Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Emily's Cat]

Yes we can only hope the reactionary nonsense from the right will calm down when they stop being intellectually dishonest about their positions and start examining facts and evidence and reflecting on their abhorrent behaviour. I won't hold my breath though.

I will refer you back to the bottom spectrum of that image.

 

[Giz]

You have missed my point entirely - we have to address the elephant in the room.

Others Muslims are doing so, and good for them too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEk2ALt3c8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZMXV_PRXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3Fd5JwArM

And if we skeptics want to criticize or even laugh at, without fear, a ridiculous ideology, we should be free to do so.

That form of criticism led to Europe's and the West's enlightenment by removing the shackles of religion.

I do not want to go backwards based on the sensitivities of one group.

By not doing so i.e. criticizing Islam, we are being condescending (and could be argued racist) since we assume that the ideology and the followers being criticized do not have the intellectual capacity for debate.

That too is intellectual dishonesty.


ETA ... and we in the West need to do it before the extreme Right Wing take the baton and twist it to their non intellectual but purely perverse and ugly emotive argument.

Good post.

 

[Vixen]

There's the rub. I'm not talking about The Don's post, but those who criticise the loudest have the least to contribute with regard to solutions. Corbyn actually boasts that this is the case. He's spent his life protesting against every piece of anti-terror legislation and not once has he proposed a viable solution of his own, other than to have more uniformed officers on the beat (or 'pigs in helmets' as he once referred to them).

The so-called IS is an international problem. With US troops surrounding Raqqa ready to take it back and the radicals gunning down men, women and children fleeing from Mosul, we will see a burst of defiant terrorist activity.

This is a continuation of the war being fought against the Taliban, which still has strong support in parts of Pakistan. If you look at the recent jihadist they appear to be from the well-educated middle classes, albeit working as waiters and chefs. Simply doing away with Human Rights (or, more specifically, declaring a state of emergency, such as war or an insurrection) by derogation of the relevant articles of the ECHR and the other internationally recognised rights (for example, the right to life), as May plans to do 'on Friday' is a short-term knee jerk sticky plaster, which could mean whole families of Muslims rounded up and interred in camps, rahter like POW's in the last war.

Will this tackle IS-terrorism? I doubt it as the young and the clever 'guerilla fighters' will just move abroad and enter the country to commit their atrocities (cf Abedi, Zaghabi, Redoane).

Until Raqqa and Mosul are dealt with and the inner circle brought to justice, it is something that will need military tactics.

 

[Vixen]

Even if we wanted to keep tabs on the thousands (tens of thousands ?) of people who may come to the attention of the security services and/or police, do we really want to live in the kind of society where your name coming up once subjects you to a lifetime of 24/7 scrutiny ?

I was active in left wing student politics in the 1980's. That has caused me issues on a few occasions later in life even though all of my activities were 100% legal because I had come to the attention of the security services by being on a number of (entirely legal) marches and attending a number of (entirely legal) meetings.

This could be orders of magnitude worse. There would be no oversight so someone could find themselves incorrectly on a watch list and have their life destroyed as a result.

Exactly. I used to go on one demo after another. The fact Jeremy Corbyn was extremely active shows he is a genuinely passionate politician and not just a career politician (for example, Margaret Thatcher went into politics thanks to her rich husband, to give her something to do during the day).

Criticising Corbyn for being at a rally attended by 8,000 which was also attended by 200-300 'Hezbollah' supporters, as today's papers have done is to have expected Corbyn to look into a crystal ball and foresee that these loonies would later become 'hate preachers'. It is barrel scraping.

 

[Giz]

Exactly. I used to go on one demo after another. The fact Jeremy Corbyn was extremely active shows he is a genuinely passionate politician and not just a career politician (for example, Margaret Thatcher went into politics thanks to her rich husband, to give her something to do during the day).

Criticising Corbyn for being at a rally attended by 8,000 which was also attended by 200-300 'Hezbollah' supporters, as today's papers have done is to have expected Corbyn to look into a crystal ball and foresee that these loonies would later become 'hate preachers'. It is barrel scraping.

Wait... Thatcher wasn't a conviction politician? And, btw, Corbyn is criticized for sharing a stage with terrorist-supporters, not 'merely' being in a March with them - he was a joint headliner many, many times.

 

[Vixen]

The key problem remains- I simply do not see how one can prevent an individual from ramming a car into a random group of innocents and killing some and injuring many. Whatever their motivation. Drunk people, people on drugs, and angry sociopaths just fired from their jobs do this (although they don't make the news as much as terrorists) and have been doing this for years. One can put down barriers in the most obvious places, but there will always be 1000 more places unprotected. How can this kind of terrorist action be stopped? It is not even something that needs to be coordinated by a central organization, nor can one reasonably expect that we can prevent everyone from becoming radicalized if we clamp down on the spread of the violent ideologies on the web, in the streets, or in the mosques/churches/etc.

Preventing ideas from spreading, even bad ideas, is not something that has worked well in the past, and driving them further underground has usually made the situation worse.

It might be possible to better control suicide bombings, but even here it seems that completely preventing access to materials that can be turned into bombs is very difficult.

Do I have a solution? Not particularly. My point in posting here is to question many of the "solutions" proposed in this thread that would undermine the core concepts of our civilization and throw away what is crucial in our civilization to achieve the unachievable. In an unthinking reaction that we do not apply to other problems that kill far more people per year.

Giordano, how large do the terrorists have to give it?

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

It's been spelt out in six foot letters, yet people refuse to see it.

 

[Vixen]

Then those followers who refuse are facing constant pressure from their families, teachers, civic leaders, etc to join the ranks and recommit to their faith, heritage, traditions and values.

Then those followers who refuse are perceived as sympathetic to the enemy, with all the attendant anger, isolation, ostracism that always comes from walking away from such a group. It's social death.

Then those followers face the very real consequence of guilt by association with their enemies, and receiving the same treatment.

If the subject is criminals vs law enforcement, then LEO who spend time partying with known criminals face being looked down upon and snubbed by their coworkers, face being arrested and prosecuted if they're present when said criminals are caught breaking the law.

Religions are the same way.

If we've been seeing "mainstream Islamic beliefs" in the wrong light and failing to recognize these terrorists are actually the "True Believers". Then the peaceful, benevolent faces we're all told to accept as the "normal" are actually the backsliders and fringe members. If so, we need to recognize and correct that blunder post haste, or the killings will continue 'til one side has destroyed the other.

There is no compromise; just as the Bible does not compromise in its stand on homosexuality or witchcraft.

Being gay is not banned by the Bible. It however, specifically names sodomy and fornication as sexually immoral - and men lying with men -and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Nowhere does it say being gay is banned.

 

[metacristi]

You have missed my point entirely - we have to address the elephant in the room.

Others Muslims are doing so, and good for them too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEk2ALt3c8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZMXV_PRXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3Fd5JwArM

And if we skeptics want to criticize or even laugh at, without fear, a ridiculous ideology, we should be free to do so.

That form of criticism led to Europe's and the West's enlightenment by removing the shackles of religion.

I do not want to go backwards based on the sensitivities of one group.

By not doing so i.e. criticizing Islam, we are being condescending (and could be argued racist) since we assume that the ideology and the followers being criticized do not have the intellectual capacity for debate.

That too is intellectual dishonesty.


ETA ... and we in the West need to do it before the extreme Right Wing take the baton and twist it to their non intellectual but purely perverse and ugly emotive argument.

I never understood why we do not empower imams like the one in the first link you provide, capable not only to tolerate criticism of islam and reject violence but also to limit the very harmful impact of the still medieval sharia. For the problem, I'm afraid, is way bigger than the inherent violence of this religion, indeed even an islam without jihad is still a formidable danger for the values of Enlightenment as much as mulims will continue in great numbers to keep islam in high esteem, finally there is no hazard in the fact that this religion still lacks the counterpart of Liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism in spite of a very long exposure to Modernity now (the liberal forces all over the muslim world, even in the West, are very weak and needing to make huge concessions to islam in order to survive; that's why I don't think for example that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is even close to 'controversial' in what she says in her book 'Heretic').

Personally I do not like the prospect that our descendants may live in an Europe at least without some important values of Enlightenment (if not in Islamic theocracies), we deal with Eurabia in both cases, so yes let's criticize islam rationally, yet without resorting to all kinds of postmodernist (delusional) 'arguments' (even Maajid Nawaz can be severely criticized here by the way, among others there is no bigotry to observe that Islamism is far from being a modern invention). I dare say that this should be at the basis of any rational attempt to bring Islam in the 21st century. Happily there is plenty of such criticism based on facts. Otherwise I'm afraid only brute force can do the job (like in the USSR and the former soviet block for example, no one tamed Islam better than Stalin). I think it's a good idea to start now, as far as i can see even people who cannot be accused of extremism began to lose patience: The Truth About the London Bridge Attack

 

[baron]

The so-called IS is an international problem. With US troops surrounding Raqqa ready to take it back and the radicals gunning down men, women and children fleeing from Mosul, we will see a burst of defiant terrorist activity.

This is a continuation of the war being fought against the Taliban, which still has strong support in parts of Pakistan. If you look at the recent jihadist they appear to be from the well-educated middle classes, albeit working as waiters and chefs. Simply doing away with Human Rights (or, more specifically, declaring a state of emergency, such as war or an insurrection) by derogation of the relevant articles of the ECHR and the other internationally recognised rights (for example, the right to life), as May plans to do 'on Friday' is a short-term knee jerk sticky plaster, which could mean whole families of Muslims rounded up and interred in camps, rahter like POW's in the last war.

Will this tackle IS-terrorism? I doubt it as the young and the clever 'guerilla fighters' will just move abroad and enter the country to commit their atrocities (cf Abedi, Zaghabi, Redoane).

I don't care what IS do as long as it's not in this country. IS are the tip of an Islamic sandberg of hate and violence on the global stage. Let other countries sort their own problems. There is this absurd school of thought, to which you seem to subscribe, that says if IS is 'defeated' then the problem of Islamic terrorism will be solved. It's crazy. It will make no difference whatsoever. You could round up 100,000 IS and nuke the lot of them and next week another 100,000 will pop up and take their place under a different name.

Criticising Corbyn for being at a rally attended by 8,000 which was also attended by 200-300 'Hezbollah' supporters, as today's papers have done is to have expected Corbyn to look into a crystal ball and foresee that these loonies would later become 'hate preachers'.

Did the fact that they were chanting 'Gas the Jews' not provide a hint? Or maybe the fact that they were already hate preachers and already openly supporting terrorism against this country?

 

[Vixen]

Wait... Thatcher wasn't a conviction politician? And, btw, Corbyn is criticized for sharing a stage with terrorist-supporters, not 'merely' being in a March with them - he was a joint headliner many, many times.

Cameron and Boris welcomed the Saudis and the Chinese heads of state.

Simply being at the same rally (because of an interest in current affairs, for example Palestine, which is the one the gutter press are smearing Corbyn with) doesn't mean you share their views.

 

[baron]

I never understood why we do not empower imams like the one in the first link you provide, capable not only to tolerate criticism of islam and reject violence but also to limit the very harmful impact of the still medieval sharia.

Unfortunately, any Muslim (or indeed non-Muslim) who criticises even the worst excesses of Islam puts their life in danger. I don't know of many Muslims who speak out against extremism in the UK or Europe who have not received death threats. Whether it's raising the plight of women in Islam or speaking out against FGM or forced marriage or extremism in mosques or even criticising ISIS, you have to be prepared to face the prospect of an unpleasant and unexpected death from the Religion of Peace.

 

[DragonLady]

Being gay is not banned by the Bible. It however, specifically names sodomy and fornication as sexually immoral - and men lying with men -and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Nowhere does it say being gay is banned.

Right.

Now, who does those things?

Point is: fundamentalists who hold the letter of Biblical law are upholding the tenants of the religion. Hair-splitting and semantics aren't going to convince them to compromise.

 

[Matthew Best]

One cannot be both gay, and devoutly Christian, because the tenants of Christianity do not allow a person to be gay. Period. Full stop. However, many people accept those who are gay, and continue to consider themselves Christians because they also accept or believe other tenants of Christianity.

...

Again, the TENANTS of the belief does not vary; despite how widely the PRACTISE might.

This is all very well, but what do the landlords of Christianity say about this?




(It's "tenets", by the way.)

 

[Vixen]

I don't care what IS do as long as it's not in this country. IS are the tip of an Islamic sandberg of hate and violence on the global stage. Let other countries sort their own problems. There is this absurd school of thought, to which you seem to subscribe, that says if IS is 'defeated' then the problem of Islamic terrorism will be solved. It's crazy. It will make no difference whatsoever. You could round up 100,000 IS and nuke the lot of them and next week another 100,000 will pop up and take their place under a different name.



Did the fact that they were chanting 'Gas the Jews' not provide a hint? Or maybe the fact that they were already hate preachers and already openly supporting terrorism against this country?

They were chanting in Arabic. Corbyn probably didn't understnad a word of it, if he even noticed it.

At a rally about Palestine, it's no surprise people interested in the Middle East turn up.

I've been at football matches where people chant and sing the foulest things. Does it mean I agree with them? Or even hear them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Now, who does those things?

Petty much anyone who has sex before marriage is engaged in fornication. Fornication also includes all varieties of masturbation and oral sex. I don't think that's limited to gay people.

Sodomy is literally anal sex. There are plenty of very nice christian girls engaging in sodomy on a regular basis, because it's not "real sex" so they get to stay a virgin until marriage.

Come to think of it, I'm guilty of all sorts of fornication and sodomy. I suppose it's a good thing I don't believe in hell, hey?

 

[baron]

They were chanting in Arabic. Corbyn probably didn't understnad a word of it, if he even noticed it.

"Gas, gas Tel Aviv" doesn't sound particularly Arabic to me. What Arabic words were they chanting?

At a rally about Palestine, it's no surprise people interested in the Middle East turn up.

They're not people from the Middle East, they're known terrorists, many now in jail or dead. Two were wearing mock suicide vests.

I've been at football matches where people chant and sing the foulest things. Does it mean I agree with them? Or even hear them?

You're not in the running for Prime Minister.

 

[Vixen]

This is all very well, but what do the landlords of Christianity say about this?




(It's "tenets", by the way.)

Alan tries to justify his long hair by comparing himself to Jesus. (The New Tenant).
- He didn't have a hairdryer though, did he? Didn't give himself blow-waves. - Rigsby, the Landlord.

 

[Vixen]

"Gas, gas Tel Aviv" doesn't sound particularly Arabic to me. What Arabic words were they chanting?



They're not people from the Middle East, they're known terrorists, many now in jail or dead. Two were wearing mock suicide vests.



You're not in the running for Prime Minister.

According to the papers it was, 'Skud, Skud, Tel Aviv'.

So you believe what you read in the tabloids?

I was once in a crowd of Aston Villa fans accusing of Big Fat Ron of liking unnatural sex. Does that make me a Villa fan. Does it make me foul-mouthed? Does it mean I approve of it?

 

[DragonLady]

Petty much anyone who has sex before marriage is engaged in fornication. Fornication also includes all varieties of masturbation and oral sex. I don't think that's limited to gay people.

Sodomy is literally anal sex. There are plenty of very nice christian girls engaging in sodomy on a regular basis, because it's not "real sex" so they get to stay a virgin until marriage.

Come to think of it, I'm guilty of all sorts of fornication and sodomy. I suppose it's a good thing I don't believe in hell, hey?

You do understand they're only "very nice Christian girls" in the eyes of those who are willing to see them that way, right?

You do understand there are plenty in this world who believe those girls should be put to death, right?

They're not joking. They're not just repeating dogma. They mean it.

"The wages of sin is death. If you sin, I'll kill you."

It's not a joke, and there is no compromise.

 

[DragonLady]

This is all very well, but what do the landlords of Christianity say about this?




(It's "tenets", by the way.)

Whoops.