Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Attack on parliment

123468

Posts

  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Islam is not just a religion to Muslims it is a strict code to live ones life. Much of it taken from their holy book.
    Maybe just read that back. Do you really think that is particular to Islam? You don't think that a clear moral code is a constituent of pretty much any religion? Granted there are plenty of people (a majority) who profess membership of a religion but are rather selective about which bits of that moral code they should live by, but again, that's pretty universal. Likewise all major religions (and political belief systems) have their minority of fundamentalists.

    As for Islam requiring centuries to adapt to Western values, universal suffrage is still a year away from its centenary. Homosexuality was only de-criminalised 50 years ago with civil partnership and marriage rights only extended in the last few years. I think we can hold off feeling like the pinnacle of civilization just yet.


    That's a positive way of thinking about it but there has actually been a regressive step within Islam in the last forty or so years. Fundamentalism is now far more of a problem than it used to be.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277
    Imposter wrote:
    There is more than enough anti-islam to go around, so people like me try redress the balance.

    By over-reacting...

    I'm anti-religion, so I guess that makes me anti-islam by extension. To be fair though, I am also anti-christian, anti-hindu, anti-judaism, or indeed anti- any kind of fake, organised belief system which attempts to corral people into identifiable groups.

    So you actively discriminate against people on account of their faith? Against basically anyone who isn't atheist?

    Or do you just not like faith yourself?

    No, I don't discriminate, actively or otherwise - that's quite a strange inference to take from what I've written. Quite happy for people to believe whatever they like. Doesn't mean I'm in favour of it though. I just wish they would all get real.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    There is more than enough anti-islam to go around, so people like me try redress the balance.

    By over-reacting...

    I'm anti-religion, so I guess that makes me anti-islam by extension. To be fair though, I am also anti-christian, anti-hindu, anti-judaism, or indeed anti- any kind of organised belief system which attempts to corral people into identifiable groups.


    This is exactly the point people like Sam Harris seek to make. It's absolutely fine to be critical of ideologies but when that crosses the line to attacking individuals, we have a problem.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,948 Lives Here
    nickice wrote:
    You know if you'd actually just said that you didn't see the word 'liberal' and assumed I was talking about everyone and that you made a mistake, that would have been better. Instead you're doubling down most likely out of pride. Let me ask you a question, what are you going to call the real bigots if you use bigot to describe me?


    As for socio-economic issues being the problem, if only that were true. Unfortunately, many of the people who have signed up to ISIS (from the UKp have come from good homes, from well-integrated families (if their family was foreign in origin) and often with university education.

    As for the rest of the immigration talk, I'm not going to go into that as immigration is not something that bothers me (I'm an immigrant myself)

    What will I call bigots? Bigots mate.

    I look forward to your posts on how the bible has been so terrible for people for centuries.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    In all the excitement about how nasty religions are, is it even worth pointing out that there is just a bit of a difference between believing that something is wrong, and murdering lots of random people?
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277

    I look forward to your posts on how the bible has been so terrible for people for centuries.

    Not sure if serious...
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    Imposter wrote:

    I look forward to your posts on how the bible has been so terrible for people for centuries.

    Not sure if serious...
    I think he is: the thrust of the argument is to enforce absolute equality in our attitudes to Christianity (on which, ironically, all our modern liberal beliefs are based) and Islam.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277
    bompington wrote:
    In all the excitement about how nasty religions are, is it even worth pointing out that there is just a bit of a difference between believing that something is wrong, and murdering lots of random people?

    Yep - zealots are the problem. It's not even 'fundamentalism' - it's zealotry.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,948 Lives Here
    Imposter wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    There is more than enough anti-islam to go around, so people like me try redress the balance.

    By over-reacting...

    I'm anti-religion, so I guess that makes me anti-islam by extension. To be fair though, I am also anti-christian, anti-hindu, anti-judaism, or indeed anti- any kind of fake, organised belief system which attempts to corral people into identifiable groups.

    So you actively discriminate against people on account of their faith? Against basically anyone who isn't atheist?

    Or do you just not like faith yourself?

    No, I don't discriminate, actively or otherwise - that's quite a strange inference to take from what I've written. Quite happy for people to believe whatever they like. Doesn't mean I'm in favour of it though. I just wish they would all get real.
    You're not anti any faith then. You're just atheist.

    If you said you were anti-gay, that wouldn't mean you were straight - that would mean you're homophobic. Saying you're straight, would just be saying you're only into people from the opposite sex.

    See the difference?
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    nickice wrote:
    You know if you'd actually just said that you didn't see the word 'liberal' and assumed I was talking about everyone and that you made a mistake, that would have been better. Instead you're doubling down most likely out of pride. Let me ask you a question, what are you going to call the real bigots if you use bigot to describe me?


    As for socio-economic issues being the problem, if only that were true. Unfortunately, many of the people who have signed up to ISIS (from the UKp have come from good homes, from well-integrated families (if their family was foreign in origin) and often with university education.

    As for the rest of the immigration talk, I'm not going to go into that as immigration is not something that bothers me (I'm an immigrant myself)

    What will I call bigots? Bigots mate.

    I look forward to your posts on how the bible has been so terrible for people for centuries.

    Unfortunately, I see I'm dealing with someone who knows little about religion (or history it would seem given your comparison between Muslims now and Jews in the 30's). Instead, you think you're winning an argument by throwing words like 'bigot' around like it was going out of fashion.

    I have repeatedly criticised Christianity (though obviously not on a thread about Islamic terrorism) throughout my life. Typical whataboutery. What's next? The abortion clinic bombings or, let me guess, Anders Breivik?
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277
    You're not anti any faith then. You're just atheist.

    If you said you were anti-gay, that wouldn't mean you were straight - that would mean you're homophobic. Saying you're straight, would just be saying you're only into people from the opposite sex.

    See the difference?

    No, I am anti-faith. But I'm not an activist in any kind of anti-faith movement (if there even is one) and I don't seek out religious arguments/disagreements with anyone because it's none of my business what they do, for the most part.

    Atheists simply do not 'believe'. Anti-faiths just wish all religions would fck off. See the difference?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,948 Lives Here
    No, it's curious that you've only popped up on the issue when it's with regard to Islam.

    Didn't you also say somewhere you had sympathy with Irish Nationalists? viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13077753&p=20096429#p20096429

    I see some cognotive dissonance there, in your views re terrorism...
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    No, it's curious that you've only popped up on the issue when it's with regard to Islam.

    Didn't you also say somewhere you had sympathy with Irish Nationalists? viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13077753&p=20096429#p20096429


    Yes, I did and I still do. If you knew your history you would too. Of course, I recognise that not all Irish nationalism is violent nationalism. It's almost as if you have no counterpoints here...
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277
    No, it's curious that you've only popped up on the issue when it's with regard to Islam.

    Didn't you also say somewhere you had sympathy with Irish Nationalists? viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13077753&p=20096429#p20096429

    I see some cognotive dissonance there, in your views re terrorism...

    One out of context quote is not going to win you the argument Rick - stick to the matter in hand.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    No, it's curious that you've only popped up on the issue when it's with regard to Islam.

    Didn't you also say somewhere you had sympathy with Irish Nationalists? viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13077753&p=20096429#p20096429

    I see some cognotive dissonance there, in your views re terrorism...

    I have sympathy with the causes of Irish terrorism, not the terrorism itself. But, yes, on occassion I'd support what some might call terrorism.For example, the actions of the French resistance in WW2. It's very difficult to have sympathy with ISIS when religion is the primary motivating factor of their attacks.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,948 Lives Here
    It's less the historical context, i'm curious about, since you can broadly justify any terrorism in the context of history; I could bore you with 2 centuries of British colonialism and orientalism in the middle east, but that's beside the point in this instance.

    In this instance, I see you have some sympathy with one set of terrorists who are Catholic - a key part of the broader issue let's not forget - and in the other hand slag off Islam in the context of this terrorism and when challenged, whimper back to 'oh all religions are bad'.

    Ultimately you'll give one side the benefit of the context and not the other, and we can all work out which side that falls on.
  • mr_goomr_goo Posts: 3,755
    nickice wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    The problem liberals tend to have is that we criticise Christianity openly but tend to back off when it comes to Islam..

    I think what you need to observe is that many mainstream organisations (BBC, Sky News et all) will steer clear of criticising Islam simply because it would only galvanise people like the murderer of Wednesdays attack.
    Islam is not just a religion to Muslims it is a strict code to live ones life. Much of it taken from their holy book. To criticise them is an insult to their beliefs and daily conduct. Unfortunately Islam has yet to catch up with the modern world and many of its scholars and leaders cling on to the ancient ways and will promote the strictest of doctrines.
    Whilst I do not condone any of the Islamic belief system it may be that it could take centuries for it to fully adapt to Western culture. What does not help is the West's cosy relationships with Saudi Arabia and some of the Emirates. These countries are the source of much of the extremism and it's funding. I would add that it's from individuals or organisations and not necessarily the states, however I remain very very sceptical about Saudi Arabia and believe they are quite duplicitous.

    A sensible comment and thankfully it's still possible to have a conversation about this without being called a bigot. I completely understand that some idiots can't tell the difference between Muslims and Islam BUT there is a tendency to close people down who even remotely criticise Islam. Take Maajid Nawaz who has been called an anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center or Sam Harris (even though I think he underestimates Western foreign policy's influence) on Bill Maher where Ben Affleck embarrassed himself.

    Frankly, I'm not expecting my news outlets to start criticising religion but liberals do tend to back off criticism of Islam (maybe they saw what happened to Charlie Hebdo and thought it wasn't worth it).

    Another issue that could be fundemental to the Muslim belief system being odds with modern society is that there is only one Qoran. Where as the Bible has the Old and New Testament. The latter New Testament being less fire and brimstone in its verses, so I am led to believe.
    I cannot corroborate this as I'm an atheist and believe there can be no place for religion in a society that has mapped the human genome, landed on the moon and can connect the world electronically. It is at odds. But thus is really not for this topic.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    It's less the historical context, i'm curious about, since you can broadly justify any terrorism in the context of history; I could bore you with 2 centuries of British colonialism and orientalism in the middle east, but that's beside the point in this instance.

    In this instance, I see you have some sympathy with one set of terrorists who are Catholic - a key part of the broader issue let's not forget - and in the other hand slag off Islam in the context of this terrorism and when challenged, whimper back to 'oh all religions are bad'.

    Ultimately you'll give one side the benefit of the context and not the other, and we can all work out which side that falls on.


    The IRA, when it began, was a Marxist organisation. The conflict had very little to do with religion (you do know there were also protestant nationalists?) and more to do with history (those who considered themselved Irish were generally Catholic and those who considered themselves British were protestant but also the descendants of immigrants from Britain). The IRA happened to be largely Catholic but they were not acting in the name of Catholicism and certainly weren't receiveing support (and manpower) from Catholics around the World (in fact most support came from the USA from 2nd and 3rd generation Irish immigrants). Did the IRA use the Bible to justify their actions? Of course not. Your comparison of the two situations shows how little you know.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    Mr Goo wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    The problem liberals tend to have is that we criticise Christianity openly but tend to back off when it comes to Islam..

    I think what you need to observe is that many mainstream organisations (BBC, Sky News et all) will steer clear of criticising Islam simply because it would only galvanise people like the murderer of Wednesdays attack.
    Islam is not just a religion to Muslims it is a strict code to live ones life. Much of it taken from their holy book. To criticise them is an insult to their beliefs and daily conduct. Unfortunately Islam has yet to catch up with the modern world and many of its scholars and leaders cling on to the ancient ways and will promote the strictest of doctrines.
    Whilst I do not condone any of the Islamic belief system it may be that it could take centuries for it to fully adapt to Western culture. What does not help is the West's cosy relationships with Saudi Arabia and some of the Emirates. These countries are the source of much of the extremism and it's funding. I would add that it's from individuals or organisations and not necessarily the states, however I remain very very sceptical about Saudi Arabia and believe they are quite duplicitous.

    A sensible comment and thankfully it's still possible to have a conversation about this without being called a bigot. I completely understand that some idiots can't tell the difference between Muslims and Islam BUT there is a tendency to close people down who even remotely criticise Islam. Take Maajid Nawaz who has been called an anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center or Sam Harris (even though I think he underestimates Western foreign policy's influence) on Bill Maher where Ben Affleck embarrassed himself.

    Frankly, I'm not expecting my news outlets to start criticising religion but liberals do tend to back off criticism of Islam (maybe they saw what happened to Charlie Hebdo and thought it wasn't worth it).

    Another issue that could be fundemental to the Muslim belief system being odds with modern society is that there is only one Qoran. Where as the Bible has the Old and New Testament. The latter New Testament being less fire and brimstone in its verses, so I am led to believe.
    I cannot corroborate this as I'm an atheist and believe there can be no place for religion in a society that has mapped the human genome, landed on the moon and can connect the world electronically. It is at odds. But thus is really not for this topic.


    I think that's partly correct. Certainly the New Testament contains very little that could be interpreted to perform the kind of attacks ISIS undertake. However, the Old Testament does but there don't seem to be as many problems with violent Jewish fundamentalism as with violent Islamic fundamentalism. What Christians and Jews will rarely admit is that we effectively ignore much of the Torah and the Bible. However, it took hundreds of years (and some bloody wars) to arrive at that point.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,948 Lives Here
    Eugh this is tedious.

    There were also a bunch of mercenaries working for ISIS, before the cash ran out. *facepalm*.

    ISIS commits terror atrocities abroad (it does it at home too, but for different reasons) as a tool to basically get attention and ultimately recruits. They're extremists who have very extreme views on how society should be run.

    It's just as political as any other fight. Religion is a big part of their identity, but then so it was for many conflicts around the world, and Northern Ireland is no different in that respect.

    This is the point - you keep contextualising one without the other to justify the bigotry.

    It all boils down to how people want their society to be run and where they want to be. That's the same for anything. No mainstream faith is more likely to be warring than any other just on the basis of their faith.

    Geopolitics has a much larger impact long term, and short term it's more socio-economic. There's nothing inherent about faith that makes people more or less murderous.

    The two biggest wars ever weren't faith based really, were they?

    So stop holding people's faith as a reason why they're nutters, and look at more basic reasons for why they are.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    The two biggest wars ever weren't faith based really, were they?

    So stop holding people's faith as a reason why they're nutters, and look at more basic reasons for why they are.

    I am a Christian would would argue strongly (some other day) the differences between Islam and Christianity, but fundamentally I agree with this.

    I have often pointed out, here and elsewhere, how ahistorical and illogical the "religion is responsible for all the wars" stuff is that people spout all the time.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,151
    nickice wrote:
    It's less the historical context, i'm curious about, since you can broadly justify any terrorism in the context of history; I could bore you with 2 centuries of British colonialism and orientalism in the middle east, but that's beside the point in this instance.

    In this instance, I see you have some sympathy with one set of terrorists who are Catholic - a key part of the broader issue let's not forget - and in the other hand slag off Islam in the context of this terrorism and when challenged, whimper back to 'oh all religions are bad'.

    Ultimately you'll give one side the benefit of the context and not the other, and we can all work out which side that falls on.


    The IRA, when it began, was a Marxist organisation. The conflict had very little to do with religion (you do know there were also protestant nationalists?) and more to do with history (those who considered themselved Irish were generally Catholic and those who considered themselves British were protestant but also the descendants of immigrants from Britain). The IRA happened to be largely Catholic but they were not acting in the name of Catholicism and certainly weren't receiveing support (and manpower) from Catholics around the World (in fact most support came from the USA from 2nd and 3rd generation Irish immigrants). Did the IRA use the Bible to justify their actions? Of course not. Your comparison of the two situations shows how little you know.
    Clearly it is more complicated than that, but I think you are being disingenuous in suggesting that the Troubles had nothing to do with religion, on either side.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    Eugh this is tedious.

    There were also a bunch of mercenaries working for ISIS, before the cash ran out. *facepalm*.

    ISIS commits terror atrocities abroad (it does it at home too, but for different reasons) as a tool to basically get attention and ultimately recruits. They're extremists who have very extreme views on how society should be run.

    It's just as political as any other fight. Religion is a big part of their identity, but then so it was for many conflicts around the world, and Northern Ireland is no different in that respect.

    This is the point - you keep contextualising one without the other to justify the bigotry.

    It all boils down to how people want their society to be run and where they want to be. That's the same for anything. No mainstream faith is more likely to be warring than any other just on the basis of their faith.

    Geopolitics has a much larger impact long term, and short term it's more socio-economic. There's nothing inherent about faith that makes people more or less murderous.

    The two biggest wars ever weren't faith based really, were they?

    So stop holding people's faith as a reason why they're nutters, and look at more basic reasons for why they are.


    I'm not talking about ISIS recruits from the region. I'd have a lot more understanding why a Sunni from Iraq might join ISIS to defend himself against the Shia militia.

    But where is the political element in European Jihadis killing Europeans? Of course it's about religion. To be fair, they even tell us this and ISIS has told us this. And I've already explained why your assertions about Northern Ireland were way off the mark. And just saying they're nutters doesn't cut it. Many of them live completely normal lives before committing attacks.

    I think you've got a bit out of your depth in this and the fact you can never admit you're wrong is a major weakness (that and of course that you have a rather obnoxious attitude towards those that disagree with you) I'm done.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    It's less the historical context, i'm curious about, since you can broadly justify any terrorism in the context of history; I could bore you with 2 centuries of British colonialism and orientalism in the middle east, but that's beside the point in this instance.

    In this instance, I see you have some sympathy with one set of terrorists who are Catholic - a key part of the broader issue let's not forget - and in the other hand slag off Islam in the context of this terrorism and when challenged, whimper back to 'oh all religions are bad'.

    Ultimately you'll give one side the benefit of the context and not the other, and we can all work out which side that falls on.


    The IRA, when it began, was a Marxist organisation. The conflict had very little to do with religion (you do know there were also protestant nationalists?) and more to do with history (those who considered themselved Irish were generally Catholic and those who considered themselves British were protestant but also the descendants of immigrants from Britain). The IRA happened to be largely Catholic but they were not acting in the name of Catholicism and certainly weren't receiveing support (and manpower) from Catholics around the World (in fact most support came from the USA from 2nd and 3rd generation Irish immigrants). Did the IRA use the Bible to justify their actions? Of course not. Your comparison of the two situations shows how little you know.
    Clearly it is more complicated than that, but I think you are being disingenuous in suggesting that the Troubles had nothing to do with religion, on either side.

    I really don't think so but you're free to disagree. Let me ask you another question, do you really think we could call it Catholic or Protestant terrorism?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,948 Lives Here
    You do whole groups of people harm when you think their faith rationalises terrorism, and when you say terrorists who kill strangers to make a point aren't nutters.

    They are. If they weren't, why don't we have thousands of people being deliberately run over in cars every day?
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 16,715
    bompington wrote:
    In all the excitement about how nasty religions are, is it even worth pointing out that there is just a bit of a difference between believing that something is wrong, and murdering lots of random people?

    It would seem so.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    After the horrific events in Westminster this week it was very moving to hear all the comments and tributes being paid to how great/wonderful all our emergency services are, which I'm in absolute total agreement with. However talk is cheap.Let's see how long it will be before these wonderful emergency services will be having their budgets cut and when their unions threaten industrial action, suddenly they're a bunch of union activists trying to bring mayhem to society.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • LookyhereLookyhere Posts: 987
    nickice wrote:

    I'm not talking about ISIS recruits from the region. I'd have a lot more understanding why a Sunni from Iraq might join ISIS to defend himself against the Shia militia.

    But where is the political element in European Jihadis killing Europeans? Of course it's about religion. To be fair, they even tell us this and ISIS has told us this. And I've already explained why your assertions about Northern Ireland were way off the mark. And just saying they're nutters doesn't cut it. Many of them live completely normal lives before committing attacks.

    I think you've got a bit out of your depth in this and the fact you can never admit you're wrong is a major weakness (that and of course that you have a rather obnoxious attitude towards those that disagree with you) I'm done.

    I m with you on this, of course its about Islam or their interpretation of, ad in a load of social/economic/ed factors and their community becomes a breeding ground for radicalism, they are not crazy nutters either, big mistake to make, to them, their actions are completely rational.

    comparisons with old testament are false, basically with the coming of Christ, the doctrine moved to the new testament, which preaches a different far more tolerant message, Islam has had no such conversion, so its easy to interpret what you like, again the factors in the middle east dont help matters, though listening to the Israeli hospitals and doctors treating Syrian injured who pour over the border is hope for the future.

    i see a full scale reappraisal of Westminster security is to take place, too late for PC Palmer and his unarmed colleagues who were also stabbed and seriously injured, what were these politicians and/or Police commanders thinking putting their own in this position?
  • mr_goomr_goo Posts: 3,755
    After the horrific events in Westminster this week it was very moving to hear all the comments and tributes being paid to how great/wonderful all our emergency services are, which I'm in absolute total agreement with. However talk is cheap.Let's see how long it will be before these wonderful emergency services will be having their budgets cut and when their unions threaten industrial action, suddenly they're a bunch of union activists trying to bring mayhem to society.

    Hear, hear.
    Would be refreshing to see a reversal of the cuts inflicted on them. Wouldn't it be lovely to hear May or Rudd announce that a budget has been set aside to recruit 20,000 additional policemen/women and all the support staff.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • mr_goomr_goo Posts: 3,755
    Was PC Keith Palmer wearing a stab proof vest? If not why not? Even the bobbies that patrol leafy, sleepy New Forest wear them all the time.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
Sign In or Register to comment.