap]

Was listening to an interview with some leader of the Muslim faith in London on the radio last night, and he made a point that I thought was kinda interesting. Condemning the bombings and bombers, he said he felt that 99.9% of the muslim community who are innocent, hard working people will now be tarred as guilty terrorists, as the Irish community were in Britain in the 70's and 80's because of the IRA.

He urged for such discrimination not to take place but cited incidents where members of the BNP and National Front had already began campaigns against innocent civilians.

Sad, but inevitable given todays society that these reactions will occur. :mad: :mad:

[Gareth]

Its human nature unfortunately to hate. If you have the option to hate a person cos he could be a terrorist or not hate cos they mightnt be, the unfortunate trurth is many people will hate.

[dahamsta]

My sister's childminder is muslim, and someone in her family has decided to leave Britain after the London bombings. She reckons it'll be the final straw.

adam

[joeSoap]

What a sad sad indictment on Human Nature... I was in London on Sunday and travelled by tube. The amount of people that got off because some muslims were travelling was amazing. One muslim man cried openly. It was heartbreaking to see.

[Dublin12]

Unfortunatley you don't have to look as far as London,this sort of thing has happened in Dublin at some of the mosques :mad:

[paul_oshea]

he said he felt that 99.9% of the muslim community who are innocent

is this a fair reflection? because i have been reading about muslim extremists within london itself, who authorities now beleive make up at least 5% of the "general" muslim population....dont want to open a can of worms but...

I am part of a muslim newsletter in work, I joined it a year ago as I was always very interested in their beliefs, and it is very enlighting, however I have to say that some things that are said within this newsletter are, not inciteful - in a hatred sort of way - or anything like that, but they are extreme in some beleifs/ideas, now if they are extreme in these ideas, does that mean others ( followers )can be as extreme, in ideas related to non muslim followers i.e. infidels.

just to give an example of something that i thought was strange, they were organising a fundraiser for the society, for whatever reason it was cancelled, and a sentence read something along the following:
"for those who have helped, it will not be felt or seen on the outside, but on the inside, and come the day of reckoning he will not stand in the shade but out of the shade, he will be judged superior when presented before allah for his actions"

now the words, actions, superior, shade and reckoning were all used, and in the sort of context above, i am unable to remember it word for word, I just thought that it was an extremely sensitive( for use of a much better word) piece to write, for such a small thing, but yet inciting at the same time.

basically what im trying to say is that if they feel, and use words like above to describe such small things, then surely some can interpret certain things within islam to justify their actions/what they do in relation to those of non muslim faith.

[paul_oshea]

"he said he felt that 99.9% of the muslim community who are innocent "

just re-read that, does he mean that 99.9% of the innocent muslims, or 99.9% of muslims that are innocent?

[joeSoap]

Presumably tht 99.9% of the Muslim Community are innocent, and that it is a very small minority that perpetrate these atrocities. I presume he was generalising in the 99.9% figure.

[dcfcsteve]

is this a fair reflection? because i have been reading about muslim extremists within london itself, who authorities now beleive make up at least 5% of the "general" muslim population....dont want to open a can of worms but...

I am part of a muslim newsletter in work, I joined it a year ago as I was always very interested in their beliefs, and it is very enlighting, however I have to say that some things that are said within this newsletter are, not inciteful - in a hatred sort of way - or anything like that, but they are extreme in some beleifs/ideas, now if they are extreme in these ideas, does that mean others ( followers )can be as extreme, in ideas related to non muslim followers i.e. infidels.

just to give an example of something that i thought was strange, they were organising a fundraiser for the society, for whatever reason it was cancelled, and a sentence read something along the following:
"for those who have helped, it will not be felt or seen on the outside, but on the inside, and come the day of reckoning he will not stand in the shade but out of the shade, he will be judged superior when presented before allah for his actions"

now the words, actions, superior, shade and reckoning were all used, and in the sort of context above, i am unable to remember it word for word, I just thought that it was an extremely sensitive( for use of a much better word) piece to write, for such a small thing, but yet inciting at the same time.

basically what im trying to say is that if they feel, and use words like above to describe such small things, then surely some can interpret certain things within islam to justify their actions/what they do in relation to those of non muslim faith.

To be fair Paul, I don't see anything hugely wrong with that. All religions reckon they're the chosen ones and everyone else is fecked.

Christianity has a number of similar statements/sentiments, which if I actually owned a Bible I'd root-out.....

[Ringo]

Condemning the bombings and bombers, he said he felt that 99.9% of the muslim community who are innocent, hard working people will now be tarred as guilty terrorists, as the Irish community were in Britain in the 70's and 80's because of the IRA.


A very well made point. When my sister lived in London ( a lot of bombings at the time) , i went over to visit her & was treated like a lepper once they heard my accent. She'd had numerous jobs & was forced out of one because of being irish. Now they love us & can't wait to talk to us. We're great craic. Was thinking about it as i passed the Muslim supermarket on mary Street this morning, thought of how i felt at the time. Treating the muslim community as all being terrorists, will only drive more to become extreme.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Just saw on the lunchtime news that not only do they now believe that there were suicide bombers involved (48 hours ago they were saying there were none.) but they believe three of the four came from Leeds/West Yorkshire.

They even had quotes from an uncle of one of one who they tactfully identified as being the owner of a Chippy on Elland Road (yes ...that Elland Road). Misfortune might as well sell up and move on.

I fear an awful lot of innocent muslims are going to take an awful lot of stick for this.

from Sky http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1188946,00.html

[paul_oshea]

To be fair Paul, I don't see anything hugely wrong with that. All religions reckon they're the chosen ones and everyone else is fecked.

arrogance of religion i suppose, but thats not the point i was getting at.

[Poor Student]

I must admit when I was travelling on the metro in Paris around the time of the headscarf ban I was sitting across from an Arab kitted out in full Middle Eastern robes style. He had a bag and was pressing button inside it and fiddling with it like crazy. I got a huge fright by this. I have no idea what he was up to and afterwards I obviously realised it was nothing sinister but it scared the life out of me at the time. I felt emarrassed for judging the guy like that yet how can you help it? I in no way advocate harrassing or attacking muslims in Britain or elsewhere however it is easy to see how the cretins carrying out these attacks have brought wrath on their fellow muslims. So selfish, deluded and self righteous are those who have committed the attacks that they would bring this treatment on the people who share their faith.

[beautifulrock]

I am glad to say that I was never abused during the IRA campaigns in London even though I worked in a large office and was the only Irish person employed.

I, for one, will treat every Muslim I meet/travel/work etc as I was treated.

[joeSoap]

but I doubt if he was crying more than the relatives of the people murdered in the name of Islam

Or the thousands of British people who buried relatives in the 'quest to unite Ireland'...murdered by the evil scum IRA

[dahamsta]

I'd appreciate it if people would drop the name-calling, no matter how insidious the people they're abusing, and stick to the issues.

adam

[joeSoap]

Fair enough

[dcfcsteve]

Twas "sad" to hear of the Muslim man crying-but I doubt if he was crying more than the relatives of the people murdered in the name of Islam or certain facists interpretation of Islam. But then we understand all about when it comes to facists taking their mandate from their "faith" or "dead generations" (Pearse) to commit atrocities in our name. The problem with
Islam in Ireland and Britain however is that they have no leader with the
moral fibre to stand up and tell certain members of their community that it
is wrong to preach hatred agaisnt Jews and Gentiles. A few years back they issued a Fatwah against Salmon Rushdie because of his appaliningly boring book. But where is the Fatwah against the murderers in their midst? The Muslim communtiy will be the targets of hate because of the water and the fish explanation of terrorism once given by a Chinese political leader. The fish are the terrorsists but the water which is essential for their survival is the community in which they live and which also provides safe haven. Meanwhile why do their refer to the London dead as "innocent commuters" is there such a thing as "guilty commuters"

Islam doesn't have a centralized structure Samuel - no Pope, Dalai Lama, Chief Rabbi or Archbishop of Canterbury/Queen.

Newspapers and TV news have all reported that the attacks were condemned in mosques around the country at last Friday's prayers.

But there's no single 'voice of Islam' who can claim to represent the whole religion and openly condemn all this in a definitive manner - it's just not structured like that. The religion is very localised/fractured, and there's even numerous national representative bodies for Muslims, rather than one overarching main one.

[Metrostars]

A Muslim man has been beaten to death outside a corner shop by a gang of youths who shouted anti-Islamic abuse at him, the Guardian has learned.
...
Azad Ali, who chairs the Muslim Safety Forum, said: "You can't class this as racist, there was no racist abuse shouted at him, it was Islamophobic.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1527288,00.html

Islamophobic...now thats a new one.

[hamish]

Did I read, a couple of years ago, that what Islam needs is a sort of Renaissance/Reformation/Counter Reformation process. Trying to get my head around all that.
It was written by a Muslim btw but I'm fcuked if I can remember his name.
Maybe some Footieperson(s) might enlighten me on all this and I hope I'm on thread.

[dcfcsteve]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1527288,00.html

Islamophobic...now thats a new one.

What's so new about the word 'Islamophobic' Metrostars ? :confused:

It's like clarifying that an incident wasn't just a 'Hate Crime' but was 'Homophobic - i.e. a very specific type of hate crime.

Likewise - the incident above wasn't 'rascist', but a very specific form of anti-religious attack.

Struggle to see how that word/concept is a new one....

[mypost]

I fear an awful lot of innocent muslims are going to take an awful lot of stick for this.

Well, what do you expect?? :confused:

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise :rolleyes: ) in a civilised Christian country, walked calmly into train stations, and buses to destroy them, and those in them. Of course, there will be reprisals. It's human nature to seek revenge when you have been attacked. Though they killed and injured their fellow Muslims, their intention was to massacre Christians. So Christians are going to retaliate to that.

Those involved in the plotting of the London and Madrid bombings should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay, where they could do no harm to anyone else who don't share their beliefs. The Americans take no chances with terror suspects, arrest them, and promptly put them in captivity, out of harms way. The British Government however, let all kinds of undesirables into their country at will, and don't track their movements, because they don't know where they are. In view of their laissez-faire attitude to dealing with terror suspects, the London bombings were unfortunately, inevitable.

[Plastic Paddy]

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise :rolleyes: ) in a civilised Christian country, walked calmly into train stations, and buses to destroy them, and those in them. Of course, there will be reprisals. It's human nature to seek revenge when you have been attacked. Though they killed and injured their fellow Muslims, their intention was to massacre Christians. So Christians are going to retaliate to that

Oh dear... :rolleyes:

That's the kind of reductionist theorising that is dangerously wrong. This was not an attack on Christians by Muslims. It was an indiscriminate act of hate by a select few, designed to inflict the maximum loss of life irrespective of its origin. In that, it succeeded. Make no mistake, though, this is NOT Muslims vs Christians. You painting it as such really doesn't help anyone.


Those involved in the plotting of the London and Madrid bombings should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay, where they could do no harm to anyone else who don't share their beliefs. The Americans take no chances with terror suspects, arrest them, and promptly put them in captivity, out of harms way. The British Government however, let all kinds of undesirables into their country at will, and don't track their movements, because they don't know where they are. In view of their laissez-faire attitude to dealing with terror suspects, the London bombings were unfortunately, inevitable.

So "we" brought it on ourselves? Thanks a million pal. That makes us here in London feel a whole lot better, let me tell you. :mad:

Thank God views like yours are not in the mainstream. We're more civilised than that. Bombs or no bombs, we'll carry on as ever.

Given the unreconstructed neocon crap you're spouting, you're not a staffer in the Bush administration by any chance? :rolleyes:

:ball: PP

[dahamsta]

Given the unreconstructed neocon crap you're spouting, you're not a staffer in the Bush administration by any chance?Ordinarily I'd say tone it down, but, well, the post you were responding to was pretty much the kind of oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian, stereotypical crap I'd expect from a taxi driver with a lifetime subscription to the Star. So, can't fault you on this occasion.

Muslims and Christians eh? Them and us. Four legs good, two legs bad. :rolleyes:

adam

[joeSoap]

the post you were responding to was pretty much the kind of oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian, stereotypical crap I'd expect from a taxi driver with a lifetime subscription to the Star.

:D :D :D

[Lionel Ritchie]

Well, what do you expect?? :confused:

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise :rolleyes: ) in a civilised Christian country, walked calmly into train stations, and buses to destroy them, and those in them. Of course, there will be reprisals. It's human nature to seek revenge when you have been attacked. Though they killed and injured their fellow Muslims, their intention was to massacre Christians. So Christians are going to retaliate to that.

Those involved in the plotting of the London and Madrid bombings should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay, where they could do no harm to anyone else who don't share their beliefs. The Americans take no chances with terror suspects, arrest them, and promptly put them in captivity, out of harms way. The British Government however, let all kinds of undesirables into their country at will, and don't track their movements, because they don't know where they are. In view of their laissez-faire attitude to dealing with terror suspects, the London bombings were unfortunately, inevitable.

I expect pigs to grunt ...and while your reaction disappoints me -well based on your previous opinings -it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Someone to blame -and someone to kiss it better.

[Peadar]

I'm going to try and explain how I feel about all of this.

At the weekend I took some time to walk around the area where my sister lives. The people I met on the streets were from many ethnic groups but predominantly Muslim in religion. I didn't see hate in their eyes and nothing told me they had murder in their hearts. Their faces showed sadness and sincerity. They were ordinary people who left their home country for one reason or another and were now trying to forge a life for themselves in West London. Dotted between the Arab shops and restaurants are Irish pubs. They share the streets with Irish people who followed so many similar paths in life to bring them there.
The people who attack Muslim communities were just looking for an excuse to vent their hatred. We would probably have seen the same attacks if Pakistan knocked England out of a football World Cup or something.

The blast on my train wasn't caused by a Muslim bomb. It was caused by a terrorist bomb!

[Lionel Ritchie]

Well said Peadar.

[dcfcsteve]

Well, what do you expect?? :confused:

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise :rolleyes: ) in a civilised Christian country, walked calmly into train stations, and buses to destroy them, and those in them. Of course, there will be reprisals. It's human nature to seek revenge when you have been attacked. Though they killed and injured their fellow Muslims, their intention was to massacre Christians. So Christians are going to retaliate to that.

Those involved in the plotting of the London and Madrid bombings should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay, where they could do no harm to anyone else who don't share their beliefs. The Americans take no chances with terror suspects, arrest them, and promptly put them in captivity, out of harms way. The British Government however, let all kinds of undesirables into their country at will, and don't track their movements, because they don't know where they are. In view of their laissez-faire attitude to dealing with terror suspects, the London bombings were unfortunately, inevitable.

My post,

You're a self-confirmed idiot.....

[paul_oshea]

people dont be too harsh, there is reasoning in a backward sorta way to what he was saying...

muslims have to start listening and accepting that there ARE extremists within their communities, and must start to tackle this issue. I never brand everyone ( or any one individual ) with the same stick, but if all muslims say that he was such a blah blah, and these arent beleivers of islam etc ( 99.9% of muslims deplore such acts ), then fair enough, but they are aware of where these people go and what they do, I just think it should be monitored and these people ousted from their communities ( if they show any hatred/incite hatred ), if this were done then NO ONE could have any justification in blaming muslims for such atrocities. At the moment these people are living in stronghold muslim communities, at the end of the day these people are muslims, whether or not they are extremists or not, their beliefs and ideologies are centred around islam....

I dont blame any muslims for what happend, i blame individuals ( these people are types of sociopaths in my opinion, as tehy lead double lives as such ) who have been easily manipulated, because they are easily led people...

[dcfcsteve]

people dont be too harsh, there is reasoning in a backward sorta way to what he was saying...

muslims have to start listening and accepting that there ARE extremists within their communities, and must start to tackle this issue. I never brand everyone ( or any one individual ) with the same stick, but if all muslims say that he was such a blah blah, and these arent beleivers of islam etc ( 99.9% of muslims deplore such acts ), then fair enough, but they are aware of where these people go and what they do, I just think it should be monitored and these people ousted from their communities ( if they show any hatred/incite hatred ), if this were done then NO ONE could have any justification in blaming muslims for such atrocities. At the moment these people are living in stronghold muslim communities, at the end of the day these people are muslims, whether or not they are extremists or not, their beliefs and ideologies are centred around islam....

I dont blame any muslims for what happend, i blame individuals ( these people are types of sociopaths in my opinion, as tehy lead double lives as such ) who have been easily manipulated, because they are easily led people...


POS - you're points are fair, but 'My Posts' weren't. He was effectively saying that it's a problem with Muslims and that they're only attacking Christians - which betrays his lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation.

As an exercise - switch the word 'Irish' for every mention of the word 'Muslim' in both 'My Post' and your messages above. And then pretend than you're a Londoner after the Bishopsgate or Canary Whard bombings, or a Manc after the Arndale bombing. Give you a slightly different take on things.... ?

[paul_oshea]

steve, i have actually been doing that with all posts, thinking about how irish people would have been treated, i hadnt been around those times, so I cant really make a fair assessment, but ya, I agree I do feel rather hypocritical, as I know I would be the first to get my back up if i had been around during those times....

[joeSoap]

steve, i have actually been doing that with all posts, thinking about how irish people would have been treated, i hadnt been around those times, so I cant really make a fair assessment,
I was going to watch Ireland v England in a pub in Borough in 1988, and was told in no uncertain terms by the barman to "f-uck off, you dirty irish c**t," and "to take my explosives with me".....nice chap. :mad:

[mypost]

This was not an attack on Christians by Muslims. It was an indiscriminate act of hate by a select few, designed to inflict the maximum loss of life irrespective of its origin. In that, it succeeded. Make no mistake, though, this is NOT Muslims vs Christians.

If it was not an attack by Muslims on Christians, what was it? Where were the bombs detonated? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Africa? No, it was London. London is capital of the United Kingdom. The UK, despite it's presence of many faiths, is a predominantly Christian country. It's a tolerant, democratic, free, Western country. Muslims, or Islamic extremists, (if you want to be more PC), abused that tolerance, and freedom with the aim of attacking Christians. Whether or not other peoples were killed/injured is of little consequence to them. 55 people were killed, with 700+ injured. The vast majority of them were Christians, people like you or me. That's what they want, ultimately. They claim it is revenge for Muslims killed/injured as a result of the UK's foreign policies. But there is a distinct difference: UK forces do not intend to kill/maim innocent civilians when on duty, whereas Islamic terrorists deliberately set out to cause widespread damage, and destruction, with mass casualties. London was not bombed accidentally.


We're more civilised than that.

Than what?? :confused:

[mypost]

the post you were responding to was pretty much the kind of oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian, stereotypical crap I'd expect from a taxi driver with a lifetime subscription to the Star.

So that's the kind of spam that people sit and write on their laptops all day. Now I know why you have posted here 3,400 times. :rolleyes:

Just how many taxi drivers do you know, have a lifetime subscription to the Star?? :confused: :confused:

This is a thread on a serious issue. We don't have to read wild and unfounded generalisations against posters, that have nothing to do with it. :mad:

[Plastic Paddy]

If it was not an attack by Muslims on Christians, what was it? Where were the bombs detonated? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Africa? No, it was London. London is capital of the United Kingdom. The UK, despite it's presence of many faiths, is a predominantly Christian country. It's a tolerant, democratic, free, Western country. Muslims, or Islamic extremists, (if you want to be more PC), abused that tolerance, and freedom with the aim of attacking Christians. Whether or not other peoples were killed/injured is of little consequence to them. 55 people were killed, with 700+ injured. The vast majority of them were Christians, people like you or me. That's what they want, ultimately. They claim it is revenge for Muslims killed/injured as a result of the UK's foreign policies. But there is a distinct difference: UK forces do not intend to kill/maim innocent civilians when on duty, whereas Islamic terrorists deliberately set out to cause widespread damage, and destruction, with mass casualties. London was not bombed accidentally.

So you damn an entire people for the act of a mindless few? Are you Irish? Did you ever visit London in the seventies, eighties or nineties? Do I even need to spell my point out further? :rolleyes:


So that's the kind of spam that people sit and write on their laptops all day. Now I know why you have posted here 3,400 times.

That might have something to do with the fact that it's dahamsta's website. I should imagine that a fair proportion of those 3,400 posts were spent responding to views like yours. Enough said.

:ball: PP

[dcfcsteve]

If it was not an attack by Muslims on Christians, what was it? Where were the bombs detonated? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Africa? No, it was London. London is capital of the United Kingdom. The UK, despite it's presence of many faiths, is a predominantly Christian country. It's a tolerant, democratic, free, Western country. Muslims, or Islamic extremists, (if you want to be more PC), abused that tolerance, and freedom with the aim of attacking Christians. Whether or not other peoples were killed/injured is of little consequence to them. 55 people were killed, with 700+ injured. The vast majority of them were Christians, people like you or me. That's what they want, ultimately. They claim it is revenge for Muslims killed/injured as a result of the UK's foreign policies. But there is a distinct difference: UK forces do not intend to kill/maim innocent civilians when on duty, whereas Islamic terrorists deliberately set out to cause widespread damage, and destruction, with mass casualties. London was not bombed accidentally.

My post,

Your lack of even a basic level of knowledge and understanding regarding Al Qaeda and recent world events would be laughable/pitiful, where it not fuelling such a dangerous and inaccuaret viewpoint.....

It is completely and utterly wrong to say that the attack on London was intended as a Muslim attack upon Christians. To prove this, I'm happy to roll for a moment with your theory that the location of Al Qaeda attacks clarifies what their purpose and targets are.....

Since the World Trade Centre bombings in 2001 there have been 7 terrorist attacks around the globe attributed directly to Al Qaeda :

2002 : Djerba, Bali & Mombasa.
2003 : Casablanca and Istanbul.
2004 : Madrid
2005 : London

As you can see from the above list, 4 occured in overwhelmingly Muslim countries (Tunisia, Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey), whilst the other 3 occured in Christian countries (Kenya, Spain, Uk) - albeit countries/cities with sizeable Muslim populations. If we go back to the first signs of Al Qaeda in 1993 - of all the attacks they've been involved in around the world since then, the majority have been in Muslim countries (the above, plus Saudi, Yemen and Tanzania which is equally split Christian/Muslim). And that's without taking into account Al Qaeda's clear presence and involvement in terrorist activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment. Therefore - under your theory that the location of an Al Qaeda target therefore clarifies their aims, it could be more justifiably argued that the organisation is actually out to kill Muslims than it is Christians or any other religion ! How do you like them apples then, eh.....?

Moving on from the evidence of their actual activities - even a vague understanding of Al Qaeda and extremist Islamic movements would have made you aware that they consider the vast majority of fellow Muslims to be no different than other Infidels - they have ambraced a modern, Western, non-Islamic lifestyle, and so they can no longer be considered Muslims. In that way, Al Qaeda groups are able to justify attacks on Muslims when the Koran specifically dictates against this. Therefore - they are out to kill FULL STOP. Regardless of whether its Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Rastas or non believers.

Of course a bomb attack in a majority Christian place like London or New York will more than likely lead to a majority of Christian deaths. But the same is true for bomb attacks in majority Muslim cities/countries like Casablanca or Saudi Arabia as well. If they really wanted to target Christians, then why didn't they follow the blindingly obvious strategy of attacking popular churches on a Sunday ?? I'll tell you why - whether they killed all Muslims or all Christians matters not a jot to Al Qaeda. Their aim is to just kill. Full stop. Your assertion is therefore completely incorrect and betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.

Perhaps your time might be better spent reading quality newspapers and/or watching in-depth news programmes, rather than serving up dangerously incorrect uneducated viewpoints like the above on internet chat sites...

[dcfcsteve]

they had structure enough to issue a fatwah against Rushdie one which he took seriously enough to go into hiding about-the problem with Muslim extremism is that there is no raison detre i e the facist IRA want a United Ireland-and we can assume that they will "go away" if they get it- the Basques want and independent Basque Region and likewise they will **** off
presumably-but what does the Islamofacists want? why are groups like Hammas allowed
to make statemnets about driving Israel into the sea and teaching their children that it is ok to kill Jews and Gentiles in their quest to impose Islam
on the rwst of the world. If the Muslim community doesn't address the problem in their midst then some US president might in the same way that
Truman did in Japan via Enola Gay in 1945......

I'm staggered by the ill-informed nature of a lot of the postings on this topic.

Samuel - Al Qaeda DID NOT issue the fatwa against Salman Rusdie. The Ayatolla of Iran did. But let's not let fact reduce the power of our arguements, eh.....?

I agree with your sentiment/frustration that Al Qaeda appears motiveless to us, and that they cannot be negotiated with - as they want something completely anathaema to our democracies/lifestyle.

Hammas exists almost solely to drive the Israeli's out of the Middle East. In that way, they are not remarkably different than groups like the IRA/ETA etc have been/are. Regardless - who and how do you promise Hammas's extremist statements are stopped then ? It only takes one person to set-up a supposed terrorist group and issue any statements they want. How exactly is this to be stopped then..... ?

And the piece de resistance - suggesting that the atomic/nuclear bomb is the way to solve Islamic extremism. Bravo ! Any thoughts on where exactly the bombs should be dropped ? Again - please don't let facts and relatively minor details get in the way of your well-condidered viewpoints...

Even is there was a Bond Baddy-esque location of 'Extremistville' in 'Extremiststan' that was chock-full of evil-doers working in factories churning-out terrorists and terrorist implements, do you not have even an inkling of suspicion that such drastic measures as nuclear bombs could actually make the global situation worse ? It was reported in the news earlier this week that even the likes of Bush and Blair are now privately admiting that the Iraq War has made the terrorist situation worse, and has finally created the link between Iraq and terror that they claimed was there beforehand. Just think how much worse something like that would be if it had gone nuclear......

Now I'm just going to check my calendar to see if it really is International Internet Idiots day....... :confused: :D

[paul_oshea]

As you can see from the above list, 4 occured in overwhelmingly Muslim countries (Tunisia, Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey), whilst the other 3 occured in Christian countries (Kenya, Spain, Uk) - albeit countries/cities with sizeable Muslim populations. If we go back to the first signs of Al Qaeda in 1993 - of all the attacks they've been involved in around the world since then, the majority have been in Muslim countries (the above, plus Saudi, Yemen and Tanzania which is equally split Christian/Muslim). And that's without taking into account Al Qaeda's clear presence and involvement in terrorist activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment. Therefore - under your theory that the location of an Al Qaeda target therefore clarifies their aims, it could be more justifiably argued that the organisation is actually out to kill Muslims than it is Christians or any other religion ! How do you like them apples then, eh.....?

steve, dont be too oversighted here, it doesn't necessarily matter what country they struck in, but where, what and who they struck in that country. follow..???

I had this arguement with pat o, last night, one I would like to discuss with you also some time, but societies in the western world are far more accomodating to muslims and islam, if I however went to pakistan or wherever, society there would not be accomodating to my beleifs both religous or otherwise. At the end of the day, muslims, in general do feel that there religion is "the one" and arent acceptant of other religions. Jihad itself means struggle for the sake of Allah, based around the idea of a struggle to convert/rid others, There are many forms of this which change according to time and context. There are many books about this huge subject, please consult some of them to get a good understanding.


Finally, Anything, especially religion can be manipulated to justify an action. The logic of their actions and thoughts behind this can only be given by them. However I would say that it is not the “what?” but rather the “why?” that should be questioned.

[paul_oshea]

anathaema to our democracies/lifestyle.

what have the band from liverpool got to do with al qaida, anathema is a solemn curse, once used by winston churchill and roosevelt. anyhow i think the context in which you have used it here is incorrect. :p


whether they killed all Muslims or all Christians matters not a jot to Al Qaeda. Their aim is to just kill. Full stop. Your assertion is therefore completely incorrect and betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.


steve, thats not wholly true either, there aim is to kill "infidels" as i exlpained earlier what the "old" meaning of infidel is, a non beleiver/follower of islam.

Most groups that carry out these attacks have said in the past, we apologise beforehand if brothers of islam get caught up in our tirade against the infidels of the western world. so is that not saying something in itself? :confused:

[dahamsta]

Great posts Steve.


So that's the kind of spam that people sit and write on their laptops all day. Now I know why you have posted here 3,400 times.I have a high post count because I've been here since Day One. In fact I made Day One. I have to deal with posters that come up with unsubstantiated, inaccurate arguments and try to set them on the right track. Like yourself, for example. Here's a tip to get you started: If you're in a discussion with someone about a major issue, trying viewing their profile and reading some of their older posts to get a feel for them. In my case you would have discovered in pretty short order that I run this site, and I'm not really the best person to pick a fight with. And here's tip number two: Pick your fights carefully.


Just how many taxi drivers do you know, have a lifetime subscription to the Star??It was an analogy. And since it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was an analogy, there are only two possible reasons for your response, one being that you're reaching. The other should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

(I should really be careful with statements like that. Someone could get hurt.)


This is a thread on a serious issue. We don't have to read wild and unfounded generalisations against posters, that have nothing to do with it. What's wild and unfounded? As Steve has so eloquently pointed out, your points are oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian and stereotypical. You can disagree with that if you like, but I'm afraid you'd be wrong.

adam

[Metrostars]

Interesting article by Tom Friedman about islamic suicide bombers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and %20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20F riedman&oref=login


Also at work is Sunni Islam's struggle with modernity. Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam. Islam's self-identity is that it is the authentic and ideal expression of monotheism. Muslims are raised with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.

Part of what seems to be going on with these young Muslim males is that they are, on the one hand, tempted by Western society, and ashamed of being tempted. On the other hand, they are humiliated by Western society because while Sunni Islamic civilization is supposed to be superior, its decision to ban the reform and reinterpretation of Islam since the 12th century has choked the spirit of innovation out of Muslim lands, and left the Islamic world less powerful, less economically developed, less technically advanced than God 2.0, 1.0 and 0.0.

"Some of these young Muslim men are tempted by a civilization they consider morally inferior, and they are humiliated by the fact that, while having been taught their faith is supreme, other civilizations seem to be doing much better," said Raymond Stock, the Cairo-based biographer and translator of Naguib Mahfouz. "When the inner conflict becomes too great, some are turned by recruiters to seek the sick prestige of 'martyrdom' by fighting the allegedly unjust occupation of Muslim lands and the 'decadence' in our own."

This is not about the poverty of money. This is about the poverty of dignity and the rage it can trigger.

[paul_oshea]

Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam.

exactly what i was saying earlier.

so what he is saying is that, they are caught between the cutting sword, somewhat guilt ridden, they feel hard done by in one sense but on the other they dont, but yet a real sense that they have to do something about it. its an interesting piece alright.

[dcfcsteve]

steve, thats not wholly true either, there aim is to kill "infidels" as i exlpained earlier what the "old" meaning of infidel is, a non beleiver/follower of islam.

Most groups that carry out these attacks have said in the past, we apologise beforehand if brothers of islam get caught up in our tirade against the infidels of the western world. so is that not saying something in itself? :confused:

To be totally accurate Pual - their aim is to spread Islam through 'spectaculars' (i.e. big attacks) that will make people sit-up and notice. Whomsoever they kill in doing so - even if it's other fundamentalist Muslims - is irrelevant to them.

All Muslims have a religious duty to spread the word of Islam (most other religions bar Judaism likewise have an Evangelical element). Moderate Muslims believe that engaging 'Infidels' in dialgue etc is the way to convert them. Extremists believe that the process needs to be begun all over again even for most of what are currently considered 'Muslims'. The corrupting influence of the West is now so great in traditionally Muslim societies, they believe, that these people are now actually no longer Muslims. The way to counteract this corrupting influence - both within and without Muslim societies - is therefore by launching specacular attacks that will shake everyone out of their current corrupted state.

[dcfcsteve]

steve, dont be too oversighted here, it doesn't necessarily matter what country they struck in, but where, what and who they struck in that country. follow..???

I know Paul - but I was specifically answering 'My Posts' rather simplistic summation that 'Attack on a Christian city = attack on Christians/Christianity'

Thanks also for the explanation of Jihad and the book references - but without trying to blow sunshine up me own arse, I'm relatively well-informed on Islam as it is.... :D :p Plus I've got this week's Beano to fit-in somewhere yet....

[paul_oshea]

The way to counteract this corrupting influence - both within and without Muslim societies - is therefore by launching specacular attacks that will shake everyone out of their current corrupted state.The corrupting influence of the West is now so great in traditionally Muslim societies, they believe, that THESE PEOPLE are now actually no longer Muslims.


Are you refering to those that preach and "brainwash" people to become suicide bombers or the suicide bombers themselves? i think you mean all. if so then explain to me why people that have adopted and embraced western culture, whilst at the same time sticking to their beliefs, blew up a bar in israel, and blew up 3 tubes and a bus?

[dcfcsteve]

Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam.

Name me any other major world religion that doesn't believe they are right and everyone else is wrong ?

So Christianity doesn't believe it is the only true faith, and doesn't look down on non-believers ? Why are words like 'heathen' and 'pagan' so negatively loaded within the English language then ?

As for Judaism - just like Islam it has its own word for Infidels (Gentiles). Does this not also suggest supremacy ?

Hindus and Buddhists may not aim to do-down other religions, but their faith is still heavily based on a belief that they offer the only/best route to nirvana/heaven/enlightenment/reincarnation or whetever.

It's a fundamental tenant of religions to assert that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Obviously so - as a means of attracting and retaining members. This is in no ways peculair to Islam.

[paul_oshea]

Obviously so - as a means of attracting and retaining members. This is in no ways peculair to Islam.

maybe not, but it is certainly more forceful.

[dcfcsteve]

Are you refering to those that preach and "brainwash" people to become suicide bombers or the suicide bombers themselves? i think you mean all. if so then explain to me why people that have adopted and embraced western culture, whilst at the same time sticking to their beliefs, blew up a bar in israel, and blew up 3 tubes and a bus?

The words "these people" above referred to Muslims who are supposedly corrupted to such an extent that they are no longer considered Muslims by the extremists. I wasn't referring to the bombers or anyone else.

As for the suicide bombers you mentioned above - firstly, I'm not here to explain/justify the motives of suicide bombers, beyond the broad ideologies that I'm lead to believe they work to (as explained above). Secondly - they may well have been born/raised in the Western culture, but they all appear to have turned their back on that culture at a later stage. Continuing to appear as if they embraced that western culture (not having the Islamic beard, wearing Western clothes etc) are tactics taught to sleeper cells to avoid drawing attention to themselves in advance of operations. Beyond that I understandably can't explain to you the individual motivations involved for these people in their apparent combination of Western beliefs/lifestyle and radical Islam.

[paul_oshea]

The words "these people" above referred to Muslims who are supposedly corrupted to such an extent that they are no longer considered Muslims by the extremists. I wasn't referring to the bombers or anyone else.

no steve, i know but you are saying these people as in muslims in the western world, but these were the same people recruited by the "extremists", to blow themselves up. so that is a contradiction of sorts, I just dont fully agree with what you are saying.


Beyond that I understandably can't explain to you the individual motivations involved for these people in their apparent combination of Western beliefs/lifestyle and radical Islam.

I should hope you cant!!!! :D