• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Incident In Woolwich & The Bigger Questions

A

Ash

TS Member
Are the principles of religion wrong? (lack of critical thinking, ancient texts, mass influence, faith, lack of evidence)

Should people be allowed to support organised religion even if they support ideology such as death due to apostasy or condemning use of condoms?

Should religion have the influence it does even when it has negative effects?

Are modern religions any more relevant than zeus, hades or Norse Mythology?

Should removal of critical thinking be allowed in decisions which effects others, does "faith" have any place in modern society?

Do we confuse liberal ideas of "each to their own" and deciding on ideology we deem unacceptable in society?

Does the rise in atheism around the world show a shift in how we think? Does the information age have any effect on this?

This has always been a great forum for debate and free speech so id be interested to hear some thoughts...
 
There is a lot to discuss when it comes to religion, but I really don't think this is the right time.

My issue with what has happened since the event is that the usual 'SPORT R TROOPZZZ!' crowd have used the brutal killing of a soldier to justify their hatred for Muslims, and 'foreigners' in general. I'm seeing a whole load of 'Fuck off home', 'BNP!' and so on on my feed - some of it from friends who live in an area that is 99.2% white with an almost zero Muslim population.

The debate has been immediately hijacked by racists. The attack seems nothing to do with faith, but rather more to do with controversy. The attackers knew the exact reaction this would get, and they are getting it. Those shouting 'fuck Muslims' are playing right into the killers' hands.
 
Black Muslim kills white man = Terrorism, evil, militant Islam.

White man kills white man = Lone thug.

If it's not called terrorism when it's done by a white man, it's not terrorism when it's done by a Muslim.
 
I found it surreal earlier on, when I saw a man who'd just beheaded a charitable soldier tell a camera, "Your government doesn't care about you", and then an ITV correspondent announce that "Baghdad had come to London", and end up agreeing more with the former.
 
Valid point, I think capitalism and then governance will be the big questions for society after religion
 
Blaze said:
Black Muslim kills white man = Terrorism, evil, militant Islam.

White man kills white man = Lone thug.

If it's not called terrorism when it's done by a white man, it's not terrorism when it's done by a Muslim.
Click to expand...

This was done by two people shouting ackbar allah (or whatever the hell they shout) and they cut his head off in traditional Islamic terrorist style - so your point is totally invalid. Even if it was a white guy shouting Islamic chants, eye for an eye etc and did this horrible thing, it would still be seen as a terrorist attack.

Maybe if these two scumbags survive their gunshot wounds, they should have their heads cut off too so they dont become another burden on the public purse while living it up nice and cosy in prison.

Utter, utter scum. No other words for it.
 
Breivic.

He was painted as a lone lunatic, but change the skin colour and religion and now the country is under attack by 'terrorists'. Really? Really?
 
Skin colour and religion have nothing to do with it - so are you saying therefore that the London Bombings should also not be considered "terrorist" attacks as well?

When the IRA attacked the mainland, these were also referred to as Terrorist attacks.

Race and religion have nothing to do with it....
 
They killed one man. They didn't blow anyone up. It was a murder, not a terrorist attack.

If a white man beheaded the soldier and shouted "Jesus is great!" they wouldn't frame this as a terrorist attack.
 
A murderer kills, usually intentionally without any real aim behind it

A terrorist kills someone (or threatens to kill) to try and bring about political, or religious change and to bring about fear.

On the video shown today, these guys were blaming the government and telling us to change the government as they dont care about us and referring to our troops being in Islamic countries.

They said "You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you" and "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", "Allah is great", "ackbar allah", "tell them to bring your troops back"

It was a terrorist attack.
 
With the exception of 'Allahu Ackbar', what part of that is any different from a white anarchist? The government don't care about us and we should be stopping their war on us. And we shouldn't be killing people in Islamic countries, you don't have to be a radical Muslim to think that.

If he said "God bless" instead, the news would be treating this very differently.
 
So if I went to the middle of Sheffield City Centre and stabbed a policeman whilst screaming my hatred of the government, I would be a terrorist?
 
Blaze said:
With the exception of 'Allahu Ackbar', what part of that is any different from a white anarchist? The government don't care about us and we should be stopping their war on us. And we shouldn't be killing people in Islamic countries, you don't have to be a radical Muslim to think that.

If he said "God bless" instead, the news would be treating this very differently.
Click to expand...

What government DOES care about its people??!! As for not killing people in Islamic countries, I agree, there shouldn't be any killing anywhere, but its a war, people get killed in wars - not that I agree we should be out there in the first place I hasten to add.

As for other comments - these guys were clearly looking to make reference to their beliefs and wanting the government to withdraw troops from Islamic countries. Thats fine.... but killing an innocent person in broad day light and chopping off their head is hardly the way to do it is it.

If you went into a city centre, killed a police man, cut off their head, shouted religious chants and saying the same beliefs as a well known terrorist organisation, then yes, you would be classed a terrorist.

What makes these people different to the IRA? The IRA had splinter cells which operated independently, but overall with the same aim and beliefs. I cant really see any difference here. But we are all entitled to our different opinions.
 
Poison Tom 96 said:
So if I went to the middle of Sheffield City Centre and stabbed a policeman whilst screaming my hatred of the government, I would be a terrorist?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
It was a murder, not an act of terrorism.

So are you saying because he was a Muslim, who committed a horrific act of unprovoked violence, he MUST belong to a terrorist group, and wasn't an extremely wee-weed off idiot who doesn't think before they act?
 
Blaze said:
It was a murder, not an act of terrorism.

So are you saying because he was a Muslim, who committed a horrific act of unprovoked violence, he MUST belong to a terrorist group, and wasn't an extremely wee-weed off idiot who doesn't think before they act?
Click to expand...
He is a murderer. But when somebody says this:

He says: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you...Your people will never be safe.
“In our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe.
"Remove your governments they don't care about you.
"You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns you think politicians are going to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children.
"So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace.”
Click to expand...

That makes it a terrorist attack on this country fundamentally.



That's all I'm saying on this subject though. The nature of some of the posts I have seen on facebook today is for a different debate entirely. I saw this written somewhere today: "People need to stop letting the acts of individuals shape their views on millions" - so true.
 
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Synonyms
terror
Click to expand...

I suppose technically it was an act of terrorism, as they used an act of violence and made clear their political aims quite bluntly.

But this then brings into question what else could be classed as terrorism.
 
3 things:

1)RIP to the guy who died, although the fact he's a soldier doesn't make his death any more or less important than the average person. Any death is a bad one, especially in the manner in which he was killed.

2) EDL protests against violent incident by vandalising a Mosque. If they weren't such vile scum, they'd probably be hilarious...

3)Personally I'd rather deport the EDL, BNP & UKIP than the million+ peaceful immigrants in the UK who get on with their lives, are generally nice people and actually contribute to British society.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top