The ISIS threat to Europe

[Risso]

If it was Muslim countries doing what has been done to them. If Birmingham was destroyed and desecrated, your family killed in Solihull by some random foreign soldier. How do you think a tiny minority of people would react in England? #killallmuslims was trending yesterday on twitter for example. Unfortunately, as bad as it is and as wrong as it is, it is a very human reaction from a tiny minority. When I say human I don't mean justified, I mean a tiny minority of people have this evil thing in them and they will murder and seek revenge.

A Muslim is more likely to be killed by another Muslim than a foreign soldier.

[sheepyvillian]

Some French geezer - can't remember the name - once said , forgive my plagarism : I might not agree with what you say , but I defend your right to express it .

[Awol]

The bottom line is the rule of law, not holy writ. If the law says it's OK to offend somebody with so-called blasphemy, then it is, end of.

There is a difference between blasphemy and racism.

Yes there is but a religion is a lifestyle choice not a race, so therefore mocking a religious group is not racist.

However... Blaspheming in a Muslim country will land you in a grave, not a court. Remember when the cartoons were first published and totally innocent Christians were being murdered in streets of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world?

[tonyh29]

Some French geezer - can't remember the name - once said , forgive my plagarism : I might not agree with what you say , but I defend your right to express it .

Evelyn Hall was a Geezer :shock:  and French :shock:

[maqroll]

 

 

 

I bet a read up on racism will change your opinion. Race is a social concept. Humans are all of the same race. Definitions of racism include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.

 

Technically going by your definition almost any kind of prejudice or discrimination can be racism, which I think is a little ridiculous.

 

It is not my definition, it is a general definition of racism. Tell me, what race are you?  

 

It's one definition - the law defines it differently.

 

White British, that's what I put in the last census. Is it a social construct? Yes, but then so are most things.

 

Like religion, for example.

[Awol]

put in place an education system that teaches the young the proper way of Islam,

Sunni or Shia?

Or Sufi, or Abadi... Your point is bang on though. The current massacres going on not too far from my location have got precisely rock all to do with 'foreign soldiers killing people', unless you include those jihadi tourists from western countries.

However it is convenient to trot out the old "it's America and UK's fault, innit" rather than face the fact it's a ludicrous internal religious war. Still, makes a change from blaming the Joos.

[maqroll]

Some French geezer - can't remember the name - once said , forgive my plagarism : I might not agree with what you say , but I defend your right to express it .

[Rugeley Villa]

 

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.

To be fair your views do come across as rather right wing... And yet you've always from what I've seen been welcomed on the forum , even liked

... It's true Villatalk is home to a high percentage of woolly liberals and poxy green voters but even so they always give posters a fair hearing ...

So im not sure I get your post if I'm honest

 

im far from being right wing or having views as right wing, as ive stated i hate racism and would not tolerate it if i was around people who were getting racially abused. i see your point to a degree though but i dont mean to come across that way because thats really not me, i love VT and how you dont get judged because lets face it im probably not everyones cup of tea although i am a good person and the things ive admitted on here could of put people off but it never and im really thankful to people they never judged me. regarding what you dont get, in the past ive been branded racist a couple of times and ignorant but hey i could go with the ignorant tag because i probably was but i do feel that anyone who has a view against islam is kind of looked down on wether they are right or wrong. anyway lets move on and keep the love 

[Awol]

But it's not in Islam. They way women are treated in Saudi for example is not in Islam.

Okay, so why is it the case that in a Sharia court the word of a female witness is worth half that of a man in law? Why is it the case that a woman must have witnesses to the crime (4 to be precise) before she can launch a legal case against her rapist under Sharia law?

A woman is considered the property of a man her entire life, first her father, then her husband, or if either those fall off their perch, her brother. It's disgusting.

Still going to trumpet how well women fair under Islamic law? I know the "honour (that lovely word) killing" of young women in Pakistan and other places is a cultural thing not Islamic so it doesn't count.

Problem is because the Quran is seen as the actual and unchangeable word of god these issues can't evolve to reflect modernity, in fact Islamic law is an explicit rejection of modernity. That is why the religion (as distinct from it's adherents) prevents genuine social development.

[momo]

 

 

 

I bet a read up on racism will change your opinion. Race is a social concept. Humans are all of the same race. Definitions of racism include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.

 

Technically going by your definition almost any kind of prejudice or discrimination can be racism, which I think is a little ridiculous.

 

It is not my definition, it is a general definition of racism. Tell me, what race are you?  

 

It's one definition - the law defines it differently.

 

White British, that's what I put in the last census. Is it a social construct? Yes, but then so are most things.

 

What law? The British? Is is the same law in every country/place/institution in the world? The law does not construct the social community. It is there to protect us against crimes and give us rights.

 

So you distinguish between white British and white Irish? Or not? Is different skin color decisional on race? The answer is that race is a social construct, made up to differentiate us and them. For example us white British, them Muslims.

 

Race (human classification)

Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.

 

 

The bottom line is the rule of law, not holy writ. If the law says it's OK to offend somebody with so-called blasphemy, then it is, end of.

There is a difference between blasphemy and racism.

Yes there is but a religion is a lifestyle choice not a race, so therefore mocking a religious group is not racist.

However... Blaspheming in a Muslim country will land you in a grave, not a court. Remember when the cartoons were first published and totally innocent Christians were being murdered in streets of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world?

 

 

Race (human classification)

Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.

[momo]

 

But it's not in Islam. They way women are treated in Saudi for example is not in Islam.

Okay, so why is it the case that in a Sharia court the word of a female witness is worth half that of a man in law? Why is it the case that a woman must have witnesses to the crime (4 to be precise) before she can launch a legal case against her rapist under Sharia law?

A woman is considered the property of a man her entire life, first her father, then her husband, or if either those fall off their perch, her brother. It's disgusting.

Still going to trumpet how well women fair under Islamic law? I know the "honour (that lovely word) killing" of young women in Pakistan and other places is a cultural thing not Islamic so it doesn't count.

Problem is because the Quran is seen as the actual and unchangeable word of god these issues can't evolve to reflect modernity, in fact Islamic law is an explicit rejection of modernity. That is why the religion (as distinct from it's adherents) prevents genuine social development.

 

In your opinion. Have you studied Islam, or read up on some bogus sites? Do you have valid sources? Maybe like this one: Women are property of men, just like donkeys!

Edited January 8, 2015 by momo

[Awol]

But it's not in Islam. They way women are treated in Saudi for example is not in Islam.

Okay, so why is it the case that in a Sharia court the word of a female witness is worth half that of a man in law? Why is it the case that a woman must have witnesses to the crime (4 to be precise) before she can launch a legal case against her rapist under Sharia law?

A woman is considered the property of a man her entire life, first her father, then her husband, or if either those fall off their perch, her brother. It's disgusting.

Still going to trumpet how well women fair under Islamic law? I know the "honour (that lovely word) killing" of young women in Pakistan and other places is a cultural thing not Islamic so it doesn't count.

Problem is because the Quran is seen as the actual and unchangeable word of god these issues can't evolve to reflect modernity, in fact Islamic law is an explicit rejection of modernity. That is why the religion (as distinct from it's adherents) prevents genuine social development.

In your opinion. Have you studied Islam, or read up on some bogus sites? Do you have valid sources? Maybe like this one: Women are property of men, just like donkeys!

I've lived in a Muslim country with a Sharia legal system for 5 years, my co-workers are Muslims, as are many of my friends. I'm not an Islamic scholar but I do know enough to state that what I wrote above is true, or I wouldn't have written it.

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

put in place an education system that teaches the young the proper way of Islam,

Sunni or Shia?

Or Sufi, or Abadi... Your point is bang on though. The current massacres going on not too far from my location have got precisely rock all to do with 'foreign soldiers killing people', unless you include those jihadi tourists from western countries.

However it is convenient to trot out the old "it's America and UK's fault, innit" rather than face the fact it's a ludicrous internal religious war. Still, makes a change from blaming the Joos.

 

Is there a case for saying that if we weren't present in these countries and hadn't been on the ground there, it would still be just a "ludicrous internal religious war" and not one that was seeping into the West. By destroying the region, don't we create the chaotic vacuum in which extremism thrives? We seem to have gone out of our way to bring the perfect breeding ground for terror together, I think we have a responsibility to find ways to change that breeding ground; ways that put people before profit and are about constructing a society that will be allowed to think for itself, even if it thinks it'd rather we weren't there.

 

That doesn't mean that to take the step from being a downtrodden ruined nation to being an evil, murderous terrorist, killing cartoonists in the name of a religion that doesn't preach murder, doesn't still require individuals to be unhinged, dangerous, evil, arseholes of the highest order - criminals should be treated as criminals; but these are weeds we watered, and continue to water and the solution isn't to wait for more attacks and capture/try/execute those responsible - the solution is in the root causes and changing the reasons for the anger.

 

And I'm also not trying to let Islam or the Arab peoples off the hook here, there is much that they can do, but I think we have a responsibility to do what we can do to end terrorism as opposed to fighting it.

[momo]

 

 

 

But it's not in Islam. They way women are treated in Saudi for example is not in Islam.

Okay, so why is it the case that in a Sharia court the word of a female witness is worth half that of a man in law? Why is it the case that a woman must have witnesses to the crime (4 to be precise) before she can launch a legal case against her rapist under Sharia law?

A woman is considered the property of a man her entire life, first her father, then her husband, or if either those fall off their perch, her brother. It's disgusting.

Still going to trumpet how well women fair under Islamic law? I know the "honour (that lovely word) killing" of young women in Pakistan and other places is a cultural thing not Islamic so it doesn't count.

Problem is because the Quran is seen as the actual and unchangeable word of god these issues can't evolve to reflect modernity, in fact Islamic law is an explicit rejection of modernity. That is why the religion (as distinct from it's adherents) prevents genuine social development.

In your opinion. Have you studied Islam, or read up on some bogus sites? Do you have valid sources? Maybe like this one: Women are property of men, just like donkeys!

I've lived in a Muslim country with a Sharia legal system for 5 years, my co-workers are Muslims, as are many of my friends. I'm not an Islamic scholar but I do know enough to state that what I wrote above is true, or I wouldn't have written it.

 

Prove it to be true, not just say it. Islam prohibits rape. Why not write that? It seems that you have selective memory, just using parts and bits, true or not, to get your points across. Does every Muslim live in a country with a Sharia legal system? Is the Sharia legal system the same in the country you lived in as it is in a randomly other country with Muslim majority? The fact that you use a shooting done by Frenchmen against other Frenchmen (among them a Muslim policeman that was proudly protecting the French society) to score points against Islam, is quite disturbing.

 

To get back on topic, what law in the country you lived in is valid in France? As Muslims are minorities in France, they follow French law. The killers did not attack that office because "a women is considered a property of a man her entire life" (true or not) in the country you used to live in, but because they were crazy idiots. That is how I see it.

Edited January 8, 2015 by momo

[Awol]

put in place an education system that teaches the young the proper way of Islam,

Sunni or Shia?

Or Sufi, or Abadi... Your point is bang on though. The current massacres going on not too far from my location have got precisely rock all to do with 'foreign soldiers killing people', unless you include those jihadi tourists from western countries.

However it is convenient to trot out the old "it's America and UK's fault, innit" rather than face the fact it's a ludicrous internal religious war. Still, makes a change from blaming the Joos.

Is there a case for saying that if we weren't present in these countries and hadn't been on the ground there, it would still be just a "ludicrous internal religious war" and not one that was seeping into the West. By destroying the region, don't we create the chaotic vacuum in which extremism thrives? We seem to have gone out of our way to bring the perfect breeding ground for terror together, I think we have a responsibility to find ways to change that breeding ground; ways that put people before profit and are about constructing a society that will be allowed to think for itself, even if it thinks it'd rather we weren't there.

That doesn't mean that to take the step from being a downtrodden ruined nation to being an evil, murderous terrorist, killing cartoonists in the name of a religion that doesn't preach murder, doesn't still require individuals to be unhinged, dangerous, evil, arseholes of the highest order - criminals should be treated as criminals; but these are weeds we watered, and continue to water and the solution isn't to wait for more attacks and capture/try/execute those responsible - the solution is in the root causes and changing the reasons for the anger.

And I'm also not trying to let Islam or the Arab peoples off the hook here, there is much that they can do, but I think we have a responsibility to do what we can do to end terrorism as opposed to fighting it.

Good post. The key dynamic in the current Middle East conflicts is the schism between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam - as CED suggests. There is a millennia of history under the bridge with that particular tear up and it is not rooted in the historically recent western interventions (political and/or military) that followed the break up of the Ottoman Empire post 1918.

I don't dispute that our invasion of Iraq had catastrophic consequences and has helped to shape the current battlefield in that area, but the conflict is being sustained by religious emnity interwoven with a political power struggle between Sunni Saudi and Shia Iran.

In terms of the suggestion that the western military presence being a root cause of these problems, it's more a question of what presence? There are no large deployments of troops anywhere in the areas currently in conflict - so primarily Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. It is only western air power and Iranian ground forces/Shia militias that prevented IS from over running Baghdad. If we hadn't then things would be a damn sight worse than they are now.

Any changes in the present dynamic have to come from within the Muslim world because they are the ones slaughtering each other en masse. The only way the west could offer a solution to this 1000 year grudge match would be to help install dictators so repressive and brutal they beat and terrorise their own populations into submission. Historically it worked but it's never going to repeated, IMO. i

[chrisp65]

I know there is a bit of a debate going on here about whether it's right (or even 'a right') to cause offence. That is an interesting debate. But there is simply no level of offence at anything that can possibly get within touching distance of justifying mass murder. A cartoon of mohammed, a little drawing, simply cannot be a legitimate reason. Ever. Anywhere. It can lead to hate mail, it might lead to somebody getting a smack in the face. But avenging your God by gunning down civilians that were involved in drawing a picture is simply a murderous mental episode carried out by people that have been swept up in a murderous mass hysteria. Just as nazi's have previously been swept up in their illness, stalinists in theirs, papists, anarchists, sikhs, whoever. 

 

Every now and again the world or a portion of the world gets whipped up in some mass hysteria. Whatever name it's carried out in, it's wrong, there is no apology or justification possible, it's just murder.

 

We need to be really strong, we need to not simply get dragged into the murderous hysteria. We don't need the somewhat predictable Glarmorgan response (which has worked so well so far in that little corner of the world).

 

Apparently, this gross policy of multi culturalism has given us terrorist fifth columnists and paedo's. Whereas I guess good old english culture would have given us, what? Domestic violence, junkies and old fashioned burglary? Pathetic opportunist little black shirted shit that is Farage. But at no point could he say, write or draw anything that would justify shooting him. Only the criminally unhinged could possibly think that. 

 

There, that's that tricky subject resolved and put to bed.

Edited January 8, 2015 by chrisp65

[omariqy]

Some interesting points raised on here and I will reply when I have more time to gather my thoughts.  Awol there is a lot more I agree with you than you would think.  I've previously said on here that we need to deal with Muslim infighting that leads to many more deaths than at the hands of the West.  Further, I've also acknowledge more Muslims are killed by other Muslims.  Hence my point about the Muslim world being in tatters. 

[StanBalaban]

Wouldn't it be better to teach children how to think, not what to think?

 

But your answer is trying to push the problem to future generations. You've got more Muslims alive now that at any time in the past. How are they going to change?

Exactly this. A huge step would be working towards the right to religious freedom, and towards the right to freedom from religion. Living in the Middle East, I've had numerous conversations with Emiratis of all ages that simply cannot grasp the notion or possibility of them adopting another religion, or no religion at all.

The sad thing is that the bars are full of locals drinking alcohol on a weekend, but in secret. There are large number of lip-service believers here in the UAE. There is also a large number of homosexual men and women across the Middle East, but they are simply not allowed to discuss, debate or even denounce the faith that they are indoctrinated with from such an early age.

[Ghost]

[snowychap]

Aaronovitch on This Week seems to struggle with muslim communities coming out en masse for a demonstration against killings in palestine (for example) but not doing so today for 'Charlie' (perhaps they did but as French citizens rather than muslims - I don't know).

Surely there's a horrible irony about the narrow occidental viewpoint that is the basis of this criticism?