-
@Kirwan said in Another attack in London:
Obama wouldn't even say the words Islamic Terrorism, that's how far down the appeasement path we are.
The Leader of the Opposition in Australia studiously avoided saying anything that might narrow the potential ideology of the attackers, despite what they were reported saying when they jumped out of their van.
Another minister said at least 10 times that we should remain vigilant but neglected to mention what we should be looking for. Speeding vans on pavements I guess.
-
@antipodean Sickening isn't it. I guess they just want to avoid having egg on their face when its discovered that the terrorists were really white football hooligans right?
Weak and pathetic.
Tommy Robinson (who isn't known to pull punches) makes a great point as to what will happen if the authorities don't actually do something people will start taking things into their own hands then you'll really have an extremist problem.
-
@No-Quarter said in Another attack in London:
I also wonder when people like @Godder talk about 'mainstream' Islam what they mean exactly - Muslims in the west or Muslims in, say, Saudi Arabia?
Is there such a thing as "mainstream" Islam?
If you look at Christianity there is a fairly codified hierarchy there, even if there are about the same number of sects in Christianity as there is Islam and Judaism. If you look at Catholicism, you're picking up about half of them (ignoring the breakaways), and they've all got a structure in place.
Islam seems more heterogenuous even if the broad belief structures are still the same for a number of the 70-odd sects or interpretations or what have you. Some of the ones claiming to be the same interpret their shit differently e.g. that article someone (@dk ?) linked a while back from the Atlantic that compared Salafism from the terrorist standpoint against the "quietist" Salafis.
-
@NTA said in Another attack in London:
@No-Quarter said in Another attack in London:
I also wonder when people like @Godder talk about 'mainstream' Islam what they mean exactly - Muslims in the west or Muslims in, say, Saudi Arabia?
Is there such a thing as "mainstream" Islam?
If you look at Christianity there is a fairly codified hierarchy there, even if there are about the same number of sects in Christianity as there is Islam and Judaism. If you look at Catholicism, you're picking up about half of them (ignoring the breakaways), and they've all got a structure in place.
Islam seems more heterogenuous even if the broad belief structures are still the same for a number of the 70-odd sects or interpretations or what have you. Some of the ones claiming to be the same interpret their shit differently e.g. that article someone (@dk ?) linked a while back from the Atlantic that compared Salafism from the terrorist standpoint against the "quietist" Salafis.
I can see the point there Nick, but this apparently independent and non-structured religion that is powerless to produce a united front in tackling terrorism often appears to be incredibly united and on the same page when there is a grievance or something to bitch about.
-
-
@Tim said in Another attack in London:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11869637
Nice rhetoric, but she has been charge for awhile and home secretary for even longer and did jack shit.
-
@canefan That is absolutely right and not very well understood by those defending it. Most people I know who are coming like white knights to defend all things islamic over the last few hours know incredibly little about the religion. They've never read the texts, they don't know the history, all they see is a different flavoured Christianity but one that is marginalised and must be protected at all costs unlike Christianity which is the foundation of all that is evil.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback The UK election seems worse than Trump vs Hillary. I'm leaning towards the Tory's as they probably won't try and combat terrorists with hugs and compliments..probably.
-
This from Brendan O'Neill hits the nail on the head perfectly
One of the major problems we face is not that our society is too mean about Islam, but that it flatters Islam too much. Islam now enjoys the same kind of moral protection from blasphemy and ridicule that Christianity once (wrongly) enjoyed. All last week I received furious emails and messages in response to two articles I wrote about the Manchester attack, telling me that using the word Islamist is Islamophobic, because it demeans Islam and its adherents by suggesting they have something to do with terrorism. This is why our political leaders so rarely use the terms Islamism, radical Islam and Islamic terrorism: because they want to avoid offending Islam and also because they don't want to stir up what they view as the public's bovine, hateful prejudices. This censorious privilege is not extended to any other religion. We do not avoid saying "Catholic paedophiles" about the priests who molested children for fear of tarring all Catholics with the same brush. We happily say "Christian fundamentalist"about people who are Christian and fundamentalist. We use "Buddhist extremists" to describe violent Buddhist groups in Myanmar. Only Islam is ringfenced from tough discussion; only terms that at some level include the word "Islam" are tightly policed; only criticism of Islam is deemed a mental illness -- Islamophobia.
This is incredibly dangerous. This censorious flattery of Islam is, in my view, a key contributor to the violence we have seen in recent years. Because when you constantly tell people that any mockery of their religion is tantamount to a crime, is vile and racist and unacceptable, you actively invite them, encourage them in fact, to become intolerant. You license their intolerance; you inflame their violent contempt for anyone who questions their dogmas; you provide a moral justification for their desire to punish those who insult their religion. From the 7/7 bombers to the Charlie Hebdo murderers to Salman Abedi in Manchester, all these terrorists -- Islamist terrorists -- expressed an extreme victim mentality and openly said they were punishing us for our disrespect of Islam, mistreatment of Muslims, ridiculing of Muhammad, etc. The Islamophobia industry and politicians who constantly say "Islam is great, leave Islam alone!" green-light this violence; they furnish it with a moral case and moral zeal.
There are no quick fixes to the terror problem, but here is a good start: oppose all censorship and all clampdowns on offence and blasphemy and so-called "Islamophobia". Every single one of them, whether they're legal, in the form of hate-speech laws, or informal, in the guise of self-censoring politicians being literally struck dumb on TV because they cannot muster up the word "Is...is...is...islamist". This will at least start the process of unravelling the Islamist victimhood narrative and its bizarre, violent and officially sanctioned sensitivity to criticism. And if anyone says this is "punching down" -- another intellectual weapon in the armoury of Islam-protecting censorship -- tell them that it is in fact punching up: up against a political class and legal system that has foolishly and outrageously sought to police criticism of a religion. This means that the supposedly correct response to terror attacks -- "don't criticise Islam" -- is absolutely the worst response. Making criticism of Islam as commonplace and acceptable as criticism of any other religion or ideology is the first step to denuding Islamist terrorism of its warped moral programme, and it will also demonstrate that our society prizes freedom of speech over everything else -- including your religion, your God, your prophets, your holy book and your feelings.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Another attack in London:
I can see the point there Nick, but this apparently independent and non-structured religion that is powerless to produce a united front in tackling terrorism often appears to be incredibly united and on the same page when there is a grievance or something to bitch about.
That's different to having a hierarchy.
There are still core tenets common to all of the sects of Islam, I assume.
Maybe they all don't like a particular thing they see. Maybe some of them will protest it vehemently as a group. But assuming they'll all start cutting heads off, or stabbing people on the high street, about that thing they don't like, is too broad a brush.
Funny thing: the news doesn't often report on the Muslims that see the thing they don't like in the news, and get on with their lives after a brief shake of the head.
-
@NTA said in Another attack in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Another attack in London:
I can see the point there Nick, but this apparently independent and non-structured religion that is powerless to produce a united front in tackling terrorism often appears to be incredibly united and on the same page when there is a grievance or something to bitch about.
That's different to having a hierarchy.
There are still core tenets common to all of the sects of Islam, I assume.
Maybe they all don't like a particular thing they see. Maybe some of them will protest it vehemently as a group. But assuming they'll all start cutting heads off, or stabbing people on the high street, about that thing they don't like, is too broad a brush.
Funny thing: the news doesn't often report on the Muslims that see the thing they don't like in the news, and get on with their lives after a brief shake of the head.
Who is assuming they'll all cut off heads? Who even suggested that?
My point is that I don't buy the argument that Muslims can do nothing about this at an individual or group level because they lack a Catholic like hierarchy.
-
@Rembrandt said in Another attack in London:
@canefan That is absolutely right and not very well understood by those defending it. Most people I know who are coming like white knights to defend all things islamic over the last few hours know incredibly little about the religion. They've never read the texts, they don't know the history, all they see is a different flavoured Christianity but one that is marginalised and must be protected at all costs unlike Christianity which is the foundation of all that is evil.
Yup, 100%. If you have not educated yourself on the topic then you cannot join the debate as anything but a puppet for someone elses ideas. Which is bad for a number of reasons not least being that you don't understand the motovation for those ideas.
-
Interesting piece on the inner thinkings at ground zero of the wahaabist disease, Saudi Arabia
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Another attack in London:
Who is assuming they'll all cut off heads? Who even suggested that?
Calm your farm. It's an expression of the level of violence some of them go to in the name of their religion. That's one extreme. The other is shaking your head and getting on with your life.
My point is that I don't buy the argument that Muslims can do nothing about this at an individual or group level because they lack a Catholic like hierarchy.
They can do something about it at every level if they're so inclined. The Manchester bomber was reported to authorities (more than once, I believe) by the Muslim community as one example. I imagine that's how a few of them get into watch lists in the first place.
Another attack in London