Shouldn't it now be chavman? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Printable View
Shouldn't it now be chavman? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
And the other one went to Geneva for a Guinnes?? hmmm..suspicious...
- ØØ -
Can I come too? :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Sure, just give me your cell phone number and tell me when you arrive..and I will meet you...no wait...sorry, don't know you that good...don't trust you...
Ohhh and that reminds me...I am not trusting Woka either. So if I dissapear off the forum for a long time in the start of August, you know what happend to me...;)
- ØØ -
:lol:
First Off my deepest sympathy goes out to the innocent civilians killed in this criminal act of mass murder. And further my strongest condemnation to the person(s) responsible for these act(s) (*1a), this criminal act is not justified under any situation, simply put killing innocent people is wrong under any circumstances (*1)
(2) Religion(s) does not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
(3) The person or persons who committed these acts is not yet fully known [Factually] that includes suspect (hence the word suspects).
(4) It is claimed that this act was that of "Extremist" however a logical analysis of this shows that an "Extremist" can not commit this act.
Explanation to (4):
An extremist is by definition someone whom takes his/here religion in the most extreme/strict form. In Islam killing innocent people is not permitted in any circumstance, thus the most extreme/strict form of this would be that killing innocent people would NEVER be permitted under ANY circumstances. Therefor an Extremist by nature can not commit this act in the first place.
Further analysis:
Whoever committed this act would need a motive (this is true for any murder(s)) because:
There are two possibilities:
(a) There was a reason for it.
(b) There was no reason for it.
If it was the latter than it was a "mindless" act, if it is a "mindless" act than the person(s) who committed this act is mind-less meaning one who takes action without full control of his mind, he/she is quite simply insane. And one who is insane can not be held responsible for his/her act, as he/she is not responsible for his/her own actions.
One must assume that there was a reason for the act (otherwise, no one can be held accountable for the crime).
If there is a reason for the act then there can be two further possibilities:
(I) Beneficial
(II) Non-beneficial
We can neglect the second possibility because one does not take action in order for it not generate a benefit since in-action would also generate no-benefit thus one would not take an action in order to generate that which is already existent.
We can dismiss reasons “X” (X being popular reasons giving by the media/ politicians since, all of them reduces down to making a statement). Since the perpetrators never left any statement how can they be attributed to that statement as being the reason for their action?
The bigger perspective:
After 9/11 the “War on Terror” (an oxymoron, a complete contradiction in its self) was pushed by the Western leaders. It was further reinforced “You’re either with us or with them [the terrorist]” (emphasis added) meaning just merely having a different idea/opinion/view that diverged away from them made you the terrorist/enemy.
The war in Iraq and “anti-terror” laws have been recently declining in public opinion over the last couple of years (vast majority of people around the world was and still are against the war in Iraq, all justification for it have been found either non-existent or nullified).
Some very important matters to remember:
(1) In order to justify these “anti-terror” laws naturally one would need a threat.
(2) In order to continue the war in Iraq one would need a justification. Or have a “exit strategy”.
(3) Reinforcement for the “War on Terror”
Now the real question arises ultimately whom benefits these acts?
If you look at it from an analytical point of view these act benefit none but all the above reasons, and all these reasons would be NON-BENEFICIAL and NEGATIVELY-BENEFICIAL to the claimed perpetrators.
Coming back to (*1), for this same token of reason I condemn the killing of innocent people around the world.
You see Ignorance is the real enemy here, ignorance leads to misunderstanding, and misunderstanding leads to fear and fear ultimately leads to hate.
The politicians have agendas, and they will manipulate the information and situations in order to achieve these political goals. After all that’s what they do.
Anhar Hussain Miah
(PS, I used to travel not to long, on the Liverpool Street underground, so I too could have been caught up in this attack.)
I appreciate your input, although I don't fully agree with it.
Can you explain these two verses to me then?Quote:
In Islam killing innocent people is not permitted in any circumstance, thus the most extreme/strict form of this would be that killing innocent people would NEVER be permitted under ANY circumstances
Does this mean that a non-believer is not an innocent?Quote:
9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”
2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”
This is a very clasical question that has asked many times (and answered over and over), and will be continued to be as long as people do not do their homework correctly, it really should be under FAQ's
But anyway simply put, the verse is taken out of its context, one needs to read the entire chapter and understand the history as well. One can not read a small part of sentence and claim to understand the entire chapter that would be illogical.
I don't know if we are allowed to post from external source however the answer to your question is here:
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/eng...hFatwaID=51761
So thankfully demotivater you are incorrect
Anhar Hussain Miah
I also appreciate your input, but I disagree with this point in particular.Quote:
An extremist is by definition someone whom takes his/here religion in the most extreme/strict form. In Islam killing innocent people is not permitted in any circumstance, thus the most extreme/strict form of this would be that killing innocent people would NEVER be permitted under ANY circumstances. Therefor an Extremist by nature can not commit this act in the first place.
There are many cases of separate branches of a "parent" religion which have a different interpretation of the same scriptures, there are many examples of this within the variations of Christianity.
I have met a few Christians (I'm not sure which variation(s)) who would not actually intend to physically hurt someone, but openly admit that they feel hatred towards people who are members of other religions (even tho I have always been told that the Christian way is to live in harmony with others, no matter what their religion). In a very extreme case of this kind of person (potentially due to mental issues as you mentioned), they would possibly intend some form of harm upon another person.
Isn't it possible that there are some branches of Islam (like with Christianity and several other religions) where people have different beliefs/focuses/interpretations?
Isn't it also possible that a very small minority of one of these branches are more extreme in particular areas of their interpretations, and would feel that causing harm (to some degree) to another human being was acceptable under certain circumstances?
I am not saying that "Islam is bad" or anything to that effect. I am just pointing out that within religions there are variations in terms of teachings and beliefs, and of course peoples interepretation of those teachings and beliefs.
It's interpretation that's at fault. An example from Christianity.
Most people believe there are contradictions within the Christian Bible. The most popular one is that in the old testament it states 'an eye for an eye' Yet, in the new testamant Jesus is quoted as saying 'Turn the other cheek'
Both these quotes are accurate, but outside of context. The 'Turn the other cheek' bit is really:
'You can take an eye for an eye but it is better to turn the other cheek'
(It's all paraphrased as I don't own a bible)
I presume the same 'uninformed opinions' are present in Islam.
Islam, as I understand it, is a religion of peace; like all the other 'world' religions.
Catholicism is supposed to be "peaceful" yet there is constant violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.
Religion by it's very nature is open to interpretation by its followers so it is entirely possible that someone misunderstands the original meaning of a scripture and uses it as a motive for murder.
Personally I am an agnostic (I believe there is no evidence to either prove or disprove whether any such deity exists), and as such I accept peoples beliefs to be their own business. However, when anyone decides to commit atrocity in the name of their religion there is somthing fundamentally wrong with the teachings they have received. Indeed people kill people, but often the religion they follow has been warped to become their motive.
Imagine this, in most religions they are taught that their god is the one and true god. This is saying that every other religion is false, and as such an extremist may take further steps against persons that do not follow said religion.
For example, a Catholic and an Islamist believe their respective religion to be the true religion. If they were responsible adults they would respect their differnet beliefs and that would be the end of it. If they acted like petulant children they would argue that their religion is the true religion. If they were extremists, it would turn to violence.
The world would be a far better place without religion
External links are ok provided they're not competing sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
As you said those verse extracts are oft quoted as a way of trying prove Islam if not all that peaceful.
But the response in the thread is not an out and out condemnation of killing. It basically says killing is wrong unless it's right. It clearly states that you can kill for law,justice or a just cause.
Now to me justice and just cause are open to all kinds of intpretation.
To kill another is fundamentally wrong no matter what the justification is. That's why capital punishment has been almost entirely eradicated in the western judicial systems. After all, how many cases have proved that the person convicted of the crime was in fact innocent? Wouldn't be much help if they'd already been hanged.
I disagree.
I don't feel it's religion at fault here. I think it's the individuls.
These people just happen to piggy back on religion to justify their phycotic minds, and thus Islam gets the finger pointed at.
If a scouser went abroad to the Campions League cup final, and stabbed a few people in a drunken rampage, then would people see this as a christian act, since the Uk is a Christian country...apparently. Would people tarnish Christianity with this persons stupidity.
This is the case with London. Oooo...they are of Pakinsani decent...oooo...Islam...*points finger* Rubbish.
If religion didn't exist they would only find something else to justify their actions.
Woka
Many of those said fans would consider football a religion ;)
yeah, plus scousers are a sick breed anyway :p
Oh yes, of course, I forgot. This is proven over and over again everyday.Quote:
Islam, as I understand it, is a religion of peace; like all the other 'world' religions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
si_the_geek, your are incorrect,
explanation:
(1) are you judging the car from the driver? judge the car by the car, as the Christians would say "who are you judging the singer or the song?" by the same token judge the religion by the religion not the actions of the people.
example Hilter was a Christian he killed 6 million people, Bush Jnr is responisble for the deaths of 100,00 in Iraq(estimated) and unkown number in Afganistan. lets not forget the Crusades (are you are aware of the blood filled history?). Then their was the Spanish who foced the mulsims out (killed the rest, and forcebly converted the remaining) The list goes on, does this mean that Christanity is THE MOST VIOLENT religion NO, beacuse these are the actions of PEOPLE. Go back to (2) in my orginal post.
(2) you said:
Isn't it possible that there are some branches of Islam (like with Christianity and several other religions) where people have different beliefs/focuses/interpretations
First of all please understand the diffenence in terminology, their definiations are of upmost importance:
(a) Beliefs are the core fundamentals of a religion, HAVING A DIFFERENT belief would render it a DIFFERENT religion, so all Muslims MUST have the same core fundamental beliefs having a different one would mean that they would become OUTSIDE of the fold of Islam and no longer a Mulsim.
(b) Yes interpretations exist and are allowed, these merely mean DIFFEREANCE OF OPINIONS that ARE ALL VALID because they do not fundamentally change the Belief(a). The reason that they are all valid is that the difference of opinons do not deviate from the core issue.
Another point you need to undertstand is how interpretations are formed (can only be done by people of Knowledge, i.e. Scholars/learnered), it has a very Strict code called Itjhihad (sorry for my poor spealling @all Arabic speackers!) and i dont want speak about it too much as I my self do not know all the exact detail, so i say what i do know and that is there are TWO main sources (unlike any other religion) these are the Quran itself and the Hadiths (A saying or action ascribed to the Prophet,Any hadith is of two parts the matn (subject) and the isnad (chain of transmission)).
so no, it is not possible that some one can make an "extreme" interpretation that would justify killing an innocent person.
Now to the point of killing, i.e. taking the life of another being:
Killing is natural fact. Everyone Human kills, wether your a meat eater or strict vegan (plants still have a life), and if your on hunger strike then your still killing bacteria as part of a natural process. The real difference is context.
Again i will quote myself here Ignorance is the enemy. We are all inteligent programmers here, as such we are gifted with a brain so we should use it to seek truth.
[Quran 21:18] Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us)
Anhar Hussain Miah
P.S how do I get VB to do something when someone presses the return key in a textbox?
:ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
Okay, so what you're saying is that if I came to your home, invaded your privacy, cut the throats of all your family and walked casually out you would consider that the same as plucking a few flowers from my rose bush to give to my girlfriend?
As for your point about the crusades, that was centuries ago in a time when religion was law. Modern times religion is a choice, then you had to follow the religion of the land. A wise man once said "To bring the past to the present will only cloud the future"
This just overwhelms me and I am at a loss to understand...
An IRAQI man, yesterday, with a wife and child (I think the child was 8 months old). Friends say he recently became very religious...
He kisses his wife and child goodbye (I'm guessing...)...
Get's into a car - laden with bombs...
Find a likely target - a US military vehicle...
Surrounded by 18 children of all ages...
He drives quickly toward that vehicle and explodes the bombs in his car killing all the children (and the one US soldier)...
Someone explain to me how this is possible for a person to do - please!
I disagree with some of the things you said.VB Code:
There are subtle differences in religion. Take catholics...they are "not allowed" to use contraception, which is why catholics usually have larger families than normal...but other christian faiths have no problems with this.
I am almost sure this is the same with many many religions around the world, be it Christianity, Islam...or Badgerism.
You keep mentioning the word "Ignorance", but can we not apply this to you as you seem to think that how you interpret something is exactly how I would...and if I don't, then I am wrong. Regardless of the fact what part of religion we are interpreting here...be it killing others, or what the significance of the snake was in the garden of Eden. personally I think the snake was there because God had an evil sense of humour :D
I am not familier with these verses, as my indept knowledge of all religions is very limited...I had the choice not to be religious, and I took that path.Quote:
9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”
2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”
I find it a little hard to grasp that these words do not mean what they said, unless at the top of the page the author has written "I AM JOKING HERE!".
If you could point me to a URL where it contains the entire verse I would be glad to read over it.
Would this be like if my friend stole my last beer, or chocolate bar, and I just found out and I would say "I'm going to kill him!". We don't REALLY mean that literally, it's just a phrase.
Woka
True true...almost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
The UK is a christian country, our laws ARE based around christianity I am afraid. Some of the highest judges in the UK are members are a funny hand shake christian society to get more christian values into the court room. Personally I went mad when I read this news article a month or so ago.
As for the crusades, we were complete savages. In fact, you only have go to back a few hundred years, and you'll see the British were blood thirsty power mongers. How do you think we build up the British Empire...?! :D
How someone can blow up kids, or even adults for that matter, is beyond my comprehension. Extremely good conditioning and brain washing?
Woka
After his Imam got through preaching about peace and tolerance, he moved on to the "death to infidels, martyr yourself in the name of Allah" thing. Guess the guy missed the part about peace and tolerance. Made sure those kids (innocent I presume) had no chance to ever become infidels.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Didnt read the entire thread to see if its been posted yet but just aired on the news that some 18 year old with explosives in his
backpack was the first bomber on the train! they showed surveilance pictures of him at the station.
@ (1) Valleysboy1978, Please re-read my post, the answer is already in what you quoted me on
(2) Wise man also said "If you dont know your past, you can't prepare for your future", so really its applys bothways.
@ szlamany. Neither you or I where present at that time and place when the event occured, thus neither you or I actually know in detail what ACTUALLY happened. You only know what happened ACCORDING TO what you have been told, ie this infomation may or may not be true, may be partially true, may have ommisions/distorsions etc, therefore you assesement of the situation is based upon speculation. However (allthough i dont really want to comment on this, i will comment based on what we do know for certain) ie:
(a) a bomb was detonated by person X, innocent civilians died (children), so how does this compare when an Americal fighter pilot drops a guided missle? lets see:
(b) a bomb is detonated by person X, innocent civilians die(Woman, Children, Men, animal, Plant, etc), so the question goes back to you in your own words "Someone explain to me how this is possible for a person to do - please!"
@ (1) Wokawidget thankyou for the code, I shall try this.
(2) Please take care to re-read my post, you will find that you are actually in agreement!
(3) At what point did I state that ignorance does not apply to me? please do not confuse interpreation with knowlegde, ignorance is defined as not knowing or lacking in knowlege, and knowlege is defined as : the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning. Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value. I am only giving you what I know to be true, IF you have think it is inocrrect then show me.
(3) That was already linked in the post after demotivator's post: here it again
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/eng...hFatwaID=51761
@ Wokawidget (part II)
you said:
"How someone can blow up kids, or even adults for that matter, is beyond my comprehension. Extremely good conditioning and brain washing?"
I totally agree with, yes how can an American pilot drop bombs that "blow up kids", and how can the Israelis fire hellfire missile into a civilan apartment block and "blow up kids", how can the USA drop an A-bomb and "blow up kids" (Hirosima)...
So demotivator you where present during the quthba by the Iman?
Ok let me see, I assume you (demotivator) are an American(please correct me here)
Let me set you a situation;
American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.
Now when the Americans kill civilians it is called "collateral damage".
Where is the 2 minutes silence, where is the intense news coverage, why is not Bush/Western leaders out there out rightly condeming these terrorists act? why is their no investigation of the people responisble for the act?
So when an Iraqi resists/defend himself (a right that you would grant yourself) you label him as a terrorist. when innocent civilians get caught up in an resistacne/defence attack you cannot "comprehend" how someone can do this yet "collateral damage" is "comprehendible"?
Anhar Hussain Miah
P.S wow, it was super hot today in the UK, almost 30 degrees!!
Depends on why the occupation was needed. You are suggesting (by the situation you presented) that the occupation of IRAQ by the American Armed Forces was carried out for one purpose and one purpose only. To take over, whether it be for land, oil etcetera etcetera. So is this what you are suggesting?Quote:
Posted by Anhar Hussain
American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.
I see your point, but the difference with terrorists as their name suggests they try to strike at the heart of communities to insight fear an terror. Its like a two year old throwing a tantrum, they scream louder and louder in the hope they they will get the attention they want. The worst thing you could do is pick up the child and give him a hug because it is showing that the way to get what you want is through screaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain
The same goes for terrorism, they choose their targets to have the maximum emotional and physical impact in the hope they will get their own way. So lets turn this around, although I don't condone the fact that Tony Blair went to war with Iraq, he / or the USA did not target schools, community centres and hospitals - they did not send their men to get on buses full of people and detonate bombs - they chose their targets carefully and only did what was necessary given the circumstances. A death of innocent people is inevitable in any war which is why I do not a agree with them (especially unnecessary wars ;))
But what we see in terrorism is something different. People are targeting the very communities they live in and interact with both in Iraq and the UK. To elaborate on your point, maybe I should go to Leeds and blow myself up because that's where the terrorists lived - then we would be even right? - If we all did that the world/this country would be a mess, but that is exactly what the terrorists are doing, they were British citizens and the Britain we live in today is a very diverse and multi cultural place something which the terrorist leaders do not like.
Like I have already said, I do not agree with the war in Iraq, I am also quite sure that the events of last Thursday were somehow connected. I also believe that the likes of the UK and the USA are greedy and selfish and our way of lives creates an environment for terrorists. This is something I am passionate about and I am quite sure there are many other people how share my view. However, I am not going to go to London and blow myself up on a train nor am I going to recruit and brainwash young people into doing it for me. Why? Because it won't work and it causes un-necessary pain and suffering.
Right, and beating the seven shades of hell out of them every time they cry does help then...Quote:
The worst thing you could do is pick up the child and give him a hug because it is showing that the way to get what you want is through screaming.
It's horrible and cludy in Leeds today...BOOOOO!!!
Home made explosives made from stuff over the counter in a shop...that's what they found in Leeds.
Anhar Hussain, hahaha are we in agreement? I agree with most of what your saying. However, your comments comparing a terrorist act, ie London, with a bomb dropped from an F16 has no strength. A terrorist act, like what happened last Thursday, DELIBERATELY targeted civillians...more civillians dead the better! Civillians who get caught up in combat, and thus become collateral damage are completely different to one who are the prime target.
And as for mentioning the a-bomb...ooooo, that's a whole different kettle of fish, and thus shouldn't be brought up in a conversation like this. Lots of people died...lots and lots. But the civillians were still not the main target.
The thing with suicide bombings is that they are 100% indisciminate...that's the beauty of it...sorry, I mean barbarity of it.
Woof
Yup...apparently they have been linked to al-quada (sp)Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
They know all 4 "suspected" bombers now. They have found explosives and other evidence in raids. blah blah.
Woof
Every sort of violence apparently connected to Islam is attributed to Al-Quaeda these days.
Ever thought about this:
Al-Quaeda is using these events as a PR opportunity? Bomb in the West? Oh we'll claim it's ours. Our prestige will rise, our ranks will swell.
Unwittingly, by immediately linking them, we are giving them a public forum they do not deserve to have. You just can't buy this kind of publicity.
Think about it.
Not sure about that. You never really get 2 groups claiming responsibility for the same bombing.
Woof
That is a good point. It reminds me of when the guy ran on to the track just before the Spanish GP last year and James Allen (commentator) said "Don't give him too much air time, we don't want to glorify that sort of behaviour" or something along those lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Imagine some muslim youth stabbing four people to death. These days there will be a lot of people saying he's somehow connected to Al-Quaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
That's money in the bank for Bin Laden's organisation. Without doing anything or claiming anything they are in the picture, their cause once again highlighted, many other disgruntled youths' interest rekindled etc...
As I said: you can't buy that kind of publicity.
Anhar, I have noticed you have not replied to my point about killing another life.
Would you consider the life of a rose, or fly on an equal par to that of your own son/daughter? So you would react the same if some nutter killed your child as if someone picked a rose from a bush?
No, of course you wouldn't. If you saw someone pick a rose from a bush for his girlfriend you'd think it was sweet. If you saw someone shoot your, or anyones, child in the head in public, the reaction I would imagine would be somewhat different.
Human lives are much more valuable because of our association with each other. As Woka has already pointed out, terrorists have always INTENTIONALLY targeted innocent civilians. Military targets are never civilian, only military. It was unfortunate that Saddam and his army were such cowards that they hid in schools, hospitals and such knowing the Allied forces would not target such places.
unfortunate? If a massive army was coming your way, where would you hide? That's right, in places you know they're reluctant to target out of morality and for fear of public backlash.
If the latter wasn't there, that army would have no qualm targetting civilians and public places.
I know we try not to hit civilian areas but all too often you do hear of civilians being killed by US bombs etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Such is the nature of bombs, which is why I didn't approve of the tactics used.
War isn't the same as watching it on the telly. A soldier's reaction on the spot isn't the same as yours sitting at home. A soldier is trained to pull the trigger or push the release button at the right time. Moral introspection comes later when he's out of the combat stress situation and the realisation of his actions dawns on him.
Either you accept that there's no such thing as a clean war or you try to avoid war at all costs.
I agree, but a trained soldier is less likely to be so indiscriminate as a bomb