The ISIS threat to Europe

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

@blandyI disagree, pretty much to the word. I wrote out a long rebuttal but as said, I don't want the discussion. Again I would disagree, almost to the word.

seems a bit daft to join a discussion page , write a long post with a point of view , tell the other person you disagree word for word and then  refuse to discuss it further

I don't agree with a lot of blandy's stuff in the EU thread ( and vice versa) but it's still worth a discussion , otherwise we might just as well have every thread as

Here's my opinion , you are all wrong  , close thread ..start new thread ad infinium

 

that's not a pop at you , it's just as one of the more erudite posters its disappointing you aren't prepared to have the discussion

[Brumerican]

I understand the sentiment when people say they are praying for the deceased,but it's so frustrating when you think about who it is the majority of those are praying  to. An imaginary deity ,who is more homophobic than any human .

How on earth can they reconcile this ?

 

[BOF]

1 minute ago, Brumerican said:

I understand the sentiment when people say they are praying for the deceased,but it's so frustrating when you think about who it is the majority of those are praying  to. An imaginary deity ,who is more homophobic than any human .

How on earth can they reconcile this ?

It is because they can't reconcile things that they pray to an imaginary deity in the first place.

[Chindie]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

Dead is dead, gay or straight really isn't the issue. Yes LGBT folks hold a special place at the top of Islamic militants people to hate list, but they still want to kill everyone else on the list too.

Saw Owen Jones on Sky News (before he stormed off) claiming the other talking heads didn't understand because they aren't gay. Get a grip, the sexual orientation of murdered innocents should be neither here nor there, or make the crime any more or less shocking.

It's not about ownership of the dead by a particular 'community', it's about some vicious murdering pig getting his rocks off in the name of Allah.

 

 

Owen Jones has a piece in the Guardian today that responds to that interview, and I think his walking off was fairly justified.

Quote

This isn’t about LGBT people taking ownership of the pain and anguish. People of all sexual orientations have wept over this massacre, and all communities should unite in grief. It is highly likely that straight people died in the atrocity. When the neo-Nazi terrorist David Copeland detonated a nail bomb in the Admiral Duncan gay pub in 1999, one of the fatalities was a straight pregnant woman, having a drink with her husband and her gay friends. LGBT people are part of the wider community, and LGBT people and their straight friends party together in LGBT venues. But this was a deliberate attack on a LGBT venue and LGBT people. According to Omar Mateen’s father, the reportedly Islamic State-supporting terrorist had expressed revulsion at the sight of two men kissing. His co-workers have described his anti-gay comments. Omar Mateen could have chosen many clubs, full of people laughing and living, but he chose a LGBT venue. This was homophobia as well as terrorism. It is not enough to simply condemn violence: we have to understand what it is and why it happened.

Link

For whatever reason Sky would not acknowledge that this was an attack targetted on a specific group. And it's important that that is acknowledged. Dead's dead, sure. It doesn't mean you ignore a factor in this tragedy, like Sky seemed to want to do. He makes a point about whether this was some other group, he perhaps stupidly chooses Jews (not because it's a bad choice for his point, mind) which is prescient. 

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

seems a bit daft to join a discussion page , write a long post with a point of view , tell the other person you disagree word for word and then  refuse to discuss it further

I don't agree with a lot of blandy's stuff in the EU thread ( and vice versa) but it's still worth a discussion , otherwise we might just as well have every thread as

Here's my opinion , you are all wrong  , close thread ..start new thread ad infinium

 

that's not a pop at you , it's just as one of the more erudite posters its disappointing you aren't prepared to have the discussion

I'm just not in the mood for the argument, or discussion or other synonym. Truthfully. But I don't want to not acknowledge I disagree, especially when it's implied I'm 'shying away from the truth' or part of a problem, when I'm absolutely not. I argue a lot, sometimes I don't have any interest in the back and forth.

For the sake of the thing though, I'll respond and leave it there. Blandy will not agree and neither will others.

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

it's implied I'm 'shying away from the truth' or part of a problem, when I'm absolutely not

That's my fault, I guess. My post, in response to yours didn't make clear I was responding to the view you espoused, not a comment on you as an individual human being. I completely accept that your view is genuinely held and you aren't "part of the problem". If that was taken from my post, I apologise, as I didn't intend that to be the message.

My message is basically that I hold the view I wrote and that if the authorities or the media or the general understanding of the situation is that "it's no Islamic Terror" then this would IMO be a very wrong way of treating it.

I also think that the people were targeted by the killer because they were Gay, and that Owen Jones is right. It wasn't a random targeting of people and it just so happened that.. it was specific to their being in a Gay place.

[omariqy]

Owen Jones was fairly justified in walking off imo.  Sky reporter was refusing to acknowledge that this was an attack on the LGBT community. It was almost like they didn't want to acknowledge that they were gay because they didn't agree with it.

On the killer, many of his friends and family have said that he wasn't a practicing Muslim and was not that fond of the religion, Yet he swore allegiance to ISIS. To me this makes sense as most people that join ISIS don't really practice it and/or understand the religion.  However, let's be honest its linked to Islam whichever way we portray it. I am a Muslim and I think homosexuality is a sin. Now you may not agree or find that reprehensible but I am being completely honest. I think its a sin much like drinking alcohol is or gambling is. The way to deal with it is to not to do it yourself if you are Muslim and don't want to sin.  Not to kill innocent people because of it. Let people do what they choose to do.

[Brumerican]

And that is why humanity is going to hell in a hand cart ladies and gentleman . The fact that vast swathes of the world's population can openly admit their disgust at homosexuals, under the protective umbrella of religion, is truly disgusting.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

that is why humanity is going to hell in a hand cart ladies and gentleman . The fact that vast swathes of the world's population can openly admit their disgust at homosexuals, under the protective umbrella of religion

I dunno, Brum. There are probably fewer people now than ever previously who hold those views. Certainly in the West.

And people thinking it is less than a problem of people acting on it, obviously. In most ways the world is moving away from that kind of thinking, rather than going the other way, so while I agree we're going to Hell in a hand-cart, my reasons are completely different to yours.

[zak]

23 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Owen Jones was fairly justified in walking off imo.  Sky reporter was refusing to acknowledge that this was an attack on the LGBT community. It was almost like they didn't want to acknowledge that they were gay because they didn't agree with it.

On the killer, many of his friends and family have said that he wasn't a practicing Muslim and was not that fond of the religion, Yet he swore allegiance to ISIS. To me this makes sense as most people that join ISIS don't really practice it and/or understand the religion.  However, let's be honest its linked to Islam whichever way we portray it. I am a Muslim and I think homosexuality is a sin. Now you may not agree or find that reprehensible but I am being completely honest. I think its a sin much like drinking alcohol is or gambling is. The way to deal with it is to not to do it yourself if you are Muslim and don't want to sin.  Not to kill innocent people because of it. Let people do what they choose to do.

Just out of curiosity do you then think Homosexuality is a choice?

[Brumerican]

Just now, blandy said:

I dunno, Brum. There are probably fewer people now than ever previously who hold those views. Certainly in the West.

And people thinking it is less than a problem of people acting on it, obviously. In most ways the world is moving away from that kind of thinking, rather than going the other way, so while I agree we're going to Hell in a hand-cart, my reasons are completely different to yours.

If it's not the homophobia then it's something else that's  equally appalling.  My point really is that  we have a man who has committed an atrocity because he believes in an absurdity, yet this aspect is rarely brought up by the media because it highlights every other believers own irrationality and  hypocrisy. 

[MakemineVanilla]

1 minute ago, zak said:

Just out of curiosity do you then think Homosexuality is a choice?

That is a very tough question to ask a liberal never mind a Muslim, because your average liberal will probably give a contradictory answer.

Many liberals claim these days that gender is entirely a social construct but simultaneously they think gay people are born not made.

So bearing that in mind I don't think it is a fair question, when most of the rest of us don't know the answer.

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

You're right it does take more than a phone call...for it to have any significance. This might sound clumsy or glib, but if he'd phoned up and said "IS is going to kill ...people" and not followed it through, then that would (for me) tally with your point totally.

Problem is, that by actually going as far as the horrific massacre, it kind of adds a whole level of credence to his announcement. This was not someone idly linking one thing to another, it was obviously a horribly serious act. If anyone is going to go to that level of horror, then there's no need or reason to claim it for a cause they don't "believe" - they're already demonstrating whatever (homophobia) so that makes his call real and valid evidence to me.

I'm not claiming it's the same thing as "organised" Islamic terror - the thing politicians and media bang on about. But to me, by definition a muslim going out doing mass murder and terror in his proclaimed "Islamic State" act is exactly and incontrovertably Islamic terror. It was in the name of Islam and it is terror.

None of that means I think muslims are all....etc. It doesn't and I don't.

Muslims across the world suffer more from "Islamic terrorism" than anyone else, probably.

I just have a feeling that when loads of people all over the US, UK, Europe etc. who are muslims and do vile, appalling things in the name of Islam or IS or Allah, then (generally, not specific to you or me) sort of turning a blind eye, or a "politically sensitive" approach to what is going on is madness.

I'm all for trying to understand why this problem has manifested itself over the past 25-30 years or so and to try and put the genie back in the bottle (Palestine, Israel Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria and all the rest). I just feel that "we" (the world) can't understand it or try and fix it if we kind of don't accept it for what it is or say there's only a "weak link".

 

You misunderstand my comment on 'it takes more than a phonecall'. Terrorism is the use of fear for a political goal, at it's heart (sidestepping the difficulties of defining it, which literally thousands of pages could, and have, been written about). A political goal needs understanding and it needs conviction. You have to be fully engaged in the mindset for it to really carry any weight. Otherwise any act which involves an element of fear can be escalated to terrorism by someone just announcing something. A white chap who has been a model citizen and lover of mankind flips one morning, phones the police to say he's going to kill a black bloke because blacks are evil or something, and he's a racist terrorist? Not really. He might have tried to label it like that, for whatever reason, but theres not the understanding or conviction to make it actually mean something, it's a random act of violence he's tried to justify somehow. Of course, though, we could have the situation like one of the last killers, who murdered black people in a famously black church because he was a racist piece of shit, which was an established element of his personality. He was a racist terrorist (they chose to call it a hate crime ultimately, for a variety of reasons... which is interesting in the light of this incident...).

At the moment, it appears that this word removed just attached a label to justify himself. Just because he was Muslim, and he made a phonecall (and looking further back he 'made a remark once' and might have known a dodgy guy previously) doesn't make it an act of Islamic terrorism. The same way a white man killing a bunch of people isn't immediately a Christian terrorist because he called the police to say he was going to kill a bunch of people because he needs to protect Christianity. But he might be a Christian terrorist if looking into his history he has that understanding, and conviction, of what he's doing and that is something he is driven by.

Now this word removed, may very well turn out to be a lover of IS, and read all of Osama's exploits, and has copies of IS media lovingly poured over in his house, and idolising martyrs, and has connections to a belief in the rhetoric of particularly grim versions of Islam and the Islamist viewpoint on the world as it is now. And then he's obviously an Islamic terrorist who has acted on deep held and considered beliefs in the most disgusting and despicable way. Or he might not. He may have been a terrible Muslim who didn't care about any of the shit, his only knowledge of IS came from the TV or reading a news website.

He attacked a very specific target though. A LGBT hotspot, apparently the gay night spot in Orlando, on a popular night. And he slaughtered them. He didn't pick that by accident. He wanted to kill what he assumed was all gay people (chances are he got straight people as well). He had a history of homophobia. He had a history of violence. He wanted to kill what he felt were perverts. He labelled himself with an allegiance to IS at the time, too, but that didn't mean he really was an Islamic terrorist as discussed above, at the moment it seems more like he wanted to make out his murder of innocents was for a higher cause than his simple hatred. But he might have been an Islamic terrorist. What he definitely is, first and foremost, for now, is a homophobic terrorist. His attack was against the LGBT community, to spread fear amongst them. He did that intentionally. Now maybe we'll find out theres more to it. It's likely we will. Maybe his homophobia was entirely driven by stringent Islamic belief, even if via recent conversion like most IS fools (who typically are lapsed or unreligious young men, 'culturally' Muslim, who are drawn into the **** up belief for a variety of reasons). But for now, to perhaps hold back from saying this is just another rabid Muslim terror-word removed, and allowing the idea that was an attack on a specific community which does suffer discrimination, and not clouding that with the IS rhetoric, is helpful. Unfortunately the media has glossed over that, has tied in to Islamic attack discourse, and is simply running with that, to the detriment of any wider understanding, and diminishing the victims, who were attacked for their sexual inclinations. The media wants to shy away from that. Whether because they don't think it'll sell to their audience, or they have hangups of discussing homosexuality on day time TV, or they incorrectly think it's irrelevant (which in a utopia millions of years from now, it might be).

As for the rest...

Muslims do suffer from Islamic terrorism more than most. In the first instance numerous Islamic terror groups actively attack other sects, as most Shia people that have encountered IS would attest. As it is their bodies will do the talking for them. In the second instance, it absolutely destroys interfaith and wider community relations. All the rhetoric about Muslims has become tinged with it, and it's impossible to escape from. I'd wager if you asked a selection of the British public to word association with the word 'Muslim', the terrorist claptrap will come out within the first 10 words at best. Again I'll reiterate I'm no Islam defender, I'd have the Quran in the same firepit as the Bible and the Torah, and I'd actively teach against it just as I would Christianity. Unfortunately as it is that's not going to happen, so I'll revert to my beliefs on personal freedom and say so long as you don't hurt anyone in anyway you can believe and do what you like...

I really don't think there's a blind eye to this thing, at all. Islam has come under a considerably amount of scrutiny in recent years. A lot of the Western world is openly hostile to it and it's adherents, every tragedy has the same 'we need the Muslim community to comment and denounce', and then they do and shockingly it happens again. I don't think the reaction has been politically sensitive, ever really. I think steps are constantly being made to stamp out this violent school of thought in Islam, which are reasonable. It's not jackboots but equally it's not hand-wringing. We hear constantly of Islamic schools being found and brought to heel or shut. Mosques are engaged on many levels. And it will only increase. We currently have a growing problem with the prison system, which is the latest to be picked for tackling (this largely seemingly being an oversight on what initially should have been a 'good' thing).

I think there is both a quest to understand things, which includes acceptance the genie was let out of the bottle in part by the West's meddling (although the 'greater good' will not mean that changes anything), but also that there is a problem to be tackled. It's an easier problem to acknowledge than tackle though. I also think more could be done to understand.

Anyway... I didn't want to engage in this discussion particularly because it's me wittering on about the same old shit, and it's often something people find they wish to disagree with, and I didn't (and don't) want a back and forth on it. My viewpoint on this will not change, and honestly I don't much care about changing others views today either. I'm also writing this with more than a tinge of anger which is never good. I didn't like the implication I was part of some 'PC shutdown' on debate of Islam, and I didn't like the incorrect assumption of motive in relation to terror, which is one of the few things I could probably write a book about, and I don't like the diminishing of the important elements of this in favour of trotting out the old Muslim terror-words removed line. But I've engaged in the discussion. It's there to be shot at.

[Brumerican]

It's a biological quirk that is found throughout the animal kingdom. Are all the other species choosing to be gay as well ?

 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

7 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Many liberals claim these days that gender is entirely a social construct but simultaneously they think gay people are born not made.

 

Gender is entirely different from sexuality, but this is not the place for that discussion.

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Now this word removed, may very well turn out to be a lover of IS, and read all of Osama's exploits, and has copies of IS media lovingly poured over in his house, and idolising martyrs, and has connections to a belief in the rhetoric of particularly grim versions of Islam and the Islamist viewpoint on the world as it is now. And then he's obviously an Islamic terrorist who has acted on deep held and considered beliefs in the most disgusting and despicable way. Or he might not. He may have been a terrible Muslim who didn't care about any of the shit, his only knowledge of IS came from the TV or reading a news website.

I think that's kind it  ... if it transpires he's been radicalised by someone and is fully committed to the cause of IS then , yeah it's an IS related crime 

 

this just strikes me (based on what I've heard so far) of someone wanting to be more than he is ... kill a load of gays and he's just a hero to Westboro Baptist Church , align himself to IS and kill a load of gays and suddenly he's a hero to the Muslim world in his eyes

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I think that's kind it  ... if it transpires he's been radicalised by someone and is fully committed to the cause of IS then , yeah it's an IS related crime 

 

this just strikes me (based on what I've heard so far) of someone wanting to be more than he is ... kill a load of gays and he's just a hero to Westboro Baptist Church , align himself to IS and kill a load of gays and suddenly he's a hero to the Muslim world in his eyes

Pretty much. If it turns out he's got a computer full of Islamist propoganda, then he's a homophobic Islamic terrorist. In the fullness of time that could be the case.

As it stands, the latter seems closer things and probably will be closer to things even if he's full on IS nutter. He wanted to kill a bunch of gays and he wanted to assign himself to a cause to justify and elevate his actions.

[penguin]

The same Owen Jones who consistently refuses to acknowledge there is any link between Islam and any of these terror attacks complaining about 'how far some will go to ignore homophobia'. The irony is palpable.

I actually think he's got this one wrong. These radicals have so many things on their 'hit-list' that the specific demographic that's been targeted this time is not the primary issue.

 

[Chindie]

33 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

And that is why humanity is going to hell in a hand cart ladies and gentleman . The fact that vast swathes of the world's population can openly admit their disgust at homosexuals, under the protective umbrella of religion, is truly disgusting.

I wouldn't say hell in a handcart, but I can't like this enough.

We aren't in the dark ages any more. There are gay people, and they've every right to exist as anyone else, and not be judged by anyone. Let alone a book, which in the same breath advocates despicable actions.

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, Chindie said:

There are gay people, and they've every right to exist as anyone else

I can see one flaw in that plan though