-
@No-Quarter said in Ferners in London:
As @Baron-Silas-Greenback points out the ideologies behind terrorist groups in the past were roundly criticised. But when it comes to ISIS we have to ignore the toxic ideology they are pushing because racism or something.
I think there is a difference - first, Catholicism wasn't made out as a hateful ideology in a general sense. Neither was being Irish
The IRA is recognised for what it is: a political organisation using a religious schism as a pretense for hurting others. That's an important point, because the criticism recognises the difference.
Islam, by contrast, has blurry lines between faith vs religion vs ideology. Those are three levels that are fairly easy to slot into place for something like Christianity in modern society.
-
@No-Quarter You beat me to it somewhat.
Oh you Europeans, chill out. Donāt worry about Islam, itās quite benign really. In fact, those damn Catholics were way worse in the 1970s. Iām sure Europeans are taking lots of comfort in graphs showing there are less terrorism-related deaths now than in the 1970s. Iām also pretty sure that currently an Islamic extremist is more dangerous to a European than a statistic.
Thereās also a fair bit of not comparing apples with apples in this graph. Islamic extremism operates worldwide whereas the IRA and BMG for example had exclusively European theatres of operation. If we accept that the graph is referring to the IRAās role in all the deaths caused by The Troubles (3,500 is quoted below), then in fact the IRA targeted Northern Ireland almost exclusively.
ISIS, for example, is actively engaged in civil war in Syria and is probably somewhat distracted on that front from its other activities including funding and managing terrorist cells in Europe. Assuming ISIS retreats from Syria etc, and they begin to target their resources on terror cells in Europe, then perhaps we can compare terrorism deaths in Europe across eras.
The IRA (I know there were a few branches) is effectively defunct having been survived by the political wing, Sinn Fein, which survives today as the third largest political party in Ireland. Many people, while disgusted with the IRA, were optimistic that diplomacy would eventually prevail.
Does anyone imagine that ISIS or other Islamic terror groups will ever have a political wing that you could actually talk to?
Facts from Wiki: about 260 of the roughly 3,500 killed in āThe Troublesā occurred outside NI, mostly in Ireland and England. You would probably argue that Irish republicanism is or was most dear to the people who actually lived in the āinvadedā land (NI).
BMG killed 34 people in three decades, and its attacks were mostly in Germany (with the odd one in Belgium, Holland and Sweden).
Of course, Islamic extremism is responsible for 3,000 people in a single go on Sep 11. But this ācomfortingā graph doesnāt recognise that.
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
@No-Quarter said in Ferners in London:
As @Baron-Silas-Greenback points out the ideologies behind terrorist groups in the past were roundly criticised. But when it comes to ISIS we have to ignore the toxic ideology they are pushing because racism or something.
I think there is a difference - first, Catholicism wasn't made out as a hateful ideology in a general sense. Neither was being Irish
The IRA is recognised for what it is: a political organisation using a religious schism as a pretense for hurting others. That's an important point, because the criticism recognises the difference.
Islam, by contrast, has blurry lines between faith vs religion vs ideology. Those are three levels that are fairly easy to slot into place for something like Christianity in modern society.
Then why is it a problem to recognise that a religion is being used to kill people? Why the massive aversion to even connect the word Islam to these acts of terror?
Simple. It's because this is a "foreign" religion, the adherents are mostly "brown" people and therefore any criticism of something worshipped by foreign and brown people is racist or bigoted by definition.
It's as ridiculous as criticising abuse by priests but being too scared to mention the word Catholic.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
It's as ridiculous as criticising abuse by priests but being too scared to mention the word Catholic.
Yes. But to be fair, the other sects of Christianity have a few of their own issues in that regard.
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
It's as ridiculous as criticising abuse by priests but being too scared to mention the word Catholic.
Yes. But to be fair, the other sects of Christianity have a few of their own issues in that regard.
What's your point?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel humour. Forgot my smiley face.
In any case, what this all leads to is: how do you isolate the problem elements while not alienating the rest who have done nothing wrong?
"Hey you! Guy who never did anything bad to anyone, was born here, and contributes to society in a positive and meaningful way - your religion is shit! Fix it!"
More conflict is all you'll get out of that. Same as banning them or whatever.
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel humour. Forgot my smiley face.
In any case: what this all leads to is: how do you isolate the problem elements while not alienating the rest who have done nothing wrong?
"Hey you! Guy who never did anything bad to anyone, was born here, and contributes to society in a positive and meaningful way - your religion is shit! Fix it!"
More conflict is all you'll get out of that. Same as banning them or whatever.
Funny how that kind of sensitivity isn't extended to any other religion. Funny how no one expects Catholics or Mormons to radicalise and blow shit up if someone dares offend their religion. If criticising a religion in a western country is likely to cause the adherents of that religion to want to kill innocent people, then maybe, just maybe, that religion has a slight problem.
BTW, this isn't about accusing all Muslims of being terrorists. It's about identifying what the problem is and going from there. How the hell are we supposed to tackle this problem if everyone regurgitates at the very thought of even mentioning Islam and terrorism in the same sentence?
-
The other "minimisation" tactic used in reporting in the UK is to identify the Islamic terrorist by the widest possible brush - his continental ethnic group. In this most recent instance, the man was described as "Asian", as though there was a 80% chance he was Indian. Associations representing Hindus and Sikhs in the UK tend to get very annoyed about this and rightly so.
-
I don't see how ignoring the issue of Islamic terrorism is helping moderate Islam at all, there are millions of Muslims living in the west going about who are as repulsed as the rest of us by this bullshit . pretending there's no issue doesn't help them and only helps the nutters who are insisting there's a conspiracy to suppress the truth about Muslims in the west .
That graph with attached sanctimonious nonsense was pretty selective . Ignores the bombings in the states and what's been happening in the stans and Arab world and Israel completely.
-
Well, the Mayor of London is Muslim, he was voted in, and he's proving pretty popular.
I have shifted my stance a bit on Islam recently, almost purely because of him.
The problem is with nutjobs, and I'm sick of them being labelled terrorists. As the old saying goes, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - what fucking bullshit. These fuckers live in countries with freedom.
Sorry, I know I'm not being logical, but I'm sick to fuck of these guys being given any label other than lunatics who would fuck their own mothers. In my eyes terrorism means using un-necessary violence to fight for a cause. And as far as I'm concerned, these fuckers have no cause. One of their own, is the major of one of the worlds 2 true super cities.
They are fucking nutjobs/lunatics/motherfuckers and they deserve absolutely no other title than that.
(I had a beer at lunch)
-
@MajorRage said in Ferners in London:
Well, the Mayor of London is Muslim, he was voted in, and he's proving pretty popular.
I have shifted my stance a bit on Islam recently, almost purely because of him.
The problem is with nutjobs, and I'm sick of them being labelled terrorists. As the old saying goes, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - what fucking bullshit. These fuckers live in countries with freedom.
Sorry, I know I'm not being logical, but I'm sick to fuck of these guys being given any label other than lunatics who would fuck their own mothers. In my eyes terrorism means using un-necessary violence to fight for a cause. And as far as I'm concerned, these fuckers have no cause. One of their own, is the major of one of the worlds 2 true super cities.
They are fucking nutjobs/lunatics/motherfuckers and they deserve absolutely no other title than that.
(I had a beer at lunch)
Him being Muslim is not a problem. He supports Liverpool AFC, now that's a
Problem! -
@Tregaskis That might not be the case. They have now issued more details. He was born in Kent and his birth name was Adrian Elms. Doesn't sound too Indian. or Asian come to that.
Still, no doubt more will come out in time.
-
Apologies if I'm wrong in this instance. I made my comment based on this picture of the perp being treated (see attached).
-
@Tregaskis said in Ferners in London:
Apologies if I'm wrong in this instance. I made my comment based on this picture of the perp being treated (see attached).
Maybe, like other ISIS inspired cretins, he is a recent devout convert?
-
@Tregaskis said in Ferners in London:
l'm reading Adrian Russell Ajao, then Adrian Elms, then Khalid Masood.
Yep, same source that described his birthname as Elms now says Ajao and has Elms as an alias.
More to come yet.
Ferners in London