London Terror Attack

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

I would agree it's murder, but it's not just a murder imo. The guy who killed the british politician just before brexit, it was murder, but it was not your regular murder (if there is such a thing). Murders happen for different reasons, I suppose I would say a regular murder is one where you kill someone because you want that person dead, whereas an act of terror is killing someone because you want other people to suffer/be scared/feel the consequences. There is a nuance there which I believe is quite important.

[momuuu]

Yet you could see this "terror attack" was done as an act of revenge rather than an attempt to bring fear to people.

[deleted_user0]

Yet you could see this "terror attack" was done as an act of revenge rather than an attempt to bring fear to people.

Thats exactly the same argument as jihadis use. Theyre doing it as revenge, in their minds anyway. Its just a poor argument on both sides.

[momuuu]

I dont really find it a poor argument for classifying the act. Dont really think what you call it matters.

[Nymphomaniac]

Call it whatever u want. At the end of day, which side is more willing to leave their religious beliefs aside and compromise to get along with others??
You can persuade practically all others except the jihadis. Maybe u can even persuade the muslims who have settled in developed countries, but u can't do anything about the ones in middle-eastern Europe & Asia (religious leaders brainwash small children to fight for islam here). Then what, either u eliminate those or get eliminated in Jihad's name. If u go to eliminate the ones in middle-east/Asia, it somehow or other influences the ones living in developed countries as well (they remain connected to their homeland, social media etc.) and u have terror attacks in the UK, France etc.

[deleted_user0]

I dont really find it a poor argument for classifying the act. Dont really think what you call it matters.

Not sure what you mean, but sides claim to be killing in revenge for a earlier attack. However its not really possible to say who started what first. So by that reasoning you just keep hitting each other. This guy claims revenge for the last london attack, now the next attack is revenge for this guys london attack. Etc

[Jjtuxtron]

Terrorism is violence with a political goal.

[Snuden]

21

[Dolan]

Yeah, it seems like this guy was just someone with mental health issues who snapped.

If it was a real-deal terrorist he'd be planning more, using devices to have a bigger effect, etc.

It wasn't a case of a cold-blooded planner, it's some jobless bloke on meds who took his rage out on muslims.

[deleted_user0]

Now, I'm just crazy.



couldn't resist stooping to lejend level depth here

[oats13]

[lejend]

Now, I'm just crazy.
couldn't resist stooping to lejend level depth here

Muslims commit countless thousands of crimes every year, but very few of them are classified as terrorist attacks, but nice try.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Dolan]

I would agree it's murder, but it's not just a murder imo. The guy who killed the british politician just before brexit, it was murder, but it was not your regular murder (if there is such a thing). Murders happen for different reasons, I suppose I would say a regular murder is one where you kill someone because you want that person dead, whereas an act of terror is killing someone because you want other people to suffer/be scared/feel the consequences. There is a nuance there which I believe is quite important.

Didn't see this reply. If the motive behind this attack was to create a climate of fear among Muslims, you're right. I guess more will come out once an investigation takes place and we hear more about what the attacker says.

For the moment, though, we can only speculate. This story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/darre ... e-suspect/) seems to show the guy was a bit cuckoo and was on medication. That's one factor which could have had a say in the outcome.

[lejend]

The catholic church lol? I'm just pointing out the double standard. No one really cares about priests raping kids we'll just sweep it under the rug but by god when a Muslim does it get ur pitchforks and ban them from our country!

- What does molesting children have to do with Christianity?
- What is the percentage of Christians who support it?

[deleted_user0]

Now, I'm just crazy.
couldn't resist stooping to lejend level depth here

Muslims commit countless thousands of crimes every year, but very few of them are classified as terrorist attacks, but nice try.

You're absolutely correct. So would you say that Christianity is a peaceful religion, and Islam is violent? Is Islam even worse than atheism? Are atheists violent (surely because they no longer have an absolute moral code restricting their actions).

[lejend]

You're absolutely correct. So would you say that Christianity is a peaceful religion, and Islam is violent? Is Islam even worse than atheism? Are atheists violent (surely because they no longer have an absolute moral code restricting their actions).

I hope you have a point behind this line of questioning.

Christianity is fairly peaceful but not pacifistic. As long as you don't violate other people's rights, Christianity does not recommend any violence toward you.

Islam is the opposite. It recommends and commands the violation of innocent people's rights.

Atheists' morals generally depend on their culture and individual preferences.

[deleted_user0]

Then how come the homicide rates are highest in predominantly Christian countries, about average in most predominantly atheist and most muslim countries, and below average in some East asian countries (buddhist/hindu/etc)

This is weird considering you are of the belief that religion has a crucial effect on the shaping of one's character. So if christianity is mostly peaceful, how does this happen?

Also, does the bible, or this quran for that matter, really talk about rights? I doubt that. Also are you talking old or new testament?

[lejend]

Then how come the homicide rates are highest in predominantly Christian countries, about average in most predominantly atheist and most muslim countries, and below average in some East asian countries (buddhist/hindu/etc)

This is weird considering you are of the belief that religion has a crucial effect on the shaping of one's character. So if christianity is mostly peaceful, how does this happen?

Probably because not everyone in Christian countries is Christian, and because different countries count crime differently. Christians also aren't immune from immorality. Christians and Christianity aren't the same thing.

Also, does the bible, or this quran for that matter, really talk about rights? I doubt that. Also are you talking old or new testament?

The concept of "human rights" is based on morality, which largely is based on Christianity. We say we have a "right" not to be murdered, because Christianity forbids murder. From an irreligious perspective, harming an innocent person isn't objectively wrong, it's just a difference of opinion.

Christianity has no problem with the Old Testament. However much of the Old Testament's rules were aimed at Israelites during a specific time period, and Christianity considers it as history, not policy, because Jesus fulfilled the old law and therefore Christians aren't bound by it. For instance, no more dietary laws or circumcision.

Now, what's your point?

[deleted_user0]

Sure theyre not all christiand, but for example in south american countries over 80% is christian. Are you suggestibg that the minority of non-believers are responsible for a majority of the murders? Besides, as you said, its not just a religion, its also a culture in many ways. And these people were raised by christian tenets even though they no longer believe in god. Yet they murder each other like crazy.

I am aware christians and christianity arent the same, but nonetheless, if religion is supposed to have such an impact on character, this phenomenon is strange, and youre yet to offer a compelling explanation for it.

The claim that our notion of rights is based on the christian commandments is just blatantly false and contradicts basically the entire field of political philosophy and law. The pagan persians (cyrus), greeks, carthaginians and romans amongst others had much more fleshed out legal systems centuries before christ was born. And for simplicity's sake i am ignore the far east. The romans and the greeks are a far more important basis for our current legal system than christianity, even though its impact is also quite vast. Yet, the idea that you shouldnt murder is not something the new testament holds a claim to, so you just failed as per usual.

[lejend]

Sure theyre not all christiand, but for example in south american countries over 80% is christian. Are you suggestibg that the minority of non-believers are responsible for a majority of the murders?

Yes. If you knew anything about those countries you'd know who are responsible for all the crime. They are generally not particularly Christian, and do not have much regard for what the Bible commands or prohibits.

The claim that our notion of rights is based on the christian commandments is just blatantly false and contradicts basically the entire field of political philosophy and law. The pagan persians (cyrus), greeks, carthaginians and romans amongst others had much more fleshed out legal systems centuries before christ was born. And for simplicity's sake i am ignore the far east. The romans and the greeks are a far more important basis for our current legal system than christianity, even though its impact is also quite vast. Yet, the idea that you shouldnt murder is not something the new testament holds a claim to, so you just failed as per usual.

Those cultures had legal systems, but what they considered right or wrong differs considerably from what modern Westerners believe, which is largely based on Christianity, but of course not completely, (although generally the cultural aspects not based on Christianity, tend to be more against liberty than for it, such as socialism, totalitarianism, etc.). Those cultures were only against murdering certain people, for instance, not all innocent people. Christianity however says humans must follow the laws of God, which includes not harming people except in certain circumstances. It's quite NAPy.

Are you going to make your point or not?

[deleted_user0]

Sure theyre not all christiand, but for example in south american countries over 80% is christian. Are you suggestibg that the minority of non-believers are responsible for a majority of the murders?

Yes. If you knew anything about those countries you'd know which groups are responsible for the crime. They are generally not particularly Christian, and do not have much regard for what the Bible commands or prohibits.

The claim that our notion of rights is based on the christian commandments is just blatantly false and contradicts basically the entire field of political philosophy and law. The pagan persians (cyrus), greeks, carthaginians and romans amongst others had much more fleshed out legal systems centuries before christ was born. And for simplicity's sake i am ignore the far east. The romans and the greeks are a far more important basis for our current legal system than christianity, even though its impact is also quite vast. Yet, the idea that you shouldnt murder is not something the new testament holds a claim to, so you just failed as per usual.

Those cultures had legal systems, but what they considered right or wrong differs considerably from what modern Westerners believe, which is largely based on Christianity, but of course not completely, (although generally the cultural aspects not based on Christianity, tend to be more against liberty than for it, such as socialism, totalitarianism, etc.). Those cultures were only against murdering certain people, for instance, not all innocent people. Christianity however the other hand states that humans must follow the laws of God, which includes not harming people except in certain circumstances. It's quite NAPy.

Are you going to make your point or not?

They may not obey the christian commandments, byt that doesnt mean they dont think of themselves as christian. Or do you mean to say theyre not christian because they broke the rules of christ?

Its true that much of what we believe is right and wrong is rooted in christianity, but much of those christian right and wrongs can be found elsewhere. I am not denying the impact of christianity upon western secular morality, but what you said was simply wrong. Now you adjust and nuance it, to be more accurate.

[lejend]

They may not obey the christian commandments, byt that doesnt mean they dont think of themselves as christian. Or do you mean to say theyre not christian because they broke the rules of christ?

What makes you think they think of themselves as Christian? Christians are actually heavily persecuted by governments or organized criminal organizations in nominally Christian countries, especially in Latin America and Africa. Any association with Christianity is insincere and is to gain support or prevent opposition among people. But if a church or activist contradicts the organization's or government's goals, it is promptly suppressed, often quite violently. Some advocacy organizations estimate that over the last decade or so, dozens, or hundreds of thousands of Christians have been killed, partly for being opposing these gangs and governments. It seems quite clear that they have no interest in adhering to the Bible.

Its true that much of what we believe is right and wrong is rooted in christianity, but much of those christian right and wrongs can be found elsewhere. I am not denying the impact of christianity upon western secular morality, but what you said was simply wrong. Now you adjust and nuance it, to be more accurate.

Not really, but whatever floats your boat.

[oats13]

Rights based law is basically an attempt to do what God should of done before we 'killed' 'him', personally I feel it will run into problems when it's imperfections are tested- i.e the constructed 'legal world' fails to interface with the actual real world and I believe that because I believe in reality- my word for reality is GOD. Yes- I believe that rights based law is a bad thing.

I don't know where people are getting their facts from here tbh- I know it is an appeal to authority but I did my degree in religious studies and focused a whole term on exactly the comparison between quranic exhortations to violence and new testament ones and there just is nothing to debate about it- Islam is massively more violent in scripture than Christianity but don't take my word for it- go read the New Testament and the Quran and see what you think.

Should take about 3 days.

As for murder rates- you actually get the best correlation if you use temperature as a guide tbh. ayay correlation, causation I know................