84 Confirmed dead after another apparent terrorism attack in Nice, France,
- Thread starter Scania
- Start date
Why are you just clogging the thread with pointless rambling, if someone wants to answer then let them.
quit quoting me unless you want to take part in what im talking about
Lol. You're actually serious aren't you?! Can you read? It's implicit ffs!
bit rich... I am more than happy to discuss the topic, I have been more than happy to discuss the topic for several pages, I think I made that pretty clear.
I quoted you because I was addressing something in your post. Why not engage in discussion and share your views instead of demanding things of other posters(which have been answered) whilst ignoring similar questions asked of yourself...
again.....
like i already told you
when someone makes a claim then its upto that person to prove their claim, not mine to disprove them.
until you can understand the above, its hard to have a discussion with you.
You're not really willing to engage in any form of discussion at all - people have already explained why they consider him to be a Muslim/follower of Islam. You've then tried to turn this into a semantic issue (which doesn't really work in this instance as it certainly isn't just his identity as a Muslim that is the only factor here but also the interest in ISIS and the rather large action he carried out in the name of Islam). Next you've moved onto 'proof' essentially trying to start a theological discussion whereby someone would have to quote bits of the Quran that Islamists often use to justify acts of terror... I've addressed above.
Yet still you're unable or unwilling to answer the question asked of you re: your views on whether he is or isn't a Muslim/follower of Islam. Why is that?
It seems that you didn't get answers you liked so you just carried on making the same pointless demands... it is, as I pointed out previously, borderline trolling.
And of course you get the odd jibe in with the usual
Is it an insecurity thing - you seem to feel more comfortable demanding answers and throwing in little jibes questioning other posters' intelligence but don't appear to have the confidence to answer similar questions yourself? It isn't too hard to simply answer the question above and share your own views - you've demanded the same of others yet so far have been unwilling yourself.
Last edited:
You know you are wasting your time, i gave up after two debates, not worth it, have a beer and laugh at him
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
I think Amnesia's attempted escape route is that there isn't a passage in the Quran about driving large goods vehicles into crowds of infidels, ergo Islam dindu nuffin.
But that would be why it is pointless to provide the so called 'proof' demanded. It just a theological issue then... quote some example passages that Islamists use as justification for their acts and some Muslims who isn't an Islamist will, with some hand waving, explain them away as being misinterpreted. All rather futile as the Islamists believe the same of the 'moderate' interpretation.
People can acknowledge that there are different interpretations of Islam or perhaps state a view that certain interpretations (such as Islamist ones) aren't proper Islam and therefore those Islamists aren't proper Muslims/followers of Islam... which is a similar view plenty of Islamists have of moderates.
It isn't a hard discussion to have if someone is willing to discuss instead of getting wound up over semantics or theological arguments.
Thought i would share this link
Click political ideology to sort into ascending order and scroll down, and down and down...
Nothing to do with Islam though, it's the Wests fault, coming over here and stealing our oils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...iolent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks
It is a list of all terrorist attacks worldwide since 1910 that caused deaths, not injured\injuries.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Will comment soon, still scrolling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
But that would be why it is pointless to provide the so called 'proof' demanded. It just a theological issue then... quote some example passages that Islamists use as justification for their acts and some Muslims who isn't an Islamist will, with some hand waving, explain them away as being misinterpreted. All rather futile as the Islamists believe the same of the 'moderate' interpretation.
People can acknowledge that there are different interpretations of Islam or perhaps state a view that certain interpretations (such as Islamist ones) aren't proper Islam and therefore those Islamists aren't proper Muslims/followers of Islam... which is a similar view plenty of Islamists have of moderates.
It isn't a hard discussion to have if someone is willing to discuss instead of getting wound up over semantics or theological arguments.
Practising a religion as a community and believing in murder to advance a political agenda whilst using the same religion as cover and propaganda material are not 'believing the same' by a long shot. In one case we're talking about people being part of society, exercising their full rights as citizens, and in the other we're talking of outlaws, vigilantes and pariahs, of whom there are plenty in all shapes, colours and creeds, using religious language to gain access to, influence and convert individuals, vulnerable or not, to their cause; a cause which is fairly bloodily-pragmatic and revolutionary in intent, with religious pretexts being used by amateur warlords to control their supporters rather than to pursue a life of spirituality.
Indeed 'crackdowns', collapse of tolerance and punitive social measures leading towards segregation and forced cultural assimilation rather than bullets and bombs we throw at groupings like ISIS is what's costing us in the ideological war, more than anything. When society fails and people born here (the West if you like) turn to extremism, it's our joint fault and responsibility, particularly if one likes implicit, indirect and other oblong routes to causation via correlation.
Moreover, quoting medieval and ancient texts out of context without interpretation is a minefield of populist drivel. Which is why we have religious scholars, faith and community leaders and organised faith centres to dispel myths regarding rogue interpretations of whatever religion, collaborating with the authorities as required. On this I trust the Home Office more than dodgily-sourced material for tabloids, to be frank.
Still, out of interest: I must've missed the Quran being quoted in this case by the murderer or his accomplices. What did they say?
no one has claimed that
though I wouldn't try to dismiss this as a 'political agenda' either whatever that means in this context - politics/religion it is just a belief/ideology at the end of the day - in the case of Religion there is a magic sky pixie attached to the ideology... this individual was a Muslim, a follower of Islam and carried out this action on behalf of an Islamist group. No one is claiming his beliefs(or rather at least not all of them) are the same as moderate Muslims with different/moderate ideas of what Islam stands for.
there is no central authority within Islam and there are plenty of cleric out there supporting various interpretations of it - you can't trust a single entity as being the definitive interpretation of Islam
Maybe you did maybe you didn't - I'm not aware of anyone quoting them in the press yet
Last edited:
Whilst I understand the troubles in northern Ireland were horrendous.
To suggest that British muslims have it easier by compariosn regardless of if they come from Iraq Syria or Afghanistan seems trite.
Try listening to this:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Clarity is important if you're trying to ascribe a belief system to someone from less than ideal exposure to their views and beliefs. Frankly, after the media furore dies down, we learn little of value about these cases and most follow up and information gathering work goes on in the background. There are also issues of self-identification and practice at play.
Sure, it's an ideology; however, Islam isn't any more or less inherently political or fatalistic, unless it's explicitly politicised so, than any other religion in its broad family. Nor is there something inherent about its theology, above and beyond others in existence, which makes it easier to be deployed as a political tool. It's newer and has been wielded ludicrously by a few autocrats, but that's about it.
Not all clerics are equal in standing and significance either, and there are religious norms within its two main traditions, guidance and interpretation of core texts for the followers which do indeed identify extreme behaviours and heresies as cults at best, and resolve questions of validity. We can semantically merge the two, but they are a world apart just as Westboro Baptist Church and its members are from anything resembling the norms of mainstream Christianity.
Crude, broad brushstrokes will neither 'fix' nor modernise mainstream Islam, nor will they help with addressing extremism. They'll make the situation worse and alienate more people.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,474
Twaddle. You demonstrates no understanding of the troubles by your initial comments and now you are deflecting. It is a completely different situation being a refugee from a war torn region uprooted and dumped in an alien nation, as opposed to being a British muslim, born and bred, now into many generations of families born and bred here, in all levels of society, capable of achieving anything with position, power, education and the country not automatically setup to discriminate against them.
You are suggesting I made a reference to everyone being the same.
Of course they are not.
Rufugees by nature of their existance are not British. There will automatically be a difference.
Doesn't give them any right to violence or a violent struggle here. That is why they left in the first place, allegedly.
Stop trying to assign text to me I did not type.