• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The all purpose global 'Terror' attack topic.

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Not going to jump into an existing discussion, but will chime in anyway, at least on the topic of Islam.

Pew did some research into the widespread beliefs of Muslims. If the extremist beliefs are so extreme and the moderate Muslims in the majority, the polling data should show that one could say.

Some excerpts:

On sharia law:
pewforum.org said:
Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study.
pewforum.org said:
In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%).
pewforum.org said:
Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it.

Ok. So sharia is quite popular you might say, but in countries like Malaysia it only applies to family matters and only to Muslims, not for civil cases. But what do Muslims think, should it apply only to Muslims or to everyone?

In most majority Muslim countries it's only a minority who think this way thankfully. But it's a large minority. The lowest figure is the 19% figure in Kazakhstan. In Egypt though, it's 74%. So more or less 20% or more of Muslims believe that sharia law should apply to EVERYONE. Quite shocking if you ask me.

But proceed shall we:

On stoning as a punishment for adultery within sharia law:
pewforum.org said:
In 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land also favor stoning unfaithful spouses.

Leaving the faith. Punishment for apostasy:
pewforum.org said:
Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.


Reading the data Pew took gives us quite a nasty view into the mindset of many Muslims in Islamic nations. There is a problem with Islam, a greater one than with the other major Abrahamitic religions (despite the OT being more sinister and brutal than the Koran). The west has largely abandoned the worst aspects of the Judeo-Christian heritage, but the worst aspects of the Islamic heritage is thriving. There are many factors to this, but to completely avoid the role doctrine plays in this is turning a blind eye to facts. Should we automatically dismiss the words of every terrorist who has by their own admission done terrible deeds in the name of Islam?

Some of these beliefs, especially on sharia and apostasy are atrocious. And it's not just an extreme minorty viewpoint, it's actually the norm. The so called "moderate" muslims are in minority.

People try to claim that there are bad seeds in every religion. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the worst in the world that I know of when it comes to paedophelia, but you can find NO rationale for raping boys in the text. But you CAN find rationale, however "misinterpreted", for killing infidels in the Koran.

Just my two cents...

On another note, if anyone is curious, I'm not against bringing in refugees.
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Visit site
The whole thread was a boo hoo, we the wonderful are being attacked. Who, Where, When, There, Then, Now. OMG How? Forget why. Bad people over there --->.
 
Re:

Starstruck said:
The whole thread was a boo hoo, we the wonderful are being attacked. Who, Where, When, There, Then, Now. OMG How? Forget why. Bad people over there --->.
We are NOT wonderful. No one is. However, it is almost completely certain that by all standards the West is superior in a lot of ways over the Islamic world. When it comes to economic freedom, when it comes to women's rights, when it comes to LGBT rights, when it comes to freedom of the press, when it comes to individual liberties, freedom of expression. Historically? The Islamic world was more or less way ahead of Europe until the sacking of Baghdad. But let's not forget brutal things like the Arab slave trade, a slave trade that was worse than the Atlantic slave trade.

Also, lets not forget that whenever there's a cartoonist in Denmark or whatever that creates a Muhammad drawing, you will get flag burnings all over the Islamic world. Death threats are also extremely common for apostates in the west, and for many peoply publicly outspoken about the doctrine of Islam.

Some culture is bad and should be condemned, and making excuses for flag burners, saying that Salman Rushdie "had it coming" and clearly blaming the victim and saying "why must you provoke" is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Some people will say that if there are flags being burned that was to be expected, that is a soft bigotry that means these people expect less of Muslims. That in itself is a form of bigotry. I try to hold everyone to the same high standard, and to react with flag burnings, book burnings and death threats is the very opposite of a civil way to respond to a non-violent act like a Muhammad caricature.

Back ton the topic of "why", I'm not saying it's one-dimensional. Islam is one part, but the role of the West is clear in aggrevating hostile sentiments in the Islamic world: The French and its influence and questionable legacy in Lebanon, Syria and North Africa; the British involvement in the dissolvement of the Ottoman Empire in the northern part of the Arabian peninsula; the US and the Brits staging the 1954 coup in Iran; the west propping up a weak Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia for decades upon decades; continual drone strikes and wars in the region by the West and maybe worst of all the creation of and friendship with the state of Israel and driving Palestines away from their homes. This "holy land" *** is one of the most *** things ever, and they have a right to be pissed over the very existence of Israel.

Oh, and BTW I have plenty of Muslim friends. Well, friends might be a stretch, but acquaintances for sure. Most of them aren't fully practicing Muslims though. And I have nothing against Muslims, I am against their beliefs.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
German media reporting shooters shouted racist insults demeaning Turks. Videos seem pretty clear on this. Looks like a neo-Nazi attack (5th anniversary of Brevik). Tragic.
 
Jan 24, 2012
1,169
0
0
Visit site
Re:

18 year old German born of Iranian descent seem to be the new reports from Munich police. Or at least German-Iranian, dual citizenship?

10 dead.
16 injured, 3 of which heavily injured. Maybe more injured, 21?
 
Munich guy might have been inspired by Breivik by the looks of it. Was a madman.

80+ dead in Kabul in a new big terrorist attack though, IS takes responsibility as two suicide bombers hit a protest of thousands of people, mainly of the Hazara Shia minority.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Visit site
Re:

jsem94 said:
Munich guy might have been inspired by Breivik by the looks of it. Was a madman..


I think the point is that violent acts are inspired by other violent acts, regardless of the political/religious persuasions of the perpetrators.
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Irondan said:
This thread is starting to fill up, fast.... :(
...and its mostly a religious thread...

No ist mostly a monocausual nonsense thread.
But you may never forget: hate is the imperative! Explanations are worthless if you may have hate.
Explanations are way to complex anyway, we will all remain more calm if we just attribute everything to "religion" and affirm the view of the it - and the world - the terrorist give us.
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

jsem94 said:
Starstruck said:
The whole thread was a boo hoo, we the wonderful are being attacked. Who, Where, When, There, Then, Now. OMG How? Forget why. Bad people over there --->.
We are NOT wonderful. No one is. However, it is almost completely certain that by all standards the West is superior in a lot of ways over the Islamic world. When it comes to economic freedom, when it comes to women's rights, when it comes to LGBT rights, when it comes to freedom of the press, when it comes to individual liberties, freedom of expression. Historically? The Islamic world was more or less way ahead of Europe until the sacking of Baghdad. But let's not forget brutal things like the Arab slave trade, a slave trade that was worse than the Atlantic slave trade.

Also, lets not forget that whenever there's a cartoonist in Denmark or whatever that creates a Muhammad drawing, you will get flag burnings all over the Islamic world. Death threats are also extremely common for apostates in the west, and for many peoply publicly outspoken about the doctrine of Islam.

Some culture is bad and should be condemned, and making excuses for flag burners, saying that Salman Rushdie "had it coming" and clearly blaming the victim and saying "why must you provoke" is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Some people will say that if there are flags being burned that was to be expected, that is a soft bigotry that means these people expect less of Muslims. That in itself is a form of bigotry. I try to hold everyone to the same high standard, and to react with flag burnings, book burnings and death threats is the very opposite of a civil way to respond to a non-violent act like a Muhammad caricature.

Back ton the topic of "why", I'm not saying it's one-dimensional. Islam is one part, but the role of the West is clear in aggrevating hostile sentiments in the Islamic world: The French and its influence and questionable legacy in Lebanon, Syria and North Africa; the British involvement in the dissolvement of the Ottoman Empire in the northern part of the Arabian peninsula; the US and the Brits staging the 1954 coup in Iran; the west propping up a weak Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia for decades upon decades; continual drone strikes and wars in the region by the West and maybe worst of all the creation of and friendship with the state of Israel and driving Palestines away from their homes. This "holy land" ****** is one of the most *** things ever, and they have a right to be pissed over the very existence of Israel.

Oh, and BTW I have plenty of Muslim friends. Well, friends might be a stretch, but acquaintances for sure. Most of them aren't fully practicing Muslims though. And I have nothing against Muslims, I am against their beliefs.

i appreciated this, btw. Along with your following contribution.
 
Not sure what to make of the attack on the Roman Catholic Church in France. Hostage situation and the 86 year old priest was murdered. The guy was a known IS recruit from before.

And not certain this fits in here, but how *** up do you have to be to kill 19 and injure 45 disabled people in Japan. Carefully planned and done at night when they were sleeping. Absolutely awful.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Visit site
Violence creates violence, just by its occurrence. Sometimes it's a causal link (Iraq invasion=brutalise, humiliate and destabilise a nation/Abu Graib/dead children from US missiles=anger at injustice=creation of IS=acts of extreme violence ), sometimes it's just because violence incites others to violent acts.
 
when Western progressives argue that the current wave of salafist terrorism in the West is a result of imperialist aggression in the Middle East, they make a fallacious essentialist argument. In fact they make the mistake two ways: they essentialise the Middle East as some kind of Arab/Muslim monoculture and they essentialise terrorists as generic Muslims. Let me be clear about this. It isn’t the generic Arab/Muslim who is responsible for modern acts of terrorism; it’s a multi-racial network of specifically Sunni supremacists who are responsible, both for attacks in the West and attacks in Muslim countries.

If terrorism in the West is the result of Muslim anger over past colonialist aggression, then why don’t the terrorist groups include non-salafists amongst its adherents? And if the salafists are doing it in response to Western colonialism, why are their main targets other Muslims, especially Shia?

The veil falls away when you study the history of Islam, and what you find is an Islam that is every bit as expansionist and imperialist as European Christianity. The progressive narrative is defined in terms of the opposition to ‘Western’ imperialism and so it tends to focus only on recent history. Very few progressives take the longer view.

most progressives only think of Christian-Muslim relations in terms of Christian aggression against Islam, beginning with the Crusades. Most of the focus is on modern history, particularly the French and English colonial period. According to this narrative the West bears collective responsibility for the problems of the Middle East. In this narrative Muslims are only ever historical victims, never perpetrators. The entire history of Islamic imperialism is conveniently ignored.

http://integralworld.net/harris37.html
 
So an utterly essentialist perspective tells us why we need diffrent essentialist views to rightfully be racist. Wonderful.

"Islam is not a race, it is not a culture. Like Buddhism and Christianity, Islam is a universalist, conversionist religion." I am not going to do the logic for you. Pathetic nonsense. It's not even about the specific points. If this is the standard of argument, we need to applaude the terrorist and their idiotic counterparts for actually succeding to poison the world, to simply apply their very own hardcore binary essentialistic *** to everything.

Rethorically it's a good move though, simply assume what you are going to deny, to deny it.(In this case essentialistic views of religion, culture and worst race) "multi racial network" just go bloody *** yourself.

He is doing exactly what he's blaming, how the *** can you not see that? Oh wait sure. It's not about the logic, it's essentialism. If muslims do it it's evil, if "real humas" do it it's like an argument. (Or if anyone says's anything that's not against muslims in general, it's a essentialistic argument anyway, if you don't hate them you are a muslim more or less anyway) "But he said that he's progressive!" Is there a real term in English for a performative contradiction?

Oh an no: I don't think there are only reasons on one side, but the argument is lost anyway. Hate is imperative, fear is imperative, feeling superior is imperative, no responsibillity is imperative. Let's just kill those subhuman fuckers. What's this reason *** anyway.
 
Merckx index said:
when Western progressives argue that the current wave of salafist terrorism in the West is a result of imperialist aggression in the Middle East, they make a fallacious essentialist argument. In fact they make the mistake two ways: they essentialise the Middle East as some kind of Arab/Muslim monoculture and they essentialise terrorists as generic Muslims. Let me be clear about this. It isn’t the generic Arab/Muslim who is responsible for modern acts of terrorism; it’s a multi-racial network of specifically Sunni supremacists who are responsible, both for attacks in the West and attacks in Muslim countries.

If terrorism in the West is the result of Muslim anger over past colonialist aggression, then why don’t the terrorist groups include non-salafists amongst its adherents? And if the salafists are doing it in response to Western colonialism, why are their main targets other Muslims, especially Shia?

The veil falls away when you study the history of Islam, and what you find is an Islam that is every bit as expansionist and imperialist as European Christianity. The progressive narrative is defined in terms of the opposition to ‘Western’ imperialism and so it tends to focus only on recent history. Very few progressives take the longer view.

most progressives only think of Christian-Muslim relations in terms of Christian aggression against Islam, beginning with the Crusades. Most of the focus is on modern history, particularly the French and English colonial period. According to this narrative the West bears collective responsibility for the problems of the Middle East. In this narrative Muslims are only ever historical victims, never perpetrators. The entire history of Islamic imperialism is conveniently ignored.

http://integralworld.net/harris37.html

Oh, ok. How about if capitalist "effects and disjunctures" get factored in?
 
Re:

Rechtschreibfehler said:
So an utterly essentialist perspective tells us why we need diffrent essentialist views to rightfully be racist. Wonderful.

"Islam is not a race, it is not a culture. Like Buddhism and Christianity, Islam is a universalist, conversionist religion." I am not going to do the logic for you. Pathetic nonsense. It's not even about the specific points. If this is the standard of argument, we need to applaude the terrorist and their idiotic counterparts for actually succeding to poison the world, to simply apply their very own hardcore binary essentialistic ****** to everything.

Rethorically it's a good move though, simply assume what you are going to deny, to deny it.(In this case essentialistic views of religion, culture and worst race) "multi racial network" just go bloody **** yourself.

He is doing exactly what he's blaming, how the **** can you not see that? Oh wait sure. It's not about the logic, it's essentialism. If muslims do it it's evil, if "real humas" do it it's like an argument. (Or if anyone says's anything that's not against muslims in general, it's a essentialistic argument anyway, if you don't hate them you are a muslim more or less anyway) "But he said that he's progressive!" Is there a real term in English for a performative contradiction?

Oh an no: I don't think there are only reasons on one side, but the argument is lost anyway. Hate is imperative, fear is imperative, feeling superior is imperative, no responsibillity is imperative. Let's just kill those subhuman ****. What's this reason **** anyway.

i have no idea what any of the above is supposed to mean, but it does remind me a bit of the nonesence owen jones was rambling about before he disgraced himself by walking off set on Sky news last month.
 
Re:

Rechtschreibfehler said:
So an utterly essentialist perspective tells us why we need diffrent essentialist views to rightfully be racist. Wonderful.

"Islam is not a race, it is not a culture. Like Buddhism and Christianity, Islam is a universalist, conversionist religion." I am not going to do the logic for you. Pathetic nonsense. It's not even about the specific points. If this is the standard of argument, we need to applaude the terrorist and their idiotic counterparts for actually succeding to poison the world, to simply apply their very own hardcore binary essentialistic ****** to everything.

Rethorically it's a good move though, simply assume what you are going to deny, to deny it.(In this case essentialistic views of religion, culture and worst race) "multi racial network" just go bloody **** yourself.

He is doing exactly what he's blaming, how the **** can you not see that? Oh wait sure. It's not about the logic, it's essentialism. If muslims do it it's evil, if "real humas" do it it's like an argument. (Or if anyone says's anything that's not against muslims in general, it's a essentialistic argument anyway, if you don't hate them you are a muslim more or less anyway) "But he said that he's progressive!" Is there a real term in English for a performative contradiction?

Oh an no: I don't think there are only reasons on one side, but the argument is lost anyway. Hate is imperative, fear is imperative, feeling superior is imperative, no responsibillity is imperative. Let's just kill those subhuman ****. What's this reason **** anyway.
Rech, a while back in the refugee thread you called 'racist' on everything that everyone typed. That can't be your only rebuttal, can it? I also remember leaving that thread feeling that the only one with racist ideas was the one calling racist.
 

TRENDING THREADS