Terrorism in London

the vast majority of translations are as mine, including those most cited by islamic authorities. On the other hand, as muslims will have to go into collective denial about their faith so that democracy can arise and peace can be had between muslims and others, it's just as well that a few disingenuous translations are out there.

Overall, we'll just have to agree to disgree. As for peaceful and tolerant passages in the koran, for sure they exist, as i said myself. But as i also said, they are "abrogated" in isalmic theology by later pasages they conflcit with. Thus, the violent, imperialist, Jihadist, intolerant passages supercede the earlier ones.However, and I have also now repeatedly said, as Muslims will have to go into collective denial as their faith in order foriberal democracy to arise in their homelands, it's just as well that they see those earlier passages as havinmg equal or, even better, more weight than those that abrogated them. That is, they'll either have to deny abrogation, or they'll have to rationalize, as you and others here are doing, that the War Verses and sharia Law don't really mean what they in fact do. In other words, Muslims everywhere and in the vast majority will have do as you.

We Canadians did have a west, but, overall, haven't developed a gun culture in the way that the US has. I think a vital reason is that the US gained independence through war, whereas we got it through evolution. The US, from its birth, feared authority, and sought to check it at every turn. One means to do so was for "regulated militias" which came to stress an interpretation of the rest of that phrase, the "right to bear arms," as meaning the right of the individual to bear arms. I think it's nuts. But thus it is.

quote:

---

the vast majority of translations are as mine...

---

Wha...? How in the world can you possibly know how the "vast majority" of translations read? I really would like to see your source for this -- I don't care how credible it is, I'm just intensely interested in who would make a claim like this.-

quote:

---

...including those most cited by islamic authorities.

---

Okay, now I know that you are making this up. Islamic authorities would be using the original Arabic.Or but "Islamic authorities", do you mean the hate groups that put up the web sites that you have cited? I suppose that they are posing as "experts".-

quote:

---

On the other hand, as muslims will have to go into collective denial about their faith so that democracy can arise and peace can be had between muslims and others....

---

Well, this much, at least, we can agree on. Since Christians have largely succeeded at this task, I am sure that Muslims will be capable of it, too.And who knows? Seeing that contemporary Christianity has matured enough that many Christians are now coming out of denial and confronting the unsavory aspects of the history and origins of their religion, I am sure that one day the Muslims will be able to do so as well.

Christians may recognize the bad of their history, but they have nothing to acknowledge about the faith - other than that they acted contrary to it for ages. Muslims will have to admit the bad of their faith, or simply go into denial about it. A number of muslim intellectuals have made exactly this point, and many others are debating it.I was referring to Muslims citing various translations as more accurate than others.otherwise, this is just going to go back and forth indefinitely. i don't care whether you believe me or not, and, in any event, it is clear that you won't. So be it.

I did that? I didn't mean to. When did I do that? Right the IF Blair did x to prevent y, and y happened then Blair failed. However, Blair didn't do x to prevent y. I was being humourous. I tried to make this clear with 'heh' and 'but seriously. I said "its silly to say x" and you said "Thanks, for supporting my position", and I say "So you think x is silly?". Obviously you didn't, and I carried on assuming that you weren't saying x is silly. uh-huh. Understood. It doesn't clearly show that at all. Re-read it, what it clearly shows is that "I've never heard that self-defence rationale used by anyone, including Blair". I was totally open to it having been used. I was trying to demonstrate that the self-defense rationale hasn't been particularly championed in the UK...he certainly failed to reach me with that message, and I do tend to keep my eyes open. Prepare to be darned Blair's rationale to be in Iraq wasn't to prevent terrorists coming to Britain, it was that the Iraq war would hinder their activities due to having to fight on multiple fronts, and that Britain wasn't the front line, but Iraq was. OK, Blair never said 100%. To me, prevent seems to be a fairly 100% thing, perhaps there lies our confusion? If a vaccine prevents me from getting a disease, I won't (or would be very unlikely to) get it. However, a condom only helps prevent STDs. Let me try to unravel this pretzel logic for you that stems from my twisted mind.You suggested that Blair should resign.
Why, was asked.
Because, you said, this is evidence of yet another mistake in a long line of mistakes.
Huh?
Well, you replied, Blair said that being in Iraq has the advantage of protecting us from terrorist acts because it acts as a front line.Now, this leaves one of two options.1. You imply that Blair's idea was that by being in Iraq we won't be attacked by terrorists (the 100% idea)2. Attacks are not likely to have the full resources put behind them (like with 9/11) so they will either a) be less frequent, b) be less effective or c) more likely to be apprehended by intelligence agents.If option number 2 is the option then the fact that one single event got through is not indicative of any failures. If we suffered more terrorism type attacks than Iraq, then you'd have a point. Since number two seems like a dead end options I figured you must have been implying the first, which you have quite clearly denounced as being bollocks.So now we have to establish the number 2 affair.So, given Blair has not stated that Britain is 100% safe from terrorist attacks, why should he resign now that a terrorist attack has been made against Britain? What failing of his should merit a resignation? Not true. Look at the exclusive 'or' in the definition:

quote:

---

the most advanced, responsible, or visible position in a field or activity

---

Iraq is the most visible position in the war on terror. It is a 'front line'. Fighting can (often does) occur behind the front the lines (Britain would be behind the front line that is Iraq). Indeed, Iraq would be the front line, the USA the second, and Britain the third. Britain was distracted with several big events and it got attacked. How does this show that? How many attacks would Britain had suffered (including the long term future) had we not done the Iraq thing?
All it shows is that Iraq doesn't divert 100% of resources...which we both agree on anyway. Well, I don't believe we can really have a war on terror in the literal sense of the word. However, we can have a highly visible and important battle which could be characterized as being a 'front line' in a 'war on terror'. I agree with everything up to the point of 'without having divert any resources'. Maybe its true, can you show me how this is true? Are you sure? How can you tell? Do you have access to AQ's books and resources and human management records? Right so there were no AQ assets before the invastion. Are there any now? If there are, would they be there if we weren't?If there were none before, and some afterwards, that seems like a decent indication that at least some resources were diverted to Iraq.When the frontline thing was being discussed Blair was basically saying two things:1. "And that is why, in a very real sense, because al Qaeda and other terrorists groups are actually there in Iraq now"(meaning, there is a physical direct battle with terrorists in Iraq)2. "The fact is, if Iraq becomes a stable and democratic country... that is a huge blow to the propaganda and to the effort of the extremists."(meaning, another aspect of warfare is going on, the attempt to suppress propananda efforts)Do you agree that there are AQ terrorists in Iraq? If you do, you agree with Blair. Do you agree that the majority of physical fighting with AQ is occurring in Iraq? If so, you agree with Blair. Point number two is very debatable of course. If we make Iraq a Shangri-La then perhaps that would show the futility of the efforts the terrorists are going through, possibly making it difficult to convince them to give up their lives for a lost cause. It wouldn't mean all terrorists would give up, but it might make recruitment more challenging. OK, I've not seen anybody trying to say "The reason why we went into Iraq was to divert 100% of AQ resources". All I've seen is "Iraq has become a front line in the war on terror". Terrorists moved in to Iraq, since they moved to Iraq, they are moving out of other places...they need to spend money on bombs and weapons and probably wages, food, bribes etc for operations in Iraq. That money is not being spent on operations in the west. I'm fairly sure I thought the idea that a politician would stand up and say an absolute statement like "Doing x will guarantee 100% y", where lives are on the line was silly. If said politician did do that, and y happened, he would have to resign.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 12-July-2005 11:01 AM

I don't understand why this religious pissing contest is so important to you.

If one wants to understand the nature and motivation of the egyptian brotherhood, which revived Sunni islamism in the early 1900's, and understand the nature and motivation of the iranian theocrats, who revived Shis Islamism and then immediately kidnapped Americans in 1979, and to understand the nature and motivation behind the global Islamist terror movement, then one must understand why they passionately believe themselves to be true to their faith. What's more, there is a civil war in the islamic world between the islamists and all others. neither can that be understood without knowing the faith.and thus, this is not a personal thing at all. It is something of dramatic import to us all, as the terrorists hate us for who we are, part of judeo-Christian civilization that their faith was born to displace, and liberal democacies, which because they innately appeal to muslims as they do us, are the ideological enemy of Islamism. The islamists know that in order to successfully complete their march to imperial control over the islamic world, they must, first, get the American military out of their sphere, where it defends the enemies of islamism, and they must, second, discredit the notion of liberal democracy by demonstrating it to be weak and immoral. And all this they do in resilute conviction of being true to the faith, citing the koran always, even when cutting off heads of live victims (the Koran makes many references to cutting off heads).

He's a troll. He just repeats the same unsubstantiated claims over and over to laugh at us as we waste our time replying to him. Sadly, I am going to reply to his last message to me anyway.

Then, like clockwork monkeys, 'Sick' BNP attacked after seizing on bus bombing in council poll leaflet

quote:

---

The leaflet produced for Thursday's council byelection in Barking, east London, in which the [fascist] party hopes to gain a seat, shows an aerial photograph of the bus that was devastated by an explosion in central London, killing at least 13 people. The headline is: Maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP.

---

mickThis message has been edited by mick, 07-11-2005 07:18 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 07-11-2005 07:19 PM

Why? I need not understand why they believe themselves to be "true to their faith" any more than I need to understand why abortion bombers believe themselves to be true to their faith. I mean, what's the relevance of their faith? Being of one faith or another - being a Muslim or a Christian - has no value in determining culpability for terrorist acts, or the likelyhood that one will commit them. It's simply irrelevant.I know that the Islamists want to kill me, because I'm an atheist and because I believe in freedom for all, not religious domination. A not-insignificant number of Christians want me dead for the same reason. Well, that's the life of the atheist.But arguing about which of those groups is true to their faith or not is just a pissing contest. It's just a way for you to spread the blame of fanaticism to all Muslims and simultaneously preach the superiority of your own faith. It's not in the least bit relevant to the question at hand, which is "how do we stop a world-wide, decentralized organization of murderous madmen?"

Hey, question for Brits:If these are the people you call "asians":what do you call these people?Not trying to be racist, but I'm somewhat unclear on UK racial terminology.

we don't know the difference. That's why Hindus and Sikhs have been attacked post-bombing. Black is black, basically.

I don't think the majority of Brits would refer to the person in the top picture as 'Asian' (middle-eastern?). The most common use of the word is to describe people with origins in the Indian Sub-continent. Although geographically inaccurate, I suppose the use of the word has been increased to stop the racist label of 'Paki'There is a considerable proportion of the UK's Muslim population who come from India, Pakistan etc.Come to think of it, I don't think the person in the second picture would be called 'Asian' by many people (although it is getting more common). 'Oriental', maybe.

Really? No difference? If your wife sends you out for Kung Pow Chicken you come back with Tikka Masala?Hey, I believe you. I don't believe in race anyway. Just seems weird, is all. Sorry to hear about the attacks on Hindus and Sihks.