This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Best city in England for non religious and single guy?
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- Is Israel winning
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Make it More Bladed Weapon-ey !!
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- just wondering
- strike on iran consulate in Damascus
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Are women comfortable with a man who uses delay spray?
- SN1 and SN2 reactions (chemistry)
- At least six killed and several in critical condition after Westfield shopping centre
- When an unleashed dog charges at your leashed dog
- My experience with the Students' Union
- Please help
- Working at an aiport?
ISLAMIC TERROR ATTACK FOILED on Paris bound train
Scroll to see replies
Original post by LockheedSpooky
Except none of those are civil wars between Muslims
Back to sniffing glue, mate.
Back to sniffing glue, mate.
Sure it doesn't even need to be a civil war. Just spot a muslim that can breath and there is your perpetrator.
Run for the pm office please. You are too good to be on TSR
How long before the UK becomes like France?
Original post by BioStudentx
How long before the UK becomes like France?
Burning poppies, beheading soldiers, blowing up the tube, picketing remembrance day, widespread grooming gangs.
I'm not sure we have much catching up to do, I think we're already there.
Original post by Lady Comstock
We don't know exactly what he had been doing up until this event to be branded 'potentially dangerous', but he may have been caught under laws such as preparing for an act of terrorism or encouraging extremism, but it depends on the jurisdiction he was in at the time. Even if he hasn't committed any crimes, I think there should be a crime that covers such behaviour that leads one to branded 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services and indefinite custody should result if the person poses a danger to the public.
So what would your solution be? Clearly there was a failing here if he was branded 'potentially dangerous, yet almost massacred a train full of people. How would you have prevented him arriving at that point given the intelligence that was available?
Possibly not, which would be a major failing.
Yes. I believe executing apostates and gays to be unacceptable wherever it occurs.
And apt.
So what would your solution be? Clearly there was a failing here if he was branded 'potentially dangerous, yet almost massacred a train full of people. How would you have prevented him arriving at that point given the intelligence that was available?
Possibly not, which would be a major failing.
Yes. I believe executing apostates and gays to be unacceptable wherever it occurs.
And apt.
If he was branded "potentially dangerous", then that clearly means that he hadn't yet committed a preparatory crime, given the fact that had he done so, he would have been in custody already.
Why do you think executing those who commit treason and those that engage in homosexual activity is "unacceptable"?
Original post by Errm2
If he was branded "potentially dangerous", then that clearly means that he hadn't yet committed a preparatory crime, given the fact that had he done so, he would have been in custody already.
And my belief is that to behave in a way that means you are branded 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services should be unlawful, as it will inherently include behaviour or language that suggests you are a threat to the public.
There are reports that he may have fought for ISIS and returned to Europe, which in itself I think should be unlawful.
Why do you think executing those who commit treason and those that engage in homosexual activity is "unacceptable"?
Treason? I said apostasy.
I don't think execution should exist anyway, but to answer your question - the state should punish people who cause some form of unacceptable harm to society. Engaging in consensual homosexual sex in private or changing your religious beliefs do not reach that threshold in my view, and therefore criminalising them is unnecessary, oppressive and infringes people's rights.
Original post by Lady Comstock
And my belief is that to behave in a way that means you are branded 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services should be unlawful, as it will inherently include behaviour or language that suggests you are a threat to the public.
There are reports that he may have fought for ISIS and returned to Europe, which in itself I think should be unlawful.
There are reports that he may have fought for ISIS and returned to Europe, which in itself I think should be unlawful.
Saying someone is "potentially dangerous" is the same as saying "the poo of babies stink". Everyone is "potentially dangerous" thus the classification is meaningless.
Treason? I said apostasy.
I know, but we are talking about this from the viewpoint of the Sharia. You know, the legal system that allows the execution of these people in the first place.
It was only fair that we frame the reference correctly and "apostasy" simply doesn't cut it.
I don't think execution should exist anyway, but to answer your question - the state should punish people who cause some form of unacceptable harm to society. Engaging in consensual homosexual sex in private or changing your religious beliefs do not reach that threshold in my view, and therefore criminalising them is unnecessary, oppressive and infringes people's rights.
Except you have just demonstrated a fundamental gaping hole in your understanding of the Shari'ah or should I say, lack of understanding in the Shari'ah.
Many people on this thread are as thick as the terrorists.
Original post by Errm2
Saying someone is "potentially dangerous" is the same as saying "the poo of babies stink". Everyone is "potentially dangerous" thus the classification is meaningless.
But not everyone is labelled 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services, which is the key distinction.
I know, but we are talking about this from the viewpoint of the Sharia. You know, the legal system that allows the execution of these people in the first place.
It was only fair that we frame the reference correctly and "apostasy" simply doesn't cut it.
It was only fair that we frame the reference correctly and "apostasy" simply doesn't cut it.
I don't care how the Sharia references it; the Catholic Church used to brand Galileo a heretic for his scientific beliefs, but that wouldn't mean I would say 'Galileo's heretical views' when criticising the Catholic Church's treatment of him, unless I was being satirical.
If you don't agree with 'apostasy', I can change it to 'people who change their religious beliefs'?
Except you have just demonstrated a fundamental gaping hole in your understanding of the Shari'ah or should I say, lack of understanding in the Shari'ah.
Let me guess - the witnesses rules for homosexual acts, which seem seldom applied in practice by Islamists. The procedural requirements are immaterial to me; the fact that the Sharia condones executing people for engaging in consensual homosexual activity is enough to make it unacceptable in my eyes.
Original post by Lady Comstock
But not everyone is labelled 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services, which is the key distinction.
What do you propose we do to help the security services? Expand in terms of personnel?
I don't care how the Sharia references it; the Catholic Church used to brand Galileo a heretic for his scientific beliefs, but that wouldn't mean I would say 'Galileo's heretical views' when criticising the Catholic Church's treatment of him, unless I was being satirical.
If you don't agree with 'apostasy', I can change it to 'people who change their religious beliefs'?
If you don't agree with 'apostasy', I can change it to 'people who change their religious beliefs'?
"People who change their religious beliefs and make it public" would be the correct phrase, I think.
Let me guess - the witnesses rules for homosexual acts, which seem seldom applied in practice by Islamists. The procedural requirements are immaterial to me; the fact that the Sharia condones executing people for engaging in consensual homosexual activity is enough to make it unacceptable in my eyes.
Your attempt at preempting my answer is laughable.
No, the simple fact is that the Sharia rarely infringes upon a person's private affairs. If you want to drink alcohol, commit adultery or any other behavior that Sharia will normally punish if committed outside, you may do so in the confines of your home, so long as it does not affect or come into contact with the public sphere.
Original post by Errm2
What do you propose we do to help the security services? Expand in terms of personnel?
No. Prosecute the person for the offence that should be in existence to warrant being labelled 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services. Do you honestly believe his language or behaviour was fluffy to receive that label?
You also never responded to my question about what your solution is.
"People who change their religious beliefs and make it public" would be the correct phrase, I think.
What's wrong with making one's beliefs public? What if someone converts to Judaism and wants to wear the skullcap at all times?
Your attempt at preempting my answer is laughable.
No, the simple fact is that the Sharia rarely infringes upon a person's private affairs. If you want to drink alcohol, commit adultery or any other behavior that Sharia will normally punish if committed outside, you may do so in the confines of your home, so long as it does not affect or come into contact with the public sphere.
No, the simple fact is that the Sharia rarely infringes upon a person's private affairs. If you want to drink alcohol, commit adultery or any other behavior that Sharia will normally punish if committed outside, you may do so in the confines of your home, so long as it does not affect or come into contact with the public sphere.
The principle remains. I am sure you would be the first to protest if the British government decided to prohibit Muslims from practising their beliefs in the 'public sphere' and demanded that they keep it within their homes.
It's also a procedural system that is open to abuse, which is why so many Islamists seem successful in executing homosexuals even though it should be impossible to do so according to your logic. Are you telling me all of the homosexuals prosecuted in Islamist states were romping in the streets?
Original post by LockheedSpooky
That's right.
When Muslims in the Philippines take up arms against the Filipino people, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims in Thailand behead Buddhist monks, it's because of Israel.
When Uyghur Muslims in China slaughter civilians in the street, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch suicide attacks in Russian subways, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch a war against Christians in CAR, it's because of Israel.
Sorry, nobody believes anti-Israel bigots any more. We can see what Islam is doing around the world and whilst 'people' like you would love to blame it all on Israel - we know that Islam, its teachings and its adherents are to blame.
When Muslims in the Philippines take up arms against the Filipino people, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims in Thailand behead Buddhist monks, it's because of Israel.
When Uyghur Muslims in China slaughter civilians in the street, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch suicide attacks in Russian subways, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch a war against Christians in CAR, it's because of Israel.
Sorry, nobody believes anti-Israel bigots any more. We can see what Islam is doing around the world and whilst 'people' like you would love to blame it all on Israel - we know that Islam, its teachings and its adherents are to blame.
ok lemme re-phrase that a little bit: if we finally have peace in Palestine and Israel then maybe these terror attacks won't go away, but I got a feeling there will be less of them as the muslim community will have less reason to be out-raged
Original post by LockheedSpooky
That's right.
When Muslims in the Philippines take up arms against the Filipino people, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims in Thailand behead Buddhist monks, it's because of Israel.
When Uyghur Muslims in China slaughter civilians in the street, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch suicide attacks in Russian subways, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch a war against Christians in CAR, it's because of Israel.
Sorry, nobody believes anti-Israel bigots any more. We can see what Islam is doing around the world and whilst 'people' like you would love to blame it all on Israel - we know that Islam, its teachings and its adherents are to blame.
When Muslims in the Philippines take up arms against the Filipino people, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims in Thailand behead Buddhist monks, it's because of Israel.
When Uyghur Muslims in China slaughter civilians in the street, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch suicide attacks in Russian subways, it's because of Israel.
When Muslims launch a war against Christians in CAR, it's because of Israel.
Sorry, nobody believes anti-Israel bigots any more. We can see what Islam is doing around the world and whilst 'people' like you would love to blame it all on Israel - we know that Islam, its teachings and its adherents are to blame.
when muhammad was cast out of mecca... it was because of israel.
when muhammad conquered mecca... it was because of israel.
when muhammad attacked people at Hunayn, Tabouk, Mu'tah... it was because of israel.
when abu akbar attacked the Byzantines... it was because of israel.
the riddah wars... were clearly because of israel
when they attacked Syria... it was because of israel.
when they attacked Persia... it was because of israel.
when they attacked Armenia... it was because of israel.
when they attacked Egypt... it was because of israel.
when they attacked North Africa... it was because of israel.
when they attacked Cyprus... it was because of israel.
when they attacked Hispania... it was because of israel.
when they attacked Georgia... it was because of israel.
when they attacked axum... it was because of israel.
when they attacked nubia... it was because of israel.
its amazing. its like muslims have just defending their way around the world carving out kingdoms for themselves against israel.
i think islam is single handedly the only empire ever made out of defense.
also. standing ovation to you for that.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by gijops
ok lemme re-phrase that a little bit: if we finally have peace in Palestine and Israel then maybe these terror attacks won't go away, but I got a feeling there will be less of them as the muslim community will have less reason to be out-raged
Except your 'palestinian' heroes (who back then were trading under the name of generic Arabs) were killing Jews before the state of Israel was reestablished.
In fact, how do you think Islam ended up conquering the M.E. and North Africa from the indigenous populations?
The Berbers? the Christians?
Far from reducing terrorism, if 'palestine' was created as a 23rd Arab state and 57th Muslim country through terrorism, this would spur the Muslims on globally more than anything else.
Original post by gijops
ok lemme re-phrase that a little bit: if we finally have peace in Palestine and Israel then maybe these terror attacks won't go away, but I got a feeling there will be less of them as the muslim community will have less reason to be out-raged
if you'd only read the quran you would see the belief system is made for terrorism.
the whole story of muhammad is him being cast out of mecca for being a muslim.
he wages war on mecca until he conquers it and destroys all the religious things that other religious people worshiped.
through this story muhammad talks about "fitnah" or "oppression". any muslim who "feels" oppressed is obligated by their religion to commit jihad until there is no more fitnah.
the definition of what constitutes as oppression is quite mild as you could say be eating someone elses sandwich and they could say "hey stop eating my sandwich" and then you feel oppressed by that so you blow their head off.
violence. in general. is always done in the name of justice. who ever commits the act of violence always believes they are doing it out of some justice for themselves or a greater cause. they have to of course justify their own actions.
but islam actively eggs you on. and the book has instructions on exact punishments for things like cutting off bits of people, hands, heads, feet etc...
this is why there has been so much violence from islam from its inception till now.
Palestine funnily enough was something most muslims didn't give a damn about. all the way up until the 90s if you went on a pro palestine rally you would see nothing but white faces. and if you did see arab people they were nearly always palestinian.
there had been islamic terrorist attacks that were unrelated to palestine.
however things only changed after 9/11.
this seemed to be the wake up call for muslims world wide to switch on the crazy.
thats why pakitistanis who have no national link to anything happening in the middle east are going nuts and blowing up people.
this is islamic terrorism. so as you can see the terrorism we have now has little to nothing to do with palestine.
Original post by Errm2
Did you know that prior to the creation of the colonialist aspirations of the Settler State of Israel by Zionists, Morocco had a sizable Jewish community?
Did you know that that, like Moroccan Muslims, Moroccan Jews also emigrated to France?
Did you know that that, like Moroccan Muslims, Moroccan Jews also emigrated to France?
Are you suggesting the terrorist was Jewish?
Original post by The Clockwork Apple
Are you suggesting the terrorist was Jewish?
I'm saying:
Moroccan =/= Only Muslims.
Original post by SignFromDog
It is a joke, though I'm not laughing because it represents a mindset where they tell themselves that they don't need to do anything about terrorism originating in their communities, that it's all the West's fault anyway and anybody who is not Muslim is a racist, Islamophobic bastard who is part of the "conspiracy against Islam" (TM).
It's pathetic, they are so delusional. That's probably part of the reason they are so backward, they are incapable of coming to grips with reality and place emotion above rationality
It's pathetic, they are so delusional. That's probably part of the reason they are so backward, they are incapable of coming to grips with reality and place emotion above rationality
Im a muslim and I completely agree, Im absolutely fed up of hearing about conspiracies, etc. from other muslims, especially when those muslims live in enclosed societies with barely any social contact with non muslims, and have learned to condone terror and hate the West and all non muslims simply based on what they have heard from semi-literate salafists, with crazy ideas trying to justify why our nations are still centuries behind the west in terms of mentality, economy and power, blaming the west for all our inner conflicts.
All I want to say is that there are some of us who like to think rationally and sensibly, conspiracy theorists are a trend in the Middle East but there are those who are tolerant, who will not bother trying to justify the unjustifiable (terror) simply because they know how potent it is.
Related discussions
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Best city in England for non religious and single guy?
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- Is Israel winning
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Make it More Bladed Weapon-ey !!
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- just wondering
- strike on iran consulate in Damascus
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Are women comfortable with a man who uses delay spray?
- SN1 and SN2 reactions (chemistry)
- At least six killed and several in critical condition after Westfield shopping centre
- When an unleashed dog charges at your leashed dog
- My experience with the Students' Union
- Please help
- Working at an aiport?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
