London Bridge incident: a van hits pedestrians, says BBC

[Deleted]

lmao i love it when lily-white liberal women try to tell muslim Imams what islam really is.

White women are probably the most dangerous social group of the lot.

[Granyala]

It shouldn't have to be repeated every time there's a terror attack, but we don't tolerate religion-bashing, religious discussion, nor hate speech on these forums.

Genuine question Endus, because I know you as a reasonable individual:
I'm with you about the "religion bashing and hate speech".
If the terror attack is based on religious views though (I don't know If this one is, didn't follow up on it), how would it be possible to discuss it w/o discussing the religion-bound motives that lead to this attack?

Imho, in a case like this, you cannot expect people to separate the two.

[Jeezy911]

people still kill in name of Christ, with the same numbers of Islamic terrorism.

Damn you must watch a lot of Fake news man. That is quite the ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

It shouldn't have to be repeated every time there's a terror attack, but we don't tolerate religion-bashing, religious discussion, nor hate speech on these forums. If you can't participate without engaging in such, don't participate.

We can see the hundreds of posters already banned and infracted on this thread Bumdus. No need to remind everyone that mods are Nazis here.

[Serpha]

It shouldn't have to be repeated every time there's a terror attack, but we don't tolerate religion-bashing, religious discussion, nor hate speech on these forums. If you can't participate without engaging in such, don't participate.

Ohh yes you do tolerate hate speach, as long as it's coming from lefites, like you.

[Deleted]

Damn you must watch a lot of Fake news man. That is quite the ignorance.

So, anti-balaka don't exist? Take your head out of the sand and learn more about the rest of the world.

[Vargrik]

I'm extremely disappointed by the lack of perspicacity of the people that replied to my posts about the Japanese scholars :|.

[Dr Assbandit]

if you read what I wrote Tauror - you would know what I have said about muslims and the many who do not waant to kill and maim others in the name of anything, that doesn't change what their texts are saying and teach.

- - - Updated - - -



it was not about religion at all, but hatred between chatholic and protestant was an undeniable contributor.

ANy hatred of others leads to death often violent death.

Just to want to confirm whether it the same texts that state if you commit even one murder it's as if you have killed the whole of humanity? That text correct? And last I checked there were no ifs, ands, or buts in that statement or any mention of exceptions in the case of "infidels".

- - - Updated - - -

Damn you must watch a lot of Fake news man. That is quite the ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -



We can see the hundreds of posters already banned and infracted on this thread Bumdus. No need to remind everyone that mods are Nazis here.

Oh take your silly victim complex elsewhere. I can literally get banned on r/the_donald using one word so trying to act as if only liberal leaning mods on this website act even close to how they infract on conservative websites is absolutely laughable.

[Spectral]

Oh take your silly victim complex elsewhere. I can literally get banned on r/the_donald using one word so trying to act as if only liberal leaning mods on this website act even close to how they infract on conservative websites is absolutely laughable.

It's actually pretty telling that the comparison you'd use for something as biased as some of the staff here is to a forum that's explicitly pro-Donald as its raison d'etre.

[Spectral]

There are many sites that have forum guidelines. When you break them you get infracted/banned. Shocking stuff.

This isn't actually a response to what I wrote, but that's cool.

[Deus Mortis]

Oh take your silly victim complex elsewhere. I can literally get banned on r/the_donald using one word so trying to act as if only liberal leaning mods on this website act even close to how they infract on conservative websites is absolutely laughable.

Nice whataboutism, but since you brought up reddit and are complaining about the mods there, you have Reddit's chief executive Steve Huffman that actually went and changed peoples posts. For the record I find it stupid what he did and I find it dumb how like you said you can get banned for not being in lock step with r/the_donalds mods views. However there is a clear bias with certain people higher up on this site.

[W1sp]

Is May invocking article 5 or what? She should imo.

Is it the british version of order 66?

[Kalis]

Changing the political landscape.

Both London and Manchester were heavily in support of 'Remain'. I guess they just really want to try and make people even more 'right wing'. ISIS as a whole must benefit from that (or others).

Any place of note they could attack in the UK would likely be Remain.

[Deleted]

Does that mean Scotland will soon be wiped from the face of the earth? I know there are many that would rejoice at such, but i didn't count the islamists amongst them.

They are too scared to come back after this

[ravenmoon]

It didn't come from them. It has its roots in Socratic method. Thanks to Enlightened monarchs in Europe which actually got rid of a few archaic things like witch-burnings and other things. Secularism and promotion of science and education were the true impellers of Western European development.

education did not begin at the "enlightenment" Long before that certain church groups had been setting up education centres and promoting teaching to the wider population. Some of them paid for that with their lives at the hands often of other so called christians.

- - - Updated - - -

It shouldn't have to be repeated every time there's a terror attack, but we don't tolerate religion-bashing, religious discussion, nor hate speech on these forums. If you can't participate without engaging in such, don't participate.

Endus, it's a bit unrealistic to expect a discussion about things that cost your neighbours and friends' lives. real lives, not virtual lives, without discussing the root of the problem.

Some religious ideologies are harmful and disgraceful, and admitting that or discussing that or bashing it in the context of the clear harm its doing in a topic discussing such an atrocity is a bit silly to ban. You should just ban all topics over atrocities committed by islamist terrorists - did you just twitch that i said islamist terrorist? is that uncomfortable? Because this is the reality of this situation - it's calling a spade a spade - killing people is terrible and they've done it, stating that the principals they believe in are abhorrent, wrong, misguided and atrocious is the truth.

Don't want your ideology to be condemned? don't follow it to the killing of people and children as young as 8. IF we want to have a mature discussion about it we have to be able to say what it is, otherwise the discussion will continue to just beat about the bush.

Now if a person becomes rude to another individual, aggressive or insulting, by all means ban them. But you cannot hurt an ideology by condemning it. And you can't stop everyone from being offended if you don't like what they say.

I'm just saying and feeling that ban on that guy earlier on, which caused me to actually enter this topic, I found very misguided seeing that it is islamic ideology that is causing this. Yet you will ban people and infract people for stating as much? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Granyala]

Just to want to confirm whether it the same texts that state if you commit even one murder it's as if you have killed the whole of humanity? That text correct? And last I checked there were no ifs, ands, or buts in that statement or any mention of exceptions in the case of "infidels".

This might be of interest to you, the statement you refer to exists, but you are quoting out of context.

Killing disbelievers is not, in itself, a crime[2]. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Although the Koran explicitly forbids the murder of Muslims (4:93), the Koran does not contain a similar statement that forbids the killing or murder of non-Muslims. Where there are benefits to Islam in letting the non-Muslims live, there could be some minimal protections for the non-Muslims[2]. They could be spared as slaves to be bought or sold; they could become dhimmis (subjugated second-class citizens); they could be ransomed; women captives could be taken forcibly as wives or sex slaves; or captives could be set free depending on the personal discretion of the Muslim captor. Abul Kasem has cited and discussed Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32, indicating that non-Muslims are not protected by 5:32; only Muslims are protected.

Interesting read, worrying if they are correct in their interpretations.

[Dr Assbandit]

It's actually pretty telling that the comparison you'd use for something as biased as some of the staff here is to a forum that's explicitly pro-Donald as its raison d'etre.

No, it's just one example of bias in general existing wherever you go. Some places more so than others but I'm not going to start getting my knickers in a twist just because I violated the rules of a forum no matter how biased. My problem is those of a conservative standing acting like it's only liberal "nazis" who are censoring people.

- - - Updated - - -

This might be of interest to you, the statement you refer to exists, but you are quoting out of context.

Interesting read, worrying if they are correct in their interpretations.

I'm not quoting it out of context, I'm quoting it as how I and other people interpret it. There is no denying there is highly questionable stuff in Islam, a lot of it however is open to interpretation and a lot of it is a product of its time in relation to historical context that no longer exists.

[Granyala]

I'm not quoting it out of context, I'm quoting it as how I and other people interpret it. There is no denying there is highly questionable stuff in Islam, a lot of it however is open to interpretation and a lot of it is a product of its time in relation to historical context that no longer exists.

Similar to many passages in the Old Testament, I guess. Those can be pretty cruel and violent too.

Problem is: YOU and some other people interpret the Quran this way. Others interpret it completely differently.
This is my main problem with all religions. There is absolutely no way to know who is correct and who uses/twists the texts to his own agenda.

[Blue Minuteman]

Ohh yes you do tolerate hate speach, as long as it's coming from lefites, like you.

Talk about false equivalency.

[ravenmoon]

Just to want to confirm whether it the same texts that state if you commit even one murder it's as if you have killed the whole of humanity? That text correct? And last I checked there were no ifs, ands, or buts in that statement or any mention of exceptions in the case of "infidels".

Islam does not consider the destruction of infidels as murder. Other texts make that clear. But then there are so many conflicting texts there (another discussion for another time) Different cultures and religious groups have different understandings, values and interpretations than yours does. Failure to recognise this will stop you from being correctly informed and appraised of the situation and prohibit or at least greatly restrict you from attaining an actual solution.

Another example of westerners compltely missing the ball on the Islamic religion and world. In christianity they are all told lying is a huge no no under any circumstance. And thus i observe many people i talk to assume this is the case for islam - the only conclusion I can reach for this is that Islam is a religion therefore its the same as Christianity. Yet in Islam, lying is permissible if it is to further the cause of Allah.

But over here, people simply ascribe what they know of christianity to islam, because "it's a religion and all religions are the same" But you get very few people chastising such statemsnts for their gross over-generalization. Another one so commonly believed in the more educated circles of our generation is that "religion is the cause of all wars" - i just roll my eyes and wonder how someone who goes or went to school can say that. But then its' not like you're actually seriously taught religious /socio political issues in school without studying those specific topics at universities. Yet most educators, complete laymen in that field. Great at art or biology /whatever they mastered, would happily tell their class nonsense like this. Yes, one of my teachers, English teacher was like that, I got to meet him later on, hates religion, knows nothing about any religion. And you see it across the board. you can be brilliant at physics, doesn't mean you know squat about the bible, teachings of Buddha or the Quran - to then spout things like they're all the same or all religions cause wars - sheesh, being a master at physics doesn't mean you have a head for or know History.

I learnt that in school, but many I know in their 20s still don't realize this.

[Al Gorefiend]

It shouldn't have to be repeated every time there's a terror attack, but we don't tolerate religion-bashing, religious discussion, nor hate speech on these forums. If you can't participate without engaging in such, don't participate.

ISIS loves hearing things like this.