Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 May '13 12:16
    A young soldier was brutally murdered and decapitated in broad daylight on a London street by Islamic extremists; but what is deeply reassuring is the way the Muslim religious leaders in the UK have all come forward to condemn the atrocity.
  2. 24 May '13 14:55
    Originally posted by divegeester
    A young soldier was brutally murdered and decapitated in broad daylight on a London street by Islamic extremists; but what is deeply reassuring is the way the Muslim religious leaders in the UK have all come forward to condemn the atrocity.
    They have their own agenda.
    All they are worried about is themselves.
    They don't want to be targeted by groups
    like the English Defence League and the BNP
    and by UKIP and by other outfits which are
    considered to be on the right and far right
    of British politics.

    Is it any wonder that the Home Secretary
    would love to put them all on a big plane
    and get rid of the whole lot of them.
  3. 24 May '13 15:12
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    They have their own agenda.
    All they are worried about is themselves.
    They don't want to be targeted by groups
    like the English Defence League and the BNP
    and by UKIP and by other outfits which are
    considered to be on the right and far right
    of British politics.

    Is it any wonder that the Home Secretary
    would love to put them all on a big plane
    and get rid of the whole lot of them.
    the home secretary should be reminded our muslim brothers fought extremism shoulder to shoulder with us in the past and are the best people to have around to do it again.
  4. 24 May '13 15:36
    Originally posted by divegeester
    A young soldier was brutally murdered and decapitated in broad daylight on a London street by Islamic extremists; but what is deeply reassuring is the way the Muslim religious leaders in the UK have all come forward to condemn the atrocity.
    However, what is not reassuring is that the religious leaders' condemnation of this act is apparently not a given in the view of some.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 May '13 15:45
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    However, what is not reassuring is that the religious leaders' condemnation of this act is apparently not a given in the view of some.
    Condemning an act of terrorism is low hanging fruit. Only a person who's both extreme and stupid supports random acts of terrorism like this.

    What religious leaders could focus on instead is condemning and rooting out of their midst the incendiary words that incite these attacks.
  6. 24 May '13 17:16
    What people say in public and what people say in private are two totally different things. It will be interesting to see how this things plays out.

    The British response is acceptance, which to extremists means weakness. As I said, it will be interesting to see how things play out.
  7. 24 May '13 17:26
    Originally posted by sh76
    Condemning an act of terrorism is low hanging fruit. Only a person who's both extreme and stupid supports random acts of terrorism like this.

    What religious leaders could focus on instead is condemning and rooting out of their midst the incendiary words that incite these attacks.
    Free speech means allowing words that some find incendiary while others see them as "truth". Yes, condem the words but do not outlaw them. Fundamentalist in each of the world's major religions have been responsible for terrorist acts in the past or present. It is the main reason I abhor organized religion. It leads to the death of innocent people in the name of God. How about we focus on this problem. Right on this very forum I have heard many incendiary comments by those who profess to be religious.
  8. 24 May '13 17:43
    Originally posted by sh76

    What religious leaders could focus on instead is condemning and rooting out of their midst the incendiary words that incite these attacks.
    Many are doing just that though.

    Recently in Canada there was an attack avoided specifically because they were reported by members of their own mosque.
  9. 24 May '13 17:44
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Free speech means allowing words that some find incendiary while others see them as "truth". Yes, condem the words but do not outlaw them. Fundamentalist in each of the world's major religions have been responsible for terrorist acts in the past or present. It is the main reason I abhor organized religion. It leads to the death of innocent people in the ...[text shortened]... n this very forum I have heard many incendiary comments by those who profess to be religious.
    Everyone is religious. The only question is what their religion is based on.

    Nice call on sh76, he's just a typical liberal who believes in being politically correct. In other words, he is against freedom of speech and thinks that countries like Canada and Sweden are on the right track when they label certain religious beliefs as 'hate' and put people in jail for espousing those beliefs.

    What we have here is a totally different situation. What we have here are home grown individuals who side with the enemy and want to bring the war back home. They will continue to be a thorn in the side of countries that tolerate them.
  10. 24 May '13 20:34
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    They have their own agenda.
    All they are worried about is themselves.
    They don't want to be targeted by groups
    like the English Defence League and the BNP
    and by UKIP and by other outfits which are
    considered to be on the right and far right
    of British politics.

    Is it any wonder that the Home Secretary
    would love to put them all on a big plane
    and get rid of the whole lot of them.
    I think the Home Secretary along with rest of the Tory leadership would rather put UKIP on a big plane.
  11. 24 May '13 22:12
    it seems like an act of brutal crazyness and i'm glad the police shot them several times - that was the appropriate response - sometimes they can muster it
  12. 24 May '13 23:11
    Originally posted by Eladar
    What people say in public and what people say in private are two totally different things. It will be interesting to see how this things plays out.

    The British response is acceptance, which to extremists means weakness. As I said, it will be interesting to see how things play out.
    are you an extremist?
  13. 25 May '13 00:18 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76 to KazetNagorra
    Condemning an act of terrorism is low hanging fruit. Only a person who's both extreme and stupid supports random acts of terrorism like this.

    What religious leaders could focus on instead is condemning and rooting out of their midst the incendiary words that incite these attacks.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?
    What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but
    excludes the acts of the US, the UK, and its allies?"
    --Glenn Greenwald (23 May 2013, 'The Guardian'

    Glenn Greenwald has written an eloquent criticism of the usual Western
    hypocrisy in condemning the face-to-face killing of a British soldier as
    'terrorism' while excusing the Western routine killing of many non-Western
    civilians as merely 'collateral damage' (the standard American euphemism).

    I shall add this to Glenn Greenwald's comments (the alleged 'terrorist' refers
    to a UK citizen of Nigerian ancestry, a convert from Christianity to Islam):

    1) Was the attack particularly 'terroristic' or 'barbarous' because of its
    up-close-and-personal method? Is killing a person with explosives from an
    impersonal distance (as with US drone strikes) supposedly more humane?
    The ancient Greeks and Romans would not have regarded using edged
    weapons (spears, swords) to kill their enemies as 'barbarous'. Indeed, the
    Greek hoplites regarded hand-to-hand combat as the most honourable form
    of warfare. And the Roman gladius was responsible for perhaps killing more
    people than any other weapon before the age of gunpowder.

    2) Did this alleged 'terrorist' make an indiscriminate attack against civilians?
    Of course not. He chose to engage a British soldier, a man who was
    trained to fight and to kill. It's true that he enjoyed the advantage of
    surprise, but it's normal for Western military men to seek to exploit the
    advantage of surprise (as in Israel's first strike in the 1967 Six Day War).
    Did the US Navy Seals attempt to warn Osama bin Laden before they
    assaulted his quarters in order to make it a 'fairer fight'? Of course not.
    This 'terrorist' also made no attempt to hurt British women who came to
    help (too late) the British soldier. Clearly, he respected some distinction
    between civilians and his perceived military target. Have Western bombs
    always been so careful in respecting non-Western civilians? Of course not.

    3) Could one regard this alleged 'terrorist' as a combatant in a war?
    Disregarding the legal niceties, he seems to have regarded his action as
    taking place in a broader war between his people--the Ummah--and the UK,
    and some British soldiers have been responsible for killing Muslim civilians.
    Likewise, members of the IRA liked to regard themselves as honourable
    combatants in a war against British imperialism. (US Senator Peter King,
    who's outraged by 'Muslim terrorism', has a long record of refusing to
    criticize the many IRA bombings that killed British civilians.) Even some
    British soldiers can understand why some Muslims would feel tempted to
    seek revenge for what the UK has done to some other Muslims abroad.

    Many Westerners seem to assume that all Muslims should love and admire
    how the US and UK governments have been treating Muslims if some Islamic
    clerics did not use 'incendiary words' to incite Muslim hatred of the West.
    I have to say that these Islamic clerics would have little or no credibility
    with most Muslims *if* there were no real Western abuses against Muslims.
    Would an ordinary Muslim in Iraq need an Islamic cleric to tell him that he
    should be angry after Western bombs or soldiers have killed his children?
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    25 May '13 01:44
    He killed a SOLDIER. Terrorism is targetting civilians.
  15. 25 May '13 02:01
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    are you an extremist?
    Some here would say yes.

    But judging from the response above mine, perhaps that doesn't mean very much.