Attack in London Today

If nimh had bothered to read what I said before misstating me, he would have seen that I DID INDEED refer to extremist Muslims in the original post, comparing them directly to Christian extremists.

Lash wrote:

Again, JTT, you can take that crap back in time when it happened. We are talking about the here and now. And, we are interested in church-sanctioned killing.

Someone else may be interested in the history lesson.

We've all heard it.

Meanwhile--

think-- Kudos for addressing my questions.

However, a handful of extremists wouldn'tbother me.

This, however, gives me great concern. Did you know about these? Because it is obviously more than a handful.

Spain
Sudan (Arab North vs. Christian South)
Nigeria
Balkans States (SE Europe)
Russia (Chechnya region)
Israel
Iraq
India vs. Pakastan
China vs. Muslim seperatist (extreme SW region)
Thailand (southern muslims vs. buddist)
Indonesia (Bali, etc)
Phllippinese (mostly on the southern islands)

------

If you want to go through these to see who is the aggressor and who has massacred more of the other side, we can. One war at a time.

So, obviously, your statement:
"Did Lash take any such considerations into account in her list? No, ..."

was wrong.

I am content to look at the causes and behaviors in each war. I am not bent on finding a prejudged set of statistics--but I fully expect to find them.

Before we dive in, let's restrict ourselves to a defined span of time. You can suggest the span.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

think-cyclops-wolf--

The Inquisition is over. Yes or no.

Christian extremists aren't in wars all over the globe. Yes or no.

RIGHT NOW, Muslim extremists ARE in wars in more than a few places and fueled by their religion. Yes or no.

The hierarchy of the Christian religion DOES NOT condone murder in the name of their religion. Yes or no.

There are Islamic religious leaders, who DO CONDONE murder in the name of their religion. Yes or no.

What is no longer tolerated here is the constant fanatical retreat to history to try and make a comparison between Muslims and Christians.

The tired line about those who know, accept and revile these facts being uninformed...or stupid....or bigots...or anything other than people who reject continued lying and subterfuge about this subject--won't be entertained any longer.

Why can't you face facts and answer truthfully?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Hmm .. this is an interesting combination of assertions:

Lash wrote:

Christian extremists aren't in wars all over the globe

Lash wrote:
These are the wars being fought by Muslims.
Right now.

Spain
Sudan (Arab North vs. Christian South)
Nigeria
Balkans States (SE Europe)
Russia (Chechnya region)
Israel
Iraq
India vs. Pakastan
China vs. Muslim seperatist (extreme SW region)
Thailand (southern muslims vs. buddist)
Indonesia (Bali, etc)
Phllippinese (mostly on the southern islands)

I wonder who Lash thinks Muslims are at war with in Sudan, Nigeria, the Balkans and Russia. (Also note how the absence of Christian extremists is compared to wars fought by Muslims, period.)
As I said in my previous post, I know they aren't the only ones fighting, and I'd enjoy delving further into each war/battle/terrorist act/etc to see who is really doing what to whom.
(On an aside, I find it kind of sad to see Lash deteriorate into calling the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, which I suppose is what she means by "Balkans States (SE Europe)", part of "their CURRENT attempted conquests." Yep, thats what those Muslims of Srebrenica were doing - conquering Christian countries.)
I copied this list from another site when I was searching for current wars involving Muslims. I trusted it was accurate, but it won't be the first time someone has brought as imperfect article.
Anyways, lets play the game along.

These are the wars being fought by Christians.
Right now. (Well, in 2004.)

Colombia
Sudan
Congo
Angola
Burundi
Ivory Coast
Kenya
Liberia
Uganda (eg "Resistance Army of the Lord", no less)
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Georgia
Serbia/Kosovo
Russia
Iraq
Philippines

and dont forget, not too long ago, Rwanda ...

(Sources: BBC: This World; Armed Conflict Report 2004)

Not specifically religious wars, you say? Most of em ethnically or politically motivated? The Christians weren't the agressors?
LET'S SEE, SHALL WE?
Did Lash take any such considerations into account in her list? No, so apples and apples we'll compare.
WRONG!!! SHE DID TAKE THOSE THOUGHTS INTO CONSIDERATION, as proven by the post.
Funny how you can make these kind of arguments, eh?

I don't think it's the least bit funny. Is what's going on in the Netherlands funny to you? London, humourous? I'm not laughing..

0 Replies

Religious war/attacks/acts of terrorism--1980-present

By Christians against all
The genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, mainly Muslims, primarily by Serbian Orthodox Christians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990s.

By Muslims against all
The genocide of the Roman Catholics in East Timor by the Muslim government of Indonesia from 1975 to 1999. About one in three were exterminated.

The genocide of Christians and Animists by the Muslim government of Sudan. This program continues today, although it does appear to be slowing down.

The genocide of West Papuans by Indonesian Muslims.

(I'm going to see for once and for all who's doing what 1980-present. I'll be bringing items in as I find them.)

Statements of Approval of religious murder by Christian hierarchy

Statements of Approval of religious murder by Islamic hierarchy

0 Replies

I don't think we can put the Russian-Chechen conflict neatly into either a religious motive--or squarely lay the blame with one side.

If anyone feels differently, I wish they'd say why.

I've read that Russia is exterminating them...and I've also heard the Muslims are to blame. Either way, what's going on there is horrible.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Today's terrorism is a result of yesterday's foolhardy and venal actions, Finn.

What should be done in the here and now is to learn from yesterday's foolhardy and venal actions so that we may not continue to commit more foolhardy and venal actions, so that we may not die at the hands of the people our government has wronged, if the cessation of reactionary violence--because that's exactly what the terror being perpetrated against us is-- to our foolhardy and venal actions is really our goal.

Or, we could do like what I previously posted upon which Brandon commented.

It's tough to stay in tune when limited to once a week or so, and so forgive me if this response is in any way out of sync.

Infra - I've run through the previous posts twice now and I can't find anything that approaches an alternative authored by you. Please point me in the right direction and I will stand corrected.

InfraBlue wrote:

Today's terrorism is a result of yesterday's foolhardy and venal actions, Finn.

This is quite a facile statement. Glib is profound only by luck, and you didn't hit the jackpot on this one.

If I'm not mistaken, the suspects in the London bombing are all young British citizens of 24 years or less. How might our government have possibly wronged them?

Even supposing we had wronged them, how do your moral scales balance wrongful acts? This is essential to the original issue addressed.

I find it ceaselessly amusing that Liberal who are of the mind that might carry posters declaring "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind!" find it unassailably logical that those the US might have wronged (even tangentially) will pursue revenge most bloody.

Either there is a significant disconnect in such thinking or there is a prejudice that holds that young men of Pakistani origin are not to be held to the moral strictures that bind America.

Perfection may be sought, but it will never be obtained. Each and every government on earth will be guilty of foolhardy and venal actions over time. If the answer to terrorism is to cease foolhardy and venal actions, we are all doomed.

And so the question appears to remain unanswered: Does the West deserve these acts of violence?

It seems to me that you are advancing a set of rules that cannot but leave the West vulnerable and deserving of violent attacks. By these rules, there is but one way to travel the right road: Isolationism. Withdraw from all contact with the world, because any of our actions might be interpreted as foolhardy and venal and therefore deserving of retaliation.

Fortunately, this is, largely, an academic argument, because once the planes hit the skyscrapers and the bombs explode in the subways, no one in authority is asking whether or not the carnage is deserved or even explicable. It is only the muddled minded, fueled by post-modernist thinking (which most of them don't even realize they are advancing) who flounder around the question of what must be done.

And so the answer is: "Stop doing foolhardy and venal things!"

Yes, that will solve it all. For, after all, we know that bad things only happen in response to other bad things, and that a United States that is pristine (the definition of which is a whole other argument) will be not only proud, but happy and SAFE!

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

Here here

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Today's terrorism is a result of yesterday's foolhardy and venal actions, Finn.

What should be done in the here and now is to learn from yesterday's foolhardy and venal actions so that we may not continue to commit more foolhardy and venal actions, so that we may not die at the hands of the people our government has wronged, if the cessation of reactionary violence--because that's exactly what the terror being perpetrated against us is-- to our foolhardy and venal actions is really our goal.

Or, we could do like what I previously posted upon which Brandon commented.

The fact that these people intentionally target civilians, including children, rather than combatants, apparently doesn't impress you much. If that is a correct reading of you, in my book that makes you morally bankrupt.

Now, which wronged people are you talking about specifically? Please tell us how our government has wronged them. Just for the record, do you actually believe that the deliberate killing of non-combatants, including minors is justified?

Apparently, he/she does---in a morally relativistic way.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Whence does it appear that the fact that these people intentionally target civilians, including children, rather than combatants doesn't impress me much, Brandon?

Re-read my post that you originally commented upon for your answer to your question about whom was wronged and how.

Do I believe that the deliberate killing of non-combatants, including minors is justified? You mean, like the fire bombing of Tokyo, Japan during The Big One, part 2?

Again a glib argument.

Of course from your perspective, it would appear, that the US is to the Middle East as Tojo's Japan and Hitler's Germany was to the United States and its allies.

On the one hand we have nations (forgive me if I preempt you and include Dresden in the mix) which, undeniably, were bound to conquer all of the peoples of the world no matter what the cost in human lives, and on the other we have the US and its allies.

Understanding that all of this violence is madness, we must attempt to inject some sensibility or we will all find ourselves flushed down the same chaotic drain. There are differences between the actions of men, and these difference define us morally. It is not all the same.

The best analogy to be drawn from WWII relates to the French Resistance.

Undoubtedly, the German occupiers considered the French Resistance to be "terrorists," but were they?

Did the Resistance knowingly kill French citizens in their efforts to kill German occupiers? Did the Resistance target French citizens alone as a means to drive out the Nazis?

The fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden comes very close to the definition of terrorism if the strategic intent of the attacks was to influence the political will of the Japanese and German people.

In the end, if one is to suggest that the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden are relative to this discussion, than one must draw an moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and the United States.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Statements of Approval of religious murder by Islamic hierarchy

Talking about what the Islamic hierarchy has to say, rather than individual clerics:

Quote:

Sunnis in Britain Condemn London Bombings

By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion Writer
Sun Jul 17,10:08 PM ET

Ten days after Islamic radicals carried out deadly attacks on the London transport system, Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group on Sunday issued a binding religious edict, a fatwa, condemning the July 7 suicide bombings as the work of a "perverted ideology."

The Sunni Council denounced the bombings as anti-Islamic and said the Quran, the Muslim holy book, forbade suicide attacks.

"Who has given anyone the right to kill others? It is a sin. Anyone who commits suicide will be sent to Hell," said Mufti Muhammad Gul Rehman Qadri, the council chairman. "What happened in London can be seen as a sacrilege. It is a sin to take your life or the life of others."

The council said Muslims should not use "atrocities being committed in Palestine and Iraq" to justify attacks such as those in London that killed 55 when suicide bombers struck in three Underground trains and a double-decker bus, the fatwa declared.

"We equally condemn those who may have been behind the masterminding of these acts, those who incited these youths in order to further their own perverted ideology," Qadri said.

More than 2,000 Sunni clerics, scholars and community leaders attended Sunday's meeting, which was scheduled before the bombings.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't think it's the least bit funny. Is what's going on in the Netherlands funny to you? London, humourous? I'm not laughing..

No, what was funny was of course the line of argument you were going on, not the events themselves. Duh.

0 Replies

what do you think of this idea nimh?

0 Replies

the idea being

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=55757&start=10

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
I don't think it's the least bit funny. Is what's going on in the Netherlands funny to you? London, humourous? I'm not laughing..

No, what was funny was of course the line of argument you were going on, not the events themselves. Duh.

The line of agument isn't funny at all, either. People like you will be seeing that the world is no longer willing to listen to apologists and equivocateurs as they try to water down the outrageous murder in our streets in the name of a little understanding of Islamic mores.

They WILL be held accountable, as you have already seen. Their behavior WILL be announced, analyzed and condemned.

The line of argument you find so funny is that Arab Muslim terrorists are a burr in the ass of the world, and they will be stopped. Not funny to me. Deadly serious. Their religion is being used as an excuse to murder who they please, and a wide number of Muslims quietly agree that it is their right per the Koran. Also, not funny.

Meanwhile, the West is populated by people, who must be as insane as they are, who make excuses for them and actually pave the road for them to be successful with more terrorism.

This has been the same reason I tease about peeing on the Koran. There is no need to baby-up these people who are indignant about treatment of their book. To run around, fumbling with respect for their ridiculous superstitions lends their delusions credence. If I behaved here as if anyone making a negative statement about my religion had committed some unpardonable infraction, I'd get laughed off the forum. They require the same treatment. Otherwise, we are adding to their delusion.

They should be treated like everyone else.

Westerners should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The line of agument isn't funny at all, either. People like you will be seeing that the world is no longer willing to listen to apologists and equivocateurs as they try to water down the outrageous murder in our streets in the name of a little understanding of Islamic mores.

Hmmm ... I've never been called an apologist and equivocator yet. Sounds kinda interesting.

Lash wrote:

The line of argument you find so funny is that Arab Muslim terrorists are a burr in the ass of the world, and they will be stopped.

Nah ... that was (obviously) not the part that was funny. Thats the obvious part, which pretty much everyone here has already stated some time before - in more serious ways.

0 Replies

You will note that I didn't CALL you anything, nimh.

Ratcheting up the rhetoric is envigorating on occasion, but let's do it honestly.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't think we can put the Russian-Chechen conflict neatly into either a religious motive--or squarely lay the blame with one side.

If anyone feels differently, I wish they'd say why.

I've read that Russia is exterminating them...and I've also heard the Muslims are to blame. Either way, what's going on there is horrible.

So IF you ignore:

Everything before today (1970 = Ancient memory)
Who the Muslims are fighting in various conflicts around the world.
The extremist groups I mentioned whose members are in the thousands with stated methods and history of contract killing, abduction, torture, and murder)

AND

Lash is the one who decides what is religiously motivated. (The force is made up of Christians who kill another religious group - not thier own = Doesn't count)

ALSO when counter evidence not fitting into the brackets listed above is mentioned the response is anger.

YES - Muslims are evil and the only ones fighting on the planet right now.

Can you not see how you have to take certain conflicts of the bad guys and make them all neatly fit religious means by evil people and when a counter example is given you mitigate it being a counterexample by talking about how complicated the issue is.

All war and conflict is complicated - it all sucks. To condone one side, to cheer for the killing of one side (as you have done above) is not only making you like your 'enemy' but making you less than human.

TTF

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You will note that I didn't CALL you anything, nimh.

Ratcheting up the rhetoric is envigorating on occasion, but let's do it honestly.

Hhmmm...

Lash wrote:

People like you will be seeing that the world is no longer willing to listen to apologists and equivocateurs

No... - the implication is pretty clear but since you didnt actually mention any name... hey if it works for Rove Razz

0 Replies

Not to be picky nimh, but if you read carefully you'll see that Lash seperated you from the apos and equis of the world...and further stated that with your sharp insight you would eventually join the ranks of Lash.

0 Replies

I'm just wondering about people who WILL be held accountable, whether thats anything like people who've gone too far...

I mean, I know it says next that theyll merely be "announced, analysed and condemned", but I dunno - "WILL be held accountable" implies more than just a verbal outing to me ... where I come from ...

Mr. Green

0 Replies

Attack in London Today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know