Turk Muslim stabs 4 helpless women in Sainsbury's

Have you read the Bible? A lot of violence in the Old Testament. So why aren't Christians and Jews killing non-believers?

Hate to break it to you, but you are dead wrong mate. In 2013, for example, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs. You may think that most terrorists are Muslim, however it is just the media that selectively chooses to air these stories and magnify them beyond the limits of truth.G'day sir.

I am surprised that there is not more mainstream media coverage of this event.

and (g) maybe it comes back to education and a more developed society, but Moslems just seem to be more superstitious than Jews and Christians, more inclined to indoctrinate children, and more rigorous in their adherence

What do you think the reasons are?

Western born Jihadists are disproportionately well educated and come from financially stable backgrounds.

More than 50% of the Muslims in the UK want homosexuals prosecuted, more than 70% want non-Muslim blasphemers prosecuted.

Are you suggesting 70% of UK Muslims are living in poverty or don't have access to further education ?

I'll have a go at explaining what I think the cause is, but we know from experience what you have posited is not a contributing factor, education and poverty do not precipitate this

If Jews and Christians committed themselves to 1400 years of sectarian cleansing of all but the most dedicated and pious we would see a drop in rationalism, as having religion/faith is an ability to surrender ones critical faculties. There is obviously a background racial pattern and an unique ideological precept that makes the situation what it is.

Hate to break it to you, but you are dead wrong mate. In 2013, for example, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe

Because attacks like these, more often than not, are religiously motivated. It's important information.

so that means all attacks which are not religiously motivated have unimportant motives?

If an attack is random and based on a trivial personal dispute, or intoxication, then that is simply a phenomenon that is characteristic of living in a human community. They happen, and the police and courts deal with them as best they can, as do government/local authorities in taking measures that tweak alcohol licensing regulations, school education programmes, prison sentences for knife carriage and so on.

But if an attack is being carried out pursuant to a politico-religious agenda like Islamism, then that is something we are able to, and must, take measures against and which we are capable of reducing to almost nothing in terms of occurrences. It's also a phenomenon that is liable to grow and spread if not checked and dealt with. Furthermore, violence incited by that politico-religious motive has been the cause of violent incidents (like the suicide bombings of July 2005 that killed 52 Britons on the London Underground and bus) that far outweigh in scope, damage and tragedy of any random pub brawl or gang fight.

If this man attacked people based on an extremist Islamic interpretation, then it is significant and it should be investigated thoroughly; is he part of a cell? Was he incited by a hate preacher who is at large and free to spread his message? Were there warning signs that were missed? Thus, his motive does matter and if it was Islamist in character, then it makes the attack more significant. That all seems quite self-evident, no?

It should be implicit that the sole cause is not religion. People don't go out and kill people because of religion alone, there is a multitude of factors contributing to why someone would do this, and spamming threads about how religion was the only identifiable motive is not the way to go.

I don't think Islam is being identified as a sole and total cause; it is Islamism that is being identified as the possible the driving factor. Islamism is a politico-religious ideology. However, it must also be said that a prerequisite for becoming a violence-inclined Islamist is that you first become a Muslim. You don't find violent atheist Islamists, for example. You might even compare Islam to the concept of a "gateway drug"; it is the pathway that may lead ultimately to violent terrorist crimes

Furthermore, it is alleged (and I believe substantiated) that Islam's belief system and tenets easily lend themselves to an Islamist interpretation. There are many passages in the Quran that justify, or even mandate, a mindset that prescribes violence against non-Muslims, homosexuals, adulterers etc until the entire world has come under the Dar al-Islam.

In addition, the complex interplay of religion and culture leads Muslims, both as a world religion and as a religious minority within Western countries, to consistently view themselves as being persecuted, under attack, victimised. The global Islam consciousness encourages a grievance culture (about the Israel-Palestine issue, about Sunni/Shi'a sectarianism, about Kashmir and about any situation where non-Muslims are present in "Muslim lands" ) that takes on a terrible and inexorable logic leading to a conclusion that violence is not only justified but mandated on both the political and religious levels.

Further to the above, and related to the above point, the decision of many parts of the European Muslims to isolate themselves from the host society's dominant culture, to look down on it and view it with contempt, to reduce opportunities for everyday and ordinary interaction between these Muslims and their non-Muslims fellow citizens, is yet another potentiating factor that creates the atmosphere within that community where literally thousands upon thousands of Muslims born in Europe to take up arms and join a group that makes war both on the country in which they were born and also against groups in the Middle East about which they know nothing but are willing to murder/rape/enslave.

The final factor is the attitudes of the "mainstream" Muslim community; their viewing themselves as first and foremost a part of the global Muslim Ummah rather than comrades of their fellow European citizens. And the "mainstream" Muslim communities sympathy for and agreement with this culture of victimhood and persecution, and finally their absolute refusal to concede even that there is a problem that exists and must be tackled.

So yes, it is relevant when a Muslim man goes crazy in a shopping centre and starts stabbing people (a tactic which ISIS has called on all Muslims in Western countries to do; that ISIS has ordered all Muslims globally to attack Westerners in any way they can, even with knives if they can't get access to firearms or explosives). In such a situation, it is absolutely relevant to determine whether his religion was completely irrelevant and he is just a crazy man, or whether he committed this not as a product of mental illness but in response to, and pursuance of, the Islamist ideology that has so cancerously spread within the Muslim community.

If he was a Christian or a Sikh or a Jew, it's open-and-shut that he's a mad man; there are no Christian or Sikh or Jewish terrorist groups he could be acting on behalf of, no global war and campaign of terrorism by groups from those religions against the West. But being a Muslim, it means we must explore his precise motivations and also whether he might have accomplices, whether he is part of a terrorist cell, whether he was acting on orders from an ISIS commander overseas or a recruiter or hate preacher here in the UK. Do you see now why it is relevant?

This is a massively long-winded way of saying nothing at all.

Also please make your writing concise, you think you get some kind of intellectual leverage by saying lots of 'exotic words' and expanding your word count insanely, but in all you could have made your points in each paragraph in two sentences. You didn't really say anything with those extra words and if you think it intimidates me, think again.

It's a very complex issue, there were six discrete reasons I raised as being why there was necessarily a focus on the religion of the perpetrator if his religion was Islam.

It was a long post, but to claim nothing was said at all is bizarre.



I did you the courtesy of taking your point seriously, and responding comprehensively. Your own ill-mannered and boorish response and assumption about my intentions simply reveal your own insecurities.

You seem to be becoming highly emotional and overwrought. You are responding to my perfectly courteous posts that took your position seriously (and gave it a considered, if long, response) with almost hysterical paranoia and personal attacks.

And looking back now at your "contributions", it seems to me that your insecurities about an inferiority of intellect are not entirely unfounded. That, added to your overemotional and churlish reply, make it clear that there is little profit to be had in further interacting with you. Bye.

Islam is quite obviously not the sole cause in incidents like this

Oh the irony! The one who took an, until then, perfectly courteous conversation and started making highly emotional personal attacks, and bemoaning the substantive and methodical character of my post, now demands a comprehensive response.



This sentence of yours simply confirms my suspicions about your intellectual defects. I outlined quite comprehensively in my post that Islam was not the sole cause of the incident; in fact, characterising the distinction between religion as a sole cause (an explanation I patently rejected) and Islam as a possible relevant factor was a substantial portion of my post.

It is quite clear that you have difficulties with reading comprehension; that fine distinctions in this subject elude your ham-fisted grasp and that no matter what I write, you will insist on bringing the subject back to the same strawman argument that allows you to perpetuate the grievance culture. Your subsequent accusations about my intentions perfectly dovetail with your paranoia and highly emotional approach to the subject overall.

As such, there is no point in further debating with you. Even if you possessed the intellectual capacity to grapple with the points I was making, your victimhood obsession and emotional disposition would still prevent any reasoned discussion. This will be my last post to you on this thread.

I made the very same thread earlier, it got removed because I mentioned he was a Muslim. Feeds the idea that there is a media blackout in effect, as with most Muslim perpetrated crime against non-Muslims.

Because you guys keep talking about Muslims!

It's a very complex issue, there were six discrete reasons I raised as being why there was necessarily a focus on the religion of the perpetrator if his religion was Islam.

It was a long post, but to claim nothing was said at all is bizarre.

I did you the courtesy of taking your point seriously, and responding comprehensively. Your own ill-mannered and boorish response and assumption about my intentions simply reveal your own insecurities.

All true, but you are being trolled, I suspect.