BarryChuckleI didn't say Islam is exempt from criticism. I don't have bad taste in my mouth from you criticising Islam. I didn't employ any whataboutism and I didn't mention Islamaphobia. Infact, as a bisexual atheist I have an extreme problem with a belief system that advocates beheading me or throwing me from rooftops because of who I am. But good job on knocking down that strawman you set up.
If you weren't doing that then why would you point towards a different religion like you did there? If it wasn't whataboutism? Enlighten me.
mustardoverlordtwo things we can do without harming any non-terrorist Muslims along the way are pretty obvious: 1) end the imperialist US/UK/etc. presence in the Middle East, and 2) stop giving money to the most radical Islamic terror state in the world. how are either of those things controversial?
These two things will not change what it says in plain text and what Imams are teaching everywhere. It will not change that a caliphate is something that is truly wanted by the Muslim world and it doesn't explain why places that have next to nothing to do with the US/UK and actually let refugees in still have so many issues despite their naive hospitality and I'd even argue because of it. (edit 2021: to be clear I wasn't suggesting we don't help refugees here, but rather that people can experience culture shock and can have issues integrating into other cultures when forced to do so, and in my view some of those conflicts comes from the things taught in scripture)
[quote=BarryChuckle]I didn't say Islam is exempt from criticism. I don't have bad taste in my mouth from you criticising Islam. I didn't employ any whataboutism and I didn't mention Islamaphobia. Infact, as a bisexual atheist I have an extreme problem with a belief system that advocates beheading me or throwing me from rooftops because of who I am. But good job on knocking down that strawman you set up.[/quote]
If you weren't doing that then why would you point towards a different religion like you did there? If it wasn't whataboutism? Enlighten me.
[quote=mustardoverlord]two things we can do without harming any non-terrorist Muslims along the way are pretty obvious: 1) end the imperialist US/UK/etc. presence in the Middle East, and 2) stop giving money to the most radical Islamic terror state in the world. how are either of those things controversial?[/quote]
These two things will not change what it says in plain text and what Imams are teaching everywhere. It will not change that a caliphate is something that is truly wanted by the Muslim world and it doesn't explain why places that have next to nothing to do with the US/UK and actually let refugees in still have so many issues despite their naive hospitality and I'd even argue because of it. (edit 2021: to be clear I wasn't suggesting we don't help refugees here, but rather that people can experience culture shock and can have issues integrating into other cultures when forced to do so, and in my view some of those conflicts comes from the things taught in scripture)
so glad my girl ari is ok
so glad my girl ari is ok
mustardoverlordit's not that Islam has nothing to do with these lunatics blowing themselves up, it's that the way we respond to these sorts of things is so fixed on religion above all else.
Well, what the hell else should we be fixed on when these lunatics are blowing people up because of their religion?
Watch this video and tell me if the guy says ANYTHING factually incorrect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFo_rR90Tr8
[quote=mustardoverlord]
it's not that Islam has nothing to do with these lunatics blowing themselves up, it's that the way we respond to these sorts of things is so fixed on religion above all else.
[/quote]
Well, what the hell else should we be fixed on when these lunatics are blowing people up because of their religion?
Watch this video and tell me if the guy says ANYTHING factually incorrect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFo_rR90Tr8
daily reminder
but virtue signalling > stats and facts, apparently
https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg
daily reminder
but virtue signalling > stats and facts, apparently
[youtube]https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg[/youtube]
Not_MatlockThese people and the people committing terrorist attacks in the name of islamic jihad seem to have very different interpretations of what jihad is.
What interpretation is correct? Is it the one we want to believe? The one that we are told everyday is the correct one?
Or is it the one that seems to be acted upon with increasingly frequency and supported by 1/4 of the muslim population?
Not sure if you can listen to this outside the UK but this is an interesting interview with someone who spied from the heart of Al Qaeda from a position of religious and ideological authority http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05mrj7f (there seems to be a problem with the stream around 6 minutes but you can skip past it)
Essentially vaguely analogous historical circumstances are pushed way beyond any reasonable interpretation even specifically into direct contradiction of the Quran's most sacred commands. For this guy in particular his solid theological knowledge and willingness to actually check the interpretations given to him is actually what informed his decision to betray them, along with MI6 picking him up when he decided to leave.
My deepest sympathy to anyone affected in Manchester, some of my family missed the London bombings by minutes - it's genuinely terrifying waiting for news.
[quote=Not_Matlock]These people and the people committing terrorist attacks in the name of islamic jihad seem to have very different interpretations of what jihad is.
What interpretation is correct? Is it the one we want to believe? The one that we are told everyday is the correct one?
Or is it the one that seems to be acted upon with increasingly frequency and [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/]supported by 1/4 of the muslim population[/url]?[/quote]
Not sure if you can listen to this outside the UK but this is an interesting interview with someone who spied from the heart of Al Qaeda from a position of religious and ideological authority http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05mrj7f (there seems to be a problem with the stream around 6 minutes but you can skip past it)
Essentially vaguely analogous historical circumstances are pushed way beyond any reasonable interpretation even specifically into direct contradiction of the Quran's most sacred commands. For this guy in particular his solid theological knowledge and willingness to actually check the interpretations given to him is actually what informed his decision to betray them, along with MI6 picking him up when he decided to leave.
My deepest sympathy to anyone affected in Manchester, some of my family missed the London bombings by minutes - it's genuinely terrifying waiting for news.
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Black_Lock.svg/1000px-Black_Lock.svg.png[/img]
But where do we go from here Konr? The Bible, and other religious texts, have similarly wacky things in them, but those folks don't engage in terror attacks with as much frequency. So, where do we go from here? Because attacking Muslims generally, or Islam itself *doesn't* get us anywhere. Even the quasi-liberal's militant anti-religious propaganda (which is a popular response in these cases) is the opposite of effective because of the way bias works - generally people who believe something just believe it all the more if they are *told* otherwise.
@Goask
Well, I guess you've heard my story about that. The suffering and inhuman situation of the occupation is *real* no matter how much you want to deny it. There are millions of people who live in an absolutely ridiculous situation, just because you don't like them doesn't make it right.
I'm generally disappointed that any nation-states exist at all. Israel is no exception.
But where do we go from here Konr? The Bible, and other religious texts, have similarly wacky things in them, but those folks don't engage in terror attacks with as much frequency. So, where do we go from here? Because attacking Muslims generally, or Islam itself *doesn't* get us anywhere. Even the quasi-liberal's militant anti-religious propaganda (which is a popular response in these cases) is the opposite of effective because of the way bias works - generally people who believe something just believe it all the more if they are *told* otherwise.
@Goask
Well, I guess you've heard my story about that. The suffering and inhuman situation of the occupation is *real* no matter how much you want to deny it. There are millions of people who live in an absolutely ridiculous situation, just because you don't like them doesn't make it right.
I'm generally disappointed that any nation-states exist at all. Israel is no exception.
people have this twisted view that people are religious by choice. there's no actual evidence of that being case, so trying to hold people acccountable for what their religion represents rather than their actions and expressed belief is inherently polarising and ultimately futile
that being said islam is a religion of many horrible ideas and its represented by a lot of people with horrible ideas. that fact's unescapable, though perhaps not as vital to putting an end to the violence as people often suggest.
people have this twisted view that people are religious by choice. there's no actual evidence of that being case, so trying to hold people acccountable for what their religion represents rather than their actions and expressed belief is inherently polarising and ultimately futile
that being said islam is a religion of many horrible ideas and its represented by a lot of people with horrible ideas. that fact's unescapable, though perhaps not as vital to putting an end to the violence as people often suggest.
Hallow..... to putting an end to the violence ...
rofl, "an end to the violence". What a charming notion.
Face facts, neither side ever wanted true peace for thousands of years and they both hide behind weak reasons to kill each other. One side uses religion to justify killing anyone who is not of their religion. (this will never change so peace is not an option). The other side lets the fear of being completely surrounded by enemies as a call for self defense.
[quote=Hallow]..... to putting an end to the violence ...[/quote]
rofl, "an end to the violence". What a charming notion.
Face facts, neither side ever wanted true peace for thousands of years and they both hide behind weak reasons to kill each other. One side uses religion to justify killing anyone who is not of their religion. (this will never change so peace is not an option). The other side lets the fear of being completely surrounded by enemies as a call for self defense.
konrIf you weren't doing that then why would you point towards a different religion like you did there? If it wasn't whataboutism? Enlighten me.
My point isn't "hurr durr what about the bible, Christians r just as bad." My point is actually the opposite. Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence. So there must be something else at work here OTHER than the religious text.
I'm suggesting that if there is a solution to the problem, it's not going to be found by criticising the Qu'ran, or banning the Qu'ran, or burning the Qu'ran, or banning Islam. Because, short of wide-scale genocide, criticising or banning religious texts has never worked. People are still going to read and worship and choose to believe their dumb shit.
IMO unless people want the violence to continue for another 1000 years we're going to have to approach this in a more nuanced way.
But that's never going to happen when you have one side refusing to awknowledge there even is a problem and screaming ISLAMOPHOBIA, and the other side refusing to awknowledge "an eye for an eye" isn't a solution and screaming CUCKS and VIRTUE SIGNALLERS.
[quote=konr]
If you weren't doing that then why would you point towards a different religion like you did there? If it wasn't whataboutism? Enlighten me.
[/quote]
My point isn't "hurr durr what about the bible, Christians r just as bad." My point is actually the opposite. Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence. So there must be something else at work here OTHER than the religious text.
I'm suggesting that if there is a solution to the problem, it's not going to be found by criticising the Qu'ran, or banning the Qu'ran, or burning the Qu'ran, or banning Islam. Because, short of wide-scale genocide, criticising or banning religious texts has never worked. People are still going to read and worship and choose to believe their dumb shit.
IMO unless people want the violence to continue for another 1000 years we're going to have to approach this in a more nuanced way.
But that's never going to happen when you have one side refusing to awknowledge there even is a problem and screaming ISLAMOPHOBIA, and the other side refusing to awknowledge "an eye for an eye" isn't a solution and screaming CUCKS and VIRTUE SIGNALLERS.
MarxistThe Bible, and other religious texts, have similarly wacky things in them
lol not even remotely close
[quote=Marxist]The Bible, and other religious texts, have similarly wacky things in them[/quote]
lol not even remotely close
BarryChuckle Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence.
They never did, the crusades were a counteroffensive after the muslim conquests & the absolute highest death count I've ever seen estimated for them is still onlyfar less than 1% of the historical bodycount from muslims even though they lasted 200 years
http://i.imgur.com/3MC2Htm.jpg
[quote=BarryChuckle] Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence. [/quote]
They never did, the crusades were a counteroffensive after the muslim conquests & the absolute highest death count I've ever seen estimated for them is still [s]only[/s]far less than 1% of the historical bodycount from muslims even though they lasted 200 years
[img]http://i.imgur.com/3MC2Htm.jpg[/img]
removed comment
I almost forgot to not getting involved in these stupid discussions
removed comment
I almost forgot to not getting involved in these stupid discussions
lootBarryChuckle Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence.
They never did, the crusades were a counteroffensive after the muslim conquests & the absolute highest death count I've ever seen estimated for them is still only 1% of the historical bodycount from muslims even though they lasted 200 years
Fml. Have you heard of the 30 years war? The pogroms? The Inquisition? The Northern Crusades? The hussite wars? The Albigensian Crusades? The Reformation? These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are countless other historical examples.
Also, since you seem to be using that image to demonstrate a point, that "crusade battles" map appears to be dated 1090, which is before the first Crusade even started so fuck knows where they got their information from. I can also tell off the top of my head (being an EU4 and CK2 nerd) that it's missing the Battle of Varna and the sack of Constantinople.
[quote=loot][quote=BarryChuckle] Christians no longer participate in large-scale religious violence. [/quote]
They never did, the crusades were a counteroffensive after the muslim conquests & the absolute highest death count I've ever seen estimated for them is still only 1% of the historical bodycount from muslims even though they lasted 200 years
[/quote]
Fml. Have you heard of the 30 years war? The pogroms? The Inquisition? The Northern Crusades? The hussite wars? The Albigensian Crusades? The Reformation? These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are countless other historical examples.
Also, since you seem to be using that image to demonstrate a point, that "crusade battles" map appears to be dated 1090, which is before the first Crusade even started so fuck knows where they got their information from. I can also tell off the top of my head (being an EU4 and CK2 nerd) that it's missing the Battle of Varna and the sack of Constantinople.
None of those are "large-scale Christian violence"
but w/e England already dug its own grave
None of those are "large-scale Christian violence"
but w/e England already dug its own grave
BarryChuckleAlso, since you seem to be using that image to demonstrate a point, that "crusade battles" map appears to be dated 1090, which is before the first Crusade even started so fuck knows where they got their information from. I can also tell off the top of my head (being an EU4 and CK2 nerd) that it's missing the Battle of Varna and the sack of Constantinople.
There is a timeline across the top cropped off, it says 1260 on the right
nice retarded snark attempt though, maybe your teacher will give you an A this time
[quote=BarryChuckle]
Also, since you seem to be using that image to demonstrate a point, that "crusade battles" map appears to be dated 1090, which is before the first Crusade even started so fuck knows where they got their information from. I can also tell off the top of my head (being an EU4 and CK2 nerd) that it's missing the Battle of Varna and the sack of Constantinople.[/quote]
There is a timeline across the top cropped off, it says 1260 on the right
nice retarded snark attempt though, maybe your teacher will give you an A this time
i dislike that this conversation is only ever had after a tragedy. that should not be required.
however, if any of you are curious to read more from the side of the conversation that konr is representing above, here: http://www.jihadwatch.com/islam101/
you can disagree with the interpretation, obviously, but it's good to have information to contextualize your agreement/disagreement.
i dislike that this conversation is only ever had after a tragedy. that should not be required.
however, if any of you are curious to read more from the side of the conversation that konr is representing above, here: http://www.jihadwatch.com/islam101/
you can disagree with the interpretation, obviously, but it's good to have information to contextualize your agreement/disagreement.
lootNone of those are "large-scale Christian violence"
An estimated 25-40% of the population of Germany died during the series of religious conflicts known as the 30 years war. Total death toll is estimated at 7,500,000. U r dumb.
lootThere is a timeline across the top cropped off, it says 1260 on the right
nice retarded snark attempt though, maybe your teacher will give you an A this time
Crusades didn't end in 1260, which I guess explains why the vast majority of the battles that should be on this map are missing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[quote=loot]None of those are "large-scale Christian violence"[/quote]
An estimated 25-40% of the population of Germany died during the series of religious conflicts known as the 30 years war. Total death toll is estimated at 7,500,000. U r dumb.
[quote=loot]
There is a timeline across the top cropped off, it says 1260 on the right
nice retarded snark attempt though, maybe your teacher will give you an A this time[/quote]
Crusades didn't end in 1260, which I guess explains why the vast majority of the battles that should be on this map are missing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
30 year war was a franco-habsburg conflict, not a religious conflict. By your logic, literally every battle in europe ever was christian violence because europeans were christian
your tiny peanut brain is trying to equate geopolitical wars with the muslim attempt to destroy classical civilization
No matter to what degree of insanity you try to stretch reality, Christians will never ever have killed even a miniscule percentage of people that Muslims have, despite being the much older religion
30 year war was a franco-habsburg conflict, not a religious conflict. By your logic, literally every battle in europe ever was christian violence because europeans were christian
your tiny peanut brain is trying to equate geopolitical wars with the muslim attempt to destroy classical civilization
No matter to what degree of insanity you try to stretch reality, Christians will never ever have killed even a miniscule percentage of people that Muslims have, despite being the much older religion
BarryChucklelootNone of those are "large-scale Christian violence"
An estimated 25-40% of the population of Germany died during the series of religious conflicts known as the 30 years war. Total death toll is estimated at 7,500,000. U r dumb.
lootThere is a timeline across the top cropped off, it says 1260 on the right
nice retarded snark attempt though, maybe your teacher will give you an A this time
Crusades didn't end in 1260, which I guess explains why the vast majority of the battles that should be on this map are missing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the 30 years war was entirely a religious conflict.
Maybe in origin, but not overall.
Though I personally dislike Christianity too.
[quote=BarryChuckle][quote=loot]None of those are "large-scale Christian violence"[/quote]
An estimated 25-40% of the population of Germany died during the series of religious conflicts known as the 30 years war. Total death toll is estimated at 7,500,000. U r dumb.
[quote=loot]
There is a timeline across the top cropped off, it says 1260 on the right
nice retarded snark attempt though, maybe your teacher will give you an A this time[/quote]
Crusades didn't end in 1260, which I guess explains why the vast majority of the battles that should be on this map are missing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/quote]
I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the 30 years war was entirely a religious conflict.
Maybe in origin, but not overall.
Though I personally dislike Christianity too.
loot30 year war was a franco-habsburg conflict, not a religious conflict. By your logic, literally every battle in europe ever was christian violence because europeans were christian
So what you're saying is the Thirty Years War may have been started and fought by people citing scripture as their motivation for killing non-believers, but when you examine the geopolitcal, social and historical forces at work you can't attribute the violence solely to Christianity? Huh, sounds like a nuanced opinion. Please explain why this reasoning cannot be applied to Islam?
Also, lmao at
lootBy your logic, literally every battle in europe ever was christian violence because europeans were christian
Followed by
loot No matter to what degree of insanity you try to stretch reality, Christians will never ever have killed even a miniscule percentage of people that Muslims have, despite being the much older religion
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I give up.
[quote=loot]30 year war was a franco-habsburg conflict, not a religious conflict. By your logic, literally every battle in europe ever was christian violence because europeans were christian[/quote]
So what you're saying is the Thirty Years War may have been started and fought by people citing scripture as their motivation for killing non-believers, but when you examine the geopolitcal, social and historical forces at work you can't attribute the violence solely to Christianity? Huh, sounds like a nuanced opinion. Please explain why this reasoning cannot be applied to Islam?
Also, lmao at
[quote=loot]By your logic, literally every battle in europe ever was christian violence because europeans were christian
[/quote]
Followed by
[quote=loot] No matter to what degree of insanity you try to stretch reality, Christians will never ever have killed even a miniscule percentage of people that Muslims have, despite being the much older religion[/quote]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I give up.
england is already dead anyway
england is already dead anyway
manchester bomber was banned from his local mosque and reported to the authorities at least 5 times
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-arena-bomber-salman-abedi-10498466
manchester bomber was banned from his local mosque and reported to the authorities at least 5 times
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-arena-bomber-salman-abedi-10498466
The emphasis on the young children deaths in every event like this is dumb. It makes no difference if the victims are adults imo.
The emphasis on the young children deaths in every event like this is dumb. It makes no difference if the victims are adults imo.