The ISIS threat to Europe

[TrentVilla]

 

 

i find it disturbing how people on here who show any concern about this are just dismissed as racist,stupid ignorant people. i would say i am in the majority nationally who are concerned about whats going on would take it seriously as a national and world threat.

Nobody is being dismissed as racist or ignorant for being concerned about attacks like this, or for "taking it seriously".

 

i have in the past. it just seems sometimes you get shot down for having a different opinion.

 

 

As long as you don't draw a cartoon you should be safe

[bickster]

i find it disturbing how people on here who show any concern about this are just dismissed as racist,stupid ignorant people. i would say i am in the majority nationally who are concerned about whats going on would take it seriously as a national and world threat.

Nobody is being dismissed as racist or ignorant for being concerned about attacks like this, or for "taking it seriously".

i have in the past. it just seems sometimes you get shot down for having a different opinion.

Lets just be clear, concern about radical Islam isn't racist. Blaming Islam in general can't be racist but it sure can be ignorant.

I would imagine everyone has concerns about the threat, the problem is how those concerns manifest themselves.

Mike is right when he says people who follow Islam need to do more, they certainly do. Sticking their head above the parapet to say "this is terrible but it is nothing to do with us", then putting their heads back in the sand, isn't enough. It's their religion that is being abused and they need to do much more to prevent their religion being misused in the dreadful way that it is. As what is currently happening leads to the ignorance that currently prevails around the world. That ignorance will manifest itself in hatred of all Islam unless those that choose to follow that religion really do make it clear that its not done in their name. Simple words and disappearing again is not enough, action and lots of it is what is required here.

Having said that the ignorant views expressed by many in society look at the problem too simply. A terror attack "associated" with Islam does not mean that Islam is the problem. It does however mean that Islam needs to do more to combat the threat

[TrentVilla]

Seemingly there has been another shooting in Paris, another Police officer seriously wounded and a council worker the gun man disappeared into a Metro station.

 

As yet it hasn't been linked to the incident yesterday.

[mjmooney]

Indeed, Bicks. To give the other side of the argument, I have always taken the line that if someone commits a crime, they they are the only people who should be held responsible. For example, a football club is NOT responsible for the misbehaviour of individuals who claim to be acting in their name. Unless, of course an organisation can be proven to have actively sponsored or directed the criminal act. Unlike (say) the Catholic church, Islam has no central authority, it is not in any sense an 'organisation'. These crimes were committed by individuals, who should be brought to justice. And it seems likely that they were planned and ordered by others - either foreign governments, or more likely political groups like Al Quaeda or IS. These are the only possible targets for countermeasures, not something as nebulous as a diverse worldwide religion (whatever my feelings may be about religion in general - I've made those clear enough on here).

Edited January 8, 2015 by mjmooney

[peterms]

...I have always taken the line that if someone commits a crime, they they are the only people who should be held responsible. For example, a football club is NOT responsible for the misbehaviour of individuals who claim to be acting in their name...

 

It partly depends on the actions of the institution concerned.  For example, if football fans attack people, or priests rape people, they were not acting with the authority of the institutions with which they were associated, yet they acted in the capacity of supporters of or employees of thiose institutions; so if and when the institution becomes aware of the issue, if it fails to act on it (as was the case both with football clubs and the Catholic church for many years, though that has now changed), then the institution does indeed acquire some degree of responsibility.

[mjmooney]

Slight danger of going off topic, but let me run with the football hooligan example. About the only thing a club can do is ban a convicted hooligan retrospectively (assuming his crimes were committed outside the ground). The concept of being a football fan is far too nebulous. If I walk down the street and headbutt somebody, I will probably be arrested and charged. If I do it while wearing a claret and blue scarf and shouting 'up the Villa', does the club suddenly have responsibility for the assault? Not in my book.

Do I think that Islam is a causal factor in actions like yesterday in Paris? Yes, I do, and it's an example of why dislike religions so much.

But equally, do I think the patriotic, western movie mindset of many Americans is a causal factor in the deaths of thousands of middle eastern civilians? Yes, I do. But that is just as nebulous a concept as Islam. If you need to hold someone to account, it's the guys controlling the drones, and the generals and politicians who give them their orders. Going after the under educated (see what I did there?) rednecks watching their Steven Seagall movies makes no more sense than going after Pakistani taxi drivers in Bradford.

Edited January 8, 2015 by mjmooney

[TrentVilla]

...I have always taken the line that if someone commits a crime, they they are the only people who should be held responsible. For example, a football club is NOT responsible for the misbehaviour of individuals who claim to be acting in their name...

It partly depends on the actions of the institution concerned. For example, if football fans attack people, or priests rape people, they were not acting with the authority of the institutions with which they were associated, yet they acted in the capacity of supporters of or employees of thiose institutions; so if and when the institution becomes aware of the issue, if it fails to act on it (as was the case both with football clubs and the Catholic church for many years, though that has now changed), then the institution does indeed acquire some degree of responsibility.

Not so sure about the priests....

[coda]

One of the policemen they killed was a Muslim.

[mjmooney]

Another thought. Both sides in this war think they have the moral high ground. There is a feeling of cultural superiority in both camps that makes it an intractable problem.

Hardline Muslim view: we are carrying jihad to the infidels. Everything is justifiable, the more of them die,the better.

Liberal Muslim view: these atrocities are regrettable, and should not happen. But ultimately, the responsibility lies with the godless Americans who are trying to impose their culture on us.

Hardline western view: the goddam heathens brought this on themselves, go Team USA, kill 'em all.

Liberal western view: well it's partly our fault, what with all our military interventions, but Islam is so reactionary and repressive to women, these people need educating and democratising.

On one side it's religion (we are God's chosen people), on the other it's a secular quasi-religion (we are the inheritors of Magna Carta and the Declaration of Human Rights). In each case it leads to a feeling of cultural superiority that tends to override many of our qualms about the methods 'our' side is using.

Pretty hard to find common ground in those circumstances.

Edited January 8, 2015 by mjmooney

[Risso]

The problem for me with Islam is that just as the UK is finally becoming much less religious in terms of its historic connection with christianity, there's a religion on the block that is all encompassing in the lives of most of its followers.  To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

[omariqy]

And it continues to grow. Alhamdulillah.

[peterms]

Agence France-Presse @AFP  ·  40m 40 minutes ago

#BREAKING Several attacks against France mosques since magazine killings: officials

[Xann]

 

Cartoonists respond to yesterday's events.

[Glarmorgan]

 

 

 

I see the false flag and conspiracy stories have started already.

 

 

What that it was really the CIA i heard that one as well

 

 

And there was someone on a roof top who filmed it, who people are claiming was Israeli therefore obviously the Mossad are involved as well.

 

Damn!!! They're on to me!!

[Risso]

Uh oh......

[peterms]

To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

 

We have a great many people in the UK who were taught at school to capitalise the words "him" and "his" when referring to god and Jesus.  Many still observe that convention, out of either habit or belief.  I expect some other religions have similar conventions about their own figures of worship.

 

Though I think the Muslim convention is to add pbuh after the names of some characters from other religions, eg Jesus, where Christianity doesn't extend the convention to refer to Mohammed as "Him".

[TrentVilla]

The Policewomen shot this morning has died.

[mjmooney]

The problem for me with Islam is that just as the UK is finally becoming much less religious in terms of its historic connection with christianity, there's a religion on the block that is all encompassing in the lives of most of its followers. To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

That is certainly a problem. In the UK at any rate, even most of the practicing Christians tend to be very liberal in their interpretation of their faith. There are very, very few Bible literalist/creationist types. And most of them would describe themselves as tolerant of other faiths, Islam included. But what they really mean is that they expect Muslims to of a similar liberal stripe to themselves, the sort that maybe have a copy of the Qu'ran in the house, but probably don't attend the mosque, do wear western clothes, etc. - what I call "C of E Muslims".

But seeing women covered from head to toe, work colleagues needing areas where they can pray several times a day, and so on, runs massively counter to the secularising trend of the last fifty or even hundred years. They are uncomfortable with it. Frankly, I am too; I find it deeply depressing.

[Risso]

 

To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

 

We have a great many people in the UK who were taught at school to capitalise the words "him" and "his" when referring to god and Jesus.  Many still observe that convention, out of either habit or belief.  I expect some other religions have similar conventions about their own figures of worship.

 

Though I think the Muslim convention is to add pbuh after the names of some characters from other religions, eg Jesus, where Christianity doesn't extend the convention to refer to Mohammed as "Him".

 

 

I don't deny that at all, but I think you'd find the proportion of people who would identify themselves as Christian who still type "Him" compared to the number of muslime who would type "pbuh" would be a very small fraction.  The same with church/mosque attendance, and various other displays of worship.

[Glarmorgan]

The age of political correctness and the tendency to see terrorists as "ignorant grunts who kill for something the western world did to them" bring havoc to Europe. This approach hurts everyone - whether Christian or Muslim - mainly because it does not allow any of the two to approach the problem directly. The problem is not "Islam". The problem is with what some of the Islamic factions do in the name of Islam. But instead of dealing with these factions and their horrendous deeds, everyone just keep looking for excuses or just avoid dealing with this, just for not being accused as "Islamophobic".

 

I don't get it. This is wrong in so many levels. These three terrorists did not drop from the sky. No warlock conjured them out of nowhere. They lived and prospered as a part of a group, a faction. This group or faction needs to be condemned and wiped clean. Not because of Islam - but because they see Islam as an excuse to take other people's lives. It's that simple.