Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
DogOnPorch

Sri Lanka Terror Attack Redux (and all things related)

Recommended Posts

Quote

Remember what happened when the European allies captured Jerusalem. They killed almost every inhabitant, Muslims, Jews and Christians. 

Let God sort 'em out.

Not surprising seeing the temperament on BOTH sides of the First Crusades. Islamic forces conducted similar massacres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sri Lanka is considering a burkha ban...should go over well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scribblet said:

Sri Lanka is considering a burkha ban...should go over well. 

 

Banning anything is the wrong hill to die on. Banning is what fascists do, frankly. Censor...unperson...de-platform...etc.

The only reasonable solution is for the planet to demand Islam reform now. Not later. It simply must. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Banning anything is the wrong hill to die on. Banning is what fascists do, frankly. Censor...unperson...de-platform...etc.

That's true when you have an adversary playing by the same sets of rules. It doesn't apply to ideologically driven religious fanatics who are ready to die and to have their family members dead to impose their will, nor will they do things that are genocidal or homicidal for the sake of being dominant.

War knows no laws practically speaking. Let it be ideological war, or between countries.

It's sad to say, but it took two world wars to finally live in stable, civilized societies in the West. It took China the Great Leap Forward then a Cultural Revolution to civilize itself.

It will take about the same darkness and evil in the Muslim majority countries to finally get out of the Middle Ages. Muslims weren't in China and Western countries majoritarily and were not fighting the wars to the magnitude we had in the past century. Muslims simply cowered for the whole past century, not one of their country is either civilized technologically and socially speaking. Not one.

Japan is civilized. Saudi Arabia and UAE aren't.

Canada is civilized. Brunei isn't.

Young Muslim men will have to stop being cowards in their shthole countries and start fighting for a better future. But they won't. They'd rather pray 5 times a day and blame America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

The only reasonable solution is for the planet to demand Islam reform now. Not later. It simply must. 

You figure there's some Islamic Pope that can just issue a fatwa to that effect?  You really don't know much about Islam do you?

So what's your solution if Islam says f^*k you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eyeball said:

You figure there's some Islamic Pope that can just issue a fatwa to that effect?  You really don't know much about Islam do you?

So what's your solution if Islam says f^*k you?

 

I see you think little of Islam's desire or ability to change. Why is that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I see you think little of Islam's desire or ability to change. Why is that?

 

Because people like you tell us that they will never change. So why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

I see you think little of Islam's desire or ability to change. Why is that?

It's your impatience I have little use for.

Islam is just a thing and Muslims will change it when they have the space and time they need to sort out their differences free of superpower interference and exploitation of those differences. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon though but when it does it will take at least another couple of generations for the destabilizing effects of the last 60 or so years of geopolitical vandalism and abuse to wear off.

But, speaking of an inability and lack of desire to change - the unmitigated effects of climate change could make a Muslim recovery virtually impossible in which case...very few of us will be getting out of this alive.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

The whole story seems to have fallen out of the media news cycle rather quickly.  Not a lot of tweets from democrats either.  

 

Not true...there were plenty of "Muslims fear backlash for tomorrow's terrorist attack" type articles.


Because one must remember who the real victims are.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spectator, as usual, does not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy of the world when it comes to Islam.

Compare Nick’s reaction, and indeed the overwhelming reaction of the western world leaders and liberal media, to the murders in Sri Lanka and the murders in Christchurch. In the latter case, everybody was clear firstly that it was terrorism and that Muslim people had been targeted, and they were happy to say as much. But they did not stop there. With great alacrity they also identified the poisonous ideology behind the Christchurch attack: racism, Islamophobia and white supremacy. The far right. Many commentators over here, including LBC’s in-house cretin James O’Brien, went further and suggested that those of us who find certain aspects of Islam a little difficult to swallow were directly responsible for the murders. The ideology was seized upon and rightly eviscerated.

Now look at what happened in Sri Lanka, and how we reported it. Of 20 world leaders, ex-leaders (Obama) and hideously useless also-rans (Hillary) who took time to condemn the atrocity, only one — Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg — mentioned that the victims of the attack were Christians. None of the 20 — none — mentioned the word Islam. So in one attack we were rightly enjoined to stand in solidarity with the victim group, who were not merely identified but lionised, and also enjoined to condemn the ideology behind the attack, which was very clearly explained in every broadcast. In the other, the victim group was not named and nor was the ideology. Why should that be?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/we-condemned-the-ideology-behind-christchurch-why-didnt-we-do-the-same-after-sri-lanka/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone commits an atrocity in the name of "Islam", all kinds of people jump up and down and say "why aren't all Muslims condemning this?  Why are they silent?"   If a Muslim person says "that's not what Islam is about", these people say "Yes it is, how dare you deny it!  Reform your religion!"

And when a white guy commits an atrocity in the name of "White Nationalism", the same people deny, deny, deny that it is anything to do with White people.  They whine that "Too much attention is being paid to the event".  They whine that they shouldn't have to be held responsible for what some nutcases do.  They demand that just as much (or more) attention be paid to what "those other people" are doing.  

If you are going to demand that all Muslims must take responsibility and apologize for the actions of their extremists, then you should be willing to do the same when one of your extremists takes action.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

When someone commits an atrocity in the name of "Islam", all kinds of people jump up and down and say "why aren't all Muslims condemning this?  Why are they silent?"   If a Muslim person says "that's not what Islam is about", these people say "Yes it is, how dare you deny it!  Reform your religion!"

And when a white guy commits an atrocity in the name of "White Nationalism", the same people deny, deny, deny that it is anything to do with White people.  They whine that "Too much attention is being paid to the event".  They whine that they shouldn't have to be held responsible for what some nutcases do.  They demand that just as much (or more) attention be paid to what "those other people" are doing.  

If you are going to demand that all Muslims must take responsibility and apologize for the actions of their extremists, then you should be willing to do the same when one of your extremists takes action.

I can't read the article, as it's behind a paywall, but based on Argus's summary it appears you are arguing against a point he didn't make.  No-one is responsible for the actions of anyone else.  Muslims, Christians, White folks, etc.  No-one. The article does not seem to claim that.

The point of the article seemed to be that the response to both Christchurch and Sri Lanka was very different in the west, in that white nationalism was blamed very quickly and abhorred immediately, whereas Islamic extremism took somewhat longer to blame and the ideology behind it was not abhorred quite as readily by the talking heads responding in the news.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dialamah said:

When someone commits an atrocity in the name of "Islam", all kinds of people jump up and down and say "why aren't all Muslims condemning this?  Why are they silent?"   If a Muslim person says "that's not what Islam is about", these people say "Yes it is, how dare you deny it!  Reform your religion!"

You clearly did not read the cite above as it is a perfect description of your attitude on the subject.

 It is an article of faith for the liberals, who still cleave to the ludicrous idea of multiculturalism, that there are two things: Islam, which is a religion of peace followed by million upon million of pacific souls and must therefore be respected, and this other thing, non-Islam, which is what is followed by a minuscule proportion of nutters and extremists and has nothing to do with the religion itself, or is instead a grotesque perversion of it.

This is wishful thinking taken to surreal levels and an obviously false dichotomy. There are indeed million upon million of peaceable Muslims. But the gap between those two supposed opposites is not so wide as you might think. Almost one in four British Muslims, for example, thought the 7/7 attacks in London were justified (NOP poll, 2006). A year earlier, another poll suggested that 37 per cent of British Muslims thought Jews were a ‘legitimate target’. A poll for BBC Radio 4 in 2015 reported that 45 per cent of British Muslims thought that imams who preach violence against the West were still part of ‘mainstream Islam’. You take my point? And that is only Britain, where our Muslim community has been exposed to the undoubted transcendent virtues of mutual toleration and representative democracy. A worldwide poll from Pew Research in 2013 reported that only 57 per cent of Muslims in the world disapproved of al Qaeda.

The inconvenient truth is that a fervent commitment to Islam led those benighted savages to murder Christians in Sri Lanka and that a sizeable proportion of Muslims worldwide are not entirely averse to such despicable actions. You cannot quite separate Islam from the horrors carried out in its name, no matter how well intentioned you may be. Nor, for that matter, can you separate Islam from the appalling treatment of women, gays, apostates and Christians in states which call themselves Islamic. Islam, as it is practised today, is in general neither peaceable nor tolerant and it seems to me absurd to pretend that it is.

Quote

And when a white guy commits an atrocity in the name of "White Nationalism", the same people deny, deny, deny that it is anything to do with White people. 

Your complaint is silly. Muslim terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree. White people do not have an ideological belief of any kind. A Muslim terrorist can make claims based on various quotations from the Koran and Hadiths to justify his or her actions but there is no "White" handbook of behaviour, values and beliefs which we all ascribe to. White Nationalism is merely one of a wild and wide variety of belief systems with self-selected membership. You are thus free to blame all White Nationalists for the violence which comes from there, but that is about it. And even if you do I note most of those who would gleefully do so indignantly exempt Communists for the rampant slaughter and mass murder carried out in the name of Communism over the years.

 

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I can't read the article, as it's behind a paywall,

Is it? I thought it was one of those "You get to read X number of articles per month without paying up" kind of things?

I do pay up myself because I find it quite a sane and informative source of news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

Is it? I thought it was one of those "You get to read X number of articles per month without paying up" kind of things?

I do pay up myself because I find it quite a sane and informative source of news.

"Exclusively  for Spectator digital subscribers" unfortunately.

I agree about the Spectator.  I used to enjoy the paper copies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

"Exclusively  for Spectator digital subscribers" unfortunately.

I agree about the Spectator.  I used to enjoy the paper copies.

Can you view it using Outline? I find Outline often gets me past paywalls at places like the Star. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Can you view it using Outline? I find Outline often gets me past paywalls at places like the Star. 

Wow, it appears I can!  Thanks for that.  I hadn't heard of Outline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 9:28 AM, bcsapper said:

The point of the article seemed to be that the response to both Christchurch and Sri Lanka was very different in the west, in that white nationalism was blamed very quickly and abhorred immediately, whereas Islamic extremism took somewhat longer to blame and the ideology behind it was not abhorred quite as readily by the talking heads responding in the news.

I do not think that's true, but even if it were the surrounding events were different.  The White guy streamed his atrocity as it happened and published a manifesto explaining his motives.  The Sri Lankan atrocity had several targets and perpetrators, and multiple possibilities as to who might be responsible; no handy manifesto or live streaming to help figure it out.  

As far as "ideology being abhorred" quickly enough, in both cases I saw the action abhorred immediately, which I think abhors the ideology behind that action, even if not explicitly stated.  This argument looks to me like a make-work project for some people to feel offended that one of their own was identified as a barbaric xenophobe and islamophobe.

Here is what Mediabiasfactcheck says about The Spectator:

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

  • Overall, we rate The Spectator UK Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 9:29 AM, Argus said:

You clearly did not read the cite above as it is a perfect description of your attitude on the subject.

 It is an article of faith for the liberals, who still cleave to the ludicrous idea of multiculturalism, that there are two things: Islam, which is a religion of peace followed by million upon million of pacific souls and must therefore be respected, and this other thing, non-Islam, which is what is followed by a minuscule proportion of nutters and extremists and has nothing to do with the religion itself, or is instead a grotesque perversion of it.

I could say the same about you and your attitude toward violence perpetrated by White guys who share many of the same views you do, hmm?  At least I recognize that there are *good* and *bad* white guys, along with *good* and *bad* Muslims, while you are stuck in "All white guys are good (but hard done by), and all Muslims are bad (and coddled)".

Case in point:

Quote

Your complaint is silly. Muslim terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree. 

Ergo: All Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or supportive of terrorism.   Which is patently untrue, given that they are most often the victims of such terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I could say the same about you and your attitude toward violence perpetrated by White guys who share many of the same views you do, hmm?  At least I recognize that there are *good* and *bad* white guys, along with *good* and *bad* Muslims, while you are stuck in "All white guys are good (but hard done by), and all Muslims are bad (and coddled)".

Case in point:

Ergo: All Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or supportive of terrorism.   Which is patently untrue, given that they are most often the victims of such terrorism.

 

White guy...

...also a Muslim. Islam isn't a race or a skin colour.

0898294B00000514-0-image-m-14_1446465718

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Your complaint is silly. Muslim terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree. 

 

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Ergo: All Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or supportive of terrorism.   Which is patently untrue, given that they are most often the victims of such terrorism.

You are soooooo disingenuous, slimy and deliberately underhanded.

Some of us know why you bolded the part you did, instead of the part that made his point -  "All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree. "

You seem to think that you are smarter than everyone else and constantly try to slip crap like that by because it totally changes what he said:

All Muslims subscribe to this ideology = Slimy attempt to smear:  END BOLDING SO THAT THE THOUGHT LOOKS COMPLETE.

All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree = Slimy attempt to smear:  DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT FINISHES THE THOUGHT.

Pathetic.

Typical of you to throw shyte by adding your own selective bolding and interpretation.  If you want to disagree with what he said, then fine - argue away!! But your pathetic attempts to follow him around and reinterpret everything he says is just..... Slimy.  Really slimy.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

 

Some of us know why you bolded the part you did, instead of the part that made his point -  "All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree. "

 

 

To boot...it's not like the 'bad' parts of the Quran (and Hadiths) are some hidden secret that the average Muslim is unaware of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You seem to think that you are smarter than everyone else and constantly try to slip crap like that by because it totally changes what he said:

All Muslims subscribe to this ideology = Slimy attempt to smear:  END BOLDING SO THAT THE THOUGHT LOOKS COMPLETE.

All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree = Slimy attempt to smear:  DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT FINISHES THE THOUGHT.

How about this then ...

You, DoP, Argus and many other people belong to a group we'll call "Concerned about Islam in the West", CAITW for short (this is to avoid using offensive terms).  This group shares the basic belief that Islam is dangerous, and that Muslims in Western nations could or will change the culture due to their misogynistic and barbaric religious beliefs.  Most of this group does not believe violence is the answer to the problem of Muslims taking over Western Nations, but some do (Alexandre Bissonet, NZ killer) and others support that although they may never take action themselves.  Most of these people just talk about how dangerous and barbaric Muslims are as a whole, especially online. 

So if I wrote:

"CAITW terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All CAITWs subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree."

Would you think it fair to include you, Argus & DoP in with those of the CAITW's who kill, merely because you happen to share similar ideas and feelings about Muslims?  If not, why do you think it's fair to include *all Muslims* in the actions of those who kill in the name of Islam?   Especially given that the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism and deny that it is a valid teaching of Islam.

Quote

You seem to think that you are smarter than everyone else

I do think I'm smarter than you, DoP and Argus, because I'm not driven by fear to justify hatred of Muslims.

Quote

You are soooooo disingenuous, slimy and deliberately underhanded.

Every time you call me names, I guess I'll understand that for you, the truth hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...