How the left respond to the recent attack in Orlando now we know the perp was Muslim?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by WhiteMan16
last time I checked, Saudi Arabia didn't purport itself as the "land of the free"
Original post by generallee
Owen Jones made a fool of himself in that video.
Really? As Jones said, the presenter simply wouldn't have said what he was saying if this was an attack on a synagogue: it would be called an anti-Semitic attack, and quite rightly. This, similarly, is a homophobic attack on the LGBT community, despite what the presenter was saying about it being "an attack on all human beings", and it being an attack on "the freedom to enjoy yourselves". No, no, no. The presenter also claimed that Jones was saying that it was a worse attack than Paris, when Owen Jones claimed no such thing.
The presenter made a fool of himself in that video, I'm afraid.
Original post by generallee
He may also be beginning to regret his sucking up to radical Islam, along with the whole of the regressive left.
Find me an example of when he's done that, first of all. Secondly, the whole "regressive left" label is getting to be a bit tiring now. I mean, it was interesting and new about six months ago, but I'd suggest you get a new, fresh label to try to make generalisations about a whole group of people.
Original post by generallee
Islam is homophobic. What part of that don't the left get??
Nobody is denying that the conservative attitudes currently prevalent within Islam need to be challenged, just as the conservative attitudes within Christianity have been challenged (pretty unsuccessfully in the United States, though).
Original post by generallee
The left are so blind to the danger of Islamism it is terrifying.
Oh, so you've just gone from "regressive left" to "left" now. How interesting. I've outlined how I think we can best fight jihadi terrorism, examining the factors that have led to it. Tell me which parts you disagree with, please. The obsession with Islam, the demonisation of even moderate Muslims by so many on these threads, and the call for further military interventions by some on 'the right' is precisely the wrong way to go about dealing with terrorism. Many on 'the right' claim to be 'strong on terrorism', yet they just make the situation so much worse.
A terrible attack on the gay community.
These kinds of hate crimes and terrorist attacks aren't going to stop anytime soon, but we can minimise the risk of them occurring. Firstly, the United States needs stricter gun control laws: people on the terrorism watchlist aren't barred from having guns, which is madness (although that wouldn't have stopped the terror attack at the black church in Charleston from occurring, nor the San Bernardino attack, because the suspects weren't on the watchlist). Ideally, guns would be completely banned in the United States, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Secondly, we should recognise that all ideologies and beliefs can lead people to do terrible things. Islam has its extremists, just as right-wing, anti-government ideologies have their extremists; indeed, domestic terrorism by right-wing anti-government extremists is as big a threat, if not a bigger threat, than jihadi terrorism.
Third, we should identify how best to combat jihadi terrorism. Jihadists have been able to amplify their abhorrent ideologies in ways that, say, Buddhist or Hindu extremists (yes, they exist) haven't, by taking advantage of sociopolitical strife in the Middle East. Dictators in the Middle East have continued to anger and oppress people for decades, largely supported by the West, and our own interventions in the Middle East have demonstrably, as intelligence experts have said, contributed to a rise in terrorism in the Middle East.
Robert Pape, a prominent political scientist at the University of Chicago, analysed every known case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2003, concluding: “there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”.
He later expanded on this work by looking at all of the suicide terrorist attacks between 2004 and 2009. He found that “overall, foreign military occupation accounts for 98.5% -- and the deployment of American combat forces for 92% -- of all the 1,833 suicide terrorist attacks around the world in the past six years.” Tellingly, between 1980 and 2003, less than 15% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States and its interests; between 2004 and 2009, after the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the United States' continued presence in Afghanistan, 92% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States.
And, once extremists in the Middle East have taken advantage of these situations, they can go global, and try to radicalise young, disenfranchised people who seek a stable identity, as they have done with many people who have travelled to Syria. Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism operations for MI6, writes: “Isis projects a strong identity and sense of purpose and it appeals in particular to people who lack both; it offers them the opportunity to be part of something new, regardless of their gender or abilities."
In 2008, MI5's behavioural science unit concluded that “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes”. MI5 also concluded that a well-established religious identity may protect against radicalisation.
Fourth, we should not be afraid to criticise conservative interpretations of religions, and Islam in particular is a very conservative religion at the moment. We need to work with liberal and reformist Muslims to discount and discredit not only the views of extremists, but also to promote more socially liberal views too within the Islamic community, just as the main Christian churches have reformed extensively their views on so many issues. The latter in particular will be difficult, given that very socially conservative views continue to exist in Christianity (extensively in the United States) and Judaism.
These kinds of hate crimes and terrorist attacks aren't going to stop anytime soon, but we can minimise the risk of them occurring. Firstly, the United States needs stricter gun control laws: people on the terrorism watchlist aren't barred from having guns, which is madness (although that wouldn't have stopped the terror attack at the black church in Charleston from occurring, nor the San Bernardino attack, because the suspects weren't on the watchlist). Ideally, guns would be completely banned in the United States, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Secondly, we should recognise that all ideologies and beliefs can lead people to do terrible things. Islam has its extremists, just as right-wing, anti-government ideologies have their extremists; indeed, domestic terrorism by right-wing anti-government extremists is as big a threat, if not a bigger threat, than jihadi terrorism.
Third, we should identify how best to combat jihadi terrorism. Jihadists have been able to amplify their abhorrent ideologies in ways that, say, Buddhist or Hindu extremists (yes, they exist) haven't, by taking advantage of sociopolitical strife in the Middle East. Dictators in the Middle East have continued to anger and oppress people for decades, largely supported by the West, and our own interventions in the Middle East have demonstrably, as intelligence experts have said, contributed to a rise in terrorism in the Middle East.
Robert Pape, a prominent political scientist at the University of Chicago, analysed every known case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2003, concluding: “there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”.
He later expanded on this work by looking at all of the suicide terrorist attacks between 2004 and 2009. He found that “overall, foreign military occupation accounts for 98.5% -- and the deployment of American combat forces for 92% -- of all the 1,833 suicide terrorist attacks around the world in the past six years.” Tellingly, between 1980 and 2003, less than 15% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States and its interests; between 2004 and 2009, after the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the United States' continued presence in Afghanistan, 92% of suicide terrorist attacks were aimed at the United States.
And, once extremists in the Middle East have taken advantage of these situations, they can go global, and try to radicalise young, disenfranchised people who seek a stable identity, as they have done with many people who have travelled to Syria. Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism operations for MI6, writes: “Isis projects a strong identity and sense of purpose and it appeals in particular to people who lack both; it offers them the opportunity to be part of something new, regardless of their gender or abilities."
In 2008, MI5's behavioural science unit concluded that “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes”. MI5 also concluded that a well-established religious identity may protect against radicalisation.
Fourth, we should not be afraid to criticise conservative interpretations of religions, and Islam in particular is a very conservative religion at the moment. We need to work with liberal and reformist Muslims to discount and discredit not only the views of extremists, but also to promote more socially liberal views too within the Islamic community, just as the main Christian churches have reformed extensively their views on so many issues. The latter in particular will be difficult, given that very socially conservative views continue to exist in Christianity (extensively in the United States) and Judaism.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Really?
Yes.
Original post by viddy9
Find me an example of when he's done that, first of all. Secondly, the whole "regressive left" label is getting to be a bit tiring now. I mean, it was interesting and new about six months ago, but I'd suggest you get a new, fresh label to try to make generalisations about a whole group of people.
Find me an example of when he's done that, first of all. Secondly, the whole "regressive left" label is getting to be a bit tiring now. I mean, it was interesting and new about six months ago, but I'd suggest you get a new, fresh label to try to make generalisations about a whole group of people.
I have read him do it on many occasions. I am in a rush now, but if I get time, and can be @rsed I will do so.
Like Jones you seek to prevent other people using the words they want. The woman in the vid slapped him down for it, consider yourself similarly rebuked. I'll use whatever the hell term I want to use.
Original post by viddy9
Nobody is denying that the conservative attitudes currently prevalent within Islam need to be challenged, just as the conservative attitudes within Christianity have been challenged (pretty unsuccessfully in the United States, though).
Nobody is denying that the conservative attitudes currently prevalent within Islam need to be challenged, just as the conservative attitudes within Christianity have been challenged (pretty unsuccessfully in the United States, though).
The left fails to challenge them. It excuses them in its cultural relativism.
And it tries to claim Christianity is similarly dangerous. Christianity WAS but is no longer. Alone of the world's religions, Islam is an existential threat to western liberalism. The left never accepts this.
Original post by viddy9
Oh, so you've just gone from "regressive left" to "left" now. How interesting. I've outlined how I think we can best fight jihadi terrorism, examining the factors that have led to it. Tell me which parts you disagree with, please. The obsession with Islam, the demonisation of even moderate Muslims by so many on these threads, and the call for further military interventions by some on 'the right' is precisely the wrong way to go about dealing with terrorism. Many on 'the right' claim to be 'strong on terrorism', yet they just make the situation so much worse.
Oh, so you've just gone from "regressive left" to "left" now. How interesting. I've outlined how I think we can best fight jihadi terrorism, examining the factors that have led to it. Tell me which parts you disagree with, please. The obsession with Islam, the demonisation of even moderate Muslims by so many on these threads, and the call for further military interventions by some on 'the right' is precisely the wrong way to go about dealing with terrorism. Many on 'the right' claim to be 'strong on terrorism', yet they just make the situation so much worse.
The fight against radical Islam is a battle of ideas.
It isn't an easy one to win, frankly, because you are damned if you are robust, and damned if weak.
What you don't do, is deny there is even a problem. As the left does.
And you stop all further Muslim immigration into western countries. With the problems we currently have at these levels, the last thing we need are millions more Muslims.
The Muslims living here may kick up a stink. So what? You don't stop a raging fire by pouring petrol on it More Muslim immigration is insane.
As a good lefty, living in denial, I doubt you know what Hijrah even is. And if you do, you will deny it is being used by the likes of Erdogan.
Read his speech made on 29 May to commemorate the fall of Constantinople.
Original post by generallee
Like Jones you seek to prevent other people using the words they want. The woman in the vid slapped him down for it, consider yourself similarly rebuked. I'll use whatever the hell term I want to use.
I was making a suggestion. I'm sorry if I committed a microaggression against you. I will allow you to retreat to your safe space.
Original post by generallee
And it tries to claim Christianity is similarly dangerous. Christianity WAS but is no longer. Alone of the world's religions, Islam is an existential threat to western liberalism. The left never accepts this.
If you'd read my post, I clearly stated that Islam is the currently most conservative of the major religions, currently, and that these conservative attitudes need to be challenged. You claim that I'm of "the left", so that's one "leftist" who isn't engaging in cultural relativism, and it completely disproves your assertion that "the left never accepts this".
But, I'm afraid that Christian fundamentalism still poses an existential threat to Western liberalism. The Republican Party consists of Christian fundamentalists, and consists of people who want to ban people because of their religion from entering the country; it consists of people who want to ban abortion, gay marriage and restrict transgender rights. Ted Cruz even shared a stage with a Christian pastor who believes that homosexuals should be put to death. Just a couple of years ago, American Christians were working within Uganda to encourage the death penalty for gays. These people exist.
Conservative attitudes need to be challenged - and are being challenged - by liberal and reformist Muslims. They're currently a minority, of course, but we should be supporting these groups, such as the numerous Muslim LGBTQ groups in existence.
Original post by generallee
What you don't do, is deny there is even a problem. As the left does.
I've given you lots of evidence to demonstrate what the factors underlying the prevalence of jihadism are. That's not denying the problem; that's called identifying the correct problem before addressing the problem.
Original post by generallee
And you stop all further Muslim immigration into western countries. With the problems we currently have at these levels, the last thing we need are millions more Muslims.
No, you don't. Firstly, congratulations, you've killed off Western liberalism by doing something decidedly anti-liberal.
Secondly, stopping Muslim immigration into Western countries won't help challenge conservative attitudes within Islam to women, homosexuals and so on, at all: in fact, immigrants to the United States and even Britain have far more liberal attitudes than people in their native countries.
Third, stopping Muslim immigration is going to make matters worse, not matter, and increase alienation, which is the root cause of homegrown terrorism, as MI5 documented (see above).
Fourth, the alternative responses: encouraging more integration; preventing alienation and disenfranchisement; addressing the sociopolitical problems within the Middle East, are far better and will be far more effective.
Fifth, this is a giant overreaction. Terrorism kills fewer people than car accidents do. The IRA was by far a bigger terror threat to the UK than jihadi terrorism. As I documented above, right-wing, anti-government extremism is at least as big a threat as jihadi terrorism in the United States: are you going to screen people for these views, too?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
I was making a suggestion. I'm sorry if I committed a microaggression against you. I will allow you to retreat to your safe space.
If you'd read my post, I clearly stated that Islam is the currently most conservative of the major religions, currently, and that these conservative attitudes need to be challenged. You claim that I'm of "the left", so that's one "leftist" who isn't engaging in cultural relativism, and it completely disproves your assertion that "the left never accepts this".
But, I'm afraid that Christian fundamentalism still poses an existential threat to Western liberalism. The Republican Party consists of Christian fundamentalists, and consists of people who want to ban people because of their religion from entering the country; it consists of people who want to ban abortion, gay marriage and restrict transgender rights. Ted Cruz even shared a stage with a Christian pastor who believes that homosexuals should be put to death. Just a couple of years ago, American Christians were working within Uganda to encourage the death penalty for gays. These people exist.
Conservative attitudes need to be challenged - and are being challenged - by liberal and reformist Muslims. They're currently a minority, of course, but we should be supporting these groups, such as the numerous Muslim LGBTQ groups in existence.
I've given you lots of evidence to demonstrate what the factors underlying the prevalence of jihadism are. That's not denying the problem; that's called identifying the correct problem before addressing the problem.
No, you don't. Firstly, congratulations, you've killed off Western liberalism by doing something decidedly anti-liberal.
Secondly, stopping Muslim immigration into Western countries won't help challenge conservative attitudes within Islam to women, homosexuals and so on, at all: in fact, immigrants to the United States and even Britain have far more liberal attitudes than people in their native countries.
Third, stopping Muslim immigration is going to make matters worse, not matter, and increase alienation, which is the root cause of homegrown terrorism, as MI5 documented (see above).
Fourth, the alternative responses: encouraging more integration; preventing alienation and disenfranchisement; addressing the sociopolitical problems within the Middle East, are far better and will be far more effective.
Fifth, this is a giant overreaction. Terrorism kills fewer people than car accidents do. The IRA was by far a bigger terror threat to the UK than jihadi terrorism. As I documented above, right-wing, anti-government extremism is at least as big a threat as jihadi terrorism in the United States: are you going to screen people for these views, too?
If you'd read my post, I clearly stated that Islam is the currently most conservative of the major religions, currently, and that these conservative attitudes need to be challenged. You claim that I'm of "the left", so that's one "leftist" who isn't engaging in cultural relativism, and it completely disproves your assertion that "the left never accepts this".
But, I'm afraid that Christian fundamentalism still poses an existential threat to Western liberalism. The Republican Party consists of Christian fundamentalists, and consists of people who want to ban people because of their religion from entering the country; it consists of people who want to ban abortion, gay marriage and restrict transgender rights. Ted Cruz even shared a stage with a Christian pastor who believes that homosexuals should be put to death. Just a couple of years ago, American Christians were working within Uganda to encourage the death penalty for gays. These people exist.
Conservative attitudes need to be challenged - and are being challenged - by liberal and reformist Muslims. They're currently a minority, of course, but we should be supporting these groups, such as the numerous Muslim LGBTQ groups in existence.
I've given you lots of evidence to demonstrate what the factors underlying the prevalence of jihadism are. That's not denying the problem; that's called identifying the correct problem before addressing the problem.
No, you don't. Firstly, congratulations, you've killed off Western liberalism by doing something decidedly anti-liberal.
Secondly, stopping Muslim immigration into Western countries won't help challenge conservative attitudes within Islam to women, homosexuals and so on, at all: in fact, immigrants to the United States and even Britain have far more liberal attitudes than people in their native countries.
Third, stopping Muslim immigration is going to make matters worse, not matter, and increase alienation, which is the root cause of homegrown terrorism, as MI5 documented (see above).
Fourth, the alternative responses: encouraging more integration; preventing alienation and disenfranchisement; addressing the sociopolitical problems within the Middle East, are far better and will be far more effective.
Fifth, this is a giant overreaction. Terrorism kills fewer people than car accidents do. The IRA was by far a bigger terror threat to the UK than jihadi terrorism. As I documented above, right-wing, anti-government extremism is at least as big a threat as jihadi terrorism in the United States: are you going to screen people for these views, too?
Like I say I am in a rush. I don't have time to answer all your points.
But the bolded is the key one you make. And it is very powerful because you are right, it would be a profoundly illiberal act.
Therein lies our challenge. Islamism uses our very liberalism against us.
If we respond to the threat by stopping further immigration we lose what we most cherish. And if we don't, the conservatism of their utterly antithetical civilisation threatens to overwhelm us.
This is what you fail to appreciate it seems to me. Quite how different Islam is as a belief system. How it is not able to accommodate western liberalism, western secularism.
One of them must win. You think liberalism will prevail. I have a less sanguine view.
Original post by generallee
And it is very powerful because you are right, it would be a profoundly illiberal act. Therein lies our challenge. Islamism uses our very liberalism against us.
No, Islamism doesn't use our liberalism against us. It uses the knee-jerk, gung-ho reactions of people like Donald Trump against us. They want us to have the reaction that people like Trump are having. They want us to abandon our liberal values. The illogical people who claim that there's a clash of civilisations, and that it's "them against us", are helping each other. ISIS helps Trump; Trump helps ISIS.
Original post by generallee
You think liberalism will prevail. I have a less sanguine view.
Universal values will prevail, and they are prevailing, because they're universal. It doesn't matter whether you're in Europe, or the Middle East: the arc of history bends towards justice. If universal, liberal values weren't going to prevail, we'd see the West becoming a more socially conservative place to live in due to "mass immigration".
It's not: immigrants to the West adopt universal values that have been in their own cultures in various forms (the Muslim emperor, Akbar, in India, promoted religious pluralism, tolerance, and so on); they don't spread conservative values. A Gallup survey of 50,000 Muslims across the world asked Muslims what they most admired about the West: they said its technology and its democracy. You're more likely to live in a democracy at this point in history than you would have been at any other time in the past. Violence of all kinds is falling: wars between major powers have become less and less common since 1945; war of all kinds has become less common since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
We've seen off far bigger threats in the past: state totalitarianism, for instance.
It should be noted, again, that your logic applies not just to Muslims who hold socially conservative views, but to the very many people who hold socially conservative attitudes on women, homosexuality, and so on. Should we screen Christians, Jews and Hindus for whether they have socially conservative views that are a "threat" to "Western liberalism"? That's something called thoughtcrime. Similarly, I ask again: should we screen people for anti-government views, because right-wing, anti-government extremists are a bigger terrorist threat in the United States than jihadi terrorists.
Social conservatism within Islam is also an entirely separate issue to jihadism: as I've documented, tackling jihadism requires the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims to discount and discredit the views of extremists. On our end, it requires us to address sociopolitical turmoil in the Middle East (and not contributing to it, as we've been doing for the past century), and alienation and disenfranchisement of some individuals at home.
You seem not to understand Islam, because it is able to accommodate these universal values, as the existence of thousands of liberal and reformist Muslims demonstrates. As the existence of Muslim LGBTQ groups demonstrates. I'm not interested in theological debates or interpretations of the Qur'an, just as I'm not interested in theological debates about Christianity or interpretations of the Bible. What I know is that Christianity has, to a significant extent, been able to accommodate universal values; Islam is currently in the process of doing so.
(edited 7 years ago)
Some perspective.
Original post by KingBradly
Post all the usual self-serving clichés, deflections, and various iterations of self-righteous apathy that the left will now spew out in regards to this atrocity.
Then, for bonus points, imagine what they would say if the perp wasn't a Muslim.
Then, for bonus points, imagine what they would say if the perp wasn't a Muslim.
Obama ; "We have reached no definitive judgement on the precise motivations of the killer" and also refuses to mention Islam in this same public address about the massacre.
I was going to give this it's own thread, meh, fits in here I guess.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637755/Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-react-devastating-news-Orlando-called-country-s-deadly-mass-shooting.html
Original post by nexttimeigetvpn
last time I checked, Saudi Arabia didn't purport itself as the "land of the free"
In order to preserve tolerance and liberty, one must not shy away to be intolerant and remove liberty of those attacking your values.
There are without a doubt "normal" Muslims out there. But the problem is not the people, it's the ideology.
Islam is not what these Muslims say it is. They cannot pick and choose from the Koran the part that fits their morals. And then say those that pick and choose other parts are not Muslims.
The Islamic ideology is one that contains discrimination and violence, and that at God's command. If I believed in God and it is written that God wants me to oppress my wife, well I have a much stronger reason to do so than otherwise. Because God.
Original post by inhuman
In order to preserve tolerance and liberty, one must not shy away to be intolerant and remove liberty of those attacking your values.
There are without a doubt "normal" Muslims out there. But the problem is not the people, it's the ideology.
Islam is not what these Muslims say it is. They cannot pick and choose from the Koran the part that fits their morals. And then say those that pick and choose other parts are not Muslims.
The Islamic ideology is one that contains discrimination and violence, and that at God's command. If I believed in God and it is written that God wants me to oppress my wife, well I have a much stronger reason to do so than otherwise. Because God.
There are without a doubt "normal" Muslims out there. But the problem is not the people, it's the ideology.
Islam is not what these Muslims say it is. They cannot pick and choose from the Koran the part that fits their morals. And then say those that pick and choose other parts are not Muslims.
The Islamic ideology is one that contains discrimination and violence, and that at God's command. If I believed in God and it is written that God wants me to oppress my wife, well I have a much stronger reason to do so than otherwise. Because God.
The same is the case with Christianity, but no one cries about that.
If you're going to say "because there are no more Christian terrorists", it means you are implying that religion is the sole motive of these terrorists. The Middle East is a desert, poor capacity to develop, isolated from most of the world - so its no wonder that the governments here adopted extremist ideologies. Islam is not the sole cause of this issue, so it is unfair to go gallivanting around like a stupid social crusader pretending that the religion is evil and not the people who follow it. Islam is centuries old, their norm 1500 years ago is different to our norm now, so going around being a baby about a 1500 year old religion being discriminatory is helping no one - and you should focus on the actual issues which is corruption, hatred and bigotry.
Original post by nexttimeigetvpn
The same is the case with Christianity, but no one cries about that.
If you're going to say "because there are no more Christian terrorists", it means you are implying that religion is the sole motive of these terrorists. The Middle East is a desert, poor capacity to develop, isolated from most of the world - so its no wonder that the governments here adopted extremist ideologies. Islam is not the sole cause of this issue, so it is unfair to go gallivanting around like a stupid social crusader pretending that the religion is evil and not the people who follow it. Islam is centuries old, their norm 1500 years ago is different to our norm now, so going around being a baby about a 1500 year old religion being discriminatory is helping no one - and you should focus on the actual issues which is corruption, hatred and bigotry.
If you're going to say "because there are no more Christian terrorists", it means you are implying that religion is the sole motive of these terrorists. The Middle East is a desert, poor capacity to develop, isolated from most of the world - so its no wonder that the governments here adopted extremist ideologies. Islam is not the sole cause of this issue, so it is unfair to go gallivanting around like a stupid social crusader pretending that the religion is evil and not the people who follow it. Islam is centuries old, their norm 1500 years ago is different to our norm now, so going around being a baby about a 1500 year old religion being discriminatory is helping no one - and you should focus on the actual issues which is corruption, hatred and bigotry.
Oh, it's unfair is it? What a meanie I man.
And lol, yes, it is an extremist ideology. That is the whole point. We want that ideology to be removed (ideally) or at least all these supposed normal Muslims to not only openly criticize it but to actually do something. It's all fine and jolly to say #youaintnomuslimbruv and yet in most Muslim countries leading scholars and imams all preach hatred, discrimination, and violence.
Original post by KingBradly
Post all the usual self-serving clichés, deflections, and various iterations of self-righteous apathy that the left will now spew out in regards to this atrocity.
Then, for bonus points, imagine what they would say if the perp wasn't a Muslim.
Then, for bonus points, imagine what they would say if the perp wasn't a Muslim.
A lot of the responses that I've seen to this has been pretty reasonable thus far. Most of it has been about a need for stricter gun control and eliminating homophobia.
What do you think the 'correct' response to this should be?
Original post by inhuman
Oh, it's unfair is it? What a meanie I man.
And lol, yes, it is an extremist ideology. That is the whole point. We want that ideology to be removed (ideally) or at least all these supposed normal Muslims to not only openly criticize it but to actually do something. It's all fine and jolly to say #youaintnomuslimbruv and yet in most Muslim countries leading scholars and imams all preach hatred, discrimination, and violence.
And lol, yes, it is an extremist ideology. That is the whole point. We want that ideology to be removed (ideally) or at least all these supposed normal Muslims to not only openly criticize it but to actually do something. It's all fine and jolly to say #youaintnomuslimbruv and yet in most Muslim countries leading scholars and imams all preach hatred, discrimination, and violence.
Lol you completely ignored the substance of my post
I'm wasting my time with you
Original post by nexttimeigetvpn
Lol you completely ignored the substance of my post
I'm wasting my time with you
I'm wasting my time with you
Of course I ignored it.
You proved my point.
You think this criticism is "unfair" - like that matters.
And you admit the ideology is extreme and even give a reason why.
Nothing left to argue about.
Original post by ZeroFree
A lot of the responses that I've seen to this has been pretty reasonable thus far. Most of it has been about a need for stricter gun control and eliminating homophobia.
What do you think the 'correct' response to this should be?
What do you think the 'correct' response to this should be?
The thing is it is the places with the stricter gun laws where this happens, in Chicago alone there was over 500 shootings in May that state has the 8th strictest gun laws of any state and California has the strictest yet there was the incident at ucla and San Bernardino.
http://political-issues.insidegov.com/stories/10617/states-toughest-gun-laws#1-West-Virginia
Despite having the strictest gun laws according to the latest stats I could find from the fbi California also had the most murders by firearms
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls
Original post by viddy9
Pathetic thread.
Owen Jones, on Sky News, had to walk off the set because the right-wing Sky News presenters were trying to minimise the fact that this was, in addition to being a terrorist attack, a disgusting hate crime against the LGBT community, just as the terrorist attack last year in Charlestonn on the black church was also a hate crime against black people.
[video="youtube;9ITdjAb3VcE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ITdjAb3VcE[/video]
So, sorry, but it's the right who aren't calling this attack out for what it is, not the left.
Of course, it's the right who are also employing the same logical errors too. As the psychologist Brad Elphinstone writes: "when an attack is perpetrated by a Muslim it is assumed that the act was due to internal disposition as a Muslim (fundamental attribution error) rather than external factors (e.g., radicalisation after feeling alienated by covert and overt racism), that the perpetrator represents all Muslims (illusory correlation) and that all Muslims are a potential threat because they must all be like that (out-group homogeneity).”
People, including this Sky News presenter, need to change their primitive attitudes to LGBT people, and fast.
Owen Jones, on Sky News, had to walk off the set because the right-wing Sky News presenters were trying to minimise the fact that this was, in addition to being a terrorist attack, a disgusting hate crime against the LGBT community, just as the terrorist attack last year in Charlestonn on the black church was also a hate crime against black people.
[video="youtube;9ITdjAb3VcE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ITdjAb3VcE[/video]
So, sorry, but it's the right who aren't calling this attack out for what it is, not the left.
Of course, it's the right who are also employing the same logical errors too. As the psychologist Brad Elphinstone writes: "when an attack is perpetrated by a Muslim it is assumed that the act was due to internal disposition as a Muslim (fundamental attribution error) rather than external factors (e.g., radicalisation after feeling alienated by covert and overt racism), that the perpetrator represents all Muslims (illusory correlation) and that all Muslims are a potential threat because they must all be like that (out-group homogeneity).”
People, including this Sky News presenter, need to change their primitive attitudes to LGBT people, and fast.
Great post! I think it hits the nail on the head. People need to realise that it's a hate crime, first and foremost.
Original post by inhuman
But that has no bearing on the fact that Islam is a violent ideology that encourages people to discriminate and even kill in the name of God.
But that has no bearing on the fact that Islam is a violent ideology that encourages people to discriminate and even kill in the name of God.
That's irrelevant unless you are in the business of thought crime and clamping on down freedom of speech, assembly and a load of other freedoms we enjoy in liberal democracies.
You can find lots of advocacy for violence in the Bible. Old and New Testament. That doesn't mean we outlaw Christianity. You get some pretty liberal Christians despite what is in their holy book.
As long as the Muslims are law abiding it doesn't matter what their holy book says. It;s basically what Viddy has been saying. I'm a secular humanist and can find all kind of things to severely dislike about organised religion and their holy books. But I'm a liberal.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- my ex bf's family is not happy with him converting, what should i do?
- I dont know what to do
- Vectors help!
- Muslim Convert Married at 19
- Looking for muslim shared accommodation Manchester
- Conversion - Sikhism Islam
- Muslim girls at Leeds Uni?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- How do I deal with this?
- Please help
- m1 june 2002 paper
- Antifa activist murdered in NYC
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- TSR I-SOC (Islamic Society) Mk. XVII
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- centres of mass and moments (further maths)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
