RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Janny

It's not inherently superior. It just when the other side perpetrates such acts it's hard not to feel like that...

I would hope also people realise what civilisation is up against. I didn't want to be so dramatic about it, but it does seem to be 'civilisation' relative to 14th century... ok, maybe a little harsh on the 14th C.

Jesus H. Christ.

It's not that we're inherently superior, it's just that they're stuck in the Middle Ages??

Hmm. Forgive me sir, but in the light of your second proposition I doubt the sincerity of the first.

[Spock]

ok, how about both

[The Gaffer]

Well, that would be consistent at least...

[Nerdanel]

I haven't much joined this discussion, because I was afraid that it'd turn out like this.. I also feel that I know too little about both Islam and Christianity since I haven't read the Koran nor the entire Bible. But now that I look through what people have written.. I feel like I'm not the only one who should learn more about this before they say anything.
How can someone even think of blaiming an entire religion for something that a fraction of fundamentalists have done? I know a few muslims, and they're the nicest and most polite persons I've met.

I'm just a bit shocked how it still is possible to generalize like this.. Some people never learn, it seems.

[Janny]

Forgive me, the tone intended was not conveyed.

As to the blaming of an entire religion, I'm going to play the double standards card. It's perfectly fine to justify attacks on British civilians because of what a fraction of the British people support.

[The Gaffer]

That joker ain't wild in this game, janny. Nobody is saying it's OK to attack British civilians for anything. Call me a boring old centrist, but just because I disagree that there is an inherent problem with Islam doesn't mean that I think it's OK to plant bombs on tube trains.

I agree with you, Nerdy but Nice (and clearly Sensible) One. To my mind one of the major causes is putting words in people's mouths, such as thinking that to explain the causes of an act is the same as justifying it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

I'm just a bit shocked how it still is possible to generalize like this.. Some people never learn, it seems.

unfortunately there will always be people who will readily take advantage of a tragedy to promote their own biased agenda. its human really...

[Janny]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That joker ain't wild in this game, janny. Nobody is saying it's OK to attack British civilians for anything. Call me a boring old centrist, but just because I disagree that there is an inherent problem with Islam doesn't mean that I think it's OK to plant bombs on tube trains.

I have nothing against what you just said. It's just when people add 'but' to the end of it.

To my mind one of the major causes is putting words in people's mouths, such as thinking that to explain the causes of an act is the same as justifying it.

The distinction itself isn't the point. The point is that few people understand the distinction. I think backbenchers shouldn't be looking for causation because it looks like they are looking for justification. And that's just assuming that they are looking for causation...

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Janny

I have nothing against what you just said. It's just when people add 'but' to the end of it.

I think I know what you mean: it doesn't justify it BUT you have to understand that these people have no other way of fighting back, etc.

If that is what you mean, I still don't see the problem. It may be more convenient to consider them as just "evil", but that won't help prevent the same thing happening again.

Understanding does not equal condoning, simple as that.

One of the reasons why it is important to do this is because it helps untangle the situation a bit. These London bombers, it seems, led fairly normal lives and could in no way be regarded as oppressed. So, posing the "but" question helps us to trace the route of their motives.

Consider Mandela and the ANC, for example. The SA government regarded them as terrorists, as did Thatcher, and they did indeed advocate an armed struggle. Many of their methods are standard parts of the terrorist repertiore. "But" theirs was a just cause, and they did not use the same sort of extreme tactics we're seeing here, targeted at ordinary people.

I don't see any way in which it is not a good thing to improve our understanding of the process whereby a person arrives at the state of mind in which they will blow themselves up on a crowded train.

[Falagar]

Rumours of new explosions in London: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...189833,00.html

[Insidious Rex]

you dont see this as tragic? do you also think the holocaust wasnt one of the biggest tragedies in our recent history?

[sun-star]

Only if you use "tragic" in its loosest sense, to mean "something sad". That word can cover any event from the Holocaust to acts of terrorism to accidents to natural disasters. I don't think it's helpful to lump together deliberate mass murder with causeless events - especially since the reason you did it in this case was to imply that it was as wrong to look for reason in this event as to apportion blame for any other "tragedy".

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by sun-star

especially since the reason you did it in this case was to imply that it was as wrong to look for reason in this event as to apportion blame for any other "tragedy".

excuse me are you talking to me? where exactly did you get that i think it is wrong to look for reason? Im sorry you have an apparent issue with the word "tragic" but I think ANY death is clearly a tragic event. At least for the loved ones of the deceased. Im not the one trying to spin this politically. I dont have a problem with saying killing people is tragic. Nor do I have a problem saying lets deal with the people who were involved with this TRAGIC event.

[sun-star]

I see, you only want to look for reasons you agree with. Because when people started talking about links to Islam, you said they were "taking advantage of it to promote a biased agenda".

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I see, you only want to look for reasons you agree with. Because when people started talking about links to Islam, you said they were "taking advantage of it to promote a biased agenda".

How over the top. Are you sure you dont want to be on the venting thread? No one was looking for "links to Islam" they were USING the situation to beat their chest about how their own religion was better. And how Islam is defined by violence and hate at its very base. No better then saying the same thing about christianity in my opinion. Do you endorse this kind of reactionary behavior then? Do you think that actually gets us anywhere?

Saying "Islamists are more violent then christians" certainly doesnt help us solve this TRAGIC event. Nor does it enlighten us as to what we need to do to lessen the likelihood of it happening again. When we suggest that we look into why they are mad/disgruntled/out of touch/insane so that we can get a better grip on the situation we are told that’s sympathizing with them. Your attempt to turn the tables on me and say because I will not consider Islam as a RELIGION to be dangerous and therefore the root of the problem is extremely disingenuous since you wont consider anything else. Apparently you have proof this had nothing whatsoever to do with the situation in Iraq?

If a man robs a bank do you not want to know WHY he did it? Or is that irrelevant and liberally pandering to “sympathies� because a “crime� only deserves stereotyping and castigating not trying to understand the mind of the perpetrator. The enormous flaw in your logic is that you wont listen to the reasoning of the bomber because you consider it giving in or endorsement somehow.

[sun-star]

I absolutely think we should look for the causes of this behaviour, but I think we have to explore the possibility that one of these causes is something inherent to Islam. At least, I don't think that rejecting the idea out of hand is going to get us anywhere.

Let me quote from what I said above:

Originally Posted by sun-star

If understanding is the way forward, one of the questions we have to ask to understand the mentality of the bombers is: how far does their religion influence, condition or condone their actions?

Note that I said one of the questions. I'm not saying there can't be other motives - that was your extrapolation.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I absolutely think we should look for the causes of this behaviour, but I think we have to explore the possibility that one of these causes is something inherent to Islam. At least, I don't think that rejecting the idea out of hand is going to get us anywhere.

there are millions of muslims leading perfectly normal and peaceable lives... so i'd say that's good enough reason to reject the idea out of hand... but i do understand the gut reaction

plus, even if it was true, it's not a very productive line of reasoning... have you ever tried to mess with someone's religious beliefs before?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Note that I said one of the questions. I'm not saying there can't be other motives - that was your extrapolation.

Yes but you also said something about anyone linking it to Iraq at all is just following an agenda (implying its wrong). And others here have suggested that trying to understand the mind of the bomber is almost condoning the bombing. You even said calling it a tragedy is wrong because it doesnt focus on the person doing it which I dont really understand.

[inked]

I'd like someone with a bit more acquaintance with the Koran to list some verses calling for peace. I am acquainted with the ones declaring all non-Islamics to be fair game and to be converted at pain of death. NOT that they really mean that, of course, because the events in London are all peaceful explosions, RIGHT?

Pardon my cynicism, but where's the Koran say turn the other cheek?

Or is that too cheeky and not politically correct enough?

[Spock]

...well put....I don't think we should hold our breath for the answer.