This is facile, many ideologies and subsets of ideologies, including explicitly secular ideologies, support and justify various types of violence against humans and structures for various particular reasons. What we conventionally consider terrorists typically are religious extremists, terrorist acts which we have seen recently have been inspired by radical and generally nationalist sects of the following: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism, secularism in general. I mean, some people consider PETA and Greenpeace ecoterrorists (I'm not comparing what happened in Paris to anything PETA's done). A lot of people would consider communist insurgents terrorists and indeed they are marked as terrorists in certain countries (India has a pretty big movement of Maoists and some of these are considered by the Indian government to be terrorists, none of these groups hold to a singular religion and their principal philosophy is grounded in secularism). 'Anti-terrorism' 'factsheets' in Australia released this year is aimed roughly 50% at Islam and anyone, Islamic or not, who aids Palestine, 25% at radical leftism, and 25% at white nationalism.Right, but terrorists do.
Okay. That should have been made clear then, but their post exclusively talked about NATO/France/US so that's why I assumed they were talking about the West. Cause no one regards the Soviet Union/Russia as the West in context of their geopolitical position.jumpluff 's argument for all intents and purposes probably includes Russia as a "western power" also. It's not geography you pedant lol. And your argument is (ironically) a fine extension to her post
If jumpluff disagrees, then that's a different story.
Well, now we're getting a good way off into the weeds.But seriously Trax: Only if America, France, and NATO allies stop fucking with the homes of refugees. Most of these 'terrorist' groups do not pop out of nowhere, they are used as domestic agents for US imperialism in the Middle East, armed and funded while their countries are torn apart and the rest of the world either a) shrugs b) makes it worse. I'm pretty sure the majority of them would be happier where they were if it was a safe place to live without gross global inequality, which we as Australians benefit from, even poor Australians.
It's not the individual fault of anyone who died today that things are the way they are. But it's absurd to blame refugees as well, since the rest of the world is the reason they have so many problems, and the vast majority of them are utterly innocent, as innocent as we can presume the French. A lot of the countries suspected for 'terrorist activity' have been fucked with recently by the Americans and British redrawing the borders in their areas, provoking civil conflicts and turbulence, interfering with the political will of the masses (and using the opportunity to instil Western-sympathetic leaders), had their regional allies armed or aided by America as threats, been threatened or embargoed, had their wars exacerbated by America, live under the threat of American drones and advanced American military technology being employed in the civil war. Furthermore I would say that given that America, France, etc. are so wealthy is due to the exploitation of poorer countries's resources, money, and labour, the least they can do is take in refugees. How can you seriously look at the disparities and death tallies in Syria and other countries, and the cruel way Western countries treat refugees (who are clearly desperate), and say their problems are theirs alone, when global inequality is the way it is because of Western military and imperial conquest?
Your post is repulsive, sorry. Innocent Parisians don't deserve to die, neither do millions of innocent Syrians. It's very easy for you to sit from where you are in Australia and say refugees should just go back home, while a lot of refugees around Australia itself are the result of Australian imperial intervention and are subject to further barbarity by coming here. Congrats on winning the capitalism lottery by being born in Australia.
And yes I do not differentiate between economic migrants here because their countries cannot remotely hope to better in this state, and if they were stable they would still be at the losing end of US imperialism. How are they to challenge NATO? How do we decide what is an acceptable living standard for people in Syria and then decide we deserve grossly better?
Edit2: If it is public denunciation you are looking for from Muslims (which is weird since most of us were asleep at that time and the whole ISIS kills Muslims daily part), I sure hope you know how to use Google Search and translate.
I don't think any of us were level-headed yesterday. I will still hold steadfast by my opinions but I can agree that an immense amount of denouncing has happened with this attack. Its irresponsible that media and the internet is not reporting on these denouncements. I don't think I was particularly clear in my last post either. I did not mean for my post to come off as offensive but in retrospect it did.Wasn't really level headed when I posted then. Guess my temper got better of me, sorry about that. Kind of happens when people hold entire religions culpable accessory to terrorism and shit.
It is official that the attackers were confirmed to be ISIS, I read their statement where they claimed that the terrorist attacks were their doings but it shows exactly why we shouldn't consider what they did related to IslamI want people to understand that in a case like this terrorism does have a religion.
Islam is not a religion of terrorism, but it is the religion of terrorists. Islam contains a violent extremist sect in a way that other religions do not - you would have to be an idiot to blame all Muslims for terrorism, but you would also have to ignore the evidence to claim there is no correlation. Other religions have totally done this in the past, and it was equally bad then.Terrorism has no religion.
They tried this, and Assad might of well have laughed, said "you and what army?!", and pretty much responded with bombings, military, and using Sarin on any areas of dissidence. They need enough guns to arm an army and armored assault vehicles, and not that the Russians and Chinese are propping that despot's regime up, now they would need a force of fighter jets as well. If you think they can peacefully make things better in Syria, you're deluded, because from what I've seen, the people who they are fleeing from can't be reasoned with, except for when their necks are on the line, only understand force, and will only stop their oppressive actions when facing down the barrel of a gun (or the perspective of).Refugees should make their homes better, instead of bringing their problems to the rest of the world. Frankly, the risks are too high at this point.
It's the same statement, don't try to sugarcoat a blanket generalization. Both are hilariously untrue if we want to take this into historical context or any context for that matter. Show me a region with ethnic conflict/racism, severe oppression and poverty without any terrorism/criminal activities taking use of said conflict (smugglers, militia trying to steal/claim funds, etc.) and I'll show you a unicorn. Of course terrorists in a Muslim region are gonna take the guise of religion to justify their cause or recruit delusioned assholes..no different the 969 terrorists in Myanmar taking a religious Buddhist guise or those during the Yugoslav war and Christian orthodoxy or Hindu extremists in India slaughtering people for allegedly having cow mutton in their fridge.Islam is not a religion of terrorism, but it is the religion of terrorists.
This is where I draw the line. Though I cannot read the Quran in Arabic because I don't speak Arabic for every line that promotes peace in that book there's another one that encourages violence or at the very least discrimination.I agree completely with this. Islam is a very peaceful religion and how these extremists interpert the Quran that way is beyond me.
Not sure how legitimate this is. But if this is true, then too bad.TWO of the gunmen who carried out Friday’s devastating attacks in Paris, which left at least 129 people dead, were among tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who have entered Europe through Greece.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=5&verse=27
(5:32) Therefore We ordained for the Children of Israel53 that he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.54 And indeed again and again did Our Messengers come to them with clear directives; yet many of them continued to commit excesses on earth.
(5:33) Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, AND go about the earth spreading mischief55 -indeed their recompense is that they either be done to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from the opposite sides or be banished from the land.56 Such shall be their degradation in this world; and a mighty chastisement lies in store for them in the World to Come
"55. The 'land' signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God's purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man's progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of 'waging war against the state' even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him."
Mind you this is the same verse that is used by legal judges to condemn terrorists to death. Yet somehow Rugi has turned into a ISIS jurist and cut verses out of their contexts. Or maybe he has no idea wtf he is talking about. I'm drawing the line here, put some effort or leave.
tldr; This verse is called the Haraba verse, Haraba (kindly used google translate) being highway thievery, robbing and killing that was widespread at that time.