French church attacked by terrorists

[Craig B]

Neither France nor Germany were not a part of that coalition. Both were trying hard to stop the war from happening. It's slightly disingenuous for you to claim they "brought it on themselves".

That notion aside, how do you explain Boko Haram? That group is essentially identical to ISIS in methodology, justifications and goals, and swore loyalty to ISIS. If ISIS is a product of an illegal war and nothing else, how did Boko Haram arose?

McHrozni

How did this outfit arise? What responsibility does the Protestant Church in my street have for them? None at all. No more than the mosque in my street has responsibility for Boko Haram or ISIS, in my view.

ETA Where did you get your "and nothing else" from?

 

[McHrozni]

No. Your second conclusion is hearsay.

What evidence do you have it would have started anyway?

My number 1 reason is that it did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

At which point the question really becomes what makes you think it it wouldn't have happened?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

How did this outfit arise? What responsibility does the Protestant Church in my street have for them? None at all. No more than the mosque in my street has responsibility for Boko Haram or ISIS, in my view.

LRA is a typical example of an actual aberration, what the Boko Haram and ISIS are supposed to be, but aren't. For example, LRA justifies their campaign of violence with the 10 commandments, which is in direct contradiction of at least one of commands. That's how abusing the scriptures for political gain really looks like.

That isn't the case with Boko Haram or ISIS. They can and do quote large parts of scripture that do justify and even command their deeds. Muslims in general tend to agree "there is more than one way to interpret Islamic scriptures correctly", and make use of that to a large extent. The implications of that are clear, even for you. I'm sure you'll pretend otherwise.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Close - they want to die while killing infidels. As far as I know that's the only sure way a Muslim can reach paradise.

You are in incorrect. Per the traditions, being "martyred" and therefore going straight to paradise also includes being drowned, falling off a mountaintop, being eaten by wild animals, being stung by a venomous creature, having a wall fall down on you, dying in childbirth, dying of cholera or the Plague, and even dying a natural death in your bed.

Meaningless. You'd then need to analyse the sometimes/depends group to see how many of those might be willing to act on their beliefs.

Not really, since Corsair 115's post was about who thinks that acts like that are acceptable.

 

[McHrozni]

You are in incorrect. Per the traditions, being "martyred" and therefore going straight to paradise also includes being drowned, falling off a mountaintop, being eaten by wild animals, being stung by a venomous creature, having a wall fall down on you, dying in childbirth, dying of cholera or the Plague, and even dying a natural death in your bed.

Sure, thank you for proving my point - there is more than one "correct" interpretation of Islamics scriptures.

For those genuinely ignorant of what that means: ISIS is completely right to say their actions are Islamic and the only way a Muslim should behave. The fact some Muslims "disagree" with that "interpretation" in no way changes that.

In other words, what we consider Islam is basically a motley collection of religions loosely based on the same sets of texts that allow easy passing from one religion to another. But woe to you if you abandon this set of religions for another set of religions, or if you believe in the wrong subset of these religions, because that makes you a hypocrite that needs to be killed. Which subset it wrong is based solely on which subset is the strongest at the time.

Yeah, it's such a ***************. Some people think that because an unproblematic subset currently exist, the whole system is basically fine and really doesn't need any major improvement. My response to them has always been one of contempt.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

LRA is a typical example of an actual aberration, what the Boko Haram and ISIS are supposed to be, but aren't. For example, LRA justifies their campaign of violence with the 10 commandments, which is in direct contradiction of at least one of commands. That's how abusing the scriptures for political gain really looks like.

That isn't the case with Boko Haram or ISIS. They can and do quote large parts of scripture that do justify and even command their deeds. Muslims in general tend to agree "there is more than one way to interpret Islamic scriptures correctly", and make use of that to a large extent. The implications of that are clear, even for you. I'm sure you'll pretend otherwise.
McHrozni

I see. If Muslims commit crimes, it's the fault of their religion. If Christians commit the same crimes, it's an aberration. The problem then as you have stated is Islam. Not "extremist Islamism" but the religion in general in all its aspects. The local imam here, or my neighbours, are guilty of the crimes of Boko Haram, but no other Christian is responsible for Mgr Tiso.

As I have indicated, this kind of reasoning was used a couple of hundred years ago to deny political rights to Catholics. To me, if a Muslim states that these crimes are not consistent with his or her religion, and displays that belief in his or her daily life, then I will accept it. I will not say, only the madmen and bigots understand your faith correctly. That is absurd.

Now, the same argument applies to the "Papists". They did indeed accept the supremacy of the Pope over secular rulers. The Pope was indeed hostile to the British state. By any standards that was a problem of the kind you perceive in Islam. If any Catholic claimed to be a loyal subject, you (along with Blackstone) could prove otherwise, on even better grounds than apply to current Islam, which has no "infallible" Pope, but a mass of different interpretations, as you state. (You know the only "right" one, of course. Maybe you should be Caliph!)

But when in 1829 Catholics finally did receive civil rights, no harm whatsoever was caused to the country, or the state, or any of its institutions. The bogey was an illusion.

 

[cullennz]

My number 1 reason is that it did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

At which point the question really becomes what makes you think it it would have happened anyway?

McHrozni

We are talking about ISIS and you are the one claiming it would happen anyway.

Up to you to prove it

 

[McHrozni]

We are talking about ISIS and you are the one claiming it would happen anyway.

Up to you to prove it

I did admit it could go on by a different name. I fail to see how that would change anything though.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

I did admit it could go on by a different name. I fail to see how that would change anything though.

McHrozni

They wouldn't have been illegally invaded

 

[McHrozni]

I see. If Muslims commit crimes, it's the fault of their religion.

No, but I'm glad I was right in that you'll pretend there is still something unclear.

If you're still unable to grasp what is it that Muslims are guilty of, even after the post you quoted and post #145, you lack the necessary qualifications (either linguistic or otherwise) to debate these topics. Please either try to grasp what I'm talking about refrain from making further posts and waste valuable bandwidth. Thank you

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

They wouldn't have been illegally invaded

There would be no easy way to scapegoat the West, you mean. Sure. A group or collection of groups virtually indistinguishable from ISIS woulds till exist though. How does this change anything in a meaningful way?

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Sure, thank you for proving my point -

That wasn't your point.

there is more than one "correct" interpretation of Islamics scriptures.

True.

For those genuinely ignorant of what that means: ISIS is completely right to say their actions are Islamic and the only way a Muslim should behave. The fact some Muslims "disagree" with that "interpretation" in no way changes that.

Also true. It also means that Muslims who believe the complete opposite from what ISIS believes ard completely right to say their actions are Islamic and the only way a Muslim should behave. The fact that ISIS "disagrees" with that "interpretation" in no way changes that

Yeah, it's such a ***************.

It's also the way all religions work.

Some people think that because an unproblematic subset currently exist, the whole system is basically fine and really doesn't need any major improvement. My response to them has always been one of contempt.

You say you understand that Islam is a loose collection of effectively separate religions who have different interpretations of the same set of scriptures, then you focus on how ISIS are justified in claiming that their interpretation is the only correct one and call the whole "system" of Islam problematic based on ISIS' interpretation, to the point where you treat anyone who says exactly the same thing you said at the start of your post with contempt.

 

[Belz...]

They also do not want the Western powers to soften their military action in Syria and Iraq. On the contrary they hope that they will go to a ground war. In their mythology hey believe that they will beat the Romans (viewed as a symbol of the West) in a great battle in Dabiq (Syria). The fact that one of their propaganda online magazines is named Dabiq is not a coincidence.

Indeed, so let's march an army to Dabiq and kick their ass, breaking the prophecy.

 

[Belz...]

ISIS are arguably a direct result of an illegal war.

Their methods are sick as.

But the coalition brought it on themselves

I think that's an oversimplification. While the west's actions in the middle east surely didn't help, let's not forget that that region of the world has been a hotbed of war and tyranny for a long time. Add to that the fact that the Shia and Sunni hate each other probably more than they hate us, and that, if you want to play historian, they attacked us first, and this sort of thing was going to happen one way or another.

But the war on Iraq was poorly executed, and perhaps a bad idea to begin with, and it sure helped to bring ISIS about.

 

[McHrozni]

Also true. It also means that Muslims who believe the complete opposite from what ISIS believes ard completely right to say their actions are Islamic and the only way a Muslim should behave. The fact that ISIS "disagrees" with that "interpretation" in no way changes that

Unless dead bodies are involved. Which happens surprisingly often with Islam.

It's also the way all religions work.

Not even close.

You say you understand that Islam is a loose collection of effectively separate religions who have different interpretations of the same set of scriptures, then you focus on how ISIS are justified in claiming that their interpretation is the only correct one and call the whole "system" of Islam problematic based on ISIS' interpretation, to the point where you treat anyone who says exactly the same thing you said at the start of your post with contempt.

It's usually polite to read the arguments from the other person and adress them and not something that wasn't said.

Why can't you argue against my points without using logical fallacies? I have an idea why.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

No, but I'm glad I was right in that you'll pretend there is still something unclear.

If you're still unable to grasp what is it that Muslims are guilty of, even after the post you quoted and post #145, you lack the necessary qualifications (either linguistic or otherwise) to debate these topics. Please either try to grasp what I'm talking about refrain from making further posts and waste valuable bandwidth. Thank you

McHrozni

Yes, I thought you'd flee the field shouting a few insults over your shoulder as you went. Have a nice day.

ETA
A'isha got similar treatment, I see.

 

[Aepervius]

What then are Muslim citizens of EU countries, and how should they be treated?

Like normal citizen.

I was responding to McHronzi and the pew poll putting two vastly different culture in the same poll. Or mashing different answer together.

 

[Tolls]

Yes, I thought you'd flee the field shouting a few insults over your shoulder as you went. Have a nice day.

ETA
A'isha got similar treatment, I see.

It's a common tactic.
Apparently we are all incapable of understanding him.
That, of course, is not his fault, via an inability to make himself understood, but ours for being complete numpties.

 

[McHrozni]

Apparently we are all incapable of understanding him.

To be honest I really doubt it's capacity to understand me that's the problem.

The real problem is that some people are so dumbsided by the mantra of "all religions are equal" and the postulate that "Islam is not to blame" they're unwilling to consider the evidence to the contrary.

When faced by the evidence to the contrary they can't refute, they instead pretend they didn't understand it, so they (in their own rather small minds) don't have to address it and don't have to change their opinions.

It's a common tactic, usually reffered to as trolling I believe.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I was responding to McHronzi and the pew poll putting two vastly different culture in the same poll. Or mashing different answer together.

Different culture without the apparently problematic religion doesn't lead to any problems. Different culture with the apparently problematic religion does lead to problems.

How do you conclude from that that mashing different cultures is causing confusion?

McHrozni
(and not McHronzi )