Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 chromedog wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

I saw the video footage where they started spraying gunfire from OUTSIDE the cafe,

Most of the flashing was actually from multiple flash-bangs, NOT gunfire.
The perp started to nod off - the hostages, seeing an opening, started to move for the exits - he woke up and got off a few shots - THEN the po-po moved in, flashbangs first.

From what's been released recently, basically he nodded off, and 5 people ran for it. He fired a shot through the door as a warning. The TAG snipers didn't see a hostage get hit, so they didn't move in. 9 minutes later, he shot the first hostage, and they reported that, and they moved in, but not fast enough to stop the second. They flashed the room several times then entered and opened fire.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?

Presumably because people start wailing about "incompatibility" as soon as some nutter blows himself up.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?

Presumably because people start wailing about "incompatibility" as soon as some nutter blows himself up.

There certainly seem to be an unusually large proportion of violent nutters within Islam these days...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?

Presumably because people start wailing about "incompatibility" as soon as some nutter blows himself up.

There certainly seem to be an unusually large proportion of violent nutters within Islam these days...

Oh, so you've got numbers? Great, care to link them?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?

Presumably because people start wailing about "incompatibility" as soon as some nutter blows himself up.

There certainly seem to be an unusually large proportion of violent nutters within Islam these days...

Oh, so you've got numbers? Great, care to link them?

It's easily in the hundreds of thousands, if not higher.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?

Presumably because people start wailing about "incompatibility" as soon as some nutter blows himself up.

There certainly seem to be an unusually large proportion of violent nutters within Islam these days...

Oh, so you've got numbers? Great, care to link them?

Try watching the news once in a while.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


It's easily in the hundreds of thousands, if not higher.

I'd say tens of millions, worldwide.



Can anyone remember the last time a Christian or Jewish suicide bomber made the news?

We have that one Islamic guy in Oklahoma that was paraded around as a religious terrorist (even here on Dakka) who killed two women for being white (instead of it being a religious thing). We managed to do that whole ignoring the other 70+ murders in the county so there is that.

 d-usa wrote:
We have that one Islamic guy in Oklahoma that was paraded around as a religious terrorist (even here on Dakka) who killed two women for being white (instead of it being a religious thing). We managed to do that whole ignoring the other 70+ murders in the county so there is that.

Hey, you've gotta ignore all the other murders when your charging after your one pet cause. This holds true for all situations.

Muslims in the Western world are not the main problem, because they are by and large moderate.

Islamist Muslims in the Muslim world are.

See:

Iraq.
Syria.
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Yemen.
Saudi Arabia.
Somalia.
Palestine.
Libya.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?

Presumably because people start wailing about "incompatibility" as soon as some nutter blows himself up.

There certainly seem to be an unusually large proportion of violent nutters within Islam these days...

Oh, so you've got numbers? Great, care to link them?

Try watching the news once in a while.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


It's easily in the hundreds of thousands, if not higher.

I'd say tens of millions, worldwide.



Can anyone remember the last time a Christian or Jewish suicide bomber made the news?

Suicide bomber? No. Drones, on the other hand? Pretty sure those kill quite a bunch of pepole yearly too, but that doesn't count because...?

Who uses drones to intentionally target innocent civilians?

It's not done in the name of Christianity?

Christians don't slaughter schools full of children. They don't behead chidlren for refusing to convert from Islam. *continue with the untold number of atrocities done in the name of Islam in the last year alone*

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Suicide bomber? No. Drones, on the other hand? Pretty sure those kill quite a bunch of pepole yearly too, but that doesn't count because...?

Because its pants on head stupid to call America's foreign policy a Christian Crusade or Holy War. Its not remotely comparable to the Jihad being waged by Islamic groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. The USA is motivated by security concerns, economics and maintain their Geo-political influence. Not religion. *

*Well, except for Bush J.r. perhaps. (good fething riddance).

Now, that being said, Islam itself is not solely culpable. There is a vast majority of peace loving, moderate Islamics in this world. Even in the Middle East/Central Asia.

But, there are certainly tenants within the religion that makes it easier to convert people to these horrible beliefs.

There is this fine religiously motivated Christian fellow that nobody on Dakka decided to talk about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/01/police-austin-shooter-belonged-to-an-ultra-conservative-christian-hate-group/

But hey, Islam.

 d-usa wrote:
There is this fine religiously motivated Christian fellow that nobody on Dakka decided to talk about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/01/police-austin-shooter-belonged-to-an-ultra-conservative-christian-hate-group/

But hey, Islam.

Well, seeing as I'm British and don't read or watch American news, perhaps you'll excuse me?

I can guarantee you, that if this happened in the UK, it would push ISIS off the front headlines and dominate the news for at least a week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Now, that being said, Islam itself is not solely culpable. There is a vast majority of peace loving, moderate Islamics in this world. Even in the Middle East/Central Asia.

But, there are certainly tenants within the religion that makes it easier to convert people to these horrible beliefs.

Yes. The problem is, they're not in control.

And even if they're peace loving, they're not necessarily what I would consider moderate. Even "moderate", mainstream Islam has some quite intolerant outlooks on certain things like homosexuality, apostasy and women's rights... And Jews...

 d-usa wrote:
There is this fine religiously motivated Christian fellow that nobody on Dakka decided to talk about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/01/police-austin-shooter-belonged-to-an-ultra-conservative-christian-hate-group/

But hey, Islam.

When the guys from the Southern Poverty Law Center say:

Its members identify themseves as Christians, however, “they are really not Christians in any sense that a christian would accept,” Potok added. Most mainstream American Christians, he said, would find a Phineas Priest’s reading of scripture to be “heretical.”

It would be hard to really attribute the attacks to Christianity.

Add in, it would be difficult to find prominent christian leaders advocating those types of actions and financially supporting them via a Zakat type mechanism. It would also be difficult to find new testament teachings of Christ which justify his actions.

But hey, if that looney did indeed commit the attacks in the name of Christ, so be it. That is one. A few abortion clinic bombers will help pad out the numbers a bit. But you're gonna have to gather up a bunch more to make a real comparison.

 d-usa wrote:
There is this fine religiously motivated Christian fellow that nobody on Dakka decided to talk about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/01/police-austin-shooter-belonged-to-an-ultra-conservative-christian-hate-group/

But hey, Islam.

It probably helped that he apparently didn't manage to accomplish anything other than getting himself killed.

Pretty sure that if he had made a couple of people hostage in a Starbucks and shot 2 of them dead, he would have been talked about.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

But hey, Islam.

On a somewhat related note, what is it with some of the left leaning elements of our society that has them purposefully ignoring that the vast, vast majority of terrorist actions is done in the name of Islam?

Are you guys afraid to be considered less pluralist if you acknowledge this?!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Muslims in the Western world are not the main problem, because they are by and large moderate.

Islamist Muslims in the Muslim world are.

See:

Iraq.
Syria.
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Yemen.
Saudi Arabia.
Somalia.
Palestine.
Libya.

One cannot buy help note that a number of those countries were once fairly secular ( if still unpleasant in a myriad of other ways of course) prior to Western invasion, bombing and/or intervention.

With the most hardcore adherents being, apparently, our allies.

What a world we've made eh ?

Yes, we opened one hell of a can of worms.

Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?

Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?

Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.

 d-usa wrote:
Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?

Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?

Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.

When there are dozens to hundreds of such Jesus Motivated attacks each year resulting in hundreds to thousands of dead, I suspect Christian leaders would be condemning it and folks would be calling on them to do so.

But again, when even the Southern Poverty Law Centers says 'not real christian' it is difficult to think other wise.

 d-usa wrote:
Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?

Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?

Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.

Don't you think you're engaging in the realm of moral equivalence fallacy here?

No one is really saying that Christians (or other religions) don't have their fair share of idiots. (Branch Davidians, Westboro nutters, etc...).

I think that "push back" is largely because people are rejecting the almost taboo efforts to criticize Islam.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?

Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?

Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.

When there are dozens to hundreds of such Jesus Motivated attacks each year resulting in hundreds to thousands of dead, I suspect Christian leaders would be condemning it and folks would be calling on them to do so.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Lots there.

But again, when even the Southern Poverty Law Centers says 'not real christian' it is difficult to think other wise.

And when thousands of Islamic religious leaders (aka: the vast majority) tell you over and over again that this is not real Islam it's pretty easy for folks to think otherwise.

@wembly: it's not moral equivalence (is that the buzzword of the week on your blogs?) to point out that it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to have the ability to separate a religion from the idiots that claim to do stuff based on that religion. This is evidenced by the fact that people have the brainpower to realize that Christian extremism is not reflective of Christianity.

It's not saying "well, if Islam is bad then Christianity is bad too", it's asking "why does your brain manage to separate the idiots from the herd of Christians while refusing to separate the idiots from the herd of Muslims"?

 d-usa wrote:

It's not saying "well, if Islam is bad then Christianity is bad too", it's asking "why does your brain manage to separate the idiots from the herd of Christians while refusing to separate the idiots from the herd of Muslims"?

Because there seems to be allot more Muslim idiots than idiots from other religions?

 d-usa wrote:

@wembly: it's not moral equivalence (is that the buzzword of the week on your blogs?) to point out that it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to have the ability to separate a religion from the idiots that claim to do stuff based on that religion. This is evidenced by the fact that people have the brainpower to realize that Christian extremism is not reflective of Christianity.

It's not saying "well, if Islam is bad then Christianity is bad too", it's asking "why does your brain manage to separate the idiots from the herd of Christians while refusing to separate the idiots from the herd of Muslims"?

Why? Because we're really talking about Islamic extremism here...

Or, if you really want to get down to it, extremism in general.

Why do some people's brain "reflectively get defensive" whenever anyone criticize Islamic extremism?

I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".

People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.

 d-usa wrote:
Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?

Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?

Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.

Why are certain people so quick to point to a small handful of Christian nutters that occasionally make the news and kill or harm only a small number of people, and pretend that they somehow balance out the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Muslim nutters who kill and harm hundres of thousands (if not millions) of people and make the news DAILY?

Fringe elements of religions are always going to do stupid things. The difference is, Islams fringe element is terrifyingly HUGE.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".

People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.

Except that that is not a stupid statement. Islamic values are not compatible with western liberal values, you just need to read the Koran to realize that.

Segregation of women is not compatible with western liberal values.
Abolition of freedom of religion is not compatible with western liberal values.
Abolition of freedom of expression is not compatible with western liberal values.
The death penalty and or / mutilation for minor crimes are not compatible with western liberal values.
The joining of church and state is not compatible with western liberal values.

To be fair, most of those issues can also be found on the Bible, but Christianity during the dark ages also wasn't compatible with western liberal values, but Christianity has developed away from those times while Islam hasn't, yet.

That modern Muslims, mostly those living in western democracies, choose to ignore those aspects of their holy book and live peacefully in their communities is no indicator if the religion itself is peaceful or not and least of all, the fact that Islam seems to breed much more violent extremists than any other religion should be discussed and analysed, especially when people start sprouting this "religion of peace" nonsense.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".

People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.

Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents. Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with a country (e.g. the UK) with values that directly contradict Islamic tenets (tolerance and equal rights for homosexuals for instance); does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

I don't think that at all. But I do expect Muslims who come to the UK to obey the law, and be tolerant of things and people (homosexuals, women, apostates, blasphemers, Jews etc) that Islam expressly and vitriolically condemns. This means abandoning the tenets of Islam that are incompatible. (hell, this applies to Christianity too).

Islam, in its purest form is NOT compatible with the west. Do you think a religion that advocates death penalties for apostasy, homosexuality and blasphemy is compatible with Western liberal values? A religion that advocates subjugation and a 2nd class status for women and non-Muslims? The only way Islam can ever be "compatible" with the West, is for large parts of its religious laws and tenets to be outright criminalized. Islam is only "mostly peaceful" when its worst excesses are restrained and criminalized by western liberal values and secular laws. If you ask a Londoner if he thinks Islam is "largely peaceful", then ask the same question of an Eqyptian Coptic Christian, or a Yazidi christian, or any minority living in an Islamic theocracy, I expect you'll get very different answers.