2 explosions in Manchester Arena - CONFIRMED Fatalities.

[Endus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRPzkB5mr1U just wanna ask endus what did this moderate moderate imam said????????????? muslims flooded by extremism how???? when they are so peaceful.. someone said fucking truth..

Did you link the wrong video, or something? You've got two Muslim leaders, there, both condemning the attack in Manchester, both advocating for peace. The only difference is that the imam makes the somewhat unjustifiable argument that there's only one possible interpretation of Quranic scripture, even though he apparently doesn't abide by those same interpretations. And worse; he tries to blame a history of conflict on the faith, when every civilization in history has had a similar history of conflict and warfare, despite not being Muslim. It's human, nothing more.

Pay more attention to what Dr. Rifi has to say, there.

[Deleted]

Did you link the wrong video, or something? You've got two Muslim leaders, there, both condemning the attack in Manchester, both advocating for peace. The only difference is that the imam makes the somewhat unjustifiable argument that there's only one possible interpretation of Quranic scripture, even though he apparently doesn't abide by those same interpretations. And worse; he tries to blame a history of conflict on the faith, when every civilization in history has had a similar history of conflict and warfare, despite not being Muslim. It's human, nothing more.

Pay more attention to what Dr. Rifi has to say, there.

This is like watching someone explain the concept of gene splicing to a lower primate.

[Ianus]

Did you link the wrong video, or something? You've got two Muslim leaders, there, both condemning the attack in Manchester, both advocating for peace. The only difference is that the imam makes the somewhat unjustifiable argument that there's only one possible interpretation of Quranic scripture, even though he apparently doesn't abide by those same interpretations. And worse; he tries to blame a history of conflict on the faith, when every civilization in history has had a similar history of conflict and warfare, despite not being Muslim. It's human, nothing more.

Pay more attention to what Dr. Rifi has to say, there.

guy tells the truth..but liberal pc culture cant handle the truth...

[Endus]

guy tells the truth..but liberal pc culture cant handle the truth...

What you're doing is the literal definition of "cherry picking". "Hey, that one guy said something I agree with, let's ignore EVERYTHING else he's saying and EVERYTHING else the other guy's saying in the same video and pretend that this still amounts to an argument."

It doesn't. It just means you're manipulating your own evidence to support your prejudice.

[Deleted]

The stated reason his sister gave is that he was motivated by the death of Muslim children in Syria.

Which is bullshit since he joined up with genocidal groups in Libya and Syria the regularly massacred muslim children.

[StayTuned]

Not particularly. Since you forget that Ireland was "full of IRA supporters", in this same comparison.

The worst offender, here, is ISIS, yes? Well, the most recent estimates I can find put their force numbers at 15,000-20,000, a massive drop from their peak at over 100,000; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7184886.html

The US military's force strength is 1.3 million soldiers. And that's just the USA, not any of its allies.

And how effective is ISIS? They're losing about 15,000 troops for every one the USA loses; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7226061.html

They are actively being crushed, already. If you mean other nations like Saudi Arabia, then you need to take a step back, because Saudi Arabia is an ally, not an enemy. However much you may dislike their internal politics. And I do dislike them, for whatever that's worth. But they're not a hostile threat.

So no. You're not dealing with potentially billions of angry Muslims. You're dealing with a handful who're stuck in the Middle East and have no real capacity to strike with any strength at all. Which is why they're resorting to coward tactics like suicide bombing a concert; because they're so incredibly weak, and they hope that the shock value of such attacks will convince the Western world to back off.

This isn't a significant threat. Maybe it's that I grew up during the end of the Cold War, and our worries weren't a risk of terrorism lower than our risk of being trampled to death by cattle, it was two superpowers with their fingers hovering over the fire buttons on tactical long-range nukes. But this shit going on today, and I will repeat again that the personal tragedy experienced by the families of the victims is no less for any of this, is just not that big a deal. Tragic, yes, in the same way that a landslide that killed 30 people is tragic. But that doesn't mean we need to lose our minds about this stuff. We don't need to claim that "mountains are trying to kill us all".

I see where you are coming from. But it's not a direct threat that bothers me. And neither is it some sort of fear of imminent danger coming from them.

It's more the mindset that I'm worried about, because long term consequences will be much more important than the flashy bang that's going on right now.

[Deleted]

Did you link the wrong video, or something? You've got two Muslim leaders, there, both condemning the attack in Manchester, both advocating for peace. The only difference is that the imam makes the somewhat unjustifiable argument that there's only one possible interpretation of Quranic scripture, even though he apparently doesn't abide by those same interpretations. And worse; he tries to blame a history of conflict on the faith, when every civilization in history has had a similar history of conflict and warfare, despite not being Muslim. It's human, nothing more.

Pay more attention to what Dr. Rifi has to say, there.

Tawhidi's credentials as imam (and sheikh) are mostly through self-appointment. I personally wouldn't give him the title.

[Ianus]

What you're doing is the literal definition of "cherry picking". "Hey, that one guy said something I agree with, let's ignore EVERYTHING else he's saying and EVERYTHING else the other guy's saying in the same video and pretend that this still amounts to an argument."

It doesn't. It just means you're manipulating your own evidence to support your prejudice.

guy was born in uk .. got radicalized in uk as muslim to do attack for isis.. how is that manipulating?

edit:and was part of sleeping cell....is that cherry picking also?

[Paulosio]

The mosque this bomber went to banned him and reported him for his views. So no.

Our security forces have even said that the best information they get is people informing not mass spying.

On the other hand that same mosque continued being used to spread what could be considered extremist literature even after the Manchester bomber was banned... The fact it's not officially done by the people who are in charge of the mosque doesn't matter. It's still happening on the premises. I somehow have a feeling this is something that goes on in other mosque too. It's certainly been a problem in the past in places such as the infamous Finsbury Park mosque.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-4005...mosque-leaflet

"Living in a society in which people have accepted Western lifestyles as their way of life brings immorality at every step. Modesty, shame and honor have no place in Western civilisation".

If this is what's been given to a visitor on an open day what is going on behind closed doors....?

[Rhaide]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7758491.html

What a badass. I don't like her music, but I love her fucking balls.

[Deleted]

Which is bullshit since he joined up with genocidal groups in Libya and Syria the regularly massacred muslim children.

You mean the groups that we supported in the war that removed Gaddhafi?

[Post]

And worse; he tries to blame a history of conflict on the faith, when every civilization in history has had a similar history of conflict and warfare, despite not being Muslim. It's human, nothing more.

Everyone does have horrible history of conflict etc. for sure, but if it was 100% just a human thing, we would have every group of humans running around trying to suicide bomb innocent people. There are ideas specific to muslims right now that are a clear problem, for the most part other groups have gotten their shit together.

[Endus]

Everyone does have horrible history of conflict etc. for sure, but if it was 100% just a human thing, we would have every group of humans running around trying to suicide bomb innocent people. There are ideas specific to muslims right now that are a clear problem, for the most part other groups have gotten their shit together.

This is spectacularly incorrect.

While suicide bombing is a problem, it's not "worse" than any other kind of bombing. Heck, the bomber doesn't survive.

It's like trying to argue that murder-suicides are a particular issue and worse than normal murder, or something.

And no; "other groups" do NOT have their "shit together". North Korea has major issues. China has human rights issues ongoing (though they're getting better). There's a massive human trafficking issue in Eastern Europe, among other problems. South and Central America have been plagued by civil wars and rebellions and so forth. I could keep going.

Which each region has its own problems, nobody's "got their shit together". At best, you get the more-developed countries being relatively peaceful, and that's because they're relatively well-off and their poor are well-taken care of. Because socioeconomics drives a lot of this, all over the world.

[Post]

While suicide bombing is a problem, it's not "worse" than any other kind of bombing. Heck, the bomber doesn't survive.

It's like trying to argue that murder-suicides are a particular issue and worse than normal murder, or something.

I didn't say it was worse than other types of bombing.

And no; "other groups" do NOT have their "shit together". North Korea has major issues. China has human rights issues ongoing (though they're getting better). There's a massive human trafficking issue in Eastern Europe, among other problems. South and Central America have been plagued by civil wars and rebellions and so forth. I could keep going.

None of those are actively trying to kill everyone who doesn't follow their same religious beliefs, and the West in its entirety. Not even North Korea is trying to kill random Westerners whenever they can.

Which each region has its own problems, nobody's "got their shit together". At best, you get the more-developed countries being relatively peaceful, and that's because they're relatively well-off and their poor are well-taken care of. Because socioeconomics drives a lot of this, all over the world.

I was not referring to countries when I said groups, muslims aren't a country.

[Deleted]

None of those are actively trying to kill everyone who doesn't follow their same religious beliefs, and the West in its entirety. Not even North Korea is trying to kill random Westerners whenever they can.
I was not referring to countries when I said groups, muslims aren't a country.

No, but the conflicts that inspire these tragedies are localized in particular regions.
If you want to think it's about the beliefs, I won't stop you: the topic is far too complex and its debate is banned in this forum. Suffice to say that the vast majority of Muslims consider Christians and Jews followers and subjects of the same God. The orthodoxy ISIS is propagandizing is a lot more specific: for instance, it's not that Christians are non-believers, but that they idolize the cross, or that the trinity questions the oneness of God.
But outside of that there's plenty of geopolitical issues influenced by economics that greatly affect Muslims of all creeds. That you see these things reaching Europe, or the west, is the result of far reaching communications, like the internet, and the ease of travel: if I'm a socially inept young adult, perhaps without a job, or a supportive family, it's easy for me today to download Dabiq (now Rumiyah) and read about the greatness of the caliphate. I can easily contact other people in a similar situation, and believe ourselves the victims of our own incompetence. And I can figure where's the next stop in my quest for revenge against the world. With that environment, turning to religious orthodoxy is not too far-fetched.

[Endus]

None of those are actively trying to kill everyone who doesn't follow their same religious beliefs, and the West in its entirety. Not even North Korea is trying to kill random Westerners whenever they can.

And Muslims aren't, either. Hell, even ISIS isn't. They may make noises, occasionally, but they have no real capacity to act.

And it really is just that tiny fraction that fit this bill. You'd be better off focusing on them specifically, rather than trying to irrationally treat all Muslims the same way, when the overwhelming majority don't fit that description.

[Post]

No, but the conflicts that inspire these tragedies are localized in particular regions.
If you want to think it's about the beliefs, I won't stop you

It's the people committing these acts that think its about the beliefs actually.

And Muslims aren't, either. Hell, even ISIS isn't. They may make noises, occasionally, but they have no real capacity to act.

And it really is just that tiny fraction that fit this bill. You'd be better off focusing on them specifically, rather than trying to irrationally treat all Muslims the same way, when the overwhelming majority don't fit that description.

Really? You're going to say that in a thread about an incident where that very thing happened.

I also don't know why you're trying to tell me it's not all muslims, I didn't say that. The people doing this are muslim, doing it for their muslim beliefs, and there isn't really any other group that is, even though I know most muslims are fine people.

[Endus]

Really? You're going to say that in a thread about an incident where that very thing happened.

Yes. Absolutely, and without the tiniest qualms. Because you're trying to add the shade of this horror to 1.6 billion people who had nothing to do with it.

That you're angry or horrified is not a reason. It's an excuse that's been used over and over throughout history to justify answering horrors like this with horrors of your own, visited upon innocents. That's a cycle of horror that leads to nothing but more horror, and breaking that cycle when it starts up, after an event like this, is absolutely critical.

Nothing I've said makes this tragic attack any less than it was. But it was not a hostile attack by the Muslim community as a whole. That's prejudiced and wrong, period.

I also don't know why you're trying to tell me it's not all muslims, I didn't say that. The people doing this are muslim, doing it for their muslim beliefs, and there isn't really any other group that is, even though I know most muslims are fine people.

They're also men. Should we blame all men for this kind of violent behaviour? If you do a check of the gender of terrorists, you'll find that the overwhelming majority have been men. Far more than the proportion that were Muslim. And it's still a ridiculous argument, for much the same reason; because blaming 3.5 billion men, or 1.6 billion Muslims, for the actions of a handful, is a senseless and prejudiced argument.

[Post]

Yes. Absolutely, and without the tiniest qualms. Because you're trying to add the shade of this horror to 1.6 billion people who had nothing to do with it.

I can't believe you, while quoting me saying I know it's not all muslims, are trying to tell me I'm bad for thinking it's all muslims. This happens every time, no matter how much people say they realize most muslims are fine. It seems like an emotional defense mechanism or something.

They're also men. Should we blame all men for this kind of violent behaviour? If you do a check of the gender of terrorists, you'll find that the overwhelming majority have been men. Far more than the proportion that were Muslim. And it's still a ridiculous argument, for much the same reason; because blaming 3.5 billion men, or 1.6 billion Muslims, for the actions of a handful, is a senseless and prejudiced argument.

They aren't doing it because they're men, so no. And again read where I said I know it's not all muslims.

[Endus]

I can't believe you, while quoting me saying I know it's not all muslims, are trying to tell me I'm bad for thinking it's all muslims. This happens every time, no matter how much people say they realize most muslims are fine. It seems like an emotional defense mechanism or something.

And yet;

There are ideas specific to muslims right now that are a clear problem

You don't get to say that there's problems with "Muslims" and then try and argue that you weren't attacking muslims as a group.