Terrorism: Nothing to do with Muslim fanatacism?

[kyser_soze]

yeah, and those religious tossers and hippies should be to told to piss off as well.

One of the reasons for the low turn out on anti war demos now, is because the lets be soft on islam brigade(GG/swp/stwc etc) have hijacked the thing to make the demos not just anti war but also pro islam(or atleast as much as can manage) and most don't want to be assosated with that position.

We actually debate ideas on Urban, not a bunch of ill informed prejudices like this. Piss off if you've got nothing constructive to say.

 

[ViolentPanda]

When are you namby pamby wets going to except that islam is a religion for bastards. And if where going to get to the new jeurusleam were going to have to kick medieval shit like islam in to the long grass. And if people want to emigrate to civilisation( and relativly speaking this is it! ) they should leave such crap behind, and lets face it trotiskites if the working class ruled , islam would be as good as banned.

When are carping spunk-monkeys like you going to realise that all religions are "shit"?
Still, I notice that you offer no alternative to religion, such as politics. Perhaps you're sharp enough to realise that most mass movements end up as methods of social control.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah - normally these people are associated with things like calling for censorship, 'pro-life' and lots of other lovely ideas associated with conservative religion.

I'm not talking about capitalism - I'm talking about things like equal rights, women being allowed to dress as they please, having a system based around a secular rule of law rather than a theological one. That's where the difference lies.

Hear hear. I'm still amazed at how many people don't see just how "institutionalised" into UK law (and culture for that matter) religion (primarily C of E Christianity, but the effects assist other organised belief systems) still is.
I'd love a purely secular system entirely divorced from the moralities and agendas of "believers". At least then you'd only have to deal with a political "faithful".

 

[ska invita]

'd love a purely secular system entirely divorced from the moralities and agendas of "believers"

But then we'd miss out on singing "jesus gives us the water of life!" in primary school, and where would that leave us!

-You've got to hand it to the French - banning all religious clothing was a bold bold move...no wonder they were the first to burn their monarchy.

One of the reasons for the low turn out on anti war demos now, is because the lets be soft on islam brigade(GG/swp/stwc etc) have hijacked the thing to make the demos not just anti war but also pro islam(or atleast as much as can manage) and most don't want to be assosated with that position.

Why don't you want to show any unity with Muslims? Do you feel the same way about those pesky Christians fighting for global justice and debt cancelation?

 

[rocketman]

The terrorist activity is taking place despite, not because, of any religion.
It's a direct response to hundreds of years of western meddling in the Arab states.
I can't say I have a lot of time for any fundamentalist, Christian or Islam. But I have no time at all for the hypocrites who argue that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorist acts, and hold no faith whatsoever in the principles or motives of our elected leaders in the UK or US who walked us into war, thus giving terrorists ample reason to attack us back. Equally, Osama's chilling vision is also to be rejected. They are all elites fighting over power and the war ground is our lives.
In order to find a way forward, all sides need to sack their leaders and develop a workable consensus that, on the one hand, limits imperialist meddling, while on the other puts into place new ways humans from alls ides can be heard.
I also believe a great deal of the resentment could be demoilished through such relatively simple steps as ensuring the poor in the US, UK and Middle East got basic things for granted: food, water, shelter, schools and access to opportunity.

 

[james_walsh]

We actually debate ideas on Urban, not a bunch of ill informed prejudices like this. Piss off if you've got nothing constructive to say.

reserving liberal tosh, is not informed dedate(specail the liberal tosh off the establishment). when there's something to debate , i debate. fuck off you liberal cunt.
You wankers serve up no politics, because your liberal hippy cunts i guess who who only have minor disagreements with the establishment.
ps all religions are shit, but some are more shit than others.

 

[james_walsh]

.
I also believe a great deal of the resentment could be demoilished through such relatively simple steps as ensuring the poor in the US, UK and Middle East got basic things for granted: food, water, shelter, schools and access to opportunity.

yeah , thats a vital part of Al-Quaida program. Don't make me laugh.

 

[kyser_soze]

reserving liberal tosh, is not informed dedate(specail the liberal tosh off the establishment). when there's something to debate , i debate. fuck off you liberal cunt.
You wankers serve up no politics, because your liberal hippy cunts i guess who who only have minor disagreements with the establishment.
ps all religions are shit, but some are more shit than others.

You really have NO idea about what my opinions on religion, society or anything else are so please don't call me a 'liberal hippy cunt' - the 'hippy' part especially.

I just think you're a twat who substitutes internet aggression and swearing at people for argument.

So what are your opinions then James?

 

[kyser_soze]

The terrorist activity is taking place despite, not because, of any religion.
It's a direct response to hundreds of years of western meddling in the Arab states.

Don't talk crap - just as the religious right in the US approves of warfare, it's also supported in the ME by organised religion. Don't attempt to soft soap the ME as innocent players in this because they aren't.

I also believe a great deal of the resentment could be demoilished through such relatively simple steps as ensuring the poor in the US, UK and Middle East got basic things for granted: food, water, shelter, schools and access to opportunity.

Not true - you only need to lift more than 50% of the population into relative affluence and provide those things and you'd get rid of a lot of the resentment. You don't need to ensure that all the poor get all this stuff - look at Europe and the US.

 

[james_walsh]

Briefly in reply to kyser_soze. I believe that the stand for a secular society is not something that can be compromised, i think the sheniganes of the politically religious effect regular people far more than they affect those in power or really wealthy. I've no problem with personnel religion, but anyone who wants political religion, i've a big problem with(that includes GG bannind abortion because hes a catholic).Cultural relativists and appolagists for islam have done much to harm the left(by that i mean socialist/anarcho-communists etc), guilt by assosation .
The establishment have a vested intreast in pretending theres no problem. Sucide bombers where no surrprise and it was no surprise that they where british. The authorties have been doing fuck all to protect normal people, while spending billions protecting Ministers and the royal family.
The behaviour of islamic jidhadists can not be seperated from a certain in terperation of islam(that sees that religion in public terms not personnel).
I guess the hippy swipe was more aimed at general liberal consensus here.but if the cap fits?

 

[rocketman]

Not true - you only need to lift more than 50% of the population into relative affluence and provide those things and you'd get rid of a lot of the resentment. You don't need to ensure that all the poor get all this stuff - look at Europe and the US.

I see, so your solution delivers peace on a budget? Well done. Jolly good. I hope you get a bonus. What's the message here?
<refers to Dead Kennedy's collection>
Ah, I see, "kill the poor".
Get lost.

 

[rocketman]

Don't talk crap - just as the religious right in the US approves of warfare, it's also supported in the ME by organised religion. Don't attempt to soft soap the ME as innocent players in this because they aren't..

We are complicit in creating a situation which makes conflict a viable decision. If we used carrots, instead of sticks, we could create a better future.

By the way, all the critics so far miss the main point - the need to create a meeting of minds sufficient to develop a viable consensus for a shared future, a collective thing, rather than a schism, which cannot be good for most people, the people without power who are inevitably the true casualties of war.

 

[james_walsh]

I see, so your solution delivers peace on a budget? Well done. Jolly good. I hope you get a bonus. What's the message here?
<refers to Dead Kennedy's collection>
Ah, I see, "kill the poor".
Get lost.

I don't think his post actually condones such behaviour, i thought he was suggesting this is how the powers that be, do things.

 

[rocketman]

I believe that the stand for a secular society is not something that can be compromisedy.

It's interesting this. I believe the stand for a humane society is not something that can be compromised. Sadly, a humane society as a model has enemies in political, corporate and religious powers, as they would all lose out through a human model.

Ultimately its the elites that start the wars that the ordinary people suffer through.

The enemy of peace is power itself.

 

[rocketman]

I don't think his post actually condones such behaviour, i thought he was suggesting this is how the powers that be, do things.

Ah. Fair enough. My bad. My statements hold, but not against him.

 

[james_walsh]

It's interesting this. I believe the stand for a humane society is not something that can be compromised. Sadly, a humane society as a model has enemies in political, corporate and religious powers, as they would all lose out through a human model.

Ultimately its the elites that start the wars that the ordinary people suffer through.

The enemy of peace is power itself.

Well offcouse i don't believe we can make society much more humane without society being rationalistic and secular.
Another question is how the elites get people to support there wars, and i think romanicist appeals to religion+/or nationalism is one of the major ways.Its ushally old men getting young men killed.

 

[rocketman]

Well offcouse i don't believe we can make society much more humane without society being rationalistic and secular.
Another question is how the elites get people to support there wars, and i think romanicist appeals to religion+/or nationalism is one of the major ways.Its ushally old men getting young men killed.

Rationalism is the philosophocal tool of the merchant classes. Elites get support because they exploit their financial or political power. War's victims are not just the soldiers at the front, they also include all the civilians in the middle. Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters.

 

[FruitandNut]

Wow, what a stunning piece of piece of analysis. That told me, didn't it?

1) Who mentioned Jesus, why bring him into it unless you don't have an argument and are trying a bit of flim-flam?

2) I know it is difficult, but how about finding the energy to address the socio-cultural context of the Q'ran? Making a facile comparison with the Nazerene's circumstances doesn't stand up. To give but two examples; no Roman occupation in Mohammed's day, and smaller geographic scale/different geological make-up and resource availability of the two areas.

3) Your "translations" of Q'ranic points are, to say the least, biased. An analysis of Biblical (OT & NT) proscriptions and prescriptions could be interpreted to give similarly seemingly despicable orders to the faithful.

Do me a favour and actually engage and address the issues rather than on your perceptions of them.

I have looked very carefully and academically at Islam et al thankyou. I take the blood and gore of the OT in much the same vein as the Qur'anic texts, except I do not take them as directly linked as many followers of Islam and a lot of Christians have been 'fooled' into thinking. They are NOT of the same 'God', the 'God' of Abraham. Islam is based on the Moon god of the Ka'aba (temple), it's ethos is not that of the Ten Commandments. (It got cobbled together with the God of Abraham through the convenience of Isaac/Ishmael disappearing from the OT and being rehabed into Qur'anic texts.) There is no official New Qur'an to update the old ways and ideas of Mohammed's ways and teachings. There is a progressive Islam whose voice struggles to be heard in the Islamic territories. Territories that were conquered by violence btw. It seems that it is taboo for anyone to question anything in Islam, or to really try to understand the underlying issues behind Islamic insurgency. The Nazarene as you choose to call Jesus is a good point to raise in regard to Islamic schizophrenia. There are Muslims who say He is second only to Mohammed (chalk and cheese here.), others say he was an 'also ran', while yet others say he did not exist. There are many quaint explanations for the 'crucifixion' as well, running from the imaginative to the ridiculous.

I do not take much notice of any spin or 'bias' other than that which actually comes from Islamic scholars themselves and that can make you dizzy at times.

The insurgency in Iraq is most certainly stirred up by western interference, but it is by no means the whole story. It is stupid and naive PC to think it is. Having studied 'Foundations of Behaviour', Decision Making Studies', 'Structured Social Inequalities' and Social Psycho amongst many other topics I try to understand the mindsets of those involved in what is known in the West as terrorism. I have also looked at the history and bias of the Western foreign policies and found much ignorance and highly questionable action.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have looked very carefully and academically at Islam et al thankyou. I take the blood and gore of the OT in much the same vein as the Qur'anic texts, except I do not take them as directly linked as many followers of Islam and a lot of Christians have been 'fooled' into thinking. They are NOT of the same 'God', the 'God' of Abraham. Islam is based on the Moon god of the Ka'aba (temple), it's ethos is not that of the Ten Commandments. (It got cobbled together with the God of Abraham through the convenience of Isaac/Ishmael disappearing from the OT and being rehabed into Qur'anic texts.)

All very interesting, the histories of comparative religions, but not germane. Whether YOU link them is immaterial to the links that have been established by people a lot brighter than you or I.

As for your having looked "carefully and academically at Islam et al", so what? Are you claiming that you have greater insight than anyone else, or are you trying to lend credibility to your statements by claiming some form of academic status? You really don't want to go there, believe me.

There is no official New Qur'an to update the old ways and ideas of Mohammed's ways and teachings.

And the books of Christianity and Judaism, have they been "updated"?
We both know that the answer to that is "no", and that it is commentary and translation that "updates" our perceptions of what these books mean. You also (in keeping with your previous lackadaisical answers) still appear to be refuting the effect geographical location and "local" culture has had on Islam, which does reflect somewhat badly on your opening claim, does it not?

There is a progressive Islam whose voice struggles to be heard in the Islamic territories.

There has always been a "progressive Islam", much as there are usually tensions between progression and conservatism in EVERY religion.
Your "Islamic territories" point is juvenile. Get a world map; mark the "Islamic territories" on the map; now delineate which parts of the "Islamic territories" are home to which particular Islamic sect. What you've just done is in effect to mark out the "territories" of the progressives and the "conservatives" In other words, Islam is not a homogenous entity whose followers all believe the same thing. Like Judaism and Christianity it is a heterogenous assemblage of different "sects" who emphasise different teachings.

Territories that were conquered by violence btw.

Territories that are already occupied generally are "conquered by violence". . Do you have any more trite observations that you'd like to make?

It seems that it is taboo for anyone to question anything in Islam, or to really try to understand the underlying issues behind Islamic insurgency.

Actually, lets get this straight: Your above sentence is value-laden. A more honest person would have written "In my opinion people don't question Islam enough. They also don't, in my opinion, take on board what I'd like them to think about the Insurgency in Iraq".
To be clear, you're entitled to your opinion, we all are. That doesn't actually mean that without evidence we can claim an insight and a "truth" for our opinions that is greater than anyone elses, and one thing you haven't done is offer any evidence to support why your interpretation should be taken any more seriously than anyone elses.

The Nazarene as you choose to call Jesus is a good point to raise in regard to Islamic schizophrenia. There are Muslims who say He is second only to Mohammed (chalk and cheese here.), others say he was an 'also ran', while yet others say he did not exist. There are many quaint explanations for the 'crucifixion' as well, running from the imaginative to the ridiculous.

1) One of the son of Joseph's many noms de geurre has been "the Nazerene". As he isn't my messiah I don't accord him the reverence some do. It's a personal choice.
2) The same type of "schizophrenia" as to the Nazarene's position in the "rankings" of the prophets takes place in Judaism. I'd have thought that someone who has "looked very carefully and academically at Islam et al" would have noticed that. Perhaps you did, and chose to be selective to reinforce your beliefs about the nature of Islam?

I do not take much notice of any spin or 'bias' other than that which actually comes from Islamic scholars themselves and that can make you dizzy at times.

More value-laden claims (or perhaps we should say anti-Islam value-laden claims), and a quite hilarious set of them, if you truly believe that "spin" isn't inherent in scholarly endeavour, whatever the subject that endeavour speaks of.

The insurgency in Iraq is most certainly stirred up by western interference, but it is by no means the whole story. It is stupid and naive PC to think it is.

Find me any post that makes the claim that the insurgency is merely the sum of "western interference" and you might have a tenable position, but given that I can't see where anyone (except our resident rightwing loonies) has claimed that "western interference" is more than a [single factor in the ongoing insurgency (that the insurgency was caused by "western interference" is beyond doubt), then your claim is threadbare and irrelevant.

Having studied 'Foundations of Behaviour', Decision Making Studies', 'Structured Social Inequalities' and Social Psycho amongst many other topics I try to understand the mindsets of those involved in what is known in the West as terrorism. I have also looked at the history and bias of the Western foreign policies and found much ignorance and highly questionable action.

So you've studied some sociology and psychology (among "many other topics"). Are we supposed to be impressed? Does your study give your observations some kind of epistemological hegemony over the observations of others?
Just so that you know, the two questions a rhetorical. Most people won't be impressed, and your observations, without support, have no more validity than anyone else's.

 

[oi2002]

They are NOT of the same 'God', the 'God' of Abraham. Islam is based on the Moon god of the Ka'aba (temple), it's ethos is not that of the Ten Commandments. (It got cobbled together with the God of Abraham through the convenience of Isaac/Ishmael disappearing from the OT and being rehabed into Qur'anic texts.)

Your entirely right to say Islam isn't like Christianity. Islam obliges you to defend the faith not turn the other cheek but then some devout Jewish readers of the Torah describe it as a book of revenge. Islam is very closely related to the Jewish tradition. Christians are urged to pick up their cross and follow Christ to martyrdom; Muslims are told their life is Gods and not theirs to squander.

The moon God thing is a well established piece of Christian propaganda dating from the first millenium. There are numerous clerical works attempting to discredit Islam and explain its inexplicable expansion over large parts of Christendom. That much of this was violent did not comfort dark age Christians; theirs was war God that guaranteed victory as loudly as Allah.

It's absolutely clear that Muslims think the God they worship is the God of Abraham. It's why they are so attached to The Dome Of The Rock and venerate Jewish prophets like Jesus. Their tradition absorbed some pagan folk elements from the cultures Islam emerged in; some of these can be seen in the Haj and Mohammeds (probably of strategic necesssity) shift of the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca.

The same could be said of the early church as it morphed from a minor very Jewish sect into a major player in the Greco-Roman world (which brought the cult of Mary, the worship of icons etc) and finally to accomodate the dualism of the Germanic tribes with a prominent folk belief in a Satan figure. Indeed you could argue the pork eating Western Church is less Judaic and far more infused with pagan beliefs than the essential austere semitic Islam.

It's the Syrian Christian Church that influence Mohammeds theology most though his understanding of its complex anti-greek orthodox doctrine does appear flawed. It actually took Byzantine Orthodox Christians some time to realise Muslims weren't just another iconoclastic Syrian Christian sect which says a lot.

 

[james_walsh]

You really have NO idea about what my opinions on religion, society or anything else are so please don't call me a 'liberal hippy cunt' - the 'hippy' part especially.

I just think you're a twat who substitutes internet aggression and swearing at people for argument.

So what are your opinions then James?

I answered your question, and you've run away.Have a white feather.