Bastille day truck crash
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="598149" data-time="1468922072">
<div>
<p>That's wonderful but it was quite clear that I wasn't talking about the 3rd world. Many of the guys responsible for terrorist attacks in the West and indeed those going to fight for ISIS have had quite privileged upbringings. It's a bit difficult to say that the root causes were poverty and lack of education when referring to these guys.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>terrorism in the west in the name of islam is a relatively recent concern. if we want it to go away i think it makes sense to ask what has caused it - and it's not what is written in the book, that's been around for ages. the wars in afghanistan and iraq (and particularly its false rationale) have made it very easy to paint the west as anti-islam, as murderers of muslims, invaders etc to susceptible people. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>so i guess nutters is how i explain it. most people with a decent level of education can see that the koran is not true, and should not be followed literally, but there will always be some nutters. nutters can kill people off their own bat, and nutters can be exploited/manipulated by evil people. i'm hypothesising a young stupid bloke, loser, employment problems, relationship problems, no friends, mental health issues, family left their country, family subjected to anti-muslim sentiment in new country - looking for someone to blame for all those things - and someone tells him that the west is to blame. the west hates muslims. they kill our people. look what they did to iraq, the lies they told to justify that. nobody will give me a good job because they hate muslims, that's why my wife left me etc etc.</p>
<p>the guy in nice fits a fair bit of that profile so far. alternatively:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="598139" data-time="1468919776">
<div>
<p>...those idiots in France who hate everything beacuse they are on roids, have no job, and their wife & kids left them & are looking for a reason... </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>all of which leads me to believe that treating muslims well is a better option.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598170" data-time="1468928066">
<div>
<p>Following your logic and some peoples reluctance to criticise Islam. You must not criticise the Nazi ideology.... yeah thats a good idea. The Nazi regime was based on an nasty ideology. So is Islam. </p>
<p>Both have found fertile ground in certain situations.</p>
<p>I do have a sneaking suspicion that there would have been many people who if alive in at that moment in time in 1936 would have a similar attitude towards the Nazi doctrine as they currently have about the Islamic religion. Appease appease appease .'Not all Nazis are bad', 'we need to be more understanding', 'It is all our fault they are like this', 'we cannot go to war with them' etc etc </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>nobody is reluctant to criticise islam. the koran is nonsense. just because we don't think muslims should be forced to eat pork sandwiches at our airports, and think the situation may be a little more complex than you, doesn't mean we think that violence or oppression is okay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>do you realise that your nazi analogy suggests that you think: all muslims are bad, we should be less understanding, we are blame-free, and that we should go to war with islam?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="598191" data-time="1468934035">
<div>
<p>nobody is reluctant to criticise islam. the koran is nonsense. just because we don't think muslims should be forced to eat pork sandwiches at our airports, and think the situation may be a little more complex than you, doesn't mean we think that violence or oppression is okay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>do you realise that your nazi analogy suggests that you think: all muslims are bad, we should be less understanding, we are blame-free, and that we should go to war with islam?</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm pretty sure he's about to tell you how he said nothing of the sort in a little while</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="598189" data-time="1468932981">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>all of which leads me to believe that treating muslims well is a better option.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>How about just treating them like everyone else?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="598191" data-time="1468934035">
<div>
<p>nobody is reluctant to criticise islam. the koran is nonsense. just because we don't think muslims should be forced to eat pork sandwiches at our airports, and think the situation may be a little more complex than you, doesn't mean we think that violence or oppression is okay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>do you realise that your nazi analogy suggests that you think: all muslims are bad, we should be less understanding, we are blame-free, and that we should go to war with islam?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>My Nazi analogy? It was Gollums, I was just demonstrating its stupidity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Great you don't think violence and oppression is ok, What about people who support ideologies that think violence and oppression are ok?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="598195" data-time="1468934911"><p>I'm pretty sure he's about to tell you how he said nothing of the sort in a little while</p></blockquote>
Well that's because he didn't. His whole point is to stop appeasing violent ideologies. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. -
<br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="598191" data-time="1468934035"><p>nobody is reluctant to criticise islam. the koran is nonsense. just because we don't think muslims should be forced to eat pork sandwiches at our airports, and think the situation may be a little more complex than you, doesn't mean we think that violence or oppression is okay.</p></blockquote>
<br>
See I don't understand how you can say "we can criticise Islam" but as soon as it gets called out as a key motivating factor for the countless mass murders committed in its name suddenly we have to be all hush hush don't say that or you'll offend all the peaceful Muslims.<br><br>
Are you saying we can criticise some parts of it but not others? We can call out the fact that their god doesn't exist because there's no evidence, but we can't criticise the many passages in it that promote violence and oppression? The same violence and oppression that is common place in Middle Eastern countries?<br><br>
Why are you so determined to prove there is no link between Islam and violence/oppression?<br><br>
Education is key because it teaches people that there is no way any of the Koran is based on fact, so they discard it along with all of the violent evil shit that is in there. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="598189" data-time="1468932981">
'>His response suggested </a>that the newspapers and general public simply have to be corrected and re-educated about the facts.</strong></span></p>
<div>
<p>terrorism in the west in the name of islam is a relatively recent concern. if we want it to go away i think it makes sense to ask what has caused it - and it's not what is written in the book, that's been around for ages. the wars in afghanistan and iraq (and particularly its false rationale) have made it very easy to paint the west as anti-islam, as murderers of muslims, invaders etc to susceptible people. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>so i guess nutters is how i explain it. most people with a decent level of education can see that the koran is not true, and should not be followed literally, but there will always be some nutters. nutters can kill people off their own bat, and nutters can be exploited/manipulated by evil people. i'm hypothesising a young stupid bloke, loser, employment problems, relationship problems, no friends, mental health issues, family left their country, family subjected to anti-muslim sentiment in new country - looking for someone to blame for all those things - and someone tells him that the west is to blame. the west hates muslims. they kill our people. look what they did to iraq, the lies they told to justify that. nobody will give me a good job because they hate muslims, that's why my wife left me etc etc.</p>
<p>the guy in nice fits a fair bit of that profile so far. alternatively:</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>all of which leads me to believe that treating muslims well is a better option.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Another relatively recent phenomenon is large-scale Muslim migration to Western countries....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those traits you listed above are held by countless young men of every faith and denomination. Yet it is overwhelmingly the followers of one particular faith that commit acts of terrorism and violence in the name of that religion. And, as I mentioned before, the scary part is thinking about how much worse the problem would be without the enormous amounts of effort and money spent on combating this. How many more Paris attacks, Nices, London Tube bombings etc. etc. would we be seeing if the security services weren't doing their job?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This religion has a serious problem that needs to be addressed. This whole, "but Christianity is just as bad because of the Crusades" is absolutely ridiculous and does nothing to address the actual problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I refer you to this excellent article from Douglas Murray, a gay journalist who for obvious reasons isn't exactly enamoured with Islam:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span>These day in Europe you don’t have to reach back many months to find carnage even exceeding that in Nice last night.</span></p>
<p><span>We still don’t have many details about last night’s attacker. But we know that the man driving the truck was called Mohammed. Of course that doesn’t mean there is any connection to Mohammed Atta, Mohammed Merah, Mohammed Bouyeri, Mohammed Sadiq Khan, Mohammed Abrini or the most famous Mohammed of all – Mohammed. On the contrary, the striking prevalence of people called Mohammed going nuts and slaughtering everyone is just an unhappy coincidence. It could just have easily been people called Gary or Nigel.</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p><span>At present all those people who like to extol the ‘You’re all guilty’ theory whenever a non-Muslim terrorist does something are busy talking up the ‘crazy, loner, no-mates’ theory about last night’s attacker. They may be right or they may be wrong. But is a certain degree of introspection too much to ask at a time like this?</span></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><span>While the chatterati play these games, publics around the world and especially in France are on a steep and unpleasant learning-curve. Although politicians and pundits of left and right don’t like mentioning the salient facts – let alone draw any policy conclusions from them – the public are coming to their own conclusions about the problem. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2013/01/24/les-crispations-alarmantes-de-la-societe-francaise_1821655_823448.html'>In a poll carried out</a> two years before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, 74% of French people said they had come to the conclusion that Islam is an intolerant religion which is incompatible with the French state. I wonder what that figure will be now?</span></p>
<p><span>Of course we must keep stressing that the majority of Muslims do not approve of this kind of violence. But one does begin to wonder why quite so many Muslims use the aftermath of an atrocity like last night’s to engage in misinformation and Dawah (proselytising). I’m thinking of those Muslims (and a good many non-Muslims) who keep insisting that the problem is simply that European publics just need better information or more education and that, in any case, ‘Islam is the answer’. ‘If only we didn’t have tabloid newspapers we could get that number down to under 50%’ they imagine. It’s a fine theory until you ponder how anyone could put a positive gloss on events like those last night in Nice.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span>In any case, a growing number of people feel they have got quite enough information already. They do not think it is their eyes and ears that have got it wrong, and they do not want to keep hearing from nearly every Muslim with any public profile that the problem is ‘Islamophobia’ or misrepresentations of their otherwise blameless and peaceable religion. <strong>They want such people to admit – as many of the rest of us would admit – with burning concern and shame that they have a big problem on their hands which they need help in solving. Even now very few Muslim public figures are willing to do this. In a recent interview with Al-Jazeera the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was asked about how to tackle ‘Islamophobia’. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='
<p> </p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Here is a different suggestion: do everything you can to stop people called Mohammed committing mass slaughter in Europe on a bi-monthly basis. Get the hatred out of the mosques and the books, get the bigotry out of the community and the slightest tolerance of it identified as a major part of the problem.</span></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><span>Of course most Muslims can’t do anything themselves to stop somebody like last night’s attacker carrying out such a deed, but they can at least have the decency to look like they’re taking part in the kind of criticism and introspection the rest of us would take part in if someone sharing even a jot of our identity had carried out such an attack.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>It’s not a wholesale solution, but it would be a start.</span></strong></p> -
<p>Good article.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The religion is self-fulfilling in that the book itself says it can't be criticised, and anyone who does so is basically infidel. So just ignoring bits is going to get most Muslims by on a day-to-day basis, but it isn't going to lead to reform that scrubs out all the medieval shit written in it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When Christianity reformed, it was criticised by Christians on points of order. Everyone was still Christian afterwards, more or less.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Islam's critics are more likely to be outside the religion itself - though it is probable that those within who seek reform are there, they just don't have enough traction.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="598250" data-time="1468971816">
<div>
<p>Good article.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The religion is self-fulfilling in that the book itself says it can't be criticised, and anyone who does so is basically infidel. So just ignoring bits is going to get most Muslims by on a day-to-day basis, but it isn't going to lead to reform that scrubs out all the medieval shit written in it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When Christianity reformed, it was criticised by Christians on points of order. Everyone was still Christian afterwards, more or less.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Islam's critics are more likely to be outside the religion itself - though it is probable that those within who seek reform are there, they just don't have enough traction.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>And the christian reformers had a strong case they were moire closely following the words of Jesus than then non reformers. Any Muslim reformer is a some point going ton have to say that the words of Mohammed were..... 'misunderstood'</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="598250" data-time="1468971816">
<div>
<p>Good article.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The religion is self-fulfilling in that the book itself says it can't be criticised, and anyone who does so is basically infidel. So just ignoring bits is going to get most Muslims by on a day-to-day basis, but it isn't going to lead to reform that scrubs out all the medieval shit written in it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When Christianity reformed, it was criticised by Christians on points of order. Everyone was still Christian afterwards, more or less.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Islam's critics are more likely to be outside the religion itself - though it is probable that those within who seek reform are there, they just don't have enough traction.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It can moderate. The Iran of today seems to be far more moderate than Khomeini's Iran. They are not there yet but they are slowly moving in the right direction. We can debate whether it is due in large part to Western sanctions or whether leadership inside Iran are moving that way on their own</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598259" data-time="1468973056">
<div>
<p>And the christian reformers had a strong case they were moire closely following the words of Jesus than then non reformers. Any Muslim reformer is a some point going ton have to say that the words of Mohammed were..... 'misunderstood'</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Maybe not even misunderstood - at the time it was codified, that shit like making seasonal war was probably relevant to the lives of his followers :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Perhaps more about relevance and progress. That way it gives followers a way to say he wasn't necessarily wrong (which is huge in terms of being infidel), but speaking through a frame of reference over a thousand years ago that doesn't apply today.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="598261" data-time="1468973643">
<div>
<p>It can moderate. The Iran of today seems to be far more moderate than Khomeini's Iran. They are not there yet but they are slowly moving in the right direction. We can debate whether it is due in large part to Western sanctions or whether leadership inside Iran are moving that way on their own</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes but I've been thinking about it, and while it <em>can</em> moderate, while the word of the book is deemed infallible, there will always be people who seek to use it the way they want.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>dK posted up an article from The Atlantic a while back - was quite long, but a good read. Titled something like "What ISIS actually wants" - and went on to explain how, obtrusively, the short answer is "Armageddon".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But it also painted a picture around defining <em>why</em> that was the case, and in particular looked at Salafism - an ultra-conservative form of Islam which roughly translates to "devout ancestors", and is a real back-to-roots version of things.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>ISIS take it to mean following the book literally, and returning to a state of war and establishing Caliphates for the great glory of Allah etc. just like back when it was a tribal battleground.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some others ("quietists") take it to mean returning to the core principles of belief; to understand what it is to be Muslim and live a simple life. Removal of self from worldly politics, and concentrating on introspection, self-perfection in study and worship. Its almost Buddhist but with more rules.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ah - here it is: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/'>http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598259" data-time="1468973056">
<div>
<p>And the christian reformers had a strong case they were moire closely following the words of Jesus than then non reformers. Any Muslim reformer is a some point going ton have to say that the words of Mohammed were..... 'misunderstood'</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>There's zero difference, much of what makes Islam shithouse now runs very contrary to Muhammed. Same as with Jesus. J / M said or did "X". Died. Blokes later realised they needed to tweak it to get power. So tweaked. Shit like the way modern Islam treats women is a mile from Muhammed, eg "women can't work & must stay home & be subserviant!" v Mo marrying his employer & relying on her for advice & her business skills for money. Or marrying child brides to fuck now v Mo marrying 50 year old widows of his comanders to ensure they had the protection of a family.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But if I'm a muslim leader now & I want to nail a 16 year old girl because my wife is fat I can twist that & say "the prohpet married 5 times, so thats all good! bring the Olsen twins here"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Islam is a lot like Christianity in that once the whiole conquest thing went & especially after the split happened, to maintain control alot of Muhamed's Islam got tossed in favour of local - almost always shithouse, traditions. So while we in the UK got Xmas because the pagans demanded it, North African musilims got FGM because most of North Africa were doing it. As a bonus the Christians in North Africa had already adopted it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598223" data-time="1468967245">
<div>
<p>My Nazi analogy? It was Gollums, I was just demonstrating its stupidity.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>If you ever bothered reading what anyone else writes you'd have seen my use of the Nazis was to show that when the state utterly fails people will cling to anything providing order no matter how horrific. Thatys stupid how? Its literal;ly happened 100's of times throughout history? Maybe you can point to an utterly failed state where everything stayed peachy?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="598346" data-time="1469006164">
<div>
<p>There's zero difference, much of what makes Islam shithouse now runs very contrary to Muhammed. Same as with Jesus. J / M said or did "X". Died. Blokes later realised they needed to tweak it to get power. So tweaked. Shit like the way modern Islam treats women is a mile from Muhammed, eg "women can't work & must stay home & be subserviant!" v Mo marrying his employer & relying on her for advice & her business skills for money. Or marrying child brides to fuck now v Mo marrying 50 year old widows of his comanders to ensure they had the protection of a family.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But if I'm a muslim leader now & I want to nail a 16 year old girl because my wife is fat I can twist that & say "the prohpet married 5 times, so thats all good! bring the Olsen twins here"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Islam is a lot like Christianity in that once the whiole conquest thing went & especially after the split happened, to maintain control alot of Muhamed's Islam got tossed in favour of local - almost always shithouse, traditions. So while we in the UK got Xmas because the pagans demanded it, North African musilims got FGM because most of North Africa were doing it. As a bonus the Christians in North Africa had already adopted it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you ever bothered reading what anyone else writes you'd have seen my use of the Nazis was to show that when the state utterly fails people will cling to anything providing order no matter how horrific. Thatys stupid how? Its literal;ly happened 100's of times throughout history? Maybe you can point to an utterly failed state where everything stayed peachy?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well if that is your understanding of Christianity as compared to Islam. That explains a lot.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598355" data-time="1469009136">
<div>
<p>Well if that is your understanding of Christianity as compared to Islam. That explains a lot.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Please... Christianity is a bastardised mix of every cult that they assimilated. The Bible has literally been re-written by Kings to make it more useful to them to hold power. Is this really news to you? </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="598359" data-time="1469010157"><p>Please... Christianity is a bastardised mix of every cult that they assimilated. The Bible has literally been re-written by Kings to make it more useful to them to hold power. Is this really news to you?<br></p></blockquote>Constantine the Great basically commissioned the bible and Catholicism is a mix of pagan religions and Christianity
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598221" data-time="1468967212">
<div>
<p>How about just treating them like everyone else?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>that would be fine, but it's certainly not what you've been advocating.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="598223" data-time="1468967245">
<div>
<p>Great you don't think violence and oppression is ok, What about people who support ideologies that think violence and oppression are ok?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>it's really pretty simple, it's the same rule for muslims as for everyone else:</p>
<p>any muslim who supports violence and oppression can get fucked.</p>
<p>any muslim who doesn't is fine. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="598236" data-time="1468969555">
<div>
<p>
See I don't understand how you can say "we can criticise Islam" but as soon as it gets called out as a key motivating factor for the countless mass murders committed in its name suddenly we have to be all hush hush don't say that or you'll offend all the peaceful Muslims.<br><br>
Are you saying we can criticise some parts of it but not others? We can call out the fact that their god doesn't exist because there's no evidence, but we can't criticise the many passages in it that promote violence and oppression? The same violence and oppression that is common place in Middle Eastern countries?<br><br>
Why are you so determined to prove there is no link between Islam and violence/oppression?<br><br>
Education is key because it teaches people that there is no way any of the Koran is based on fact, so they discard it along with all of the violent evil shit that is in there.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>criticise away mate; here i'll get things started: islam is ridiculous, the koran is definitively a bunch of lies and nonsense and has some really hateful stuff in there. not surprising given how old the piece of shit is, and that all makes following the teachings of that book ludicrous. of course allah doesn't exist, the koran is supposedly the direct word isn't it? well, he's got some pretty basic facts wrong for an all-powerful being.</p>
<p>and by all means criticise the passages that call for violence and oppression, go for your life - i don't know them unfortunately, so i can't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>i really don't understand how anyone can think i am trying to appease anyone. i just don't think it is the key motivating factor. your violence and oppression commonplace in the middle east is the same violence and oppression that is commonplace in christian africa. the difference being that it is the middle east that the iraq and afghanistan wars have turned into anti-western terrorists. the number of people killed there is horrific- nobody really even knows, but let's say 500000, which is probably very conservative.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>now take a second to get your head around the size of that fucking huge number. then compare it to the 80 in nice and look at our reaction, and ask yourself is it any wonder that you get some people from there blaming the west? do we seriously think the cause is a passage in a book from 600AD?</p>