I'm lucky enough

@dog said in I'm lucky enough:

There was terrorism in '50s, '60s and the '70s. This is not a new thing. I’m thinking of the IRA.

Well that’s true but it wasn’t as pervasive as it is today. It was mainly the PLO/IRA/Red Brigrade in the 70’s.
And there certainly wasn’t any ‘homegrown’ terrorism. Sadly it seems it’s almost become normal these days.

administrators

@bunyip said in I'm lucky enough:

Unfortunately it’s like a game of tennis, there will always be a counter move for the last action, the reprisals from the crusades are still going and religion is mostly the basis of these actions, my god is better than your god etc etc.
I was dropping off some shit at a 7th day adventist camp and watching these pricks all trying to outdo each other with quotes from the bible, they were starting to get quite volatile and nasty, it was actually quite funny watching these ‘preaching peace’ bastards getting heated almost to the point of punching each other, all leafing through their massive bibles that would weigh about 10kg to prove each other wrong.
god is love!!!

Reading this blokes ‘Manifesto’ says he just hated everyone who wasn’t white and wasn’t right wing.

I don’t think this was a reprisal. Just a hatred for Muslims. He also hated anyone who was black or brown.

administrators

@craig said in I'm lucky enough:

@dog said in I'm lucky enough:

There was terrorism in '50s, '60s and the '70s. This is not a new thing. I’m thinking of the IRA.

Well that’s true but it wasn’t as pervasive as it is today. It was mainly the PLO/IRA/Red Brigrade in the 70’s.
And there certainly wasn’t any ‘homegrown’ terrorism. Sadly it seems it’s almost become normal these days.

Certainly the home grown terrorism is on the increase but it is not new. Remember the Hilton Bombing?

I do remember the Hilton Bombing. There’s still no official explanation of who was behind that. It wasn’t the Ananda Marga. It’s been suggested that it was a security exercise that fucked up. So I’m not sure that we can definitely say that was homegrown terrorism. Not that it makes much difference to the poor fuckers that were blown up.

@craig said in I'm lucky enough:

@dog said in I'm lucky enough:

There was terrorism in '50s, '60s and the '70s. This is not a new thing. I’m thinking of the IRA.

Well that’s true but it wasn’t as pervasive as it is today. It was mainly the PLO/IRA/Red Brigrade in the 70’s.
And there certainly wasn’t any ‘homegrown’ terrorism. Sadly it seems it’s almost become normal these days.

@craig said in I'm lucky enough:

@dog said in I'm lucky enough:

There was terrorism in '50s, '60s and the '70s. This is not a new thing. I’m thinking of the IRA.

Well that’s true but it wasn’t as pervasive as it is today. It was mainly the PLO/IRA/Red Brigrade in the 70’s.
And there certainly wasn’t any ‘homegrown’ terrorism. Sadly it seems it’s almost become normal these days.

Yeah, there was, Not that I want to argue the point. It was mostly bad guys vs bad guys, but Hoddle St comes to mind, and in Bris the drug guys had parcel bombs and car bombs in the mid seventies… imagine that!

I don’t care what people believe, they should be free to believe whatever they wish should they not? I’ve just had some guys knock on my door, big deal, they looked almost embarrassed and asked if they could share something. “No thanks” I said and wished them better luck next door. They happily moved on without hassling me.

No guns were involved, whatever I think of them and their need to do what they do, they have a right to do it quietly and peacefully, even if they wear funny hats.

administrators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Australia

Terrorism in Australia isn’t new. We just forget and look at the past with a tinge of rose in our glasses.

The anti-Muslim and hate in general is on the increase. Hating all Muslims for the acts of a few illogical but that has never been a barrier for thought.

Every terrorist attack in the North America in 2108 was carried out by a white guy, yet we don’t hate all white guys.

I work everyday with people of all races and religions. They all just want to earn a living so they can provide for their family.

@dog said in I'm lucky enough:

yet we don’t hate all white guys.

No, but I can’t really blame those that do.

@dog said in I'm lucky enough:

Terrorism in Australia isn’t new.

No it’s not but it is getting more common. And that’s not counting the ones the security people manage to foil. All I was getting at is it’s completely fucked up and I just wish the nutters on all sides would stop it. But it ain’t going to happen.

Unfortunately Islam is dedicated to being the one and only religion, and until you change that inbuilt ideology you will have terrorism. This is very similar to the catholic religion several centuries ago. It is all about power in all cases, and the leaders use the blind faith of the followers to do the dirty work.

administrators

@termite said in I'm lucky enough:

Unfortunately Islam is dedicated to being the one and only religion, and until you change that inbuilt ideology you will have terrorism. This is very similar to the catholic religion several centuries ago. It is all about power in all cases, and the leaders use the blind faith of the followers to do the dirty work.

The reason for Islamic terrorism isn’t because of this. Most fundy Christians think that Christianity is the ‘One True Religion’ and almost all of them think that if you don’t follow Christ then you will spend the rest of eternity in Hell.

There are many reasons for Islamic Terrorism.

Don’t believe the Hansons and Fannings of this world. They are lying to the Australian people for their own political gain.

Have a read of the ‘Motivations’ section in Wikipedia article here.

The following is from that article.

Religious motivation
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, in their book, The Age of Sacred Terror, argue that Islamic terrorist attacks are purely religious. They are seen as “a sacrament … intended to restore to the universe a moral order that had been corrupted by the enemies of Islam.” It is neither political or strategic but an “act of redemption” meant to “humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God”.[54]

One of the Kouachi brothers responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shooting called a French journalist, saying, “We are the defenders of Prophet Mohammed.”[55]

Two studies of the background of Muslim terrorists in Europe—one of the UK and one of France—found little connection between religious piety and terrorism. According to a “restricted” report of hundreds of case studies by the UK domestic counter-intelligence agency MI5,

[f]ar from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.[56]

A 2015 “general portrait” by Olivier Roy (see above) of “the conditions and circumstances” under which people living in France become “Islamic radicals” (terrorists or would-be terrorists) found radicalisation was not an “uprising of a Muslim community that is victim to poverty and racism: only young people join, including converts”.[57]

Roy believes terrorism/radicalism is “expressed in religious terms” because most of the radicals have a Muslim background, which makes them open to a process of re-Islamisation (“almost none of them having been pious before entering the process of radicalisation”), and[57]
jihad is “the only cause on the global market”. If you kill in silence, it will be reported by the local newspaper; “if you kill yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’, you are sure to make the national headlines”. Other extreme causes—ultra-left or radical ecology are “too bourgeois and intellectual” for the radicals.[57]
According to Indonesian Islamic leader Yahya Cholil Staquf in a 2017 Time interview, according to classical Islamic tradition, the relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims is one of segregation and enmity. In his view extremism and terrorism are linked with orthodox Islam and that radical Islamic movements are nothing new. He also added that Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism is not linked to Islam.[58][59]

Donald Holbrook, a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, analyzes a sample of 30 works by jihadist propagandists and finds several passages of the Quran exploited and distorted to suit the objectives of violent jihad.[2] An-Nisa (4:74–75) is quoted most frequently; other popular passages are At-Taubah (9:13–15, 38–39, 111) and Al-Baqarah (2:190–191, 216). Consider Surah 9:5:

But when these months, prohibited (for fighting), are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind.

Holbrook notes they cherry-picked the first part “slay the idolaters” but fail to quote and discuss limiting factors at the end of the ayat, “but if they repent …” This, Holbrook argues, is how violent jihadists are “shamelessly selective in order to serve their propaganda objectives.”[2] Peter Bergen notes that bin Laden cited this verse in 1998 when making a formal declaration of war.[60]

Michael Sells and Jane I. Smith (a Professor of Islamic Studies) write that barring some extremists like al-Qaeda, most Muslims do not interpret Qur’anic verses as promoting warfare today but rather as reflecting historically dated contexts.[61][62] According to Sells, “[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels.”[61] In his book No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Iranian-American academic Reza Aslan argues that there is an internal battle currently taking place within Islam between individualistic reform ideals and the traditional authority of Muslim clerics[63] similar to that of the 16th-century reformation in Christianity, which was as old as Islam currently is at that period.[64] He writes, “the notion that historical context should play no role in the interpretation of the Koran—that what applied to Muhammad’s community applies to all Muslim communities for all time—is simply an untenable position in every sense.”[65]

Supporters of bin Laden have also pointed to reports according to which the Islamic prophet Muhammad attacked towns at night or with catapults, and argued that he must have condoned incidental harm to noncombatants, since it would have been impossible to distinguish them from combatants during such attacks.[66] These arguments were not widely accepted by Muslims.[66]

The Pakistani theologian Javed Ahmad Ghamidi blames Muslim madrasas that indoctrinate children with Islamic supremacist views, such as that Muslims are legally superior to unbelievers (particularly former Muslims), and that jihad will eventually bring about a single caliphate to rule the world.[67]

From the start I am abhorred by the mass murder in Christchurch and I in no way trying to justify the acts there my comment are just on Islam as A religion
Any killing by a person following a doctrine or belief that differs from those they kill is barbaric and should be dealt with to the full extent of the law,

Islam is in my opinion a religion of hate and the factions within it Shia and Sunny draw close similarities to the catholic v Protestant , and the Medieval Inquisition of the middle ages, It is a religion that can destroy nations as it has never progressed or become " Enlightened " but has stayed a primitive religion. The religion decrees that any who join then leave should be killed, any who refuse to follow the faith should be made slaves.

Sectarian violence within Islam kills many more than all the anti Islamic acts by non Islamic believers. Check on the number of Sunni s killed by isis simply because they followed a different sect, or the lack of news here of the mass murder of Christians in the Philippians in a church in January this year and the list goes on. No excuse or justification for what happened, but we only get the news here that sells papers etc.

last edited by tolovar
administrators

@tolovar said in I'm lucky enough:

Islam is in my opinion a religion of hate and the factions within it Shia and Sunny draw close similarities to the catholic v Protestant , and the Medieval Inquisition of the middle ages, It is a religion that can destroy nations as it has never progressed or become " Enlightened " but has stayed a primitive religion. The religion decrees that any who join then leave should be killed, any who refuse to follow the faith should be made slaves.

Didn’t read my post so more ignorant bigotry.

Nothing to do with the religion, just of the culture.

Malaysia is a modern nation.

@tolovar said in I'm lucky enough:

The religion decrees that any who join then leave should be killed, any who refuse to follow the faith should be made slaves.

Really? No one follows the words of their holy books. You’d be in jail in a week if you followed the bible.

administrators

@tolovar said in I'm lucky enough:

Sectarian violence within Islam kills many more than all the anti Islamic acts by non Islamic believers. Check on the number of Sunni s killed by isis simply because they followed a different sect, or the lack of news here of the mass murder of Christians in the Philippians in a church in January this year and the list goes on. No excuse or justification for what happened, but we only get the news here that sells papers etc.

Just drop out Islam and you are right. Sectarian violence is the big killer.

The dominant culture attacks the minorities.

Religion divides.

I am very anti-religion but not anti-religious. Most people who follow a religion are decent human beings.

I just don’t get you people who hate 1.6 billion people for the actions of a really, really tiny percentage.

The simple fact is that most terrorist attacks aren’t done by Muslims.

I just think you hate people who are different.

Religion or a religious follower is a crazy term… look at AFL or soccer followers, diehards all fanatical about their team.
seriously if muslims or christians were as fanatical as the above we would all be living a different lifestyle.

NO sectarian violence has killed more islamic followers than any other , just because you want to bury your head in the sand and listen to Australian news and disregard world news is your own doing but dont try and tell me that most followers of the islamic religion that have been murdered in the last 20 years haven’t been murdered by islamic followers of a different sect of islam because thats just BS, Your a bit like Kochie on His australian morning show saying the majority of mass murderers are white male supremacists, he seems to forget the mass murders in Bali, France Netherlands Iraq
and Pakistan to name but a few.

So why when we are discussing mass murder do we have to
"Just drop out Islam and you are right. Sectarian violence is the big killer.
why drop out of the biggest killer in the world in the last 20 years

@tolovar said in I'm lucky enough:

why drop out of the biggest killer in the world in the last 20 years

You mean Ischaemic heart disease and stroke?

try and find how many christians have been massacred in Kenya in the past 6 months, leaves one gagging in fear, all killed in the name of islam.
But media are reluctant to print/announce in fear of being seen as anti muslim.

Is there not a significant difference between war within a country’s borders, whether religiously motivated or not, (and whether you like it or not wars fought in the name of religion are almost always about power, not getting to heaven), and some goose popping off a few dozen people in an otherwise peaceful environment?

Kochie is wrong no matter what he says - however it is estimated (source not confirmed) that 31%, let’s call that one third of the world’s mass shootings have taken place in the USA and the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of those is not of a dark skin colour and do not use religion as their excuse to get their jollies killing innocent folk.

However. I can’t help but think we are reaping what we sow here. When an act of terrorism takes place, in the name of a particular god-figure, we hold everyone of that religion to task for the act, whether or not the majority of them are just as appalled as we are, whether or not the killings were contrary to the actual doctrine of that religion.

Now, by having this discussion are we not just hinting that in NZ, “well they had it coming to them”? Why are we taking this defensive stance and not denouncing the act in EVERY discussion? We criticise the Moslems for doing that, for not being outraged enough, well now its out turn to show the contempt we feel for this action.

The murders in NZ have nothing to do with sectarian violence whether in Pakistan or anywhere else. One gutless idiot simply murdered a bunch of entirely innocent people because he didn’t like the colour of their skin. His were the actions of a growing violent fringe of our society, one that we could do well to rid ourselves of before others join the Turkish PM sees us for the racist bunch of Islamaphobes we are rapidly becoming…

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.