Profile of a Killer

[Tez3]

We have Muslims in our armed forces and yes they fought in Iraq and are in Afghanistan. There are Muslims all round the world who have no thoughts of harming anyone, there are different sects of Muslims, the Sufi for example who have no thoughts of harming anyone. We don't judge Christians by one group why should we do the same with Muslims? We dont judge Americans by what one group does, or should we? Do we judge Americans as all being members of the KKK or it's polar opposite the 'Black Power' movement? Do we judge American Christians as all being the same as those in that little town I saw on televison where they all handle rattlesnakes in church? No we know better than that, so why are all Muslims judged as being the same?

 

[Twin Fist]

no one does that, not that i know of. i certainly dont

 

[clfsean]

3.166666 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

3.466666666666667 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

 

[Jenna]

This thread began as a take on Breivik. I think that has come and gone.

Why do any of us - of any opinion - seek to change the views of others that do not share our view? Are we so arrogant to think that ours is the only right way?

Islam and Christianity are both founded on ideals which when operated upon and interpreted IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN underpin our peaceful and tolerant societies. We do not practice our martial arts to kill, as they were originally designed. We understand and work from their foundational contexts with no fundamental adherence to those. When biblical and qur'an ideals are misunderstood and thus misinterpreted for the ends of any sect then we have this ridiculous fundamentalism, the effects of which are too painfully plain, and supporters who adhere to nothing except the caprices of their own bigotry.

These ill-advised, uneducated and decontextualised interpretations of holy texts are rife in every religion. None can claim any moral high ground over the other.

Unfortunately the kind of blanket statements that these forum discussions continually unearth form the foundations to all kinds of Anders Breivik style naive and contorted misapprehensions of how the world really is.

Whatever

 

[Tez3]

With or without religions human nature is such that some people will always seek to make others think as they wish them to. the Norwegian killer has the supreme arrogance that many fanatics have, of believing they and only they are correct in their thinking and actions. According to them, it's their purpose to point out to the rest of us the error of our ways. People like this can be of any religion, any political persuasion and sometimes of none at all but they share the common trait of believing that they are the only ones who are correct. When they start believing that actions speak loudr than words the deaths in Nowray are what result.

It's wrong to believe that all adherents of these people's beliefs are the same however, luckily human nature also provides us with people who can think for themselves, who are able to live in peace and to follow a different interpretation of religions, political viewpoints etc.

TF you can't say no one brands all Muslims the same after posting "yeah, cuz what is true of ONE is true of ALL........", you're contradicting yourself.

It's a cliche to say there's good and bad in all but it doesn't stop it being true.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

2.6333333333333333
You are a liberal airhead.

I guess critical thinking makes you an airhead. :idunno:

Oh, regarding the thread. I agree with steve and Tez that the content of LL's posts concerning Islamophobia is accurate, although I'd have preferred he kept out the ad hominems against TF.

Islam is a religion; while not an expert on either by any stretch of the imagination, I've heard nothing to suggest that Islam is any more or less violent than Christianity. Either can be hijacked by radical whackos to justify genocide. Notably, both have been; Muslim radicals are just the terrorists who've been prominent in the (American) public eye for the last decade. That doesn't mean that they're the only serious terrorist threat; there are neo-Nazi terrorists, environmental terrorists, the IRA, and a host of others I know I can't think of.

I consider the view that Islamic terrorists are the worst, most common, and/or most threatening terrorists to be a viewpoint deliberately narrowed to the concerns of the day. One has to ignore a lot of information to believe that Islamic terrorists represent the majority of Muslims. Bill Mattocks has made frequent posts showing that their view of Islam is a ridiculously minority view among Muslims. Additionally, someone in this thread earlier (my apologies for forgetting who) indicated that Islamic terrorist attacks comprise a small percentage of total terrorist attacks when viewed in the long-term. It's only by viewing the very short-term history that one can maintain the idea that Islamic terrorists are the most common type.

This discussion does very much tie in to the OP about the Norway bomber, and it's a discussion I think the Study community needs to have. To that end, though, PLEASE keep the ad hominem attacks out of it! Personally, I think this thread has some value and it would be a shame to see it locked.

 

[MJS]

Thread Closed.

 

[MJS]

After a request, I'm going to reopen the thread. Just a quick note: This thread has already generated a few reported posts. Lets try to avoid anymore please, and drop the personal shots. Stay on topic. Different opinions are common. Just because someone disagrees with someone, doesnt mean you have to insult them.

 

[Tez3]

The threat of terrorism isn't coming from the Muslims as such, it's coming from Al Queda and it's offshoots. When we look at the violence in Northern Ireland we don't say the terrorists are Christian we specify IRA, Provos, the Red Hand gang etc. It causes less confusion if we name the actual group, less chance of tarring everyone with the same brush. Terrorists often have an agenda other than just the cause they say they support, the terrorists cells in Northern Ireland for example from both sides of the divide deal in drugs and protection and have been known to co-operate to enable their businesses to prosper. Al Queda isn't just about Islam they have other issues as well, namely what all terrorist groups want...power and all that goes with it. In the UK we've dealt with a number of terrorist groups over the years in countries as diverse as Cyprus, Malaya, Oman and Kenya and it's rarely about just 'the cause', in nearly all cases though the 'peace' has been found by negociation not violence.

 

[The Last Legionary]

ok. I started this because one of the problems with this site right now is you can't seem to throw a stick around here lately without some wackaloon riding full tilt through a discussion screaming "the muslums are coming". No, I'm not just talking about Fister there, but he is as others have noted the most visible. I don't come to this Martial Arts site to read paranoid extremist dribbling. No, I can't just "not read it". It contaminates everything. I get which part I'm in, but some of the topics interest me, even if I don't often chime in. I also happen to like the site. I support it. I don't want to pop over some time and see a government "sorry we took the box" notice.
Because some extremist hypocrites couldn't keep their paranoia and over reactions and all that jazz in check. I cuold cite samples. I'm sure it would be seen not as eye opening, but as harassment. Whatever. This isn't all about Fister though. This is a gut-check for everyone, me too. I put up some "warning signs". You can change them up a bit, swap faiths or switch to races or nationalities or whatever floats your cupcake. Run yourself through them and count them up. See how 'dangerous' you are.

Extreme anything is dangerous. Kaith's posted statistics, facts, reports, and I've lost count. From reliable mainline sources. Others post stuff from wackaloon sites pushing agenda's. This is like the teaching creation stuff. The gun debates. The Blaming Bush debates. Remember those? It's all Bush's fault, even though it was the 100 Senators and 500+ Representatives who wrote the laws, passed the bills and all that crap? It's all Obama's fault, even though it was the 100 Senators and 500+ Representatives who wrote the laws, passed the bills et.

Terrorism is simple. Scared angry people lash out against innocents, because they think it will change the world. They are right, it does. Usually not the way they think.
Bigotry is simple too. Fear of the different. A delusion of superiority. A Texas Redneck or NY Yankee ain't no better than an Arabian Camel Jockey or Mexican Wetback.
Just different. Except me. I'm perfect. My mom told me so just before she dropped me on my head.

I don't usually write a lot. Not my style really. I prefer to lurk and read. But things are going ugly the last few, and it would be nice to get back to "friendly" more.

 

[Tez3]

The Cypriot terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOKA_B

I think many are either too young or don't know about his, my other half was sent to Cyrprus just after the Turkish invasion, he went when I was three months pregnant with our son and came home when the baby was three months old so I have reason to remember! Also because it was very dangerous at the time with a couple of British soldiers being killed.

 

[The Last Legionary]

The threat of terrorism isn't coming from the Muslims as such, it's coming from Al Queda and it's offshoots. When we look at the violence in Northern Ireland we don't say the terrorists are Christian we specify IRA, Provos, the Red Hand gang etc. It causes less confusion if we name the actual group, less chance of tarring everyone with the same brush. Terrorists often have an agenda other than just the cause they say they support, the terrorists cells in Northern Ireland for example from both sides of the divide deal in drugs and protection and have been known to co-operate to enable their businesses to prosper. Al Queda isn't just about Islam they have other issues as well, namely what all terrorist groups want...power and all that goes with it. In the UK we've dealt with a number of terrorist groups over the years in countries as diverse as Cyprus, Malaya, Oman and Kenya and it's rarely about just 'the cause', in nearly all cases though the 'peace' has been found by negociation not violence.

But you have first hand knowledge of these things. Most forumites don't. Thankfully I might add. Becuase while the threat of terrorism is a big deal, actual terror attacks are few and far between. You hit on another important thing. It's not all about the stated goal. "The Cause" is often a cover story for "make lots of money, get powerful, live life well".

 

[Tez3]

But you have first hand knowledge of these things. Most forumites don't. Thankfully I might add. Becuase while the threat of terrorism is a big deal, actual terror attacks are few and far between. You hit on another important thing. It's not all about the stated goal. "The Cause" is often a cover story for "make lots of money, get powerful, live life well".

"Forumites"? I like that. I'm afraid the UK has had it's share of people who disagree with it, in many cases with good reason though not all have taken to violence.

History is littered with people and groups who think they have the answer for all mankind and proceed to impose their thoughts on evryone they could, no one religion or political thought has the monopoly on this, in most cases religions have been used as justification for the deeds of these people. The statement' you have offended the gods' has often been reason to get rid of people who oppose you, 'enemy of the state' is another such phrase used to dispose of 'troublemakers'.
In the UK we've had bombs going off with an almost regular monotony, not always the Provos sometimes it's other 'beliefs' such as this, distubingly similiar to the Norwegian killer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

And these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Angry_Brigade


List of attacks in London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London


Attacks in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom


It doesn't sound good for the tourist industry but I can assure you that it's a safe and welcoming place to come to for a good holiday! Remember the saying 'Don't panic and carry on!'

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I never panic. I know where my towel is.

 

[Twin Fist]

TF you can't say no one brands all Muslims the same after posting "yeah, cuz what is true of ONE is true of ALL........", you're contradicting yourself.

uh, no i am not

I have said, many, MANY times that there is no "all"

I have said many many times, in regards to muslim people, that the dangerous ones are not all, not most, a small percentage, but still many.

you can lie and claim i said a million other things, but THAT is what I actually said

i dont care what you THINK i said, i dont care what you THINK i meant, i said what i said. And it isnt what you are claiming.

 

[poollshark]

3.6

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

I already knew this :ultracool

 

[billc]

Here is a video clip of Bill O'reilly taking on the "profile of a killer," offered by the media, he does it quite well. He also addresses the "radical muslim terrorist vs. christian terrorist" aspect of the coverage.

http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/07...ard-regarding-norwegian-mass-murderer-brevik/

 

[RandomPhantom700]

i dont care what you THINK i said, i dont care what you THINK i meant, i said what i said. And it isnt what you are claiming.

Quick little exercise for you. Go to your profile, click "view all posts", scan through the relevant topics, and see how frequently you type "the muslims". Not Al-Queda, not the Taliban, not "islamic terrorists", not even "Palestinians", but "the muslims". Then reconsider why Tez and so many other forumites (I really love that word) think you have a problem with "the muslims".

 

[billc]

What a lot of the people who post here overlook is the state based nature of radical muslim terrorism. The Arab spring may very well see radical muslim extremists with a great deal of control in countries that were content to oppress their own people, Egypt, Libya, Syria, but under the influence of the muslim brotherhood, may in the years ahead become an exporter of violence like Iran and Iraq were or at least become bases of operation like afghanistan was. Radical muslim extremism is dangerous because of its state sponsorship, its desire through its state sponsorship to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, and the way they are not percieved as the level of threat they deserve. All muslims are not terrorists but "main stream" muslims aren't the ones we are worried about. If they controlled the governments in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria there wouldn't be the danger. They don't control those countries and the former dictatorships are falling apart but won't be replaced by "moderate" muslims.

In the video I posted on "The Soviet Story," it shows a small newspaper clip of a little known political party in Germany, you know, the Nazis. A lot of intellectuals and political figures in he west talked about them the way they are talking about the muslim brotherhood today. We may very well be in the modern version of 1920's europe with the "Arab spring." The only thing holding back the extremists before was the strong man dictators who wanted to oppress the people. The radical muslim extremists aren't content to do the same thing. They want these countries so they can eventually spread their faith. The other thing that will slow down the radical muslim terrorist types is the fact that the countries they take control of through the "arab spring," are in such bad straights.

The desire to dismiss the threat now, may very well be the same mistake made with the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia back then.

 

[granfire]

What a lot of the people who post here overlook is the state based nature of radical muslim terrorism. The Arab spring may very well see radical muslim extremists with a great deal of control in countries that were content to oppress their own people, Egypt, Libya, Syria, but under the influence of the muslim brotherhood, may in the years ahead become an exporter of violence like Iran and Iraq were or at least become bases of operation like afghanistan was. Radical muslim extremism is dangerous because of its state sponsorship, its desire through its state sponsorship to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, and the way they are not percieved as the level of threat they deserve. All muslims are not terrorists but "main stream" muslims aren't the ones we are worried about. If they controlled the governments in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria there wouldn't be the danger. They don't control those countries and the former dictatorships are falling apart but won't be replaced by "moderate" muslims.

In the video I posted on "The Soviet Story," it shows a small newspaper clip of a little known political party in Germany, you know, the Nazis. A lot of intellectuals and political figures in he west talked about them the way they are talking about the muslim brotherhood today. We may very well be in the modern version of 1920's europe with the "Arab spring." The only thing holding back the extremists before was the strong man dictators who wanted to oppress the people. The radical muslim extremists aren't content to do the same thing. They want these countries so they can eventually spread their faith. The other thing that will slow down the radical muslim terrorist types is the fact that the countries they take control of through the "arab spring," are in such bad straights.

The desire to dismiss the threat now, may very well be the same mistake made with the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia back then.

Well, the 'little known party' was a direct result of the demands and contracts and obligations following WWI.
(and no, Hitler was not elected, because such was the mechanics of power in the Weimar republic: The President is elected (It was v Hindenburg, WWI veteran, staunch monarchist) who then had ole Adolf as his 'running mate' the Chancelor to be appointed (If you will Hindenburg, well in his 80s at the time was the Trojan horse for the Nazis.)
Following that debacle the constitution was reworked following 1945.

So, to get back to your brotherhood....
They may or may not end up in power. They certainly have the advantage of already being a formed group with all the necessary infrastructures and the 'who is who'
However, many of the countries you listed have a huge population that is very young. And many of them have grown restless with the same old people in power. people far removed from reality.
Also, the lot of the countries you named, I think oil is always the common denominator. When the Indonesians topple the president, it's a footnote, though most people there are Muslim, too.

Also, another detour through history, the mess of the middle east started when the land was carved up willy nilly into countries without any regard to the ethnicity of the people there.
I know you don't want to hear it, but the people in Iran have little in common with the people just across the border in Iraq, and much less yet with the people in Tunesia or Algeria....except they roll under the catch all of 'Muslim'
But of course, there is the devil in the detail: Not all are created equal. Not all behave the same way or share the same values (maybe not all of them were being kept on chains by the west for so long for their natural riches)

There is a real danger in those countries, that is true.
However islamophobics don't do it justice or come even close to the point: The social structures of those countries is unstable. That always happens when there are a lot of people with no money and nothing to do.
That's what happened in Germany in the late 1920s when a lot of the middle class people found themselves hit hard by the depression and the ongoing cost of the war (reparation payments were initially open ended, a modified version put an end to them in 1986) spending their days in line for welfare.
heck, if things continue the way they are now in the US you can expect something along this line here, too.