Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Attack on parliment

123457

Posts

  • joenobodyjoenobody Posts: 552
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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'm not sure that's correct (about the Qoran). My understanding is that there are different interpretations depending on which branch of Islam you follow. Wahhabis follow a particularly extreme interpretation relative to others, hence them being at the centre of a lot of fundamentalism. It's also the root of the issues between Shias and Sunnis - they can't agree whose interpretation is better, each believing it's their own.
  • mrb123mrb123 Posts: 3,265
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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'm not sure that's correct (about the Qoran). My understanding is that there are different interpretations depending on which branch of Islam you follow. Wahhabis follow a particularly extreme interpretation relative to others, hence them being at the centre of a lot of fundamentalism. It's also the root of the issues between Shias and Sunnis - they can't agree whose interpretation is better, each believing it's their own.

    I believe the split between Sunnis and Shias was actually due to disagreements over who would succeed Mohammed - either his cousin or another family member. Basically an internal power struggle.
  • secretsamsecretsam Posts: 4,844
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.

    Think he was stabbed in the leg, bled out through an artery?

    Wonder if that Jnr Doctor who briefed the press and talked about "catastrophic injuries" is going to be disciplined...

    It's just a hill. Get over it.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    MrB123 wrote:
    I believe the split between Sunnis and Shias was actually due to disagreements over who would succeed Mohammed - either his cousin or another family member. Basically an internal power struggle.
    This is the fundamental point - a lot of fighting over what looks like "theological" issues is essentially surface dressing for what is actually simple factionalism or personality clashes. No different in, say, the C of E, except of course that High and Low Church people don't usually massacre each other.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,156
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.
    So speaking from detailed knowledge, then. Comparative theology is veering even further off topic, but if you read up on the subject you would be able to make far more valid criticisms of religion. Know your enemy if you prefer.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,156
    bompington wrote:
    MrB123 wrote:
    I believe the split between Sunnis and Shias was actually due to disagreements over who would succeed Mohammed - either his cousin or another family member. Basically an internal power struggle.
    This is the fundamental point - a lot of fighting over what looks like "theological" issues is essentially surface dressing for what is actually simple factionalism or personality clashes. No different in, say, the C of E, except of course that High and Low Church people don't usually massacre each other.
    Well not for a bit anyway.
    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
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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'm not sure that's correct (about the Qoran). My understanding is that there are different interpretations depending on which branch of Islam you follow. Wahhabis follow a particularly extreme interpretation relative to others, hence them being at the centre of a lot of fundamentalism. It's also the root of the issues between Shias and Sunnis - they can't agree whose interpretation is better, each believing it's their own.


    A lot of what people believe is from the Hadith. That's where many of the differences come from.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277
    SecretSam wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.

    Think he was stabbed in the leg, bled out through an artery?

    Wonder if that Jnr Doctor who briefed the press and talked about "catastrophic injuries" is going to be disciplined...

    There was a 'selfie' pic taken with him a few hours before the attack in which he appears to have been wearing a webbing/vest of some sort - not sure if the stab-proof vest is something different or not.

    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    bompington wrote:
    MrB123 wrote:
    I believe the split between Sunnis and Shias was actually due to disagreements over who would succeed Mohammed - either his cousin or another family member. Basically an internal power struggle.
    This is the fundamental point - a lot of fighting over what looks like "theological" issues is essentially surface dressing for what is actually simple factionalism or personality clashes. No different in, say, the C of E, except of course that High and Low Church people don't usually massacre each other.


    That's true to an extent in places like Iraq and Syria (often it was a case of joining ISIS in order to defend Sunnis from the Shia militia). However, I don't think you could really say that about foreigners joining ISIS.
  • ilovegraceilovegrace Posts: 655
    SecretSam wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.

    Think he was stabbed in the leg, bled out through an artery?

    Wonder if that Jnr Doctor who briefed the press and talked about "catastrophic injuries" is going to be disciplined...
    Why.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,156
    edited March 2017
    nickice wrote:
    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?
    No I wouldn't call it that, but I don't think you can untangle religion from it either. It's not so much about particular beliefs as membership of one group and opposition to another group. To bring this back to IS, they don't recruit on the basis of a detailed theological arguments, but by exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria. Comments along the lines of Islam being at odds with modern society play straight into IS's hands
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,123
    Imposter wrote:
    SecretSam wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.

    Think he was stabbed in the leg, bled out through an artery?

    Wonder if that Jnr Doctor who briefed the press and talked about "catastrophic injuries" is going to be disciplined...

    There was a 'selfie' pic taken with him a few hours before the attack in which he appears to have been wearing a webbing/vest of some sort - not sure if the stab-proof vest is something different or not.

    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?

    The interview with the bloke who got to him first suggested a head wound but a much more serious chest wound which was bleeding profusely. So maybe no stab vest?

    Ditto re the junior doctor. She's training to be a doctor, not a PR consultant FFS
  • mr_goomr_goo Posts: 3,755
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.
    So speaking from detailed knowledge, then. Comparative theology is veering even further off topic, but if you read up on the subject you would be able to make far more valid criticisms of religion. Know your enemy if you prefer.

    I don't believe I have criticised any religion anywhere in my posts on this topic today. And have made it clear that I speak from a non religious, non expert basis.
    As indeed we all do.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,156
    Mr Goo wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    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.
    So speaking from detailed knowledge, then. Comparative theology is veering even further off topic, but if you read up on the subject you would be able to make far more valid criticisms of religion. Know your enemy if you prefer.

    I don't believe I have criticised any religion anywhere in my posts on this topic today. And have made it clear that I speak from a non religious, non expert basis.
    As indeed we all do.
    So the bit in bold is not criticising Islam? There's plenty to criticise in all organised religions and that's fine, but those criticisms should be accurate, that's all.
    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
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    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?
    No I wouldn't call it that, but I don't think you can untangle religion from it either. It's not so much about particular beliefs as membership of one group and opposition to another group. To bring this back to IS, they don't recruit on the basis of a detailed theological arguments, but by exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria. Comments along the lines of Islam being at odds with modern society play straight into IS's hands

    OK, I'll concede that you can't entirely separate it but you must concede that ISIS's jihad is far more about religion than the IRA were. Like I said before, you didn't get the IRA using the Bible as justification.

    Islamic fundamentalism was around long before ISIS. It's too easy to attribute it to thugs and politics. The problem is that many on the left refuse to believe jihadis when they give them their motivation (I guess they find it difficult to comprehend that these people believe they are going straight to heaven). This opens it up to the far right. Much as I dislike Le Pen, she is sometimes (only sometimes) right on the issue of Islamism. It's the same with Trump. After Miami, he was the only one he gave a truthful speech.

    And I don't think Islam is at odds with modern society. Though I think it's more at odds than modern Christianity. It's fundamentalism that's the problem and that is a serious problem with Islam at the moment.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    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?
    No I wouldn't call it that, but I don't think you can untangle religion from it either. It's not so much about particular beliefs as membership of one group and opposition to another group. To bring this back to IS, they don't recruit on the basis of a detailed theological arguments, but by exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria. Comments along the lines of Islam being at odds with modern society play straight into IS's hands

    OK, I'll concede that you can't entirely separate it but you must concede that ISIS's jihad is far more about religion than the IRA were. Like I said before, you didn't get the IRA using the Bible as justification.

    Islamic fundamentalism was around long before ISIS. It's too easy to attribute it to thugs and politics. The problem is that many on the left refuse to believe jihadis when they give them their motivation (I guess they find it difficult to comprehend that these people believe they are going straight to heaven). This opens it up to the far right. Much as I dislike Le Pen, she is sometimes (only sometimes) right on the issue of Islamism. It's the same with Trump. After Miami, he was the only one he gave a truthful speech.

    And I don't think Islam is at odds with modern society. Though I think it's more at odds than modern Christianity. It's fundamentalism that's the problem and that is a serious problem with Islam at the moment.

    I meant to say, the IRA situation is quite similar to (though not as bad) problems we see in countries like Iraq between sunnis and shias. But I think we can separate locals choosing a side over there, from thos foreign fighters who join ISIS.
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,123
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....
  • joenobodyjoenobody Posts: 552
    MrB123 wrote:
    I believe the split between Sunnis and Shias was actually due to disagreements over who would succeed Mohammed - either his cousin or another family member. Basically an internal power struggle.
    A bit of both maybe? Reading this you might feasibly draw the conclusion that each faction made different interpretations of the information available to them (granted it may not have come from the Quran). You might also feasibly conclude that different interpretations continued to happen following the split. Kind of a "we saw things the same way, until we didn't, and then it became clear that we saw more things differently than we realised" situation. I accept this is speculation on my part :)
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    keef66 wrote:
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....

    But that doesn't really explain engineers and doctors joining ISIS. It's too easy to think they're all disaffected. Maybe some just believe in martyrdom
  • TashmanTashman Posts: 2,803
    Imposter wrote:
    There was a 'selfie' pic taken with him a few hours before the attack in which he appears to have been wearing a webbing/vest of some sort - not sure if the stab-proof vest is something different or not.
    Unfortunately stab vests won't stop everything and don't cover 100% of the torso
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Tashman wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    There was a 'selfie' pic taken with him a few hours before the attack in which he appears to have been wearing a webbing/vest of some sort - not sure if the stab-proof vest is something different or not.
    Unfortunately stab vests won't stop everything and don't cover 100% of the torso

    here is what should have happened.....

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... dly-shoot/
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,123
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....

    But that doesn't really explain engineers and doctors joining ISIS. It's too easy to think they're all disaffected. Maybe some just believe in martyrdom

    That's always puzzled me too. But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god. Maybe I'm just not very good at imagining what it's like in somebody else's head...
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    keef66 wrote:
    But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god.
    AKA the "how can any intelligent person disagree with me" fallacy
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    keef66 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....

    But that doesn't really explain engineers and doctors joining ISIS. It's too easy to think they're all disaffected. Maybe some just believe in martyrdom

    That's always puzzled me too. But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god. Maybe I'm just not very good at imagining what it's like in somebody else's head...


    Some come from violent backgrounds, some from good backgrounds but the only common denominator is their belief in martyrdom. Every single on of the 9/11 attackers was university educated.
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    bompington wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god.
    AKA the "how can any intelligent person disagree with me" fallacy

    Not really - just the desire to attempt to believe in things based on evidence. Of course, strictly speaking there is no evidence of gods non existence. It's religion/church that clearly makes no sense on any level.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,123
    bompington wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god.
    AKA the "how can any intelligent person disagree with me" fallacy

    I'm not saying that at all. For all I know people of religious conviction might be right and I'm wrong. I might find myself outside the pearly gates one day having a rethink. Or talking to Allah. Or who knows? It's just that I seem to be naturally sceptical about everything, not just religion. I like evidence. I've always assumed it was because I favour science, and that is mostly about testing theories. There's some speculative stuff, but mostly it's about watching, counting and measuring things.

    There's nothing observational or quantifiable in religion. I accept that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but you just have to believe in some divine something or other because you're told to, and I just don't.

    Maybe it's because I'm borderline Asperger's and I don't do philosophical or touchy-feely stuff very well and struggle with relationships. I find it much easier to relate to physical things than concepts or imaginary stuff. Perhaps it's because I'm just not very bright.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't lay awake at night thinking that millions of devout believers are wrong and I need to convince them otherwise. We're all free to believe what we like. Even the Scientologists....
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,969 Lives Here
    nickice wrote:


    Some come from violent backgrounds, some from good backgrounds but the only common denominator is their belief in martyrdom. Every single on of the 9/11 attackers was university educated.

    What do you mean by that? Why do you mention it?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,156
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....

    But that doesn't really explain engineers and doctors joining ISIS. It's too easy to think they're all disaffected. Maybe some just believe in martyrdom

    That's always puzzled me too. But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god. Maybe I'm just not very good at imagining what it's like in somebody else's head...


    Some come from violent backgrounds, some from good backgrounds but the only common denominator is their belief in martyrdom. Every single on of the 9/11 attackers was university educated.

    I don't think having a university education necessarily innoculates one from feeling like an outsider in your own country. There are lots of reasons why such a feeling might exist but you can see how that might be an opening in some cases which could be exploited, particularly if one already had a background of being discriminated against. I also don't think it is a coincidence that the increase in extremism coincides with the expansion of the Internet. It makes it much easier for those doing the recruiting (to whatever cause) to bait a lot of hooks with what appear to be nice simple answers to their problems.
    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
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....

    But that doesn't really explain engineers and doctors joining ISIS. It's too easy to think they're all disaffected. Maybe some just believe in martyrdom

    That's always puzzled me too. But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god. Maybe I'm just not very good at imagining what it's like in somebody else's head...


    Some come from violent backgrounds, some from good backgrounds but the only common denominator is their belief in martyrdom. Every single on of the 9/11 attackers was university educated.

    I don't think having a university education necessarily innoculates one from feeling like an outsider in your own country. There are lots of reasons why such a feeling might exist but you can see how that might be an opening in some cases which could be exploited, particularly if one already had a background of being discriminated against. I also don't think it is a coincidence that the increase in extremism coincides with the expansion of the Internet. It makes it much easier for those doing the recruiting (to whatever cause) to bait a lot of hooks with what appear to be nice simple answers to their problems.

    No but it does go some way to refuting the argument that it's about poverty or lack of education. I just think that we look for too many excuses for these people.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    keef66 wrote:
    " exploiting feelings of not belonging to 'Western Society' and using Islam to claim some fictional brotherhood with, and put a virtuous gloss on, a bunch of thugs exploiting the power vacuum in Syria"

    That's very succinctly put. They are clearly being very persuasive with certain disaffected individuals. The ones I feel sorry for are the innocent victims, and sometimes the wives and children who get dragged into it.

    Wish there was an obvious solution.

    Suppose education, and creating a more equitable, caring society is too much to ask for....

    But that doesn't really explain engineers and doctors joining ISIS. It's too easy to think they're all disaffected. Maybe some just believe in martyrdom

    That's always puzzled me too. But then again I've never really been able to understand doctors and scientists who believe in god. Maybe I'm just not very good at imagining what it's like in somebody else's head...



    Some come from violent backgrounds, some from good backgrounds but the only common denominator is their belief in martyrdom. Every single on of the 9/11 attackers was university educated.

    I don't think having a university education necessarily innoculates one from feeling like an outsider in your own country. There are lots of reasons why such a feeling might exist but you can see how that might be an opening in some cases which could be exploited, particularly if one already had a background of being discriminated against. I also don't think it is a coincidence that the increase in extremism coincides with the expansion of the Internet. It makes it much easier for those doing the recruiting (to whatever cause) to bait a lot of hooks with what appear to be nice simple answers to their problems.

    No but it does go some way to refuting the argument that it's about poverty or lack of education. I just think that we look for too many excuses for these people.

    And there isn't any evidence that a widespread cause of radicalisation is discrimination. There are people off all ethnicities who join ISIS including recent converts. It's all very complicated but belief in martyrdom is the common denominator
Sign In or Register to comment.