The London Bombings - 7/7/05 - Conspiracies, politics, commentary

[Belle 10]

This will seem very over simplified

 

But there you go, I am feeling very simple minded today.

 

I was thinking about how it would be if the terrorists turned out to be British, from Oldham for example.

 

I was thinking what their motivation would be.

 

I was thinking about angry young men with raging testosterone.

 

I was reminded of combat 18 skin heads.

 

They find something to get riled up about, an ill that they can blame for why their lives are not how they wanted them to be and then unleash violence in a big way.

 

It also reminds me of football hooligans who plan big fights with supporters of other teams where they go out with knives and chains to pre-organised scraps.

 

And all those blokes in Manchester (and other cities) that go out shooting each other at night in gang warfare.

 

The scale is obviously different, the weapons are different but I do feel there is some similarity.

 

I dont think the real reason for it has anything to do with Islam. That is the convenient hook they have chosen for their violent urges. (They might think God told them to do it, but I think the Yorkshire Ripper said the same didn't he?)

 

I think this is partly a bloke thing - white, black or asian, it is about getting angry and getting righteous and doing something very violent to "make them pay" (whoever "they" are)

 

I dont mean all blokes are like this, I dont know what I mean really, but sometimes as a woman, I do despair.

[redrobbo 10]

Originally posted by sheffco

I tend to agree, that a person may be quite happy with four wives - a tent - a camel and a few goats, but why should they try and convince me of the same?

 

Knocking on your door are they? I suggest you treat them like the Mormons (also four wives, but no goats or camels to my knowledge) and tell them you're a satanist! That usually sends them packing. Let us know how you fare.

 

Originally posted by sheffco

The Muslim Council (Why do we Need one). It seems to be a bit of "Protesteth too Much"?

 

The Muslim Council lobbies on political, economic and social matters of interest to British Muslims. Source: Google.

 

There are similar organisations representing the Jewish and Hindu faiths.

 

 

Originally posted by sheffco

Vengeance is mine, as the saying goes, and if the leaders of the mosques persist in saying that the fundamentalists are not among them, then we should legislate for a more open control on what they preach.

Do you not realise how ridiculous this statement is? In effect, you've found the leaders of the mosques (they're called Imams by the way) guilty of harbouring fundamentalists whether they admit it or not! Talk about a kangeroo court!

 

And you want legislation for more 'open controls' on what Muslims can preach too? Hmmm, you'll be telling me what to think next, and then legislating to control what I hear. Wasn't there a book on this subject - "1984" I think it was called?

 

 

Originally posted by sheffco

Do they have the same "Secrets of the Confessional" as was offered to the guilty IRA members? After all, murder is a crime in all religious beliefs.

 

The Sacrement of the Penance, is where Catholics confess their sins to a Priest in absolute secrecy to receive God's forgiveness and be reconciled. There is no similar practice in any other Christian denomination, or, I believe, the Muslim faith.

 

Murder is a crime, irrespective of any religious belief or none.

[LordChaverly 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

what's your point, would it help if we post sections of the bible where it tells you to put people to the sword and strike down your neighbour for covetting your wife?

 

Cyclone, I think you are missing an important point here. Islam is the only one of the major religions which has not undergone a process of secularisation. In other words, what is written in the Koran is regarded as literal truth and its followers are expected to carry out its edicts to the letter in their daily lives. Moreover, no distinction is made in it between politics and religion. It is of course true that bloodthirsty passages can be found in the Judeao- Christian canon (i.e. in the old testament) but the vast majority of Christians would regard these as allegorical anachronisms rather than as literal justifications for violence.

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by DanSumption

I can't speak for polish_lady, but my point is that religion is a very dangerous thing and the sooner we rid ourselves of it the better.

 

And I already provided one such bible quote a few pages back; I can give you more if you want them.

 

not for my sake, I agree broadly with what you feel about all religion. Although your dislike seems to be rather more focus than mine. I just think it's a delusion that people suffer under.

 

The polish lady seemed to be singling out Islam as the only religion that had texts of that nature, which clearly isn't the case.

 

PS - why do you call them Moslems rather than Muslims?

 

LC - do all Muslims regard it as literal truth and follow it that closely? It would appear not, so, it's religous fanatics, which you get in every faith.

[LordChaverly 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

not for my sake, I agree broadly with what you feel about all religion. Although your dislike seems to be rather more focus than mine. I just think it's a delusion that people suffer under.

 

The polish lady seemed to be singling out Islam as the only religion that had texts of that nature, which clearly isn't the case.

 

PS - why do you call them Moslems rather than Muslims?

 

LC - do all Muslims regard it as literal truth and follow it that closely? It would appear not, so, it's religous fanatics, which you get in every faith.

 

of course, by no means all Muslims follow the Koran very closely, even though if asked the majority would probably say it was the literal truth. In previous ages in Europe, of course we did have religious fanatics who were probably every bit as ruthless in their contempt for human life as Al Qaida. However, this was several centuries ago, i.e. before the process of European secularisation which I mentioned earlier. Secularisation goes far beyond the separation of church and state. It implies attitudinal and behavioural changes also. Secular values are incompatible with those of religious fanaticism. Islamic values and secular values have not yet been fully reconciled. At some point they probably will be, but its likely to be a long hard road.

[redrobbo 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

 

LC - do all Muslims regard it as literal truth and follow it that closely? It would appear not, so, it's religous fanatics, which you get in every faith.

 

Spot on Cyclone. There are plenty of religious fanatics (of different faiths) who support their warped views by a literal interpretation of their religious belief. Take, for example, this quote from a thread discussing abortion........

 

"abortion is against the will of God. It is as simple as that

Levicus {sic} 12:10"

 

I found this post quite chilling. No discussion, no debate, no argument - it's against the will of god, and it's as simple as that.

 

How do you communicate with someone who holds such religious dogma? It's like having a dialogue with the deaf. They are not open to reason or persuasion. They quote the tenets of their religious book, and take comfort and shelter in a literal intrepretation of its edicts.

 

Religious fanatics can be dangerous people if they decide to

act in the name of their god, like the fanatical American Christians murdering doctors who perform abortions.

[DanSumption 10]

Lordchav is right, Islam is in some ways a special case because it makes explicit the fact that the only law is religious law, so secularism is explicitly forbidden, as opposed to Christianity with its "render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's". It also claims that the Koran is the pure, unadulterated word of God, making is less amenable to "allegorical" readings than the Bible.

 

Another reason why this is important: in the excellent documentary film The Fog of War, one of former US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara's eleven lessons is "know your enemy". McNamara, who was in charge of defence at the time the USA went into Vietnam, says that the Vietnam war was entirely the result of the Americans' inability to get inside the Vietnamese mindset (which he only subsequently managed to do when he met and talked to his Vietnamese opposite number many years later).

 

I have heard many pundits, from all parts of the political spectrum, trying to analyse the motives behind last Thursday's attacks, but almost all have done so from a basically Western, secular mindset, y'know the "these terrorists are misguided if they think this is going to affect our determination to do X, Y and Z" type of thing. Taken from an extreme literalist Islamic viewpoint, it is not necessary that these attacks change our mind in any way, they may just be read as "doing one's duty to God".

 

As to why I write Moslem rather than Muslim... I dunno, that's just how it's spelt in my head. Both are I believe correct spellings, as they are transliterations from Arabic. Just as their holy book can be called the Koran, Qur'an, Quraan, Quran or Alcoran.

[sheffco 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

what's your point, would it help if we post sections of the bible where it tells you to put people to the sword and strike down your neighbour for covetting your wife?

 

Wishes - Wishes! some-one is obviously frustrated.

The Bible - The Quoran? They both exhort people to smite them mightily.

There is a quote, that "Islam will exist until man sets foot on the moon"

[DanSumption 10]

Originally posted by redrobbo

"abortion is against the will of God. It is as simple as that

Levicus {sic} 12:10"

 

I found this post quite chilling. No discussion, no debate, no argument - it's against the will of god, and it's as simple as that.

Yes, also good proof of the low level of intellectual development of many who call themselves Christians. Apart from the mis-spelling of Leviticus, there is also the fact that there is no Leviticus 12:10 (it only goes up to 12:, there is no explicit reference to "abortion" (a term which I find it hard to believe existed at the time the scriptures were written), and all Leviticus 12, in full, has to say is:

 

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

 

6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

" 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "

And lamb-sacrifice to celebrate a birth is a practice which is extremely uncommon, even among fundamentalist Christians, nowadays.

 

And aside from all this, anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" and then cites Old Testament law at you is an ass, because a large part of Jesus's supposed mission on Earth was to retract some of that angry sh*t his father had layed down before him.

[LordChaverly 10]

Originally posted by redrobbo

Spot on Cyclone. There are plenty of religious fanatics (of different faiths) who support their warped views by a literal interpretation of their religious belief. Take, for example, this quote from a thread discussing abortion........

 

"abortion is against the will of God. It is as simple as that

Levicus {sic} 12:10"

 

I found this post quite chilling. No discussion, no debate, no argument - it's against the will of god, and it's as simple as that.

 

How do you communicate with someone who holds such religious dogma? It's like having a dialogue with the deaf. They are not open to reason or persuasion. They quote the tenets of their religious book, and take comfort and shelter in a literal intrepretation of its edicts.

 

Religious fanatics can be dangerous people if they decide to

act in the name of their god, like the fanatical American Christians murdering doctors who perform abortions.

 

But the number of 'fanatical American Christians' murdering doctors can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. This is hardly comparable to the threat from a global terrorist movement inspired by religious fanaticism.

[sheffco 10]

OOhHH! dear

Seem to have stirred up a bit there!

I do happen to know a bit about the So called Christian Religion, I was beaten but not bu**red by them as the saying goes.

And would dare to say, that I have a bit mores experience of fundamentalism, than some of the people posting here. Christian and Muslim!

Watch the Calender - - There is about 400 years difference, we burned witches, went on the crusades, it really is a process of civiisation!

[DanSumption 10]

Is anyone else here as deeply troubled as I am by the fact that all the major US dailies seem to be taking a similar line on the bombings to royjames and his mob?