"The love and solidarity of Mancunians shone through in their immediate response to the attack on the Arena. Let’s celebrate the city’s warmth and diversity"
'diversity' :rolleyes:
Printable View
"The love and solidarity of Mancunians shone through in their immediate response to the attack on the Arena. Let’s celebrate the city’s warmth and diversity"
'diversity' :rolleyes:
You lot are looking for trouble where it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:
I'm no fan of the boy Jones, but there is really nothing wrong with that article at all.
It is a crock of warped, diversionary shít.
"And let’s be mindful that whatever twisted motive was used to rationalise slaughtering laughing teenagers and children..."
I think we know what the twisted motive was. We're just not allowed to say it; instead, we must celebrate Manchester's 'diversity'.
There's something wrong in the very first sentence.
"The hatred that drives someone to detonate themselves in a crowd of children and teenagers at a concert is impossible to reason with, to quantify, to properly understand"
It is not in any sense impossible to understand. To do what the attacker did is the most logical, rational act that a practicing, dutiful Muslim could ever commit.
I would object if he had suggested that it was wrong in any way to associate this sort of tragedy with our Muslim communities or Islam generally, something I think he has suggested in the past.
He hasn't done that in this case and has provided a reasonable view of the attacker, the attacker's motives, the city and how it has responded.
Rather surprising that we don't have a lot more of these attacks then, isn't it? What with there being 2.6 million people in this country who, in your view, practice a religion which encourages it.
The Islamic nutters take a very narrow, superficial view of Islam and what it means and, ironically, you seem to be doing the same thing.
You're denying that there are endless verses in the Quran and its associated texts that explictely call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule?
Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Muslims choose to uphold a sanitised, distorted version of Islam - otherwise we'd be in even bigger trouble.
No, I'm saying that like any religion Islam has a holy book that is filled with contradiction and vagaries which therefore requires its followers to decide, to some extent, what they wish to believe and what they do not, how to act and how not to act.
The nutters take one view, the overwhelming majority take another. Quite why you would deem the version that the overwhelming majority take to be the distorted version I have no idea.
Unless you're a vulture, of course.
No, I did not tell you that.
The Kuran certainly does have passages which encourage this sort of behavior. It also has a great many passages that make it clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and contrary to Islam.
The nutters decide to follow the former, the overwhelming majority of Muslims the latter.
Possibly a great many of them are, especially the foot soldiers.
But not all of them, of course. I could use a term other than nutter if you like? the disaffected? The social outcasts? The psychotic?
Anyone who blows himself up in a theatre amongst teen age girls and their parents clearly has something very wrong with them.
Yes. Clearly something wrong with them, like following a savage, barbaric medieval religion which appears to be growing in strength and even at a state level revels in this sort of enlightened behaviour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-s...n-s-sharia-law
Yet your previous message suggested that all muslims want to do this and any that don't are not proper muslims.
Going on to explain that the only true religion is found in the verbatim acceptance of original script is a very childish and rather idiotic attempt to disguise the fact that you wrote a deliberately inflammatory message- which is also rather childish.
Poor form....expect better.
But you say yourself that believing it is right to fight nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule is a credible reading of the Quran. We know this because you say the Quran "certainly does have passages which encourage this sort of behavior".
So why would you then say anyone who follows that interpretation "clearly has something very wrong with them"? It is their entirely credible (by your own admission) interpretation of a book containing what they believe is the immutable words of God.
For one thing, it is far older than medieval. All religions have barbarism within them. There are horrific passages in the bible containing absurd and contradictory laws with appalling punishment. Unfortunately there are some in every religion that are drawn towards this historical interpretation to support what are very modern desires and conflicts.
For radical Islamic terrorst read KKK. Every religion has them....
I did not in any sense suggest that all muslims want to do this. I said that to do so is the most logical, rational course of action for a practicing, dutiful Muslim. This is because the book that they believe is the immutable word of God impels them to do so. To not do so is simply inconsistent with what they otherwise claim.
Which is precisely what is wrong with them. Surrendering your will to an interpretation of an age old book that hardly anybody around you agrees with, and which demands from you actions that all but a psychopath would be appalled by, is not a rational, logical act. It is an act of desperation and stupidity.
Apart from anything else, how can blind faith ever be logical.
Yes, and if Christian or Jewish fundamentalism currently existed on anything like the same scale as Islamic fundamentalism, I (and I am sure Charlie too) would be condemning it in equally strong terms.
Andreas Breavik, Dylann Roof....these people are as worthy of our contempt as any muslim extremist and no-one worth listening to would ever claim otherwise.
I don't blame the religion, I blame the people. I blame the people who commit these acts, the people who help them plan it, and the people amongst whom they live, who tacitly or overtly support these actions. They just happen to be connected and inspired by the religion.
No, because there is nothing in their holy book that compels them to go to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Christian rule.
However, if you were to ask me whether the most rational, logical way for a practicing dutiful Christian to view homosexuality, is to believe it is sinful, then I would say yes.
You're missing my point. To them, it is logical.
To tell a muslim that it is illogical to blow themselves up in a crowd of unbelievers is akin to telling a mad person in the grips of a psychotic episode that the voices in their head are not real and they should just go home, have a nice cup of tea and get an early night.
Except, thankfully, we don't need to do this with the overwhelming majority of muslims, because they have implicitly disavowed their faith.
This is an entirely different matter, and one that I expect we will have common ground on.
While I refuse to accept that people who blow themselves up in public are representative of our Muslim communities, the desire for the implementation of Sharia Law is far more common and without question needs to be challenged. We've been far too tolerant and your and Burney's endless railing against the left is perfectly appropriate when it comes to Sharia Law. It is a disgrace that we have even considered allowing any form of its implementation and making this clear to our Muslim communities should be part of any government's agenda.
But there is a great deal of distance between wanting Sharia Law and blowing yourself up in public.
Very true. By the same token, doing as you are instructed to do is not a logical act. It can be an act of obedience, of self-preservation, of belief. By definition it is derived not by any logical process but by instruction. Be it religious doctrine or voices in your head.
I'm calling you on the 9/11 PhDs comment. 19 hijackers, so 10 or more had PhDs from legitimate universities, did they? I'm calling you a liar and will apologise if you have any credible evidence that this is true.
I didn't say that all Islamists are disaffected or social outcasts, but I expect an awful lot of them are, certainly those who grew up in Britain. You'll note the number who were petty criminals prior to their 'conversion' to Islam.
Ah, but not as much distance as there should be. It's actually a relatively short step from 'The kuffar are accepting Sharia as dictated by the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in the Quran' to 'I must impose Sharia on the kuffar by my direct actions as required by the Quran'.
Once you start to tolerate the craziness, it's the thin end of the wedge.