London Terror Attack

[Theodore]

Talking about double standards

[Jam]

Hello @CelticCrusader
What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

"Now I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in coexisting with that ideology. I'd rather do unto them before they do unto us." -lejens

[tedere12]

I don't like islam

[Snuden]

Hello @CelticCrusader
What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

"Now I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in coexisting with that ideology. I'd rather do unto them before they do unto us." -lejens

Whats wrong?

[Jam]

Hello @CelticCrusader
What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

"Now I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in coexisting with that ideology. I'd rather do unto them before they do unto us." -lejens

Whats wrong?

I have a headache and I stubbed my toe.

[deleted_user0]

I don't like islam

Thats fine. You dont have to like it. I dont like it either. Nor do i like christianity, capitalist spiritualism or fanatic atheism. But now what?

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

Like atheists who dont think its a gospel, buddhism is fine, and agnosticism too. Anyway the point is it doesnt really matter what you like and dislike, thats why we created a justice and legal state to begin with.

[deleted_user]

sociul contractu!

[Snuden]

Satanica dom spirituale.

[lejend]

This doesn't lead to anything if you go to some website and copy bits of the Koran that are cruel. This will produce endless posts not proving anything but the fact that you can find archaic and brutal parts in it. Like you can go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com, a "non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom." (LOL) and dig out the cruel parts.

All quotes are from Islamic texts, scholars and historians. They are accepted by most or all Muslims as legitimate. Nothing was made up by any website.

Then I can go to another website and dig out the nice parts in the Koran:

Sura 109:4-6: “To you be your religion, and to me my religion.”

You have to be cautious when reading random verses that confirm your wishful preconceptions. Random quotations aren't a good way of judging any book.

Do these websites include the context and an exegesis of peaceful verses too? For instance do they mention whether the verses are Mecca Quranic verses, revealed when Muhammad was weak and living in pagan Mecca, and that Mecca Quranic verses are abrogated by later Medinan verses, revealed when Muslims were numerous and based in Medina?

Sura 2:256: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.”

Islamic scholars, such as Shanqeeti, generally agree that the "no compulsion" Quranic verse is either overridden by the other verses, or refers to those who have become dhimmis and agreed to pay the jizya tax.

A glimpse of what it means to be a dhimmi, quoted from a book by a highly regarded Sufi Islamic jurist:

[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle...Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non—Muslims]...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells...their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [—work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths...[dhimmis] must hold their tongue...

Then, the very same can be done for Christianity.

Not at all, Theodore. However, Christianity is not the topic. The discussion is about Islam. "What about Christianity" isn't a valid opposing argument to "Islam is bad." You have to judge it "objectively."

You find so many contradicting statements about Islam and peace or Christianity and peace (or any other religion) that it is quite obvious that in both systems there is a lot of interpretation going on to create a coherent system of belief. You can argue that you don't like interpretations of Islam which you think are in the majority. You will not even convince anybody by stating that the Bible is supreme and the Koran promotes exclusively violence. You can score with that in a right-wing filter bubble, but nowhere else.

That's what I don't get - what is your goal here? Just like @deleted_user stated: "churist gud. muhumad, mad so bad. thread gg no re out." This is not a missionary forum. What is your plan of action and where are you going with your arguments?

Last point: Distinguish between Muslims and Islam. Even if everything you said were true, most people do not believe what you are stating about Islam. Otherwise we had 1.2 billion Muslims literally fighting everybody else. "Us" versus "them" rhetoric is not helpful by any means. Fight terrorists yes, reach out to the rest.

I believe it is up to the readers to decide whose arguments are more convincing. I think any reasonable person here can look at Islam's tenets and history and conclude, "this is not in accordance with my values and sense of right and wrong." Most polls show that while opinions on Muslims are mixed, most Westerners don't believe Islam is a particularly nice ideology. The only thing left then is to figure out just how many Muslims have radical values. You presumably believe it's a tiny minority. However, I think the numerous surveys of Muslims certainly show a different view. For those interested:

phpBB [video]

[lejend]

Hello @CelticCrusader
What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

"Now I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in coexisting with that ideology. I'd rather do unto them before they do unto us." -lejens

Yeah what's with people not wanting to live alongside headchoppers? Bigots, certainly.

[Dolan]

Still, the vast majority of people affected by Islamist terrorists are Muslim.

And what does that say about Islamism? Does it really matter who the victims are, of which religion or beliefs?

What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

I don't think it matters that much which religions are to blame here. It's not a question of particulars, Muslims or Christians, it's a question of having one part of the world that is still stuck in the Middle Ages, in terms of mentality, political organisation, laws and so on. And when these people migrate to another country, they bring their Medieval mentalities to the West. That's what this is about.

Those who integrate unfortunately are not so many, every ethnic/religious group has some people who are culturally flexible, you can find such examples in every culture. This type of culturally flexible individuals will adapt to the new culture, no matter what, because that's how their personalities are, they are tamer than the average Muslim.

This is actually an interesting topic, psychologists could study what type of personality are those people from the West who convert to Islamism. Because it seems to me they usually fit this profile: self-righteous and slightly violent or aggressive individuals, like Cassius Clay or Nicolas Anelka. For women it's usually another profile: women who either follow their Muslim husband or need some kind of resolution to a life crisis and seek solace in a set of beliefs which sets them into a groove, a framework which limits their freedom (that's right, some people yearn for less freedom, that's what they mean when they say they need guidance).

[lejend]

Actually a large number of Western Islamic converts are criminals. Others are black racists who feel that the Christian religion is a "white" religion. But most converts revert within a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversio ... in_prisons

[deleted_user0]

Actually a large number of Western Islamic converts are criminals. Others are black racists who feel that the Christian religion is a "white" religion. But most converts revert within a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversio ... in_prisons

Didnt racism only exist in the minds of left snowflakes who have never set a foot outside the door? Is this a confession, mrs lejenda?

[deleted_user0]

Not at all, Theodore. However, Christianity is not the topic. The discussion is about Islam. "What about Christianity" isn't a valid opposing argument to "Islam is bad." You have to judge it "objectively."

Actually I believe the topic was a person killing other innocent people in london. Or if you want to be specific, a caucasian male, apparantly atheist, killing a number of colored people, following the muslim religion. So let's stick to the topic, shall we? Tell me lejenda, in what world is it just to strike at someone who has done you no wrong, and call it revenge, even if there is no act done by that person that is to be avenged?

[gibson]

Actually a large number of Western Islamic converts are criminals. Others are black racists who feel that the Christian religion is a "white" religion. But most converts revert within a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversio ... in_prisons

Didnt racism only exist in the minds of left snowflakes who have never set a foot outside the door? Is this a confession, mrs lejenda?

racism only exists in those who are politically juxtaposed to one's self haven't you heard?

[Theodore]

@lejend It would still be nice if you could explain your agenda. Because I have not seen a lot of helpful comments on your behalf. No one ever suggested to live alongside Isis' "headchoppers" and not fighting terrorists. Or are you trolling? Even the very article just linked perfectly sums it up: "By targeting prisons, radical streams of Islam can focus on a specific violent criminal subgroup of non-Muslims for their conversion efforts by appealing to the prospective convert's pre-existing negative traits. These negative traits are appealed to with a version of Islam that is violent, anti-social, and criminal not only by the standards of the surrounding non-Muslim host culture, but also by the standards of the majority of Muslims who follow mainstream moderate interpretations of Islam." Obviously it is no coincidence that radical Islamists target people in prison, and socio-economic factors play a big role here. And the discussion about criminality in general is a different discussion than the one about terrorists. A thief who happens to be Muslim certainly has certainly not acted upon faith.

@Dolan has a valid point, I'm trying to make the whole discussion: "I don't think it matters that much which religions are to blame here". We can argue about the extent to which it is possible to integrate them or how much integration people want. But there is no way in denying that socio-economic factors play an important role when it comes to a topic like immigration. And again, terrorism is a different subject. Coming to Europe to live there is not coming to Europe to kill people, these two don't go well together. And it has been mentioned before: those people having committed terrorist attacks where for the vast majority of people not immigrants.

[lejend]

@lejend It would still be nice if you could explain your agenda. Because I have not seen a lot of helpful comments on your behalf. No one ever suggested to live alongside Isis' "headchoppers" and not fighting terrorists. Or are you trolling? Even the very article just linked perfectly sums it up: "By targeting prisons, radical streams of Islam can focus on a specific violent criminal subgroup of non-Muslims for their conversion efforts by appealing to the prospective convert's pre-existing negative traits. These negative traits are appealed to with a version of Islam that is violent, anti-social, and criminal not only by the standards of the surrounding non-Muslim host culture, but also by the standards of the majority of Muslims who follow mainstream moderate interpretations of Islam." Obviously it is no coincidence that radical Islamists target people in prison, and socio-economic factors play a big role here. And the discussion about criminality in general is a different discussion than the one about terrorists. A thief who happens to be Muslim certainly has certainly not acted upon faith.

The Wikipedia article sanitizes Islam's nature quite a bit, as I've shown over the past few pages. I only linked it to show that much of the convert population are criminals, rather than regular people.

Actually I believe the topic was a person killing other innocent people in london. Or if you want to be specific, a caucasian male, apparantly atheist, killing a number of colored people, following the muslim religion. So let's stick to the topic, shall we? Tell me lejenda, in what world is it just to strike at someone who has done you no wrong, and call it revenge, even if there is no act done by that person that is to be avenged?

You have some kind of fetish for defending "marginalized" oppressors? First you praise Vikings, who were savage murderers and rapists, then Aztecs, and now Muslims? If an innocent victim requested help against a criminal, would you reject her and assist in the crime? You have issues, girl.

[deleted_user0]

Actually I believe the topic was a person killing other innocent people in london. Or if you want to be specific, a caucasian male, apparantly atheist, killing a number of colored people, following the muslim religion. So let's stick to the topic, shall we? Tell me lejenda, in what world is it just to strike at someone who has done you no wrong, and call it revenge, even if there is no act done by that person that is to be avenged?

You have some kind of fetish for defending "marginalized" oppressors? First you praise Vikings, who were savage murderers and rapists, then Aztecs, and now Muslims? If an innocent victim requested help against a criminal, would you reject her and assist in the crime? You have issues, girl.

Please, focus on the topic. "Marginalized" oppressors, whatever that may be, are not the topic here. Do not try to argue as if one bad justifies another bad. Can you please answer my question for once? I know this is very difficult for you, but thank you.

I'm merely taking the position of the victims here, while you are seemingly of the conviction that it's only bad to kill people if they are of a certain [insert > skin color/moral conviction/culture], whereas, if the perpetrator is of the aforementioned group, and the victim is not, you don't seem to care. Seems a bit selective to me, dare I say, discriminating?

[lejend]

Actually I believe the topic was a person killing other innocent people in london. Or if you want to be specific, a caucasian male, apparantly atheist, killing a number of colored people, following the muslim religion. So let's stick to the topic, shall we? Tell me lejenda, in what world is it just to strike at someone who has done you no wrong, and call it revenge, even if there is no act done by that person that is to be avenged?

You have some kind of fetish for defending "marginalized" oppressors? First you praise Vikings, who were savage murderers and rapists, then Aztecs, and now Muslims? If an innocent victim requested help against a criminal, would you reject her and assist in the crime? You have issues, girl.

Please, focus on the topic. "Marginalized" oppressors, whatever that may be, are not the topic here. Do not try to argue as if one bad justifies another bad. Can you please answer my question for once? I know this is very difficult for you, but thank you.

I'm merely taking the position of the victims here, while you are seemingly of the conviction that it's only bad to kill people if they are of a certain [insert > skin color/moral conviction/culture], whereas, if the perpetrator is of the aforementioned group, and the victim is not, you don't seem to care. Seems a bit selective to me, dare I say, discriminating?

Cool let's see the quote.

[InsectPoison]

Am i the only one who thinks its hilarious that you guys are arguing over the internet about who has the moral high ground? People have opinions, can we not respect eachothers opinions?

[deleted_user0]

I said seemingly, feel free to correct my observation if you believe its wrong. In the mean while, feel free to answer my question anytime

Who comitted the crime here is clear, who the victims are is clear as well, its even clear that victims did nothing to antagonize the criminal, yet you try to migitate the crime and you demonize the victims, i just wonder why that is. It seems to me because neither the criminal nor the victims had the correct religious background. Now we both know how youd respond if it was the reverse. Can you justify this selectiveness?

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[InsectPoison]

Am i the only one who thinks its hilarious that you guys are arguing over the internet about who has the moral high ground? People have opinions, can we not respect eachothers opinions?

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that people ever discuss things at all? People know things which I don't, I don't see why I would need to know other people's viewpoints when I already have my own. No one should ever discuss anything and trying to discuss someone else's views is a waste of time, even though the internet is one of the best places for these kinds of discussion because it's in written form and lengthy posts can be made easily.

I like your over sarcastic way to one up me...