This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Is it Haram to do this?
- help - a level history cousework
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- CBSE to A-Level Equivalence
- University of Leeds Terrorism Module International Relations
- lse accounting and finance
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Girls Vs. Boys (Part 46)
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- LSE Accounting and finance
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Is Israel winning
- Warwick Undergraduate Global Excellence Scholarship
- Official: University of Exeter A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Korean at SOAS
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
94% of US and 98% of European terror attacks done by non-Muslims
Scroll to see replies
Original post by dumbsituation123
Muslims don't just snap and decide to kill for their religion, there's always a political cause behind it.
Muslims don't just snap and decide to kill for their religion, there's always a political cause behind it.
Right. Because gunning down 130 people at a rock concert, for the explicit reason that music is sinful and the people in attendance were "sexually depraved", is all about politics.
And in any case, how does the fact that Muslims seem to kill people for "political" reasons make it better? Your comment sounds a lot like justification, and frankly we're bloody sick of it.
but..but...non muslim attackers are just 'mentally ill'
Original post by dumbsituation123
Which just shows that it Islam is the medium through which the virus of Islamist terrorism spreads. If they were Jewish or Sikh, they wouldn't be gunning people down no matter how conservative they were.
It shows that even after living with us for many years, Muslims can just turn on us in an instant. And people like you will excuse it and call it "political", as if the Israel-Palestine conflict justifies blowing civilians on the London Tube or gunning people down at a rock concert.
Perhaps you can also explain how machine gunning cartoonists for "insulting the prophet" is a political act? (again, as if that makes it better; there only seems to be one group that is into targeting civilians in pursuit of political ends in Western society at the moment)
Original post by Angry Bird
but..but...non muslim attackers are just 'mentally ill'
Ahh, because the poor Muslims are so oppressed in Western society. It's all that horrible Islamophobia, the fact that in the West Muslims aren't allowed to own property or vote, and are banned from joining professions like the law or medicine
(oh sorry, I was confusing them with the status of women in Islamic countries)That's why they're forced to gun people down at rock concerts and machine gun cartoonists for "insulting the prophet".
There is no religion in the world that is Islam's equal when it comes to obsessive victimhood and the martyr mentality, the sense of entitlement pathologically twinned with an inferiority complex.
If the West is so awful, nothing forces them to live here. This is not the North Korea, we don't prevent people from leaving. Surely they'd be more comfortable in, say, Saudi Arabia (if Sunni) or Iran (if Shi'a) where they don't have to put up with all that terrible Western Islamophobia
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by dumbsituation123
No, the specific political cause they were motivated by was retaliation for airstrikes in Syria. No airstrikes and this attack would not have happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the French for bombing ISIS, but I am saying its a lot more complicated than just spouting "ZOMG!!1 its RADICAL ISLAM".
How is that not radical Islam? ISIS is a radical Islamic state. These people went out to Syria to join it. The entire world turned against ISIS, and airstrikes were launched. These terrorists then returned to attack civilians here to retaliate for airstrikes against valid terrorist targets. And in fact the specific targets they chose were based on their radical Islamic ideology; bars, cafes and concerts.
Depicting that as some kind of "political" act, as if it's akin to a suicide bomber from the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blowing up an Israeli checkpoint, is idiotic. It suggests you lack an understanding of even the most obvious distinctions in these matters
Original post by dumbsituation123
But the reasons behind the attack were political; they were intended as revenge for France's airstrikes in Syria
So? Let's say we grant you that. How does it advance your argument to say that they were striking back after a justified campaign against them? The Nazis struck back after we bombed them too.
The fact they were ordered to France by ISIS after ISIS came under attack doesn't somehow mean it's justified. It doesn't mean it's less a matter of Islamist terrorism. They are Islamist terrorists, their Islamist caliphate came under attack by people opposed to it, to hit back they attacked targets that were chosen based on intolerant Islamist philosophy. Really quite simple. How does any of that make it less bad, or less Islamist?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Robby2312
The bataclan attackers were either Isis members or Isis inspired.Isis have specifically said that their cause is Islam.If it's merely political then why do these terrorists never attack government targets?They always go for soft civilian targets.The people at the bataclan were not involved in any war,they were just people listening to music.The truth is that they were inspired by Islam to hate our way of life.They view unbelievers as sinful or shameful and that's why they attacked the bataclan.You also ignored my point about the Charlie hebdo attacks and the one at the Christmas market.They also attacked a Jewish supermarket in France.That proves that this is about religion not just politics.Also the USA didn't just randomly decide to target Isis in Syria.They targeted them because they were doing horrific things like burning pilots alive if you will remember.
Their cause is their version of Islam. Something different to what most Muslims follow.
The Bataclan attackers specifically said that it was revenge for airstrikes on IS.
They attack soft targets and non-government targets because obviously they are less likely to be defended. The impact of terrorism is also greater when it hits civilians and not some politicians.
They were inspired by IS to kill, not by Islam. Otherwise they would have adhered to the various things in the Quran which forbid killing civilians and hostages. IS ignore all of the good in the Quran.
The mechanism isn't understood by you.
Yes, the choices of 'venue' as to where they attack is entirely down to different cultures, ie conflict between Islam and western culture. But the reason they choose to go on terrorist atrocities is not because they suddenly feel like spreading Islam. How exactly does murdering innocent people and incriminating their own faith HELP their own faith? They go on terrorist atrocities because they are egged on to do so by extremist groups, who don't give a damn about who lives or dies.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Ahh, because the poor Muslims are so oppressed in Western society. It's all that horrible Islamophobia, the fact that in the West Muslims aren't allowed to own property or vote, and are banned from joining professions like the law or medicine (oh sorry, I was confusing them with the status of women in Islamic countries)
That's why they're forced to gun people down at rock concerts and machine gun cartoonists for "insulting the prophet".
There is no religion in the world that is Islam's equal when it comes to obsessive victimhood and the martyr mentality, the sense of entitlement pathologically twinned with an inferiority complex.
If the West is so awful, nothing forces them to live here. This is not the North Korea, we don't prevent people from leaving. Surely they'd be more comfortable in, say, Saudi Arabia (if Sunni) or Iran (if Shi'a) where they don't have to put up with all that terrible Western Islamophobia
(oh sorry, I was confusing them with the status of women in Islamic countries)That's why they're forced to gun people down at rock concerts and machine gun cartoonists for "insulting the prophet".
There is no religion in the world that is Islam's equal when it comes to obsessive victimhood and the martyr mentality, the sense of entitlement pathologically twinned with an inferiority complex.
If the West is so awful, nothing forces them to live here. This is not the North Korea, we don't prevent people from leaving. Surely they'd be more comfortable in, say, Saudi Arabia (if Sunni) or Iran (if Shi'a) where they don't have to put up with all that terrible Western Islamophobia
Source?
Original post by AlexanderHam
Right. Because gunning down 130 people at a rock concert, for the explicit reason that music is sinful and the people in attendance were "sexually depraved", is all about politics.
And in any case, how does the fact that Muslims seem to kill people for "political" reasons make it better? Your comment sounds a lot like justification, and frankly we're bloody sick of it.
And in any case, how does the fact that Muslims seem to kill people for "political" reasons make it better? Your comment sounds a lot like justification, and frankly we're bloody sick of it.
They did it for revenge against France's involvement in Syria. They said this themselves. The choice of target was indeed anti-Western, but their motives had nothing to do with spreading or helping their faith.
I'm not trying to make it sound better, I'm just trying to knock sense into people who think going around on twitter spewing hate against all Muslims is the right response.
Original post by Trapz99
Source?
Eh? It's sarcasm. I'm pointing out conventional forms of oppression, and the fact that Muslims in the West suffer from none of them (but women in the Islamic world do).
Original post by dumbsituation123
They did it for revenge against France's involvement in Syria. They said this themselves.
It wasn't "revenge against France's involvement in Syria", it was revenge against France's involvement in the campaign against ISIS. By definition, they are striking back against someone who is standing in the way of their caliphate and thus it has everything to do with spreading their faith
I'm not trying to make it sound better, I'm just trying to knock sense into people who think going around on twitter spewing hate against all Muslims is the right response.
How would the fact that Muslims are killing people over political disputes (which are themselves invariably related to their faith as they always relate to something happening to other Muslims... they don't get this pissed off about, say, the occupation of Tibet) make it better than Muslims killing people for purely religious reasons (which is also happening)?
It's also very clear that this has a lot to do with Islam: the attackers tell us themselves that their faith is a huge motivating factor. If religion had "nothing to do with it", you would expect to see Jews and Christians and Sikhs and Hindus attacking for the same reason. But you don't; this is a Muslim phenomenon
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
Eh? It's sarcasm. I'm pointing out conventional forms of oppression, and the fact that Muslims in the West suffer from none of them (but women in the Islamic world do).
No, I meant the source for women not being allowed to become doctors and lawyers in Islamic countries. As far as I know, they are.
Original post by Trapz99
No, I meant the source for women not being allowed to become doctors and lawyers in Islamic countries. As far as I know, they are.
Original post by AlexanderHam
But where is your source for it? Where did you get the info from? If you can't give a reputable source, then I can't exactly believe you
Original post by AlexanderHam
Which just shows that it Islam is the medium through which the virus of Islamist terrorism spreads. If they were Jewish or Sikh, they wouldn't be gunning people down no matter how conservative they were.
It shows that even after living with us for many years, Muslims can just turn on us in an instant. And people like you will excuse it and call it "political", as if the Israel-Palestine conflict justifies blowing civilians on the London Tube or gunning people down at a rock concert.
Perhaps you can also explain how machine gunning cartoonists for "insulting the prophet" is a political act? (again, as if that makes it better; there only seems to be one group that is into targeting civilians in pursuit of political ends in Western society at the moment)
It shows that even after living with us for many years, Muslims can just turn on us in an instant. And people like you will excuse it and call it "political", as if the Israel-Palestine conflict justifies blowing civilians on the London Tube or gunning people down at a rock concert.
Perhaps you can also explain how machine gunning cartoonists for "insulting the prophet" is a political act? (again, as if that makes it better; there only seems to be one group that is into targeting civilians in pursuit of political ends in Western society at the moment)
Yes, because Judaism and Sikhism have no propagandistic terrorist groups calling out for people to kill westerners. It's got more to do with the fact that ISIS is so vocal than the actual conflicts of culture, otherwise we would be seeing many MANY more of these.
And you seriously overestimate the process of radicalisation. Its never a case of ordinary Muslims just "turning on us", they are always people involved in criminal activity beforehand, who find comfort with groups like IS. They are almost always, as well, alcohol-drinkers who submit to western culture, until that point that they snap.
Charlie Hebdo, and any attacks done against cartoonists are possibly the only example of pure defence of Islam, at that point, it is reasonable to criticise the censorship in Islam. But the attacks done by IS are very very different fundamentally.
Original post by dumbsituation123
Their cause is their version of Islam. Something different to what most Muslims follow.
The Bataclan attackers specifically said that it was revenge for airstrikes on IS.
They attack soft targets and non-government targets because obviously they are less likely to be defended. The impact of terrorism is also greater when it hits civilians and not some politicians.
They were inspired by IS to kill, not by Islam. Otherwise they would have adhered to the various things in the Quran which forbid killing civilians and hostages. IS ignore all of the good in the Quran.
Please
The mechanism isn't understood by you.
Yes, the choices of 'venue' as to where they attack is entirely down to different cultures, ie conflict between Islam and western culture. But the reason they choose to go on terrorist atrocities is not because they suddenly feel like spreading Islam. How exactly does murdering innocent people and incriminating their own faith HELP their own faith? They go on terrorist atrocities because they are egged on to do so by extremist groups, who don't give a damn about who lives or dies.
The Bataclan attackers specifically said that it was revenge for airstrikes on IS.
They attack soft targets and non-government targets because obviously they are less likely to be defended. The impact of terrorism is also greater when it hits civilians and not some politicians.
They were inspired by IS to kill, not by Islam. Otherwise they would have adhered to the various things in the Quran which forbid killing civilians and hostages. IS ignore all of the good in the Quran.
Please
The mechanism isn't understood by you.
Yes, the choices of 'venue' as to where they attack is entirely down to different cultures, ie conflict between Islam and western culture. But the reason they choose to go on terrorist atrocities is not because they suddenly feel like spreading Islam. How exactly does murdering innocent people and incriminating their own faith HELP their own faith? They go on terrorist atrocities because they are egged on to do so by extremist groups, who don't give a damn about who lives or dies.
Isis ignore all the good in Islam but most muslims ignore the violent parts as well.Arguably if you truly believe that a book is God's word then you should actually follow all of it including the violent parts. If I were religious then I would actually kind of agree with their logic.Most muslims just cherry pick the nice parts,Isis follow all of it including the violent parts.You can't say that their interpretation is wrong because it's just as valid.Its written in the same book which both you and Isis believe to be the word of God.
It's a religious conflict.You are fixating on the bataclan attack and ignoring all the others ones.Like earlier this year when that terrorist beheaded a priest.You don't think that him being a priest had anything to do with it? Of course it did.The priest was actively preaching that Islam was wrong and Christianity was the true religion.As for incriminating their own faith well Isis don't actually regard western muslims as true Muslims so they don't care if they are vilified.
Original post by AlexanderHam
How is that not radical Islam? ISIS is a radical Islamic state. These people went out to Syria to join it. The entire world turned against ISIS, and airstrikes were launched. These terrorists then returned to attack civilians here to retaliate for airstrikes against valid terrorist targets. And in fact the specific targets they chose were based on their radical Islamic ideology; bars, cafes and concerts.
Depicting that as some kind of "political" act, as if it's akin to a suicide bomber from the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blowing up an Israeli checkpoint, is idiotic. It suggests you lack an understanding of even the most obvious distinctions in these matters
Depicting that as some kind of "political" act, as if it's akin to a suicide bomber from the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blowing up an Israeli checkpoint, is idiotic. It suggests you lack an understanding of even the most obvious distinctions in these matters
I'm not saying it isn't radical Islam.
Please respond to me in one post next time as well, I faceplamed when I saw about 5 quotes from the same person.
Original post by AlexanderHam
So? Let's say we grant you that. How does it advance your argument to say that they were striking back after a justified campaign against them? The Nazis struck back after we bombed them too.
The fact they were ordered to France by ISIS after ISIS came under attack doesn't somehow mean it's justified. It doesn't mean it's less a matter of Islamist terrorism. They are Islamist terrorists, their Islamist caliphate came under attack by people opposed to it, to hit back they attacked targets that were chosen based on intolerant Islamist philosophy. Really quite simple. How does any of that make it less bad, or less Islamist?
The fact they were ordered to France by ISIS after ISIS came under attack doesn't somehow mean it's justified. It doesn't mean it's less a matter of Islamist terrorism. They are Islamist terrorists, their Islamist caliphate came under attack by people opposed to it, to hit back they attacked targets that were chosen based on intolerant Islamist philosophy. Really quite simple. How does any of that make it less bad, or less Islamist?
Because without bombing raids against IS by France, this attack wouldn't have happened.
You guys all seem to suggest that it is Islam alone which causes it. Don't get me wrong, Islam has a part to play and it needs to be called out, but don't act like its the singular cause of this sort of thing. Islam has responsibility to take, but it doesn't have the burden to take on complete responsibility.
Original post by ghazhal
Can't disregard the fact that the media amplifies terrorist attacks when done by "muslims".
You don't see christianity being associated with Hitler or Dylann Roof. Every religious group has mentally incapable followers, so does Islam
You don't see christianity being associated with Hitler or Dylann Roof. Every religious group has mentally incapable followers, so does Islam
1. Because Hitler persecuted the Church and reduced its influence, as it was a counter-power to his totalitarian order.
2. Dylann Roof shot a pastor in a church. It's hard to associate him with Christianity.
None of them did their crimes in the name of Jesus.
I hope I have cleared that for you.
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Is it Haram to do this?
- help - a level history cousework
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- CBSE to A-Level Equivalence
- University of Leeds Terrorism Module International Relations
- lse accounting and finance
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Girls Vs. Boys (Part 46)
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- LSE Accounting and finance
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Is Israel winning
- Warwick Undergraduate Global Excellence Scholarship
- Official: University of Exeter A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Korean at SOAS
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 ?
