60 dead in suicide attack on a church in Pakistan

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

Wes and Nodin object to criticism of Islam. That is the bottom line. That's why they give examples elsewhere, and say "look over there".

More nonsense. In order to get context one indeed must "look over there". Fixating on one thing and ignoring all others is symptomatic of unthinking bigotry.

wes

meemeemee wrote: »

Wes and Nodin object to criticism of Islam.

Asking someone to back up there claims is not the same as objecting to criticism.

meemeemee wrote: »

That is the bottom line.

The bottom line, is a desperate poster, who can't back up there claims, talking nonsense instead.

You made a claim, couldn't back it up, and were called on it. That isn't the same as not the same as objecting to any criticism of Islam. What you want is an fact free echo chamber, where no can dare challenge you. Perhaps you should start a blog, and turn off the comments.

meemeemee wrote: »

That's why they give examples elsewhere, and say "look over there".

Again, when you make a claim about Muslims being over represented statistically in regards to world wide violence, that pretty much necessitates talking about violence from other groups. That is a discussion that you kicked off, and I have linked the post earlier and everything. Trying to pretend otherwise now is a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that you can't back up your grand claim once again.

old hippy

meemeemee wrote: »

To be fair Johnny, you held out long enough on the ould "Race Card".

No, I think that the International Islamic community should stop playing games, recognise the problem, stop being reluctant to do anything about it, stop tolerating it, root it out and get rid of it.

Visit a few forums used by young British Muslims and you might get a shock.

The entire, diverse, globally spread Islamic adherents should "root it out", eh?

Bobbins.

Red Nissan

wes wrote: »

Yes, it is, when we have people claiming we can't talk about historical violence, and then doing exactly that, when it suits there pov. So simple hypocrisy.

Not in this thread and by your rules it's not. Most of the incidents offered was to show Islamic terrorism was not just created this century or in the very recent past or after the poorly conceived 911 'terrorist' scapegoating.

There is a real conception that Islamic terrorist attacked America and used her own infrastructure against her and that the Islamic backlash just started after this injustice.

The injustice being that the Islamic terrorists had nothing to do with the 911 charade and the resulting slur that besmirches all Muslims as a result.

In the USA, it's taken as the awakening of the sleeping giant once more to launch a 21st century crusade against Islam and in so doing protects America's supply of poppy flowers, oh and an oil well would do nicely too while we're at it.

However, if it had not been for the militancy of Islam through the centuries, brought on by their own expansionist ideals, the willingness of a gullible public to believe that Islam is at war with the West and that force must be used against it, would be all the harder to be swallowed.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Also, a 7 day period is hardly enough time to provide any kind of realistic statistical analysis for world wide trends,

But 20 years isn't? Ffs I understand that some people like a challenge when attempting to defend positions that are untenable but "radical Islam is not in any way more predominant than other ideologies as the motivation behind acts of modern terrorism" is obvious baloney. By obvious I mean, self evident.

And stop soapboxing meemeemee; it comes across as hectoring.

AudreyHepburn

bumper234 wrote: »

I wish those men who years ago wrote the bible and the quaran could see the trouble their words have caused. If they could see the mayhem and murder and heartache they have caused for billions of people over thousands of years would they still write them?

Those books didn't denonate bombs, nor advocate such.

People did.

How awful....RIP all who died.

Red Nissan

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Those books didn't denonate bombs, nor advocate such.

Advocate they emphatically do, in fact, and to be pedantic, they demand slaughter. Blood Slaughter, be that your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child, neighbour, stranger or infidel, those books are explicit as to what you MUST do.

And that is Kill.

Though, tbh, they do predate bombs, I'm sure in the next edition, bombs will be included.

Red Nissan

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Those books didn't denonate bombs,

On a simpler note, it's the thought that does, that thought comes from those books.

MadsL

RandomName2 wrote: »

But 20 years isn't? Ffs I understand that some people like a challenge when attempting to defend positions that are untenable but "radical Islam is not in any way more predominant than other ideologies as the motivation behind acts of modern terrorism" is obvious baloney. By obvious I mean, self evident.

Are we measuring deaths or number of incidents? Because by the former measure it is by no means self evident.

wes

Red Nissan wrote: »

Not in this thread and by your rules it's not.

Not my rules at all. Other posters seem to take issue with bringing up the past, so only fair to point it out when other decide to do it.

Red Nissan wrote: »

Most of the incidents offered was to show Islamic terrorism was not just created this century or in the very recent past or after the poorly conceived 911 'terrorist' scapegoating.

If you look at history, plenty of atrocities to go round. I could equally make the West look evil by listing all sort of atrocities over the centuries.

Red Nissan wrote: »

There is a real conception that Islamic terrorist attacked America and used her own infrastructure against her and that the Islamic backlash just started after this injustice.

Al Qaeda is a group that came into existence in the 90s, and there attacks on the US, were as they stated themselves, about getting US troops out of what they called "Muslim holy lands". So that groups grievance is modern.

Its rather interesting that Islam is uniquely monolithic to you, and yet no one else is. Why do we not judge the United States, by the same standards then? A country created via genocide committed by Europeans against the natives, which shows that the US and Europe have always been invading other people lands with genocidal intent then? Now, I would think that is silly, to create such a monolith, but apparently with Islam that a-ok. If its ok with Islam, then its ok with everyone else.

Now that we have the entirety of history to work with, everyone is pretty much out to kill everyone else, and I have long list of atrocities dating back 100s and even 1000s of years in some case to prove it.

Red Nissan wrote: »

The injustice being that the Islamic terrorists had nothing to do with the 911 charade and the resulting slur that besmirches all Muslims as a result.

If Muslims should be held responsible for all historic crimes done by other Muslims forever, then the same would apply to Europe and the US. Its interesting how silly what your saying is, and its rather telling how your bizarre eternal collective guilt only applies to Muslims.

Red Nissan wrote: »

In the USA, it's taken as the awakening of the sleeping giant once more to launch a 21st century crusade against Islam and in so doing protects America's supply of poppy flowers, oh and an oil well would do nicely too while we're at it.

WTF are you on about?

Red Nissan wrote: »

However, if it had not been for the militancy of Islam through the centuries, brought on by their own expansionist ideals, the willingness of a gullible public to believe that Islam is at war with the West and that force must be used against it, would be all the harder to be swallowed.

Yes, let talk about those expansionist genocidal Europeans, and the state created by Europeans call the USA. There is a clear historical precedent from both of these groups to engage in war, and colonialism the world over. See I can easily say the exact same thing about pretty much anyone.

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

But 20 years isn't? Ffs I understand that some people like a challenge when attempting to defend positions that are untenable but "radical Islam is not in any way more predominant than other ideologies as the motivation behind acts of modern terrorism" is obvious baloney. By obvious I mean, self evident.

Ok, first find me a definition of terrorism, that everyone can agree on, as at present there is no agreed upon definition, internationally. Should we only count non[state actors, or should we include states as well for instance? Its rather amazing that you can make a sweeping statement about terrorism, when no one can agree on what it is, and you will have various groups, pick and choose what is and isn't terrorism. Some people will defend the Iraq war as being perfectly valid invasion, and others will call its a perfect example of state terrorism.

Peaceful environmental activists are also sometimes treated as terrorists.

The term terrorism is largely abused to mean anyone whoever is in power dislikes. The term has become almost meaningless.

So, no its no self evident, and thats one hell of a cop out, and its pretty much show how pathetic your position is. If you could prove, I am sure you would, but the fact of the matter, is that I know that you can't otherwise, you would provide figures for it, but instead you claim its self evident.

If you don't have to provide any proof for claims, then I see no reason why anyone else should. So, I may as well claim that it is self evident that the world is controlled by lizard people, and that aliens are reading out minds, as its self evident.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And stop soapboxing meemeemee; it comes across as hectoring.

I see that your not a moderator......

Red Nissan

WES, there once was a puddle of black mud in an Arabian desert. These primitives had not much use for it, though handy its flammable abilities were unappreciated in a hot desert.

Then an internal combustion engine was invented and BP discovered that, that black mud was the perfect combustion ingredient to allow Ford to mass produce global change.

So it happened. In your lifetime, certainly that of your parents and grandparents if you are young enough, enough gas was burnt off that could have supplied the world's energy needs for twenty or thirty years.

All to serve the West

MadsL

Red Nissan wrote: »

WES, there once was a puddle of black mud in an Arabian desert. These primitives had not much use for it, though handy its flammable abilities were unappreciated in a hot desert.

Then an internal combustion engine was invented and BP discovered that, that black mud was the perfect combustion ingredient to allow Ford to mass produce global change.

So it happened. In your lifetime, certainly that of your parents and grandparents if you are young enough, enough gas was burnt off that could have supplied the world's energy needs for twenty or thirty years.

All to serve the West

No cars or industry in Saudi Arabia?

wes

Red Nissan wrote: »

WES, there once was a puddle of black mud in an Arabian desert. These primitives had not much use for it, though handy its flammable abilities were unappreciated in a hot desert.

"Primitives", well that says a lot right there.

Red Nissan wrote: »

Then an internal combustion engine was invented and BP discovered that, that black mud was the perfect combustion ingredient to allow Ford to mass produce global change.

Yes, and you can also use steam to run a train. I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Red Nissan wrote: »

So it happened. In your lifetime, certainly that of your parents and grandparents if you are young enough, enough gas was burnt off that could have supplied the world's energy needs for twenty or thirty years.

Yes, and has caused climate change that present serious risks to our survival as a species, but again whats that go to do with anything, I do not know.

Red Nissan wrote: »

All to serve the West

Um, ok....... What ever you say...... Going to back away slowly now......

Red Nissan

wes, you're on ignore

Red Nissan

MadsL wrote: »

No cars or industry in Saudi Arabia?

What's your question? Elaborate or expand. What's your point exactly. Thanks

Red Nissan

MadsL wrote: »

No cars or industry in Saudi Arabia?

Seeing as you have not answered my question, the answer is yes, or no, there were no cars, period.

Read the BP history, it's pretty amazing, they knew they had a market for black mud, whilst the Arabs though they were crazy to be paying them for it.

wes

Red Nissan wrote: »

wes, you're on ignore

Wait, I taught you were already doing that, with your bizarre digressions, where you called people primitives, and referring to oil as mud, and going on about BP etc, all of which didn't address anything I said at all. So thank goodness that you have made it official, and have announced it officially for all to see.

returnNull

Red Nissan wrote: »

wes, you're on ignore

that will win the discussion alright.

Mint Aero

meemeemee wrote: »

ALL those involved ?

Or the victims ?

There is a certain contingent on the lunatic left who would echo your sentiment.

Huh?!

Red Nissan

returnNull wrote: »

that will win the discussion alright.

No it will preserve me from repetitive rhetoric and shills.

And it's a handy tool to identify multiple accounts, try it.

Discussion is an exchange of ideas, expression of thought, expression of NEW thoughts, it is NOT Government PC propaganda.

It's hard I know, but this discussion has been effectively destroyed by two individuals who are emphatically belligerent and baiting, if I do it I'm a troll and banned.

I gave Wes the respect of telling him, he has good knowledge but IMO, is not partaking in a discussion, there is one other there to keep him company and it ~ keep this secret, I think the two people in my ignore list are the same, I'll let you know if I ever follow it up.

returnNull

Red Nissan wrote: »

.... but this discussion... effectively destroyed by two individuals who are emphatically belligerent and baiting

they are asking questions,dont see any baiting or belligerence

if I do it I'm a troll and banned.

been here before have we?

Red Nissan

Jonny7 wrote: »

and in case you missed it..

ISLAMOFASCISTS

Can't find it in the dictionary, humble apologies, what's this?

wes

Red Nissan wrote: »

I gave Wes the respect of telling him, he has good knowledge but IMO, is not partaking in a discussion, there is one other there to keep him company and it ~ keep this secret, I think the two people in my ignore list are the same, I'll let you know if I ever follow it up.

You gave me no respect, after ignoring everything I said, when you were still replying to me, so its not like this makes any kind of difference. Also, there was no discussion being had, you decided to ramble on about bp, and calling people in the Middle East primitives instead of actually addressing a single thing I said.

Also, as for your other accusation, please contact the moderators, as opposed to your rather sad attempt to smear me, as some sort of shill, and of having multiple accounts.

Also, good job ignoring me, if you can call still discussing me ignoring me.

Red Nissan

returnNull wrote: »

they are asking questions,dont see any baiting or belligerence been here before have we?

To be perfectly honest I'm investigating boards, know quite a bit about its members, have suffered from the same few, and get infractions related to a very small online circle.

I advocate for the abolishment of boards and picture ID representation of all posters.

returnNull

Red Nissan wrote: »

have suffered from the same few, and get infractions related to a very small online circle.

Its you that gets the infractions though.Not the other posters.Maybe there's something wrong on your end?

Red Nissan

returnNull wrote: »

Its you that gets the infractions though.Not the other posters.Maybe there's something wrong on your end?

You would think, and rightly so, but I've amassed testimonials that would satisfy the Nuremberg Trials, Boards, does not delete data, and a simple Google search will reveal every poster.;

meemeemee

Mint Aero wrote: »

Huh?!

There are a certain section on the lunatic left who will indeed express their sorrow for "all involved".

They will be often found creating content for RTE, BBC, The Indo or the Guardian, or consuming it.

This contingent will express their sorrow for "all involved" that a brilliant, humanitarian architect building hospitals in Africa and his wife, a brilliant humanitarian medic working to address the plight of AIDS in Africa, eight and a half months pregnant with the couple first child were massacred in a hail of bullets by Islamofacist terrorrists.

They will express their sorrow and sympathy that some young men became Islamofacist terrorists and were " FORCED " or left with " NO OPTION " other than to massacre in cold blood, a brilliant, humanitarian architect building hospitals in Africa and his wife, a brilliant humanitarian medic working to address the plight of AIDS in Africa, and their eight and a half month old unborn child" because they were "forced to".

The feel sorrow for "all involved", because it would be wrong to make a judgement.

Hence when over 200 people, soft targets, innocent of any wrongdoing, likely simply because they are "different" or to be more specific "christians / unbelievers / kaffirs / infidels " are murdered and maimed in because they were different, the incident involved " Militants " rather than " Terrorists ".

MadsL

Red Nissan wrote: »

What's your question? Elaborate or expand. What's your point exactly. Thanks

My point is this absurdly simplistic view of the history of oil. The poor savages not knowing what oil was until the West came and exploited them. It's a tad more complex than that.

Petrol was distilled by an Arab alchemist in the 9th Century, yes, the 9th. It was the Spanish - through the Moors who brought that technology to Europe in the 12th Century.

So please stop with the "Black Mud" nonsense. The streets of Baghdad were paved with tar in the 9th century, back when you could tell someone was a European king because he wasn't covered in shit.

Red Nissan

MadsL wrote: »

Petrol was distilled by an Arab alchemist in the 9th Century, yes, the 9th. It was the Spanish - through the Moors who brought that technology to Europe in the 12th Century.

So what did they do with it. ? Not unlike the Chinese who invented gunpowder and then decided to 'bury' it until it was rediscovered by the West.

Why were we not driving cars in the 12th century?

It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it.

returnNull

Red Nissan wrote: »

You would think, and rightly so, but I've amassed testimonials that would satisfy the Nuremberg Trials, Boards, does not delete data, and a simple Google search will reveal every poster.;

yawn

MadsL

Red Nissan wrote: »

So what did they do with it. ? Not unlike the Chinese who invented gunpowder and then decided to 'bury' it until it was rediscovered by the West.

Why were we not driving cars in the 12th century?

It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it.

They traded it as fuel oil to use as heating oil to places like Romania.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Ok, first find me a definition of terrorism, that everyone can agree on, as at present there is no agreed upon definition, internationally.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

wes wrote: »

Should we only count non[state actors, or should we include states as well for instance?

It would be atypical to include states or governments

wes wrote: »

Its rather amazing that you can make a sweeping statement about terrorism, when no one can agree on what it is, and you will have various groups, pick and choose what is and isn't terrorism.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh?

wes wrote: »

Some people will defend the Iraq war as being perfectly valid invasion, and others will call its a perfect example of state terrorism.

No, they wouldn't. Opponents might call it illegal, immoral, or even imperialist, but "terrorist"? :rolleyes:

wes wrote: »

Peaceful environmental activists are also sometimes treated as terrorists.

Well that's all pretty murky. The only people who are officially saying that the activists are being called terrorists are the activists themselves. The rest of the evidence in the article is just as ropey. But just because laws *may* be abused by the US government, it doesn't mean that the US are treating a person or group that they are abusing in this manner as "terrorists".

wes wrote: »

The term terrorism is largely abused to mean anyone whoever is in power dislikes. The term has become almost meaningless.

Well it is abused, that much is true.

wes wrote: »

So, no its no self evident, and thats one hell of a cop out, and its pretty much show how pathetic your position is.

The lady doth protest too much methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

wes wrote: »

If you could prove, I am sure you would, but the fact of the matter, is that I know that you can't otherwise, you would provide figures for it, but instead you claim its self evident.

You want absolute numbers relating to a definition you aren't willing to provide over an indefinite period and geographical scope, then compare the numbers relating to radical Islam to those not related to radical Islam. That is ridiculous.

wes wrote: »

If you don't have to provide any proof for claims, then I see no reason why anyone else should. So, I may as well claim that it is self evident that the world is controlled by lizard people, and that aliens are reading out minds, as its self evident.

No the above are not self evident, because there is no evidence relating to the above. You, yourself, are not disputing evidence for the position relating to terrorism; you are saying that a preponderance cannot be shown, and that we don't know what "terrorism" is anyway.

wes wrote: »

I see that you're not a moderator......

I'm not moderating.

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Doesn't address the lack of agreed upon legal definition:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Terrorism is the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2]

So, what I said stand. Terrorism is used by various government as it suits them. There is no agreed upon legal definition, so any kind of figures are problematic. I should also note you didn't even provide any to begin with, in anyways.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It would be atypical to include states or governments

Sure, except when it suits some states to call other states terrorists.

RandomName2 wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh?

Sure, the contra's were heroic freedom fighters to the CIA, and most other would call them a terrorists. The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, were freedom fighters to the US, and terrorist to the Soviets.

Then there a environmentalists and other groups, who are also called terrorists.

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. Opponents might call it illegal, immoral, or even imperialist, but "terrorist"? :rolleyes:

So you have never heard the term state terrorism? Its used by plenty of people these days.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that's all pretty murky. The only people who are officially saying that the activists are being called terrorists are the activists themselves. The rest of the evidence in the article is just as ropey. But just because laws *may* be abused by the US government, it doesn't mean that the US are treating a person or group that they are abusing in this manner as "terrorists".

Its just one example, plenty more of various people being labelled terrorists, for various dodgy reasons, and add to that the NSA surveillance program, which is being justified to fight terrorism, and you can see the rather slippery slope the US and others have gone down.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The lady doth protest too much methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

The figures are kind of meaningless, unless you can bring up a comparison, which you haven't, and as I pointed out the term terrorism is rather abused.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You want absolute numbers relating to a definition you aren't willing to provide over an indefinite period and geographical scope, then compare the numbers relating to radical Islam to those not related to radical Islam. That is ridiculous.

I am not the one making grands claims about 21st century terrorism, now am I? If someone want to make such claims, they should back it up. You decided to defend the claim, not me. I am just pointing out the many problems with such a claim, not least of which, is the lack of proof to back it up.

BTW, the point I am making is that there is no definition that anyone can agree on, and as such that you can't make such a claim, considering on one can agree on a legal definition to begin with. Basically, I am disputing the claim, and saying that to even provide the information needed to prove such a claim is basically impossible, and hence point out how your claim is most certainly not self evident.

So again, you need to back what you say, and not me. I am just pointing out the rather large holes in your reasoning.

RandomName2 wrote: »

No the above are not self evident, because there is no evidence relating to the above.

Kind of my point.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You, yourself, are not disputing evidence for the position relating to terrorism; you are saying that a preponderance cannot be shown, and that we don't know what "terrorism" is anyway.

There is no evidence provided to back up that claim to begin with (a list of Islamic terrorist attacks, would need a comparison of the other terrorist attacks), so there is nothing to dispute. I am just pointing out how such a claim is inherently difficult to prove, as no one can agree what terrorism is anyways, and its largely used by whoever is in power for there own ends.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm not moderating.

Could have fooled me.

old hippy

meemeemee wrote: »

There are a certain section on the lunatic left who will indeed express their sorrow for "all involved".

They will be often found creating content for RTE, BBC, The Indo or the Guardian, or consuming it.

This contingent will express their sorrow for "all involved" that a brilliant, humanitarian architect building hospitals in Africa and his wife, a brilliant humanitarian medic working to address the plight of AIDS in Africa, eight and a half months pregnant with the couple first child were massacred in a hail of bullets by Islamofacist terrorrists.

They will express their sorrow and sympathy that some young men became Islamofacist terrorists and were " FORCED " or left with " NO OPTION " other than to massacre in cold blood, a brilliant, humanitarian architect building hospitals in Africa and his wife, a brilliant humanitarian medic working to address the plight of AIDS in Africa, and their eight and a half month old unborn child" because they were "forced to".

The feel sorrow for "all involved", because it would be wrong to make a judgement.

Hence when over 200 people, soft targets, innocent of any wrongdoing, likely simply because they are "different" or to be more specific "christians / unbelievers / kaffirs / infidels " are murdered and maimed in because they were different, the incident involved " Militants " rather than " Terrorists ".

Then there are those on the right who will use each and every opportunity to tar all Muslims with the same brush. And to will blame on others who simply do not agree with such right wing generalising about Muslims.

old hippy

Red Nissan wrote: »

WES, there once was a puddle of black mud in an Arabian desert. These primitives had not much use for it, though handy its flammable abilities were unappreciated in a hot desert.

Then an internal combustion engine was invented and BP discovered that, that black mud was the perfect combustion ingredient to allow Ford to mass produce global change.

So it happened. In your lifetime, certainly that of your parents and grandparents if you are young enough, enough gas was burnt off that could have supplied the world's energy needs for twenty or thirty years.

All to serve the West

Primitives, you say?

meemeemee

Well, Wes, there are pages on Wikipedia which list Terrorist attacks. There are individual pages on Wikipedia which detail "Terrorism", and then there are specific pages for terrorism in support of various ideologies, such as "Islamic Terrorism", "Christian Terrorism" and so on.

Will Wikipedia do for you ?

The Wikipedia page on "Islamic Terrorism" is jam packed with references to hundreds incidents in recent times, far more than pages devoted to terrorism in support of other ideologies. A simple glance would suggest to a casual observer, without any agenda whatsoever, that Islam may be over represented as an ideology in terrorist events taking place in the modern age.

However, the Wikipedia "Islamic Terrorism" page is about 6 to 9 months behind the times, which is important, because a hell of a lot of things seem to happen. Like 4 major outrages last week, killing and maiming over 1000 people, which are not included.

So whilst the "Religion Of Peace" website may not be to everybody's liking, at least it attempting to keep some sort of record. It is certainly not perfect, but its a start.

Perhaps nobody is documenting terrorism in the advancement of other ideologies, because, well, there is less to document ?

You will run around in rings, splitting hairs, challenging lingustics, but when it comes to it, you seem a little reluctant to acknowledge the current day problem of Islamofacist terrorism.

When it comes to Islamofacist terrorism, "Occams Law" seems not to apply. When the dead bodies are there, with bearded man with an AK47 screaming "Allah Akbar", and some still refuse to see it. They will claim that it is nothing to do with Islam and is because of "politics", "occupation" or "involvement" and whatnot. But conveniently they won't follow the logical conclusion.

Islam is a political ideology.

The Islamofacist terrorists in Kenya may have stated they murdered unbelievers in retaliation for Kenyan involvement in Somalia. That may be true. But the ultimate endgame is the establishment of a Sharia state in Somalia. Which the Kenyan involvement may be standing in the way of.

The Islamofacist terrorists in Pakistant may have stated they murdered unbelievers in retaliation for US involvement in Pakistan, but the ultimate endgame is the establishment of a Sharia state in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Which the US involvement may be standing in the way of.

So ultimately, in the long run, these people are using "Terror" to attempt to force their Ideology upon other people.

Various groups were committing various atrocities long before other third parties got involved, and gave them something to focus their "anger" on. The anger was already there, they were just enforcing it on their neighbors.

I am afraid Wes, it appears you do not like criticism of Islam whatsoever, even when it may be required.

I am quite prepared to accept that "The Decadent West" does bad things.

I do not for one minute suggest that "All Muslims Are Terrorist" or "All Muslims Are Bad" or "Tarring All Muslims with the same brush". Not at all. I know plenty of Muslims who are very nice people.

I am simply suggesting that there is a problem with " Islam " which appears to be manifesting itself in a statistical anomoly, which is over representation in modern day terrorism.

the_monkey

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

More muslim extremists, quelle surprise.

You intollerant racist !!!

I am offended by this disgusting attitude to the beautifull peacefull religion of Islam ..

old hippy

Any of you in London read the letters page in Metro today?

You'll find letters from Muslims who are horrified at recent violence in Kenya and Pakistan. In fact, most Muslims don't fit the crude stereotype some here indulge in.

But that's not good enough for you, is it?

meemeemee

To the Islamofacist terrorist across Africa and the Middle East, those letter writers in the Metro would be " Blasphemers ", " Unbelievers ", " Apostates ", " Kuffirs ".

Therein lies the problem.

Perhaps it will never be solved.

old hippy

meemeemee wrote: »

To the Islamofacist terrorist across Africa and the Middle East, those letter writers in the Metro would be " Blasphemers ", " Unbelievers ", " Apostates ", " Kuffirs ".

Therein lies the problem.

Perhaps it will never be solved.

The terrorists are still a minority, you do realise that, right? And Muslims do speak out all the time.

Interesting blog here http://www.kamranpasha.com/blog/?p=68

wes

meemeemee wrote: »

Well, Wes, there are pages on Wikipedia which list Terrorist attacks. There are individual pages on Wikipedia which detail "Terrorism", and then there are specific pages for terrorism in support of various ideologies, such as "Islamic Terrorism", "Christian Terrorism" and so on.

Will Wikipedia do for you ?

You didn't just use the term terrorism btw, you also made mention of inter communal conflict, so some nice goal pole changing once again:

meemeemee wrote: »

Question. Is Islam Disproportionately Represented in modern day intercommunal conflict and modern day terrorist events.

Not the first time, you have done this btw. You have a habit, of changing that claim as it suits you.

meemeemee wrote: »

The Wikipedia page on "Islamic Terrorism" is jam packed with references to hundreds incidents in recent times, far more than pages devoted to terrorism in support of other ideologies. A simple glance would suggest to a casual observer, without any agenda whatsoever, that Islam may be over represented as an ideology in terrorist events taking place in the modern age.

Again, a list of Islamic terrorism, is not enough to back up your claim, which goes beyond just terrorism.

meemeemee wrote: »

However, the Wikipedia "Islamic Terrorism" page is about 6 to 9 months behind the times, which is important, because a hell of a lot of things seem to happen. Like 4 major outrages last week, killing and maiming over 1000 people, which are not included.

So your now, saying your own source isn't an exhaustive list.....

meemeemee wrote: »

So whilst the "Religion Of Peace" website may not be to everybody's liking, at least it attempting to keep some sort of record. It is certainly not perfect, but its a start.

Ah, so your source is a well known Anti-Muslim site..... Fantastic proof right there. Its not like they don't have a very clear Anti-Muslim agenda or anything.

meemeemee wrote: »

Perhaps nobody is documenting terrorism in the advancement of other ideologies, because, well, there is less to document ?

Not my problems, its up to you to prove you statement to be true. The information is out there, and it up to you prove your point, and no one else. You have constantly refused to so, and will chop and change your claims left right centre as needed.

meemeemee wrote: »

You will run around in rings, splitting hairs, challenging lingustics, but when it comes to it, you seem a little reluctant to acknowledge the current day problem of Islamofacist terrorism.

Now, now, you were talking about more than just terrorism. Again, the goal post changing is rather obvious. You need to prove you claims and no one else.

meemeemee wrote: »

When it comes to Islamofacist terrorism, "Occams Law" seems not to apply.

FFS, its Occam's razor, and:

It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

So as it stands your hypotheses, makes numerous assumptions, in that you only provide figures for Islamic terrorism (ignoring half your claim) with one source known to be Anti-Muslim, and another source, which yourself consider incomplete, and you assume that there is no information available in regards to other groups. So the only one failing to satisfy Occam razor, is your hypotheses.

meemeemee wrote: »

When the dead bodies are there, with bearded man with an AK47 screaming "Allah Akbar", and some still refuse to see it. They will claim that it is nothing to do with Islam and is because of "politics", "occupation" or "involvement" and whatnot. But conveniently they won't follow the logical conclusion.

There many reasons for conflict the world over. You are being deliberately reductive.

meemeemee wrote: »

Islam is a political ideology.

If Islam is a political ideology, then so are most of the world other Religions.

meemeemee wrote: »

The Islamofacist terrorists in Kenya may have stated they murdered unbelievers in retaliation for Kenyan involvement in Somalia. That may be true. But the ultimate endgame is the establishment of a Sharia state in Somalia. Which the Kenyan involvement may be standing in the way of.

So, your contradicting you own statement a second ago, where everything is solely due to Religion, and you now admit that the attack was retaliation to Kenyan troops in Somalia. Its pretty well know what Al Shababs aims are.

meemeemee wrote: »

The Islamofacist terrorists in Pakistant may have stated they murdered unbelievers in retaliation for US involvement in Pakistan, but the ultimate endgame is the establishment of a Sharia state in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Which the US involvement may be standing in the way of.

Pakistan full title is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, they already have Sharia law in that state. The same terrorists groups have attacked the Pakistani army as well, due to the Pakistani government siding with US, and allowing drones to fly from Pakistani military bases etc, and as well as various tribal and ethnic grievance, in regards to the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, as well as an border between Pashtun's who are separated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, by a border, that closely resembles the Durand line established by the British.

Again, you are being deliberately reductive, as what is going on in Pakistan is a rather complex mess, that goes back to the creation of state, and problem with hastily drawn borders, as well as year of corruption and incompetence by various Pakistani governments among many other reasons.

meemeemee wrote: »

So ultimately, in the long run, these people are using "Terror" to attempt to force their Ideology upon other people.

Yes, and no one is disputing the existence of such groups. Now you have yet to prove you own statement, and refuse to do so, and simple state that the existence of such groups is some how proof of you constantly changing claim.

meemeemee wrote: »

Various groups were committing various atrocities long before other third parties got involved, and gave them something to focus their "anger" on. The anger was already there, they were just enforcing it on their neighbors.

Except that a lot of these groups only came into existence relatively recently. The Taliban came into existence after, the Soviet invasion ended. Al Shabab, came into existence, after the Islamic courts were destroyed (oddly enough the former leader is now Prime Minister of Somalia), which was only a few years ago. Al Qaeda, came into existence in the 90s. These groups history can easily be tracked and all of them are relatively recent, with the oldest being the Taliban.

meemeemee wrote: »

I am afraid Wes, it appears you do not like criticism of Islam whatsoever, even when it may be required.

Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. I am disputing a claim you have made, that your refuse to provide proof for, which is not the same as objecting to criticism, which is something complete different.

Now get back to me, when you can actually prove your claim, which you constantly refuse to do so, while demanding proof of others when it suits you.

meemeemee wrote: »

I am quite prepared to accept that "The Decadent West" does bad things.

No one used that term "The Decadent West" at all....

meemeemee wrote: »

I do not for one minute suggest that "All Muslims Are Terrorist" or "All Muslims Are Bad" or "Tarring All Muslims with the same brush". Not at all. I know plenty of Muslims who are very nice people.

I am simply suggesting that there is a problem with " Islam " which appears to be manifesting itself in a statistical anomoly, which is over representation in modern day terrorism.

Again this is what you said earlier:

meemeemee wrote: »

Question. Is Islam Disproportionately Represented in modern day intercommunal conflict and modern day terrorist events.

You have yet to prove this at all, and have refused to do so. Why do you refuse to back up your claim? Why do you constantly change what you are referring to? You have no proof whatsoever, to prove your claim, and repeated attempts to avoid providing proof, shows that you are simply unable to so. So I can simply dismiss your claim then, as there is no proof provided.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Doesn't address the lack of agreed upon legal definition:

So what?

There's no agreed upon legal definition of what a shopping centre is or a political organisation. There's no legal definition of what a "desert" or a "sea" is. There's even no definition for what a country is.

Don't believe me?

Northern Ireland is a country.

But the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also a country.

Obviously nobody can discuss anything that does not have a legal definition. :rolleyes:

"The Sahara desert is the world's largest desert. "

You can't say that! There's no legal definition of what a desert is! Your argument is baseless!

wes wrote: »

So you have never heard the term state terrorism? Its used by plenty of people these days.

The term is used separately from the term "terrorism" for a reason - although it must be noted that it is disputed, on an academic level, whether it is an oxymoron. It denotes the use of terror by a state against the citizens of another state. If one is to argue that a state is capable of performing acts of terrorism; fine - one could point to the Blitz as an example, I suppose.

wes wrote: »

Its just one example, plenty more of various people being labelled terrorists, for various dodgy reasons, and add to that the NSA surveillance program, which is being justified to fight terrorism, and you can see the rather slippery slope the US and others have gone down.

Just because some people have been labelled terrorists who demonstrably aren't, while others have been labelled such, and it is debatable whether or not they are, that does not mean that someone cannot be correctly identified as a terrorist. Not that that exonerates the NSA.

wes wrote: »

The figures are kind of meaningless, unless you can bring up a comparison, which you haven't, and as I pointed out the term terrorism is rather abused.

No the term is not absurd - but if you object so vehemently to it you could use another in its place. Insurgents, partisans, rebels. These terms would suggest that such people would not be working in foreign countries, or using a strategy predominantly based upon public reaction to their actions (which is why we use the term "terrorist" instead), but they will do if you are particularly allergic to the T word.

In which case the point still stands. It only fails if you spread the net so wide as to include organised crime under whatever umbrella term you would rather use; in which case the acts of extremist Muslim groups would be decidedly outnumbered.

meemeemee

The never ending carnage of innocent people by Islamofacists seeking to impose the literal word of the Quran, the literal word of Islam on everybody else and establish their Islamic paradises continues unabated.

Since this thread was started last weekend, when 5 different outrages in 5 different countries, by 5 separate Islamofacist groups, all with the one single aim of the establishment of a fundamental Islamic paradises, there have been another 2 bombings in Pakistan this week, adding another 60 to last weekends death toll, never mind the injured.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/33-killed-in-pakistan-car-bombing-29618713.html

And in Nigeria, Islamofacist terrorists wanting a literal Islamic state, who last week killed 160, have added another 27 dead to the bodycount.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/nigeria-bokoharam-idINL5N0HO0KE20130928

Some people did not like the "Religion Of Peace" website which carries a dated list of Jihad terrorism, yet it seems to be keeping a better track on things than the world's media. Because no Irish or British media outlet considered the 27 dead in Nigeria worth of even a news in brief.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

One of the many hypocrisies of these Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs, is whilst they want to ban Western pop music, yoyos, Pokemon, Taytos, and whatnot because they are "unIslamic" and because "The Prophet" himself did not eat Taytos, their logic falls down in them keeping their AK47s, which I am sure "The Prophet" did not have either.

The AK47s are handy for murdering allegedly adulterous women and supposed blasphemers and the like.

meemeemee

Gawd, it is never ending.

Now Boko Haram have murdered 50 students in their sleep

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/attack-on-nigerian-college-leaves-up-to-50-students-dead-1.1543992

No, Islalm is not overrepresented as an ideology of terrorist groups. No siree.

_Redzer_

seamus wrote: »

I love how you managed to contradict yourself so neatly in a single sentence.

"They shouldn't take things literally. Nor should they interpret things"

You either take it literally or make up your own interpretation. The problem is that they don't take religious texts literally. If religious texts were taken literally, they would die quickly and go away as people realise that the text bears no resemblance to reality.

If only that where the case and all religion just fucked off and died forever, we'd be so much better off in so many areas

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

The never ending carnage of innocent people by Islamofacists seeking to impose the literal word of the Quran, .............

Do you use a plastic crate or the old fashioned wooden box?

Pug160

PirateShampoo wrote: »

You have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the human race when we can inflict so much pain and suffering upon each other over what a 2000 year old book says.

The way we are progressing I can imagine in another 2000 years (if we make it that far) it will be Harry Potter followers going toe to toe with the cult of Twilight all because cult of Potter killed Twilight's god in the 3rd book.

It's a bit unfair to lump us all together. We live in a fairly civilised society compared to some other parts of the world where it's far more primitive. I have sympathy for the victims in Pakistan, Kenya etc but I think it's just a matter of waiting for them to evolve and catch up with the rest of us, and that could take centuries.

Karl Stein

Pug160 wrote: »

It's a bit unfair to lump us all together. We live in a fairly civilised society compared to some other parts of the world where it's far more primitive. I have sympathy for the victims in Pakistan, Kenya etc but I think it's just a matter of waiting for them to evolve and catch up with the rest of us, and that could take centuries.

Have you ever thought why these countries seem more barbaric* than ours?





*For expediency, let's just park the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been shredded by western 'democracy bombs' in the last decade.

Pug160

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Have you ever thought why these countries seem more barbaric* than ours?





*For expediency, let's just park the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been shredded by western 'democracy bombs' in the last decade.

It seems to be a catch 22 situation. They're barbaric with or without interference. Look at the war in Afghanistan: yes, the conflict has probably bred more terrorists, but young girls can at least get an education. Perhaps it's best being cruel to be kind and leaving these countries to naturally evolve through time though?