Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Paris attacks were successful, and it's our fault watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You guys still believe in this lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree on the part where the ISIS has won an ideological war in portraying the western world as villainous but the argument that needs to be considered is that liberalism is an idea which promotes the freedom of man to be what he is till he wishes to do so at the cost of the greater good.

    To fight ISIS we need to portray ISIS or for that matter any other group as a threat to the very idea of liberty and thus subject to extermination. Instead of Islamophobia we need Terror hatred and if one opposes terror hared then liberty is not bound to accommodate such a view.

    Problem is even if such views are promulgated- terror promoting nations like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia(nations are governments, not the people) might not toe the line in order to satisfy vested interests like India's destruction(Pakistan only)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    we've had people becoming increasingly skeptical of Islam.
    This issue is very easily explained, and it has been happening for some time before the Paris attacks.

    Since the rise of Islamism, global jihad, etc, and the associated attacks, people have naturally been asking questions about the ideology that inspires groups like AQ, ISIS, BH, AS, etc. What they have been finding is implicit, and occasionally explicit, justification for their action in the Quran and sunnah. On top of this, they have been finding permission for other socially unacceptable practices and beliefs. When you add the fact that the Quran must be accepted by Muslims as the literal word of god in its entirety, as fully applicable today as it was 1400 years ago and Muhammad is regarded as the ultimate and perfect model for behaviour, people realise that they are not actually dealing with something like modern Christianity (which is what many people, including myself, assumed). Those who take the time to discuss these issues with Muslims are often shocked by how far they will go to defend and justify some of the medieval practices and beliefs.

    So yes, people are becoming less prepared to simply accept the ubiquitous "But Islam is the Religion of Peace. These people are not Muslims" trope, when the evidence suggests something different.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So because ISIS haven't (yet) carried out a 9/11 style attack, they're small fry? I find them even crazier than Al Qaeda, and therefore appealing to even more nutjobs out there who if they weren't part of ISIS would be lashing out at society in smaller ways. That is the real issue - selfobsessed twits justifying to others and themselves their barbarity in the name of religion. I find ISIS a far bigger threat than Al Qaeda - they've only been going in their current form for about 2 years and already have inflicted on France the worst loss of life since World War 2. 9/11 happened largely because the US at the time (under Bush) took their eye off the ball (deliberately or not, that's for personal opinion) - Al Qaeda took their moment and it sadly paid off massively. Whereas ISIS seem to be far more sophisticated in both their operation and media wars - they threaten something, and then it happens! Al Qaeda were always getting caught in their plans, ISIS threaten Russia next thing a whole Russia plane is brought down. Threaten France, next thing they roam around Paris with ease. We can still beat them with ease, with the right capabilities and people in power, I'm just saying your downplaying is rather misguided.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ironandbeer2)
    So because ISIS haven't (yet) carried out a 9/11 style attack, they're small fry? I find them even crazier than Al Qaeda, and therefore appealing to even more nutjobs out there who if they weren't part of ISIS would be lashing out at society in smaller ways. That is the real issue - selfobsessed twits justifying to others and themselves their barbarity in the name of religion. I find ISIS a far bigger threat than Al Qaeda - they've only been going in their current form for about 2 years and already have inflicted on France the worst loss of life since World War 2. 9/11 happened largely because the US at the time (under Bush) took their eye off the ball (deliberately or not, that's for personal opinion) - Al Qaeda took their moment and it sadly paid off massively. Whereas ISIS seem to be far more sophisticated in both their operation and media wars - they threaten something, and then it happens! Al Qaeda were always getting caught in their plans, ISIS threaten Russia next thing a whole Russia plane is brought down. Threaten France, next thing they roam around Paris with ease. We can still beat them with ease, with the right capabilities and people in power, I'm just saying your downplaying is rather misguided.
    No. ISIS is not a threat because their attacks are infrequent and generally low casualty compared to those carried out at greater frequency in other countries by other terrorist groups now and in the past, and also because our domestic security and intelligence is good at the moment.

    And the thing is, these people who are said to be 'Isis' by the media are not actually ISIS. They are foreign nationals who have been manipulated and radicalised by ISIS into joining them and committing atrocities in their name. The actual militants belonging to ISIS are in Syria, surrounded and posing a nonexistent threat to us.

    ISIS isn't attacking us, we are allowing ISIS to manipulate foreign Muslims into attacking us, this is due to the media, Islamophobia and scaremongering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So yes, people are becoming less prepared to simply accept the ubiquitous "But Islam is the Religion of Peace. These people are not Muslims" trope, when the evidence suggests something different.
    Hi, just a lurker here but I have close Muslim friends and they condemn ISIS all the time. They follow mainstream Sunni Islamic Scholars, the vast majority of those also condemn ISIS.

    I have read some of the Quran and I have seen some violent passages but as far as I know oppression against innocents is not allowed? I was also told that violence is only allowed in defence, so I don't know who you've been talking to lol...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    I have read some of the Quran and I have seen some violent passages but as far as I know oppression against innocents is not allowed?
    Unfortunately, your friends have failed to tell you what the definition of an innocent is. Let me give you a clue: anyone who argues against Islam or who criticises it is not an innocent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Unfortunately, your friends have failed to tell you what the definition of an innocent is. Let me give you a clue: anyone who argues against Islam or who criticises it is not an innocent.
    Majority of people have argued/debated with Muslims on many occasions without any violent repercussions? (Me being one of them haha)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    Majority of people have argued/debated with Muslims on many occasions without any violent repercussions? (Me being one of them haha)
    Yes. The good news is that many Moslems have not read the Koran properly or don't understand it. Even better news is that most who have realise that to follow it in the twenty-first century is not a good idea and not morally tight, as we have moved on from the seventh century.

    Unfortunately, some take a literal view of it (and, to be fair, the Koran itself tells them to) and interpret it in a way that leads to much death and suffering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes. The good news is that many Moslems have not read the Koran properly or don't understand it.
    Isn't your assumption a case of the No True Scotsman fallacy? You're claiming that Muslims who don't react violently to debate must not know the Quran properly, without providing any evidence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    Isn't your assumption a case of the No True Scotsman fallacy? You're claiming that Muslims who don't react violently to debate must not know the Quran properly, without providing any evidence.
    I think you should re-read what I wrote a bit more carefully.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I think you should re-read what I wrote a bit more carefully.
    Well you're saying that, the more accurately a muslim follows the Quran, the more likely they are to be violent/oppressive. But this is made on the assumption that the violent/oppressive muslims must be following the Quran more accurately. No true scotsman?

    How are you so sure that all the mainstream scholars that the majority of muslims follow, aren't acting on the quran/sunnah verbatim, but ISIS are?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    Well you're saying that, the more accurately a muslim follows the Quran, the more likely they are to be violent/oppressive. But this is made on the assumption that the violent/oppressive muslims must be following the Quran more accurately. No true scotsman?
    You are the one making the assumptions, not me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are the one making the assumptions, not me.
    Really? Who said this?

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Unfortunately, some take a literal view of it (and, to be fair, the Koran itself tells them to) and interpret it in a way that leads to much death and suffering.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    Really? Who said this?
    I did. What assumption does it make, bearing in mind my use of the word "some"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I did. What assumption does it make, bearing in mind my use of the word "some"?
    I'm done here, you're not making sense.
    Can't believe I came out of lurking for this
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    Well you're saying that, the more accurately a muslim follows the Quran, the more likely they are to be violent/oppressive. But this is made on the assumption that the violent/oppressive muslims must be following the Quran more accurately. No true scotsman?

    How are you so sure that all the mainstream scholars that the majority of muslims follow, aren't acting on the quran/sunnah verbatim, but ISIS are?
    Is there violent expressions and commands in the Qur'an?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Your solution to this "problem" is to censor the press? Really?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lachel_Ree)
    I'm done here, you're not making sense.
    Can't believe I came out of lurking for this
    My advice is to read carefully, understand, think, then post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Is there violent expressions and commands in the Qur'an?
    Yes. I'm no Qur'an expert but from what I've been told by my close Muslim friends, you're not allowed to oppress innocent people; violence is for defence against enemies.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.