|
U-Know! Forum » I'm so confused..... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:06
|
||
Ive been saying similar all day and not one person has come up with a sensible answer!
|
|||
|
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:08
|
||
the reason being I suspect is that being shown on the internet, after the easiest of searches will dispel their myth and undermine their bigotry
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:09
|
||
|
billding68 wrote: Sin Agog wrote: carol27 wrote: IanB wrote: carol27 wrote: billding68 wrote: carol27 wrote: thispoison wrote: On a night like this I'd happily see every Mosque in Europe bulldozed. Maybe a more measured response later. Maybe... Overall, though, I am with Julian in his hatred of Islam. Not a view I have come to without some soul-searching. Sorry if that offends any well-meaning but impotent liberals in these parts. Not that I side with our glorious political leaders and their actions in the Middle East which have made their own unique and malign contribution to current events. But I was over in Paris in 1995, and Islamic terrorists were killing people there even then. Well before 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus ça change. Jihadi John died far too painlessly. Hilariously, I have heard that Jeremy Corbyn would have preferred his arrest and trial. Words fail me on that view... BTW, the ones to feel sorry for are the poor bastards who just went out on a Friday night to enjoy themselves and didn't make it home. And their families and friends. So, what do you suggest we do? Abolish Islam from the Western world completely. Islam is not a faith of peace but of Aggression. Islam teaches to lay in wait until the time is right and destroy your enemy at any cost. Islam teaches that those who submit to Allah's will and sacrifice themselves will be rewarded. Islam is a cancer. Would the western world be worse off if Islam was no longer a threat? Give them Somalia, build a wall around it, and let them destroy themselves. Sorry I don't actually know how to begin responding to that. I remember angry people here back in the 70s saying the exact same thing about Northern Ireland in the aftermath of some new atrocity perpetrated by one side or the other. Made no sense then. Makes even less sense in this case given that this is a borderless conflict. Look at where the funding comes from and start there. Though I don't remember anyone here in that era baying for the RAF to bomb Boston or Philadelphia in retaliation for US contributions to Noraid. I would steer away from stigmatising a billion and half plus individuals who like you and I are just trying to get by. We know exactly where that train of thought ends if it gains momentum. I was just thinking that. Round people up, put them on trains, hold them in camps.... Sounds like my clan's Annual Family Vacation to Pontins. Except I'm sure that involves more torture. And gas if Aunty Nora's coming. So what youre is a billion people cant be wrong? um...yes they can. where are the billions (minus the handful of "radicals" now?) Why are there not a billion or so people not taking to the streets in protest? in the western world we track down our criminals in a very timely fashion and bring them to justice..why does the Boko Haram exist? why does the Taliban Exist? why does Isis exist? Why don't they take care of their shit? because they agree with it, that's why. In the case of the Taliban, they exist in part because Brzezinski and Co. funded and trained the Mujahideen to topple Afghanistan's then-Communist government. Brzesinski admitted this in 1998: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/ In the case of Isis, they exist because America and its "coalition of the willing" overthrew the governments of Iraq, Libya, and destabilized Syria to such an extent there is no political force capable of countering Islamic fundamentalism. The fact that the main victims of both Isis and the Taliban are fellow Muslims should alert you to the fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with these groups. Had we (the West, plus Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) not overthrown the governments of the areas where Isis chiefly operates, I'm sure the Muslims there would have "taken care of their shit" quite effectively.
|
|||
|
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:12
|
||
|
I agree with Corbyn on many aspects. Firstly by killing terrorists outright it's more likely to make them martyrs, thus meaning more violence. With arrest and trial comes humiliation of their cause and a far less escalation of violence. Did the death of Bin Laden stop anything? Of course it didn't, at the end of the day his death solved no problems. Furthermore, we in the west like to pretend we're civilised, they're supposed to be the uncivilised murderous ones, not us, so we really shouldn't be sinking to their level!
|
|||
|
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:15
|
||
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/14/how-muslims-around-the-world-condemned-the-paris-attacks/?tid=sm_tw
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:37
|
||
|
Smegging hate typing on an ipad, but I still don't have a working computer, but... My neighbour's son went to join IS (their name keeps getting shorter) in Pakistan last year. His family, who are pretty close friends of mine, will probably never see him again. He was a sweet kid; intelligent, well-read but obviously someone whose world carried a much heavier gravity than most. He was and is a kid, though. We're knee-deep in the end of a thorough and systematic dehumanisation campaign against our enemies, when it's always of paramount importance to not turn them into one faceless mass of concerted evil. I recall watching a doc made in the mid '70s that featured a Vietnamese general meeting an American general and both of them exasperatedly confessing they knew precious little about the other as actual persons. Whether they do so or not, we have to look at the etymology, the background, the underlying humanity of these people, if we want to potentially salve the wounds of these continuous conflicts. It's too easy to turn people who bother us into one craven voice, rather than delve below the present surface and realise these are actual people here, some broken, some misguided, and some who believe they are just following their morals, but people. I saw my neighbour's boy grow up, had water fights with him and his sisters, even had chats about how cornered he was feeling whenever he looked at the newspaper headlines. Evil is a concept that exists to exonerate ourselves of carrying the responsibility of holding common humanity with the people we hate. It's much harder to think of them as wayward children far closer to us than we like.
|
|||
|
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Nov 14, 2015, 22:53
|
||
|
Not to mention that we're still feeling the ripples of things like Britain razing Iraqi villages to the ground, killing every last person and animal, for daring to ask us for independence some decades ago. We utterly refuse to see past the present event, the latest headline, into the old events and old headlines upon whose foundation the present is built. Terrorists are clone stormtroopers who emerge out of the womb fully activated. No, the world stage is a decidedly small one where every event affects the whole cast, and we've helped set the scene with a series of disastrous decisions borne of colonialism and single-minded avarice. The Middle-Eastern death toll at the west's hands is astronomical. And that's at the hands of fully-sanctioned governments. You don't just snuff out millions of lives through various meddlings and Carthaginian slaughterings without consequences. We're reaping our rewards now. Dylan's Masters Of War nailed it 50 years ago.
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
Nov 15, 2015, 00:14
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: So who am i to feel sorry for, Jihadi John,the terrorist cunts in Paris or there victims? Is all this stuff still the fault of the United States? Does it matter that the one real tie that binds all these guys worldwide is one form or another of Islam? Should i just forget about it even happening,and go pound sand up my ass? So confused...... Nevermind, i'll just spin a Motorhead record. I obviously could'nt have worded this post any better.
|
|||
billding68 1016 posts |
Nov 15, 2015, 06:58
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: dhajjieboy wrote: So who am i to feel sorry for, Jihadi John,the terrorist cunts in Paris or there victims? Is all this stuff still the fault of the United States? Does it matter that the one real tie that binds all these guys worldwide is one form or another of Islam? Should i just forget about it even happening,and go pound sand up my ass? So confused...... Nevermind, i'll just spin a Motorhead record. I obviously could'nt have worded this post any better. Once again you've proven yourself to be a horses ass. Now leave you Troll.
|
|||
|
Lump Of Green Slime 56 posts |
Edited Nov 15, 2015, 08:01
Nov 15, 2015, 07:48
|
||
|
At the moment I am working my way through a whole raft of books on Islam, Islamic radicalism and recent Middle Eastern history. In the past I have also taught Islamic philosophy. Additionally, I hang out here but hardly ever post. Given the events on Friday, I thought I might therefore offer some preliminary impressions of what I think has been going on and recommend a few publications and online articles for anyone who might be interested in navigating this vast, multidisciplinary territory. First of all, here's an extract from a book review by William Dalrymple which dates from 2003: 'It is no coincidence that Saudi Arabia provided 15 of the 19 hijackers on 11 September. Ever since the Thirties, the Saudi regime has vigorously exported Wahhabi Islam, the most severe, puritanical incarnation of a religion which historically has been remarkable for its tolerance and syncretism. The Saudis have used their oil wealth to try to kill off tolerant forms of Islam. Saudi money financed the most extreme Jihadis fighting in Afghanistan and the camps in which they were trained. It was these camps that produced the Afghan Arabs who form the hard core of al-Qaeda as well as a myriad of other similar organisations. The Saudis now dominate as much as 90 per cent of Arabic language newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, radio and TV. They have also promoted the mass radicalisation of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kurdistan by funding the hard-core Wahhabi, Salafi and Deobandi schools that now dominate education there.' From what I can tell, anti-Muslim rhetoric that attempts to essentialise Islam ('All Muslims are....') and present it as a monolithic, ahistorical, Borg-like 'you will be assimilated' type entity are responding to this version of the faith (or its Shia counterpart, as represented by Iran and organisations like Hezbollah), which is actually called Salafism or Wahhabism. It has also given rise to the 'clash of civilisations' narrative, which has been promoted in academic circles to a greater or lesser extent by writers such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis. In a way, the ISIS project and that of al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, the Taliban etc. is also about setting the faith in granite, so there is an interesting symbiotic relationship at work there. How reasonable is this narrative? Well, as Dalrymple indicates, there's a lot of it about. And apparently, ISIS have received approval ratings of 92% in Saudi opinion polls. Meanwhile, in his excellent overview of Islamic State, the Palestinian author Abdel Bari Atwan has attempted to gauge wider public opinion in the Middle East. Arab governments, as one might expect, are obviously opposed, as are the liberal middle classes who view ISIS as a fundamentalist group that seek to restrict their freedoms and impose the burqa on their women; for the first time, among this class, there is widespread support for Western military intervention to destroy Islamic state. As for the rest, Atwan writes that where there is sympathy, it appears to be more widespread than support for al-Qaeda, even in its heyday. The fact that Islamic state has declared a caliphate has awakened dreams of a return to a 'Golden Age'. It is worth remembering, however, that most Muslims live outside the Middle East (85% of Indonesia's 235 million people are Sunni Muslim, for example) . And - Saudi Arabia aside - large scale surveys and opinion polls in Muslim-majority countries repeatedly affirm that a majority of Muslims want democratic governments in their countries. Furthermore, although the radical ideologues within the Islamic world form a vocal minority, the voices of Islamic modernism and liberal thinking have, apparently, not been completely sidelined or rendered ineffectual, or at least that's what Asma Afsaruddin claims in her latest book. Plus, it should be noted that only a minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have answered Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's call to actually make hijra to ISIS territory. Those wishing to know more about the topic of radicalisation and the appeal of ISIS might enjoy this piece by Kenan Malik, which challenged quite a few of my assumptions: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/radiclization-is-not-so-simple/ For anyone curious enough to want to take the temperature of more moderate Islam, I would recommend picking up something by Khaled Abou El-Fadl, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Irshad Manji, Abdulaziz Sachedina, or the wonderful Michael Muhammad Knight, the founder of the taqwacore movement, who is a sort of Muslim Hunter S. Thompson. As for what can be done about ISIS, William McCants surveys the options here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/isis-jihad-121525_Page3.html#.Vkgvr3bhDcs His recent book on ISIS is also well-worth a look, as he highlights the apocalyptic, millennial beliefs that fuel their ideology (they think that we are living in the end times). This is an aspect of ISIS that others have neglected. As far as Islam itself is concerned, Malise Ruthven, for my money is the best guide to the faith. Here's a sample: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/feb/28/lure-caliphate-isis/ Next up for me are the famous 'sword verses' of the Qur'an. Does their existence indicate that Islam is an inherently violent religion? To answer that question I'll be reading Michael Cook and Asma Afsaruddin. Anyway, I hope something I've written above might be useful in some way.
|
| Pages: 13 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
