Support NeoGAF

[Joel Was Right]

There are texts going around the Muslim community about Hijab wearing women being attacked and worse. I don't know if its true or not, but I hope one does something stupid

 

[hym]

To me this is the reason the SAS exists. Summary execution of enemies of the state and its people. Dave, get it done.

How would you circumvent the illegality, that's not how our system works, those are Russian FSB practices.

There are texts going around the Muslim community about Hijab wearing women being attacked and worse. I don't know if its true or not, but I hope one does something stupid

Is this it?

I recognize the events they are describing all too well, the victims however were three Coptic women in Cairo. Inciting violence through lies is worse than hate speech.

 

[bonercop]

This article from Greenwald on Andrew Sullivan seems relevant(It's also some straight-up ether!). I cannot help but agree with the man on some of the unfortunate reactions that always prop up whenever western foreign policy is scrutinized.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I highly recommend checking out these two pieces:

An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism and the Politics of Islamophobia http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...t-jihadism-and-the-politics-of-islamophobia-1

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

- Thomas Jefferson (taken from the article)

I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism." When you think of a left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded social welfare programs? The "extremists" and strict followers of the Jain faith, which values the life of every being, including insects, don't kill more than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace, the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite.

Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SH7Ty8iPh5c#!

This article from Greenwald on Andrew Sullivan seems relevant(It's also some straight-up ether!). I cannot help but agree with the man on some of the unfortunate reactions that always prop up whenever western foreign policy is scrutinized.

Greenwald is the inconsistent one for not calling this attack terrorism.

My understanding of the definition of terrorism is "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." The attacker in Woolwich said, “We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you… You people will never be safe. Remove your government.”

Glenn also supported the Iraq war before the invasion.

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

 

[bonercop]

I highly recommend checking out these two pieces:

An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism and the Politics of Islamophobia http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...t-jihadism-and-the-politics-of-islamophobia-1

Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SH7Ty8iPh5c#!

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the foiled al Qaeda-backed plot in Toronto, the "anything but jihad" brigade is out in full force again. If the perpetrators of such attacks say they were influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games or hip-hop, we take their answers at face value. But when they repeatedly and consistently cite their religious beliefs as their central motivation, we back off, stroke our chins and suspect that there has to be something deeper at play, a "root cause."

The taboo against criticizing religion is still so astonishingly pervasive that centuries of hard lessons haven't yet opened our eyes to what has been apparent all along: It is often religion itself, not the "distortion," "hijacking," "misrepresentation" or "politicization" of religion, that is the root cause.

I just love this paragraph. The Boston Bomber that was captured outright stated his primary motivation( and justification for his actions) was revenge for US foreign policy in the note he left.


Anyway...

Greenwald is the inconsistent one for not calling this attack terrorism.

My understanding of the definition of terrorism is "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." The attacker in Woolwich said, “We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you… You people will never be safe. Remove your government.”.

His point is a little more nuanced than that, mate.

Glenn also supported the Iraq war before the invasion.

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/gl...-for-iraq-war/

Let's quote Greenwald in 2006:

I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .

The reason he gets to criticize people like Hitchens for their support for the Iraq war is pretty obvious -- Hitchens was a neocon cheerleader who could actually influence people, while at the time, Greenwald didn't pay attention to politics nor did he write about supporting Bush's foreign policy. This seems like a pretty silly thing to hold against him.

 

[Dude Abides]

This article from Greenwald on Andrew Sullivan seems relevant(It's also some straight-up ether!). I cannot help but agree with the man on some of the unfortunate reactions that always prop up whenever western foreign policy is scrutinized.

Greenwald can be hyperbolic, but this is spot on. Sad to see people who mocked Bush for "they hate us for our freedoms" embracing it now.

I highly recommend checking out these two pieces:

An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism and the Politics of Islamophobia http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_...t-jihadism-and-the-politics-of-islamophobia-1

What the fuck is an "Atheist Muslim?" Is that like dry water?

My understanding of the definition of terrorism is "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." The attacker in Woolwich said, “We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you… You people will never be safe. Remove your government.”

So then you also think the drone strikes, Iraq war, etc. were terrorism?

Glenn also supported the Iraq war before the invasion.

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

This is relevant how?

 

[Dead Man]

Greenwald can be hyperbolic, but this is spot on. Sad to see people who mocked Bush for "they hate us for our freedoms" embracing it now.



What the fuck is an "Atheist Muslim?" Is that like dry water?



So then you also think the drone strikes, Iraq war, etc. were terrorism?



This is relevant how?

If you read the piece you will find out. :/ It's just a way of saying someone is culturally Islamic but is an atheist. It is a good read too.

 

[Madness]

Some SoB posted a photo of the soldiers face after the attack on Facebook. Reported it, and then chewed out my friend for commenting on it, and thereby spreading it to his friends list and then I unfriended him.

Truly sickening, I feel sick to my stomach. How could they do such a thing to that poor man.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Truly sickening, I feel sick to my stomach. How could they do such a thing to that poor man.

Well if you watch the video posted above...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7Ty8iPh5c#
they did it because the holy book of their religion told them to, it's really not some unexplainable mystery...

 

[RK9039]

Well if you watch the video posted above...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7Ty8iPh5c#
they did it because the holy book of their religion told them to, it's really not some unexplainable mystery...

'Answering Muslims' is such a great source as well.

 

[Dude Abides]

If you read the piece you will find out. :/ It's just a way of saying someone is culturally Islamic but is an atheist. It is a good read too.

It is interesting, and I agree that with the writer that the Muslim community writ large appears to be doing a poor job of discouraging the jihadist element. Although Tim McVeigh may not have praised Jesus before his bombing but Eric Rudolph certainly did.

But I don't see how the words of the envoy from Tripoli in the 18th century are particularly relevant to this attack, any more than the fact that Thomas Jefferson fucked his slaves is. The guy who did this, and the Boston bomber, told us why they did it. I don't think we can just turn a blind eye to the role that US and UK foreign policy has in this.

 

[xbhaskarx]

'Answering Muslims' is such a great source as well.

Isn't he just quoting the Koran? Are you disputing the quotations?

 

[Madness]

It is interesting, and I agree that with the writer that the Muslim community writ large appears to be doing a poor job of discouraging the jihadist element. Although Tim McVeigh may not have praised Jesus before his bombing but Eric Rudolph certainly did.

But I don't see how the words of the envoy from Tripoli in the 18th century are particularly relevant to this attack, any more than the fact that Thomas Jefferson fucked his slaves is. The guy who did this, and the Boston bomber, told us why they did it. I don't think we can just turn a blind eye to the role that US and UK foreign policy has in this.

Just a few weeks ago, Canada stopped a terrorist attack from being carried out. What role does Canada have in it? What role does any country have in it? The problem is, they see it as us and against them. They always will. After the Soviets were defeated with US aid, they turned on the US and US allies worldwide. Getting a little tired of this sympathy shit people have for terrorists.

 

[dripdripsplash]

I can't believe you guys are just finding out that the reason for many of these attacks is an (stupid but understandable) response to US/Western foreign policy.

 

[RK9039]

Isn't he just quoting the Koran? Are you disputing the quotations?

What quote, you mean the one in the description of the video? I'm sure some our Muslim friends who better understand their scripture can help us, but from what I'm getting here in the UK and the video I posted earlier, it's clear the attack was not justifiable Islamically, and Muslims leaders in various communities up and down the country have condemned the attack on the innocent man.

So how is this source 'Answering Muslim', which has a whole section dedicated on promoting Christianity on their website, relevant? Why should I care what they have to say?

ed: Okay my bad, they have a comment section on Christianity.

 

[BeerSnob]

I can't believe you guys are just finding out that the reason for many of these attacks is an (stupid but understandable) response to US/Western foreign policy.

I can't believe you think murdering someone is an understandable response to their government's foreign policy.

 

[Dude Abides]

Just a few weeks ago, Canada stopped a terrorist attack from being carried out. What role does Canada have in it? What role does any country have in it? The problem is, they see it as us and against them. They always will. After the Soviets were defeated with US aid, they turned on the US and US allies worldwide. Getting a little tired of this sympathy shit people have for terrorists.

Getting a little tired of people not knowing shit or bothering to try to understand posts.

Canada participated in both the Afghanistan and Iraq war, btw. The former more than the latter.

I can't believe you guys are just finding out that the reason for many of these attacks is an (stupid but understandable) response to US/Western foreign policy.

It's not the reason. It's a reason. There are two primary reasons: (1) Islam teaches violence; (2) certain Western countries commit violence against Muslims.

That video lays it out pretty clearly, though it downplays (2).

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I can't believe you think murdering someone is an understandable response to their government's foreign policy.

I can believe it.

 

[dripdripsplash]

I can't believe you think murdering someone is an understandable response to their government's foreign policy.

I think it's one hundred procent understandable. Very stupid, but understandable anger.

Wars has been waged that has killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in the past 10-20 years. I don't see a muslim several thousand kilometers away as a stranger, he is my brother and she is my sister in religion. I'm not saying it was justified in any way. But I can understand his anger.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I just love this paragraph. The Boston Bomber that was captured outright stated his primary motivation( and justification for his actions) was revenge for US foreign policy in the note he left.

The reason he gets to criticize people like Hitchens for their support for the Iraq war is pretty obvious -- Hitchens was a neocon cheerleader who could actually influence people, while at the time, Greenwald didn't pay attention to politics nor did he write about supporting Bush's foreign policy. This seems like a pretty silly thing to hold against him.

His primary motivation was Islam imo. US Foreign policy is apart of that motivation because according to the Koran, believers are forced to wage war against those who make "mischief" in Muslim lands. Defending Islam/Koran and putting the entire blame on the United States for a war against Saddam and the Taliban is ridiculous.

In 2011, Tamerlan Tsarnaev murdered Jews on 9/11. Was this just because of Israel or could it have something to do with the Koran/Islam?? Hmmmm

Friend of Boston jihad bomber implicated himself & Boston jihadist in 9/11 anniversary murder of Jews

At least two of the victims were Jews, and were brutally murdered on September 11, 2011 by having their throats slit. The Qur'an designates the Jews the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82) and directs believers to "strike the necks" of the unbelievers (47:4). "Ibragim Todashev implicated Tsarnaev, himself in triple homicide before FBI shooting."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...riple-homicide-before-fbi-shooting/?tag=socsh

So then you also think the drone strikes, Iraq war, etc. were terrorism?

Terrorism targets innocent people. Our foreign policy does not. But there are of course terrible consequences in war and solid arguments to be made against those policies. To equate this Woolwich attack or 9/11 with US foreign policy is complete nonsense imo.

Also does the left not see any legitimacy with preemptive military action?

What about Israel's air strike against Iraq on nuclear reactors in 1981? Terrorism? Or what about Israel preventing Syria from building nuclear bombs? Aren't you glad Israel took out reactors in Syria in 2007 now that the region might fall into the hands of Islamist extremists? War is unfortunate, no doubt about that. But Glenn's refusal to call the Woolwich attack terrorism is odd and illogical.

(Andrew Sullivan) "I want the war in Af-Pak to end. I agree that blowback is a real problem. I was horrified by the Iraq war. I remain appalled by GTMO and the legacy of torture. But I cannot defend any analysis of what happened in London as some kind of legitimate protest against Western foreign policy rather than terrorism in its most animal-like form, created and sustained entirely by religious fanaticism which would find any excuse to murder, destroy and oppress Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of God."

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Is this it?

I recognize the events they are describing all too well, the victims however were three Coptic women in Cairo. Inciting violence through lies is worse than hate speech.

Is any of it true? No mention on the usual news sites.

 

[Madness]

Getting a little tired of people not knowing shit or bothering to try to understand posts.

Canada participated in both the Afghanistan and Iraq war, btw. The former more than the latter.



It's not the reason. It's a reason. There are two primary reasons: (1) Islam teaches violence; (2) certain Western countries commit violence against Muslims.

That video lays it out pretty clearly, though it downplays (2).

Uh Canada did not invade Iraq. Tell me something, what is India's foreign policy in the world? Why is it recipient of numerous terrorist attacks? What about Russia? Bali, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.

It seems any major global country is a justified target in your mind eh? Because of their foreign policy? Before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, what was the justification for numerous bombings around the globe especially US interests? And now, why did so many beg for US involvement in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria?

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I think it's one hundred procent understandable. Very stupid, but understandable anger.

Wars has been waged that has killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in the past 10-20 years. I don't see a muslim several thousand kilometers away as a stranger, he is my brother and she is my sister in religion. I'm not saying it was justified in any way. But I can understand his anger.

I'm not the biggest fan of Boston but its people are my fellow Americans and I feel kinship with them. Although a bunch of them recently lost their limbs and lives, I wouldn't consider retaliation against local mosques or Muslims to be understandable at all. Nor would they. Anger is understandable. Violent retaliation is not. I think you should acknowledge the distinction.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Hence why 1.2 billions haven't responded to the atrocities faced on a daily basis.

 

[Scrooged]

I can't believe you guys are just finding out that the reason for many of these attacks is an (stupid but understandable) response to US/Western foreign policy.

The question is why is this kind of violence (terrorism in the form of killing innocents) the resulting type of attack? It's easy to point at the West and say it's their fault, but there is a deep flaw with the Islamic tradition that breeds this type of behavior. Religion is the ultimate culprit here.

Just take a look at the inter-Muslim wars in Iraq and the surrounding areas. Different sects of Muslims are constantly massacring each other. Many of the suicide bombings that you hear about over there are them targeting each other.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

I'm not the biggest fan of Boston but its people are my fellow Americans and I feel kinship with them. Although a bunch of them recently lost their limbs and lives, I wouldn't consider retaliation against local mosques or Muslims to be understandable at all. Nor would they. Anger is understandable. Violent retaliation is not. I think you should acknowledge the distinction.

How many anti-muslim attacks have there been in the aftermath of the bombings?

You could even stretch to say, you might understand what motivated people to attack muslims after the bombing. Understanding does in no way legitimise their response whatsoever.

 

[Dude Abides]

Terrorism targets innocent people. Our foreign policy does not.

Now we're getting somewhere - this wasn't in your initial quote. But for terrorism to have any real meaning apart from violence it still isn't quite accurate - terrorism targets civilians, i.e. non-military members.

But there are of course terrible consequences in war and solid arguments to be made against those policies. To equate this Woolwich attack or 9/11 with US foreign policy is complete nonsense imo.

Also does the left not see any legitimacy with preemptive military action?

No, because preemptive military action is aggressive war. Under international law, war is justified only if there is an imminent threat.

What about Israel's air strike against Iraq on nuclear reactors in 1981? Terrorism? Or what about Israel preventing Syria from building nuclear bombs? Aren't you glad Israel took out reactors in Syria in 2007 now that the region might fall into the hands of Islamist extremists?

What about them? If your argument is "war is bad but only when it's against countries I don't like" fine, but don't pretend it's a principled stance.

(Andrew Sullivan) "I want the war in Af-Pak to end. I agree that blowback is a real problem. I was horrified by the Iraq war. I remain appalled by GTMO and the legacy of torture. But I cannot defend any analysis of what happened in London as some kind of legitimate protest against Western foreign policy rather than terrorism in its most animal-like form, created and sustained entirely by religious fanaticism which would find any excuse to murder, destroy and oppress Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of God."

Lol. Sullivan was as big a cheerleader for Iraq as could have existed. Now that it's unpopular, of course he's against it. Guy's a clown.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

How many anti-muslim attacks have there been in the aftermath of the bombings?

None.

You could even stretch to say, you might understand what motivated people to attack muslims after the bombing. Understanding does in no way legitimise their response whatsoever.

I disagree, but I accept that you mean no harm.

 

[dripdripsplash]

I'm not the biggest fan of Boston but its people are my fellow Americans and I feel kinship with them. Although a bunch of them recently lost their limbs and lives, I wouldn't consider retaliation against local mosques or Muslims to be understandable at all. Nor would they. Anger is understandable. Violent retaliation is not. I think you should acknowledge the distinction.

Who said I didn't. I did specify in the start that it was wrong.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I just love this paragraph. The Boston Bomber that was captured outright stated his primary motivation( and justification for his actions) was revenge for US foreign policy in the note he left.

I disagree with the part you quoted precisely because we shouldn't take these their stated motivations at face value. The supposed justification of the Boston bomber is different from the fundamental reason why he carried out the attack. In fact, his stated justification is nonsense. Religious fundamentalists cause more death and destruction than US foreign policy even at its most misguided. There are complex psychological reasons for why "Islamists" lash out. US foreign policy alone doesn't explain it, especially since their ideology is so twisted that their animus toward the US goes well beyond justifiable concerns and into a realm in which violent fundamentalist religion plays an important part.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

The question is why is this kind of violence (terrorism in the form of killing innocents) the resulting type of attack? It's easy to point at the West and say it's their fault, but there is a deep flaw with the Islamic tradition that breeds this type of behavior. Religion is the ultimate culprit here.

Just take a look at the inter-Muslim wars in Iraq and the surrounding areas. Different sects of Muslims are constantly massacring each other. Many of the suicide bombings that you hear about over there are them targeting each other.

Slightly skewed view of looking at it.

We have the generals in the US that they were to win the war in Iraq because their God was bigger than theirs.

You had a US president claiming that he spoke to God about the war.

You have those conducting Israeli foreign policy wanting to conquer the lands of the West Bank to restore what they believe belongs to them according to the Old Testament.

You have a militant like right-wing English Defence League, proclaiming to be Christian, using violence and intimidation against Muslims in their country as well. One Muslim being butchered some weeks ago.

Do you also ask questions about their faith and their route to violence?

 

[The_Squirrel_Menace]

he is my brother and she is my sister in religion. I'm not saying it was justified in any way. But I can

I wish I could be there the day religions are a thing of the past, long gone, something that you can read about in a history book and not something people can hide behind to justify their acts.


Seriously.. I thought Islam was a religion of peace? (like all the other ones by the way) So how can you say you understand how he felt the need to murder that guy? To avenge his brothers/sisters in religion in the middle east?

 

[Dude Abides]

Uh Canada did not invade Iraq. Tell me something, what is India's foreign policy in the world? Why is it recipient of numerous terrorist attacks? What about Russia? Bali, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.

It seems any major global country is a justified target in your mind eh? Because of their foreign policy? Before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, what was the justification for numerous bombings around the globe especially US interests? And now, why did so many beg for US involvement in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria?

Uh Canada participated in the Iraq war, which is what I said. Good job ignoring Afghanistan.

The guy here clearly said why he did this, which was because Muslims are being killed by the UK. Of course there will always be religious nutters. In the US they blow up abortion clinics. But the fact that we acknowledge that religion plays a role doesn't mean we have to ignore that foreign policy also plays a role.

I'll reiterate what I said about people who can't be bothered to try to understand posts.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

I wish I could be there the day religions are a thing of the past, long gone, something that you can read about in a history book and not something people can hide behind to justify their acts.


Seriously.. I thought Islam was a religion of peace? (like all the other ones by the way) So how can you say you understand how he felt the need to murder that guy? To avenge his brothers/sisters in religion in the middle east?

Feeling closer to people on the otherside of the world is something to fault?

Showing empathy to those suffering is something to be ignored?

Ignoring cultural, national and other differences by embrace others whatever they are is something to denounce?

Understanding a response, however stupid/twisted it may be does not in any way, shape or form justify that response.

 

[PJV3]

The brother and sister stuff is bullshit, these fuckers would kill a Muslim quicker than a flash if they felt like it.

 

[Karma Kramer]

If the other argument is western imperialism is more oppressive than why are places like Japan less oppressive than Islamic governments?

Arabs in Israel (+20% Population) have the most rights/freedoms compared to any other Middle East country.

The Land Without Muslims

"A Japanese official who is presented with an embarrassing question regarding the way the Japanese relate to Muslims, will usually refrain from answering, because he knows that a truthful answer would arouse anger, and he is both unable and unwilling to give an answer that is not true. He will smile but not answer, and if pressed, he will ask for time so that his superiors can answer, while he knows that this answer will never come."

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/

Recent video from April of a Muslim family at a Japanese airport: http://youtu.be/bJRDvLCpQ10

 

[dripdripsplash]

Bullshit for some maybe, not for me.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

If the other argument is western imperialism is more oppressive than why are places like Japan less oppressive than Islamic governments?

Arabs in Israel (+20% Population) have the most rights/freedoms compared to any other Middle East country.

The Land Without Muslims

"A Japanese official who is presented with an embarrassing question regarding the way the Japanese relate to Muslims, will usually refrain from answering, because he knows that a truthful answer would arouse anger, and he is both unable and unwilling to give an answer that is not true. He will smile but not answer, and if pressed, he will ask for time so that his superiors can answer, while he knows that this answer will never come."

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/

Recent video from April of a Muslim family at a Japanese airport: http://youtu.be/bJRDvLCpQ10

Have the British and Americans been arming and acted as the financiers to the dictators that ruled Japan until this day?

Have democratic governments formed in Japan been overthrown through the permission, coalescing and direct action of the British and the US in order to restore an Emperor?

Israel is a pertinent example in its treatment of its citizens and those that fall under their purview.

 

[BeerSnob]

The brother and sister stuff is bullshit, these fuckers would kill a Muslim quicker than a flash if they felt like it.

Example, Iraq, wherein the Shia and Sunni violence is much worse than any violence they directed at us. Hell, most of the time they were upfront about it, they were only trying to get us to to leave so they could kill the "infidels".

 

[dripdripsplash]

If the other argument is western imperialism is more oppressive than why are places like Japan less oppressive than Islamic governments?

Arabs in Israel (+20% Population) have the most rights/freedoms compared to any other Middle East country.

The Land Without Muslims

"A Japanese official who is presented with an embarrassing question regarding the way the Japanese relate to Muslims, will usually refrain from answering, because he knows that a truthful answer would arouse anger, and he is both unable and unwilling to give an answer that is not true. He will smile but not answer, and if pressed, he will ask for time so that his superiors can answer, while he knows that this answer will never come."

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/

Recent video from April of a Muslim family at a Japanese airport: http://youtu.be/bJRDvLCpQ10

I think Sandvich explains it quite nicely.

And what's the point of the video ?

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Understanding a response, however stupid/twisted it may be does not in any way, shape or form justify that response.

But as I pointed out, there was no such response against Muslims here after Boston, nor after Fort Hood. Do you see where I'm coming from when I say it's not understandable? The stories that are being posted here about retaliations against Muslims in the UK are equally disturbing to me. It indicates to me that violence is becoming a more acceptable form of political expression on that side of the pond.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Example, Iraq, wherein the Shia and Sunni violence is much worse than any violence they directed at us. Hell, most of the time they were upfront about it, they were only trying to get us to to leave so they could kill the "infidels".

You might be shocked to hear, that use of Islam to "justify" war isn't for religious salvation but a recruiting tool to dominate an area politically. Especially an area full of natural resources.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

But as I pointed out, there was no such response against Muslims here after Boston, nor after Fort Hood. Do you see where I'm coming from when I say it's not understandable?

I don't necessarily agree.

I'll talk about London as I'm from there. There's already been a sharp rise in anti-muslim sentiment since the tragic event in Woolwich. Muslims abused, verbally and physically.

I understand why that is the case. Doesn't justify it.

What was the response like after September 11th?

 

[Madness]

Uh Canada participated in the Iraq war, which is what I said. Good job ignoring Afghanistan.

The guy here clearly said why he did this, which was because Muslims are being killed by the UK. Of course there will always be religious nutters. In the US they blow up abortion clinics. But the fact that we acknowledge that religion plays a role doesn't mean we have to ignore that foreign policy also plays a role.

I'll reiterate what I said about people who can't be bothered to try to understand posts.

WTF is wrong with you? Why do you keep trying to stir the pot? Why isn't Bahrain, Saudi Arabia being similarly attacked then? What exactly is the role of foreign policy? What has Canada done that deserves it to get attacked? It didn't invade Iraq, it participated in Afghanistan precisely because of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Why didn't you write why India, Russia, Bali, Indonesia, Nigeria, Malaysia are also on the receiving end of these attacks?

It's terror sympathy bullshit at its finest. This pseudo supranational Muslim unity. These are people who weren't affected at all and yet they slaughtered an innocent man. It's got nothing to do with foreign policy.

In the 90's, once the Soviet Union disbanded and the communists withdrew, the Mujahideen turned on the very people who helped them, gave them arms and aid. Sure it was to the benefit of the US, but then what? How is it repaid?

But hey, let's forget the aid, money, medicine, infrastructure help and instead turn on them because they take out dangerous individuals but collateral damage happens.

 

[PJV3]

Bullshit for some maybe, not for me.

The extremists don't give a fuck about brothers and sisters. Mosques, markets and schoolgirls are all fair game.

They just enjoy killing.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

The extremists don't give a fuck about brothers and sisters. Mosques, markets and schoolgirls are all fair game.

They just enjoy killing.

What's that got to do with Amjad saying what he feels for others?

 

[PJV3]

What's that got to do with Amjad saying what he feels for others?

He was trying to explain motivations for the attack. I'm not arguing what Amjad feels, he hasn't done anything.

 

[Dude Abides]

WTF is wrong with you? Why do you keep trying to stir the pot? Why isn't Bahrain, Saudi Arabia being similarly attacked then? What exactly is the role of foreign policy? What has Canada done that deserves it to get attacked? It didn't invade Iraq, it participated in Afghanistan precisely because of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Why didn't you write why India, Russia, Bali, Indonesia, Nigeria, Malaysia are also on the receiving end of these attacks?

It's terror sympathy bullshit at its finest. This pseudo supranational Muslim unity. These are people who weren't affected at all and yet they slaughtered an innocent man. It's got nothing to do with foreign policy.

In the 90's, once the Soviet Union disbanded and the communists withdrew, the Mujahideen turned on the very people who helped them, gave them arms and aid. Sure it was to the benefit of the US, but then what? How is it repaid?

But hey, let's forget the aid, money, medicine, infrastructure help and instead turn on them because they take out dangerous individuals but collateral damage happens.

You're apparently quite ignorant of the political situation in many of the countries you listed.

My point has been clear: the reason for many, though maybe not all, of these attacks in Western countries is twofold: (1) Islamic religious ideology; (2) military policies that have adversely affected people in Muslim-majority countries.

If you have anything to say that relates to that, let me know.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I don't necessarily agree.

I'll talk about London as I'm from there. There's already been a sharp rise in anti-muslim sentiment since the tragic event in Woolwich. Muslims abused, verbally and physically.

As I added in my post, that also is disturbing to see. I do believe that people resort to violence only when they feel nothing else can be done to express themselves, and that's evidence of a serious underlying problem.

What was the response like after September 11th?

It was not as mature. I still find most of the violence that happened then to be beyond comprehension. Fortunately we've made a lot of progress since then.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

As I added in my post, that also is disturbing to see. I do believe that people resort to violence only when they feel nothing else can be done to express themselves, and that's evidence of a serious underlying problem.


It was not as mature. I still find most of the violence that happened then to be beyond comprehension. Fortunately we've made a lot of progress since then.

Again, I don't entirely agree.

I was simply bringing those points up to say that I can understand why people may react in such a way. However stupid, it is understandable.