Terrorist Attack on Britain

[SithDoughnut]

When we're talking about Islam, the politics and the religion are one and the same thing. It's a common mistake to take the Western distinction between religion and secular politics and try to apply it to Islam.

Islamic politics does not equate to global politics. It is even more of a mistake to see Muslims as only capable of thinking about politics in an Islamic context.

What else do you suppose it would be?

Here is an answer.

Care to substantiate the claim that it is a delusion? Islam has been the enemy of the West for nearly fourteen centuries. Throughout history, whenever it was able, it waged wars of aggression against the West and their other non-Islamic neighbors. I see no evidence that this is changing or any reason why it would.

It's a delusion because you ignore that the west instigated war as much as the Muslim countries did, and more importantly you ignore that Islamic terrorism is not the same thing as war. Once again, I provided Bin Laden's reasons for 9/11 - not one of them was "because Islam says to". I'm not pretending that Islam has nothing to do with it, but we could remove the religion entirely and the terrorists would keep coming. Terrorism is independent of any particular religion or ideology.

It's not a question of whether I care, it's a question of whether Muslims care. You're still trying to make excuses for Islam and shift the blame on the West. It's our fault for not being good little dhminnis and doing what they want. For the life of me I can't understand why. Do you realize what would lie in store for you if Islam were to prevail? It's like playing with fire and not knowing that fire is hot.

You're not even reading my posts are you? You've already decided what you want me to be saying and nothing I say will actually make any difference. The reason you can't understand why is because I'm not claiming that, and I few seconds spent actually reading instead of assuming would show you this. Not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically supporting whatever enemy you've invented for yourself.

I'm not defending Islam, I'm not defending anyone. I'm defending the idea of "know thy enemy". Why do you think the "War on Terror" has completely failed so far? We've spent over a decade going after Muslims around the world, and yet terrorist attacks still happen as much as they did 10 years ago. If you can't see that Islam is not the primary problem here, then all you're doing is supporting the continuation of a failed policy. All your ideology does is help the terrorists.

I'm not blaming the west. I'm blaming people who think like you.

 

[TheDag]

When we're talking about Islam, the politics and the religion are one and the same thing. It's a common mistake to take the Western distinction between religion and secular politics and try to apply it to Islam.

just like politics and Christianity are the same thing! of course politics and Christianity are also different just like islam and politics is also different.

Care to substantiate the claim that it is a delusion? Islam has been the enemy of the West for nearly fourteen centuries. Throughout history, whenever it was able, it waged wars of aggression against the West and their other non-Islamic neighbors. I see no evidence that this is changing or any reason why it would.

care to provide evidence of this claim? By evidence I mean that every single Islamic nation in the world is involved in war against other countries. Perhaps you could start with Saudi Arabia & Kuwait and do the remaining fifty or so in any order you choose.

It's not a question of whether I care, it's a question of whether Muslims care. You're still trying to make excuses for Islam and shift the blame on the West. It's our fault for not being good little dhminnis and doing what they want. For the life of me I can't understand why. Do you realize what would lie in store for you if Islam were to prevail? It's like playing with fire and not knowing that fire is hot.

If you can't stop making false accusations perhaps you should stop posting. Nobody here has ever claimed you should just do whatever they want. To suggest they have is just outright deceitful.

You do need to understand that when a country like the US puts a proposal to the UN and then withdraws it as it was going to be defeated so it would not make them war criminals when they went to war anyway then people are going to be upset when they are told they HAVE TO accept UN intervention. Of course as has been pointed out there is still terrorism despite all these efforts. As the saying goes "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Here is an answer

I think you just proved my point.

"No society or state can run peacefully without any laws and rules. If the laws and rules are those or based upon those given by Allah, then submitting, surrendering or yielding to these laws and rules is called Al-Islam[2] (or The Submission).

Since Allah is the Creator and the Sustainer of the entire universe including the human beings, none can know better the nature and the needs of the human hardware and software better than Him. The laws and rules given by the All-Wise and the All-Knowing Allah (who is Allah of the all human races and tribes) are free from any subjectivity, bias or limitations of time and space. Hence, the submission or conformity to only Allah’s laws or guidance (if correctly interpreted and implemented) can guarantee a perpetual safety, security, preservation and well-being of all human beings living in a society and the world at large."

It's clearly talking about shariah here.

It's a delusion because you ignore that the west instigated war as much as the Muslim countries did, and more importantly you ignore that Islamic terrorism is not the same thing as war.

How did those Muslim countries ever become Muslim in the first place? More often that not, by war. Study of history clearly shows who the aggressor in this conflict is. Terrorism is really a low-budget substitute for war. Anyway, terrorism is not the only, or even primary problem I have with Islam. I'm not a pacifist.

Why do you think the "War on Terror" has completely failed so far? We've spent over a decade going after Muslims around the world, and yet terrorist attacks still happen as much as they did 10 years ago.

We chase them around the world when we have millions inside our own borders.

care to provide evidence of this claim? By evidence I mean that every single Islamic nation in the world is involved in war against other countries. Perhaps you could start with Saudi Arabia & Kuwait and do the remaining fifty or so in any order you choose.

Every single Islamic nation? By LBAM's admission back in post #86, there is only one.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I think you just proved my point.

...

It's clearly talking about shariah here.

I suggest you look up what Sharia law actually is then. I also suggest that you try to avoid twisting the meaning of other people's words in future; the author says clearly what the ultimate goal is.

How did those Muslim countries ever become Muslim in the first place? More often that not, by war.

And you think this is something unique to Islam? The same applies to pretty much every other religious or social change throughout history.

Study of history clearly shows who the aggressor in this conflict is. Terrorism is really a low-budget substitute for war.

No, it isn't. It's something very different, and treating it like a war just allows us to pretend we're doing something while avoiding the actual issues.

We chase them around the world when we have millions inside our own borders.

If you think going after random Muslim citizens will solve anything, then you're just as dangerous as the terrorists. You talk like they do. Change a few words around and you would be practically indistinguishable from them.

 

[TheDag]

Every single Islamic nation? By LBAM's admission back in post #86, there is only one.

With this answer there are problems either way on how you interpret countries. If you interpret it as geographical countries like you would see on a map of the world and politically acknowledged as countries then the majority of them do not match your statement from earlier. If they are all one country then you must take the whole in which case it is only a small minority of people taking action and while the rest are not and can therefore be considered to be against the action and your statement is therefore false. Much like we don't call all people from the USA mad cultists and terrorists simply because of incident like Waco, Texas or Oklahama bomber Timothy McVeigh. If you want to use that classification then you are a terrorist and we better lock you up hey! Gotta be consistant after all.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I also suggest that you try to avoid twisting the meaning of other people's words in future; the author says clearly what the ultimate goal is.

Twisting the meaning? I simply quoted what I considered a pertinent passage here. I think any intelligent person can discern what it means.

And you think this is something unique to Islam?

Yup. Islam is unique in that way, being founded by a warlord and all.

No, it isn't. It's something very different, and treating it like a war just allows us to pretend we're doing something while avoiding the actual issues.

Terrorism, like war, is an extension of politics, and can't be separated from the political circumstances from which they arise.

If you think going after random Muslim citizens will solve anything, then you're just as dangerous as the terrorists. You talk like they do. Change a few words around and you would be practically indistinguishable from them.

Is it the terrorists who are the real danger though?

If they are all one country then you must take the whole in which case it is only a small minority of people taking action and while the rest are not and can therefore be considered to be against the action and your statement is therefore false.

Just because people are not taking part in an action means that they are against the action? Anybody who isn't personally fighting a war is considered to be against the war? What kind of logic that?

 

[TheDag]

Just because people are not taking part in an action means that they are against the action? Anybody who isn't personally fighting a war is considered to be against the war? What kind of logic that?

I think the problem is with your logic. Your logic claims that people and leaders who have said they are against various wars actually support the wars. What kind of logic is that?

Here is Australia after sept 11 attacks most muslims were against it. Those connected to the two or three radical mosques in the country of course were celebrating but they are very much a minority. Which mosque do you think the media went to immeadiately after news broke? The one radical mosque in Sydney or the hundreds of others who were against the attacks? You obviously want to believe what the mainstream media whose sole interest is making money wants to tell you rather than media that is actually interested in being honest and balanced.