Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***

Arazi said:
If they are involved in any way then yes, also i am not the security services, that decision of where\what to put or do with them isnt upto me.
Click to expand...

But thats the issue. Its alright to sit here and say "do this, do that" and then say its not my problem how. The last time the Tories tried to shore up the laws on this it never went through as they couldnt come up with a legal definition of "extremist"

So without definitions, who decides? Is somebody arrested and detained indefinitely without trial purely on one phone call tip off? If so I'm ringing in Deuse's name. You see the issue?

Its like this scumbag who dd the attack. Its starting to seem like 4 or 5 people rung security services to warn them about him but the security services looked at him and decided it wasnt serious enough to put him on the list. Therefore what you are demanding would never have stopped him unless you lock up anybody that has been phoned in about and keep them locked up forever. The only way to absolutely reduce the chance of a attack to the bear minimum would be to lock up a huge number of innocent people along with the guilty. Once you are at that level you may as well just lock up every Muslim.
 
robfosters said:
The main bit I agreed with was that we should have specialised prisons for extremists.
Click to expand...

He was all over the shop though as he also said all the people on the watch list should all be hung or flogged or stoned to death. I switched off after that so missed when he perhaps went a bit more normal and just said about specialised prisons.
 
Greebo said:
Its like this scumbag who dd the attack. Its starting to seem like 4 or 5 people rung security services to warn them about him but the security services looked at him and decided it wasnt serious enough to put him on the list. Therefore what you are demanding would never have stopped him unless you lock up anybody that has been phoned in about and keep them locked up forever. The only way to absolutely reduce the chance of a attack to the bear minimum would be to lock up a huge number of innocent people along with the guilty. Once you are at that level you may as well just lock up every Muslim.
Click to expand...

Interesting, though it seems a lot of speculation based on not much at all, if true that he was possibly CIA trained and involved in UK/US backed stuff in Syria which might be why they were so reluctant to do anything :s
 
Above&Beyond said:
He's a boxer, not Noam Chomsky, so we can afford to cut him some slack. He was obviously speaking with raw emotion but his views in general will be mirrored by a lot of people.
Click to expand...

no need to cut him any slack - he came out with a ridiculous rant etc.. and can be criticised for it just as you would criticise anyone else
 
Above&Beyond said:
That's unreasonable given the circumstances. It'd be like holding his words up as the gospel truth and criticising him straight after he's been 12 rounds.
Click to expand...

Why is it unreasonable? He's made a comment just like anyone else on this forum, it isn't unreasonable to criticise especially as the comment he made was ridiculously stupid.
 
SS-89 said:
I do think Islam has a structural problem, the main arguments you hear against the violent parts of the scriptures is that such and such paragraph/passage supercedes this, that may be true but when you don't have a central figure who can ratify that (i.e. the pope) it's essentially a my word against yours. The Quran is the divine words of God so presumably nobody has any right to make those claims.

The majority of Muslims are clearly not in the violent end of the spectrum (1.8 billion muslims globally would result in a lot more terrorists if that wasn't the case) but clearly the ability to cherry pick and interpret the religion in a manner that suits their agenda has allowed ISIS etc. to thrive.

How do you fight that ideology without a reform of the religion itself? I don't think it's possible so I don't see a viable solution aside from tighter restrictions on those with links to terrorist groups and maybe revoking citizenship for those that go to fight for such groups. My fiance and her family are muslim (moderates) and she openly admits those saying this isn't an issue of Islam itself is both misguided and naive.

Apathy is a real issue and the cynic in me is slowly veering towards that. I don't think humans are capable of global peace, too much greed for power/wealth/control.
Click to expand...

I'm sure but I going to be called a deflectionist here but is that not the same issue with most religions?

My initial thought when reading about the lack of a central leader was to agree with you, but then subsequently I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you're making out. Yes Catholicism has a central figure, but he is only the central figure for one of the many religious denominations that make up Christianity. When you don't agree with his interpretation you split and make up another denomination - see the CoE as a prime example. There are many denominations of Christianity all the way down to the Wesrboro baptist church, all technically worshiping the same god and history, but interpreting the bible in different ways - some literally, some figuratively and some just picking and choosing depending on what they want to portray.

Some take the less savoury paragraphs and claim they should be followed literally, while most moderate people (and denominations) realise they aren't fit for today's world and just don't teach them (as Dis pointed out in his post). Doesn't matter if those paragraphs are in the Koran or Bible.

That's what we see in Islam - Shia and Sunni being the two biggest denominations, both having very different interpretations of the book that is apparently not interpretable. We see this throughout the religious world, heck, not even the religious world, the world as a whole - it's basically the premise of countries as well.

Not having a central leader doesn't help matters (depending on what they are preaching), but it's not the "structural problem". If Islam had an "supreme" leader how would that change what we see today? I don't think it would change much - those wanting to use their interpretation of Islam as a weapon would just split (or be thrown out) and create their own denomination with their own leader and followers believing their interpretation was the correct one.

There are a whole host of reasons for the current issues with Islamists but I don't think a lack of leadership or any particular structural issue is any more an endemic problem than in any other religion.

I think your last paragraph hit it on the head, it's all about greed, power and control in its various forms. Either using religion as a weapon to unite people to their cause, or as an identifier in their differences.

Take for example the fight Scorza brought up in the Philippines. The Islamic insurgency in Mindanou. It's been going on for hundreds of years and essentially started as a independence battle between Muslim communities and the Spanish empire insisting their lands belonged to them and that they would have to convert to Christianity when they colonized the Philippines (subsequently the Americans tried the same thing). It's essentially been a seperatist battle with a bit of cultural heritage thrown in.

Other organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda are all about trying to "protect" what they perceive is their culture from outside interference from others - largely western culture, which is a major influence on people throughout the Middle East and North Africa (and most of the rest of the world). They're dinosaurs trying to hold on to what they believe was golden era, using religion to entice followers to their cause. They then use violence to try and implement that change, and then force people to live in the way they believe is right (see their actions against those unfortunate enough to be stuck in cities under their influence), no difference to any other extreme right (or left) wing organization.

Islam is perfectly happy coexisting in a modern democratic society, as seen by the millions of Muslims living peacefully in them. Much of the current day issues are due to a multitude of historic and current day events, no more to do with religion than any other.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
There are many denominations of Christianity all the way down to the Wesrboro baptist church
Click to expand...

This is just a tiny slice of the UK denominations - none of which have any central figure though many do use the same translation (Derby and King James variants being amongst the more common) and many do refer back to the same older ministry for guidance:

http://www.discourses.org.uk/History/dendrogramBig.pdf

To my knowledge relatively speaking Islam by comparison is a lot more centralised.

(Most of these split apart over differences as to who is right in regards to interpretation, etc.)

EDIT: To my knowledge the furthest it has ever got when such 2 groups have been in conflict has been chairs thrown at each other in a meeting hall.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
Islam is perfectly happy coexisting in a modern democratic society, as seen by the millions of Muslims living peacefully in them. Much of the current day issues are due to a multitude of historic and current day events, no more to do with religion than any other.
Click to expand...

Not always, - it can be but there are quite clearly issues within muslim communities that need to be addressed, the reform argument has merit and I'm not sure the various deflecting that inevitably happens when it is brought up is particularly helpful or relevant. This isn't just confined to Islamists:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom