https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=391991687851867&id=100011231162355&set=a.306687056382331.1073741829.100011231162355&source=48

 

Lol, I shared the exact same post on fb.

 

I'm pretty sure that's exactly how they want us to react

 

At least we knew what the IRA wanted and eventually they stopped killing civilians because they knew it was counter productive.

On the other hand what do these Jihadists want other than to kill?

 

This^^^

It has been put forward today and yesterday that these killings are nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with politics.

Rubbish.

People like the killer will only be happy when the whole world is face down on a mat five times a day and subject to some 7th century laws.

What I CANNOT get my head round is how the left and feminist groups have ended up "in bed with" Islam?

 

Islam, as an ideology, has been analysed many a times. Fact is, that every religion, if the metaphors of it are taken and followed literally, can be destructive to the humanity and the world.

Not all Islam followers are terrorists, you know. Some have even started to raise funds for the victims:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ttack-victims/

 

They're gonna have a long wait if they expect the entire free western world to do that..... I know that for certain.....

 

Of course they aren't...but turn it round, and most terrorists these days are Muslims...

 

That's because they happen to be the flavour of the month group of angry malcontents. It's what happens if you kick people hard enough.

 

Their prophet, who Muslims seek to emulate, was a warlord. One's either in the the house of Islam or the house of war and it's been that way for 1400 years.

 

Do we really have to go into the ins and outs of Islam again? I really don't think it'll serve anyone well at the end of the day.

 

You don't have to do anything, but if I think or feel someone is knocking out ill-considered and inaccurate apologies and platitudes then I reserve the right to respond.

 

As far as I'm aware I've not apologised for anything but that really is besides the point.

Back on topic, there's a vast majority of Muslims who are not actively participating in Jihad and manage to coexist quite happily with non-muslims. Does that mean they aren't true Muslims (I'd love to see have that argument out with an actual Muslim)?

Trying to claim that the bulk of current terrorists are Muslims because they are aiming to emulate Muhammad really is a gross over simplification of the issue. There are a range of social/political causes which have also heavily contributed.

 

Most Muslims don't understand Islam.

 

No one has said all Muslims are terrorists but all the acts of terrorism just in the past two years alone speak for themselves:
Charlie Hebdo attack
Normandy Church attack
Louvre attack
Ansbach attack
Munich attack
Nice attack
Brussels attack
Paris attack

 

Good. I believe that not all Islam followers want to become warlords.



Yes, in this day and age, it certainly seems like that the Islamists are causing more terror than other ideologically radicalised terrorists.

From an interesting read https://rusi.org/sites/default/files...nal_report.pdf >

…terrorism has occurred in waves, with each one characterised by a common driving ideology or objective, and with similar activity undertaken by groups within different countries… four such waves: the anarchists who originated in 1880s Russia; the anti-colonial terrorists that followed the First World War; the new left which emerged in the 1960s; and the religious wave which dominates the current threat landscape. Lone actors have been active during each wave.



Further, on the ideology……

…the phenomenon of lone-actor attacks is not restricted to a specific ideology. Rather, three dominant ideological drivers can be identified: right-wing ideas drawn predominantly from the work of Ulius Amoss, Louis Beam and ‘leaderless resistance’; the work of Abu Musab Al-Suri and Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula under Anwar Al-Awlaki’s tutelage; and idiosyncratic, self-developed ideologies.

Furthermore, on the characteristics……

…In Clark McCauley and Sophia Moskalenko’s study comparing lone-actor terrorists with school shooters and assassins, four common characteristics are identified, which include grievance and ‘unfreezing’ (defined as ‘a situational crisis of personal disconnection and maladjustment’).52 Drawing on his more limited dataset of fifteen, Nesser similarly concludes that ‘personal frustrations appear to have been an important factor behind the ideological radicalisation’…


I’d add my view that personal frustrations can be an important factor for self- developing idiosyncratic worldview, and that, with or without some other factors involved, can turn someone into a terrorist. Religious ideological radicalisation or a 'religion' or even a non-religious ideology as a driver is not always required for such turning; despite the increase of the Islamist terrorism in specific in last few years. The twisted ideology can simply be "I don't have what you have, therefore I'll kill you, you random (or specific) f*kkers!" or something along these lines.

 

Well, this can be talked through by sitting down with them, as James says somewhere before.


Well, this stance won't go down well to bring peace, if you sit down with the Jihadists to talk, James.


Well, if you think that most Muslims are peaceful because they don't understand Islam, then you certainly aren't the person for the peace talk with the Jihadists.

 

No, that's what they think they are!

 

Islam is crying out for a Saul of Tarsus.

 

There's a few narrow minded people on here, don't know why I joined in tbh, I shall now unsubscribe to this thread as it's just not that great knowing what a few of us are like and how some of us have grown to think.
However I'll leave this here
https://www.facebook.com/RiazKhanLeicester/videos/1747367888909327/

 

What do you think they want which we can give them yet not compromise the essence of our liberal democracy?

With the IRA it was always clear, and they compromised with a power sharing agreement.

And you can't have it both ways; you can't say the Jihadist movement is politically tractable yet also just some aggregate of lone wolves who are driven by personal problems. Not that Jihadism can be remotely understood as an aggregate of 'lone wolves' as only some jihadist can be defined as lone wolves.

 

In that case, you have my best wishes, James.

I don't know what they want, Tony. I think we need to ask them. I disagree with their appalling ways (causing terror and blood shed) for whatever they want, and I hope that do get involved in some serious peace talks with relevant world leaders. Perhaps good Muslim leaders need to take the lead in liaising with them. There have been some trials of such, I think, but it needs to happen with more vigour on global level.

 

You really aren't understanding the nature of the beast. They are not interested in negotiating or discussing anything other than the death of the Western World and the growth of their Caliphate and ideals. This is an organisation that even Al Qaeda themselves said were too extreme and will have nothing to do with. That in itself should tell you as much as you need to know as to just how bad those leading IS forward are. These aren't anyone you can get round the negotiating table.

As bad as Al Qaeda are they are a different breed to IS and there is reasoning behind their madness - ultimately it derives from Bin Laden's revenge against the US after the CIA fcuked him over after the end of the Afghan/Russia war.

IS were born from an Al Qaeda off shoot in Iraq which was Al Qaeda in the Levant. Al Qaeda disassociated themselves from that group due to their extreme views and actions and IS was created. They wanted a Caliphate created across the middle east and to rule in a fashion that makes Sharia Law and life under the Taliban look like a walk in the park. These animals don't want to negotiate with the West they want their Caliphate and murderous ways to grow and to attack anyone who tries to stop them. They are a modern day crusade with prehistoric views on life.

What I question is why IS wasn't stopped in it's infancy as the US and coalition in Iraq was well aware of it's birth and splinter from Al Qaeda but did nothing to stop it. I find it hard to believe it is as simple as underestimating it's threat from an early stage.

 

I'm aware of all that, Anon. When I say "I don't know what they want", I mean that they know how irrational and futile their acts will be; in order to grow their Calliphate or continue to take revenge the way they do, but even then they carry on. I believe that irrational thinking and irrational behaviour can be discussed round the table. but the ones that instigate such talk will have to be the Islamic (not Islamist) leaders. It certainly is not negotiable with the Western involvement in such perceived attempt.

If such attempts fail, then what do you think is the answer? Wiping out such radical and criminal groups? That's ongoing but one drops, another one grows. That's the problem. If Islam as a religion is to be blamed for it, then the understanding if it has to be polished and straightened in such radical criminal groups on individuals. That can only be done by the religious leaders of Islam. IMO.

 

It absolutely has come from within. As I said years ago, there needs to be an Islamic Reformation.

 

If that is required, then it is also best done by the ones in charge, don't you think? I do, and that's why I think it's only reasonable to expect the Islam's religious priests and leaders to take the lead; for both Islamic reformation as well as the negotiations with the irrational terrorist groups and warped Islamist terrorist individuals.

 

Why do you claim that Jihadis are irrational and warped? Was Mohammad irrational and warped? Is the Qur'an irrational and warped?

 

I know where you are leading to, with your same old questioning tactic. Your questioning is clearly intended to connect the terrorist activities directly to the Islam religion. You have already blamed Mohammad and Islam as terrorism enticing factors on this thread. You have done it over and over and over; over the years- here in Scoobynet. What more do you want to do, James? By questioning me like this, all you want to do is make me accept that the fault is very much within and of the Islam religion itself. Why do you want to do that, James? Believe in what you believe in, you don't need to make people do anything.

Let me question you for a change. If Islam is such an explosive and blood thirsty twisted religion, then how come so many Islam followers are living peacefully on this earth, getting on with their lives? Do you think all Islam followers have the seeds of terrorism in them, because they follow such a terrorism enticing religion?

 

I think you may well be on to something there Swati, you're not the only one to notice this particular style of posting from James with regards to Islam. I've often found myself unable to fathom why he takes this stance but you could well have nailed it there.

 

In my experience, it's not just on Islam that James throws out such Socratic maieutics. It's his same old 'entrapping' style, which looks like a point scoring/winning-losing exercise.