Terrorism. Adding "Islamic" to the term terrorism accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than attempting to legitimize their terrorism in the eyes of other Muslims. As he said, “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. He didn't say, "The only reason we have killed this man today is because he is a kufar." He did it because of the foreign policy of Britain. If you think Muslims hate the West because of religious reasons you are kidding yourself. Sure some do, I can't deny that, however it's safe to assume the last century or so of Western meddling has played the most influential role in Middle Eastern attitude towards the West.
He credits the Koran for why he acted that way; how is that not "Islamic?" Why are they living in the West and emigrating to the West, then? Why do that if the West is the enemy?
G. W. Bush evoked the name of God when dropping bombs on innocent people. Does that mean dropping bombs on innocent people is "Christian" or does it mean G.W. Bush abused the name of the Lord? Go figure! I think what OJLeb was trying to tell you is that the West as such is not the enemy. Apart from the many war-refugees young people from poor Muslim countries emigrate to Western countries in the hope for a better future. They'd probably rather stay at home but don't see any economic perspectives there. And many of them are clever enough to realize that this is indeed the consequence of Western colonial and post-colonial policies. They are sick of the humiliation we keep inflicting on them, often then seeking self-esteem in religion.
He (Bush) didn't say that was his reason as this guy did, and others do. Don't deflect. This does not make sense with what he said. I will wait for his response.
It seems that G.W. Bush said God told him to invade Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa It seems that the Vatican begged to differ: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/12/vatican-strongly-opposes-iraq-war/ Sadly what may have stuck in the international Muslim communities mind are not the Vatican's statements, but G.W. Bush's stupid mention of a "crusade". So how is drawing an analogy deflecting? I'm trying to point you to the possibility that some very wrong things concerning Islam may have stuck in your mind while you have blocked out others. OK
You are ignoring everything he said besides one sentence, why is that? I do not agree with what he did, the soldier was unarmed and technically wasn't fighting anybody anymore. However, what he did shouldn't take away from what he actually said, IMHO. He didn't say he did it because of the Quran, he said he did it because of the wars in Muslims lands which Britain has played a large part in. What part of his speech was wrong? If he had only made the speech and not the murder, would anybody disagree with him? Would you disagree with anything he said? Would you rather live in the pre- or post-Saddam Iraq compared to America? They immigrate for the same reasons non-Muslims immigrate. The West in general isn't the enemy, it a handful of governments which can't mind their own damn business and have a tendency to invade other countries or support groups in a proxy war.
For the most part I agree, but I have to say it is kind of like the relationship with Islam and al-Qaida. The West represent Islam, a large population of people. Countries such as USA, UK, Canada, France and other infamous "meddlers" represent al-Qaida. The West is not so much the enemy as just a handful of governments. Like Islam is not the enemy as just a handful of fundamentalists. If this makes sense .
Because it is the rant of a bloodied murderer and it's important to parse to the essence. Why did you ignore the part where he credited the Koran? Yes...he did... “Through many passages in the (Arabic) Koran we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." I believe in free speech--I do not believe in free murder. No--I would not agree with him, but I would accept his statement as his right to say it. The murder accompanying the speech most definitely changes things, however. That doesn't answer the question. There are plenty of places to go other than the Western governments considered enemies. Why go to (or stay in) the country that is viewed as the enemy?
Why do you live in Canada and not somewhere that you do not consider an "enemy?" Does the Canadian government know their citizen (or resident) considers them an enemy?
I haven't ignored it. I am saying, look the entire speech not just one sentence in it. Had Britain not been involved in the Middle East in the way it has been for the past century, would they have done what they did? Yes or no? Why did you leave out this part of my post? "I do not agree with what he did, the soldier was unarmed and technically wasn't fighting anybody anymore. However, what he did shouldn't take away from what he actually said, IMHO." What part of his speech do you disagree with? Because it's better than where they came from? Ask them. Every immigrant has their story.
I was born here, I have family and friends here. It's my home, regardless of what idiot is Prime Minister. Not every Canadian supports the Harper government. Last I checked, support of the government is not a precondition to citizenship. If that was the case, a lot of Americans wouldn't be considered American citizens
That "one sentence" is his reason for chopping that man to death. He said so. Why don't you believe his confession? I don't care how he attempts to justify killing that innocent man--it's disgusting that you are trying to rationalize the heinous act. Would you have killed that man like that if you were in that murderer's place? Yes or no? Because you are trying to justify his actions--that makes your protestations questionable--seriously questionable. All of it except that he would help push prams....that's just lovely.... :barf: Hmmmmm....you mean those countries with Sharia Law aren't the Paradise on Earth that Sharia Law supposedly brings? There is a HUUUUGE gulf between not supporting a particular leader and considering the country in which you live the "enemy." I abhor President Obama's administration--I ADORE my country. If you consider your country "the enemy" as you said, you are a threat. If I was one of those people who skim message boards for potential future threats (they're out there, you know), your comments justifying the Woolwich Butcherer and your comments calling Canada--the country you live in--"the enemy"....well...maybe you should expect a knock on your door from men men in uniform interested in chatting with you. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now a French soldier???? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...64ead0-c56a-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html .
Sorry to interrupt again, but I think it's rather obvious that OJLeb did not justify the Woolwich Butcherer. He just pointed out that the murderer's motives were political rather than religious. While he (and I) may agree with some of this murderers criticism of UK-politics, OJLeb has made it very clear that he condemns his methods. It's also rather obvious what he meant when he said "Canada" did this or that. Basically accusing him of being a potential terrorist is more than just silly: it's plainly mean and ought to be beneath an intellectually capable woman such as you! But if you want to have a go at nitpicking: how can you "ADORE" your country and at the same time call yourself a Christian? Wouldn't that mean you are trying two serve two masters? Seriously: I find such patriotism eery, probably because being German I know all too well where such "adoration" can lead to. It's horrifying, yes! But there's little you'll be able to do to stop it. What you can stop is contributing to a dumb group condemnation that leads to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-murder-attacks-on-muslims
Why are you his apologist? I think he can speak for himself or else he wouldn't have started this thread. The fact that you believe he needs your defense shows that you recognize the flaws in the things he has said. Adore in the colloquial sense. God and country, you know...in that order. That was adoration of a leader--a cult of personality. --Much more like the way Islam honors Muhammad. Hummmm...doesn't seem to measure on the "heinous radar" to the degree that running over a man with a car, dragging his body to the middle of the street and hacking the life out of him...and then celebrating with a speech justifying his act by what his holy book tells him that he MUST do. Setting aside that it is wrong to be racist, do you really think that mere threats are comparable to an out of the blue targeted violent murder?
So if I become a Muslim and dance around that black box thingy will I also receive such potency? I never considered Islam till now.
If you want to ignore the entire speech and judge the motive on one sentence, wouldn't it be more logical to use the sentence where he says: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers." Definition of only: and no one or nothing more besides; solely: Very nice to avoid answering the question. It was not whether you cared or not. I repeat: Had Britain not been involved in the Middle East in the way it has been for the past century, would they have done what they did? Yes or no? I would appreciate an answer. A simple yes or no would be sufficient. And I am no more trying to justify or rationalize his actions than you are. You are claiming he did this because the Quran says to, I am saying there was another motive to what he did. No. I wouldn't have. Now, can you answer my question above? Please, and thank you. Again, I no more justifying it than you are. I am simply trying to find the motive behind it. As you have been doing. And that is no reason to leave out the part of my post condemning the act. That is quite sneaky actually and I don't appreciate that. You seem to by trying to twist my words to make me look bad. And why do you disagree with it? What was wrong with what he said? We all know what he did was wrong, there is no question about that. The motive however, is not as unanimous as you would like to think it is. And finding the motive can potentially help avoid any more of these types of acts in the future. Not quite. As I said, immigrants leave their country for a number of reasons. Last year, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan had the lowest net-immigration rate in the Middle East. It was not because of Sharia, obviously. In fact, Qatar, which has Sharia, had the highest immigration rate in the world. Not because of Sharia, either. But nice try with whatever it was you were trying to accomplish there Give me a break. Now you are grossly twisting my words. Clearly I do not find the COUNTRY in general as an enemy. The country is a land mass. It is impossible for a country to be a literal enemy of anybody. When I - or most people for that matter - say so-and-so country is an enemy, we are speaking of the government that represent the country. Obama is not the United States, and vice-versa. To suggest I think Canada or the United States as a country is an enemy is quite foolish. Again, more twisting. Which is a shame. I've always been respectful and never twist you words, yet you do this to me? Anyway... As I have already said, I haven't justified the Woolwich murder anymore so than you have, and I do not consider Canada in general as an enemy. It is unfortunate that I have to actually explain myself this way, but nonetheless, you're attempts at slandering me and my views won't work. Sorry to disappoint you like that. Which likely will have a link to Mali extremists who the French helped remove. Oh, sorry, is this justifying the assault too?
Perhaps because you were twisting what I said and I was not available to comment on it? I think you missed his point As a Prophet and messenger? The same way it honours the Prophets from the Torah and Bible? Well obviously... Ugh... I find it quite heinous however that people would exploit such an act for political gain. If they are acted upon? There is a reason why threats and murder are BOTH illegal in most places.
Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each People according to what they have earned.
So you’d never jump to the defense of a poster whose views you think were just malevolently ‘misunderstood’? There were no flaws in what he said, there were just massive flaws in what you made out of that. And I see by now he’s already amply pointed that out himself. You didn’t get the nitpicking-bit did you? However, if it wasn't so sad, it would be almost hilarious that you follow up with a phrase, which - translated word by word into German - could have come from my Nazi-grandfather, who in the 1930/40ies (and probably after) was a stout “German Christian”. Apparently you know very little about German history. My grandfather’s generation fell for Hitler because he played on their fervent patriotism, that had been deeply humiliated in WWI. That’s why it’s so dangerous for a people to have this kind of patriotism: Just feed such a people some propaganda full of patriotic cheese and they’ll let you get away with taking away their rights, with starting aggressive wars and with assassinating and incarcerating people without trial, … sadly all of which happened/happens in the US. Of course spreading fear and inciting hatred against an “enemy” can also be useful for that: it doesn’t matter much whether its Jews, Communists, Capitalists or Muslims. People will easily bite into such a distraction. When news of the Woolwich murder got out the EDL and British National party had a field day! As for your wish to link Mohammed to Hitler, a wish that is plainly unworthy for a member of any Abrahamic religion, see OJ Lebs answer. Your “heinous radar” is a moral fallacy. With the same ‘reasoning’ you could ‘justify’ the above mentioned heinous crime by saying that it was an even more heinous crime that a crazed American soldier ventured into an Afghan village and slaughtered whole families in their sleep. A sin does not get permissible by the fact that there are even graver sins out there. If we want to make the world a better place we’ll have to avoid sinning altogether, starting with the supposedly ‘little’ sins that we ourselves commit.
I think yes--they are heinous people doing heinous things and justifying using their holy book. Here are a few areas that justify killing for simply not believing as Muslims do. http://quran.com/2/191 http://quran.com/4/89 http://quran.com/4/91 http://quran.com/8/12 http://quran.com/8/39 http://quran.com/8/65 http://quran.com/9/29 http://quran.com/9/30 http://quran.com/9/123 http://quran.com/33/61 But really, the Koran is so schizophrenic that from one surah to the next it contradicts itself, sometimes even within the same surah. It will say one thing, contradict itself, and then go back to the original point again. No wonder there are such insanity of belief. However, there is a great preponderance of justifying violence and discord. Do you really think you can separate his motive from the Koran? You can't. The two are irreparably intertwined--he SAID SO. You don't have to find it--he SAID what it was. What part of the act? The political position? The Muslim position? The murder? What exactly are you condemning and, more importantly, NOT condemning? You have implied that you find little wrong with his rant--is that the case? And yet you supposedly condemn his act. How exactly do you separate his act from his explanation for his act? THAT is where I find your responses to be flawed and, frankly, dangerous. See? There it is. How on earth can you rationalize a distinction between the man's act and his explanation for the act??? He delivered that speech to the camera waving a CLEAVER and with both hands DRENCHED IN BLOOD! The speech is PART OF the act, not something separate from it. He SAYS, "But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1369335448#g3gIDJqB58ujUV6Y.99 "forced" "must fight" "Sura At-Tawba" "many ayah in the Qu'ran" What are you not understanding about the connection between his act and his statement?
Justification and motives are two different things. Unfortunately for your argument, it is not that simple. No verse in the Quran allows for killing non-Muslims just because they aren't Muslims. This idea is not compatible with Islam. That is a wonderful website. Click "See more context" instead of taking these verses out of context. I imagine you don't appreciate when people do this with the Bible, huh? Then again, you continue to do this with my posts, so I shouldn't be surprised you do it with the Quran too. Just because you lack understanding of something does not mean it is contradictory or insane No... He said the only reason he did it was because of British foreign policy. That is the motive. You can ignore it as much as you like, but that will not change it. His justification came from the Quran. But you refuse to accept it. Why? OMG... I condemn the act of murder. The part where they killed a man. Is this sufficient for you? Perhaps if you didn't selectively quote my posts you'd understand it better? Because his rant was more than just an explanation. A lot of what he said was true. If instead he grabbed a megaphone and strolled the street repeating it, rather than kill somebody, I wouldn't be getting questioned for agreeing with what he said. See above. " them as they fight us. " You are becoming notorious for twisting words. Again, the motive stems from Britains foreign policy.... The whole" eye for an eye" concept. Which is why I asked.... Had Britain not been involved in the Middle East in the way it has been for the past century, would they have done what they did? Yes or no?
What about Bali? Mumbai? Paris? Sweden? There's always an excuse in the many examples of Islamic fighting, isn't there? Which one group or nation is involved in more militant operations throughout the world than Muslims fighting in the name of Allah?
What about them? It's only an "excuse" when somebody suggests anything other than "Islam did it", isn't it? As if the only possible reason Muslims kill is because of the fact they are Muslims. If you wish to avoid the bigger picture, be my guest. But you shouldn't expect everybody else to be so simple minded. The United States of America. Walked right into that one.
I read each one of those in full context. In fact a read (again) about half of the entire Koran before I posted that last time for that very reason. I'm amazed at how much crap is in there about divorce and money and sex, too. I ENCOURAGE people to read the Koran in full context. They will probably note the schizophrenic nature as well. Explain the meaning of Surah 8, then. Explain this. That is simply false. In addition, there are soooo many interpretations...I found that frequently the word "killed" is replaced with "hamstring" in some versions. Is that sanitizing it? It was usually when it was applied to wayward women. Apparently a significant number of Muslims disagree with you--they're called terrorists. You are parsing a difference between his "reason" and his "justification?" Again, explain this. ...but not his justification for the murder? I understand what you're saying, but it doen't add up. You can't logically agree with a justification for murder and disagree with the murder. If it's "justified" then it is a justifiable homicide. See above. I answered it in the very first line you quoted from my post. Are you going to keep asking it?
Felicity, there was no so-called ''Islamic terrorism'' in the UK, prior to the invasion of Iraq. Do you think that's a coincidence? And, would you consider non-Christians, and websites such as evilbible.com, to be an authority on the Bible? If not, then why do you consider that you, and Islamaphobic websites, are an authority on the Quran? It's even easier to quote out of context passages from the Bible to make Christianity out to be a bloodthirsty religion, than it is to do the same with the Quran and Islam. But that's not the sort of thing that decent people do. If you believe in doing to others as you would have others do to you, then you would show the same respect for other religions, as you would have others show for yours. Dusty
