Stockholm Bombs

[Oleg Bach]

Islamic facism (rightest) - some one please tell me why the left wing super liberal Europeans invite their mortal enemies to live with them?

[DogOnPorch]

Islamic facism (rightest) - some one please tell me why the left wing super liberal Europeans invite their mortal enemies to live with them?

Yes it is curious. 1500 years of on and off conflict with Islam then 'Come on in, friends'. Nobody in Western Europe has heard of the Balkans, apparently.

[wulf42]

Islamic facism (rightest) - some one please tell me why the left wing super liberal Europeans invite their mortal enemies to live with them?

They must have thought that they would assimilate into Western/European Culture nicely and i am sure that many of them have...however it looks like there are many who have not!

Edited December 13, 2010 by wulf42

[bud]

why are some of you acting like this is out of the ordinary and it's a fault of some religion?

this isn't anything new. you will always see some people reasoning and justifying these types of actions. whether it's retaliation for actions committed or an alternative to military attacks against an occupier, it has been going on for centuries.

just in the past century:

the extremist jews did it in palestine, in order to drive the british out. they also committed terrorist attacks on palestinians by attacking civilians and creating a culture of fear to drive them out of the land that they wanted. many of the leaders of these extremist groups went on to become part of the israeli government.

of course, there are/were the terrorist attacks on israeli civilians. extremist palestinians targeted israeli civilians as both retaliation and as a political statement.

the oklahoma bombing, the unibomber, the NRA attacks were all politically motivated.

this sick, desperate man in sweden, at least, seems to have sent out a warning before blowing himself up.

but i understand, this is another chance by the typical hyenas to jump all over muslims.

[M.Dancer]

why are some of you acting like this is out of the ordinary and it's a fault of some religion?

No no of course. Violence over satire or a cartoon is very ordinary...for muslims

[DogOnPorch]

No no of course. Violence over satire or a cartoon is very ordinary...for muslims

bud = Jenny Peto

[wulf42]

No no of course. Violence over satire or a cartoon is very ordinary...for muslims

This statement does seem to hold some truth to it. Muslim's should be jumping all over this terrorist act that occurred in Sweden and the same goes for the Cartoon thing! they should speak out against violence and although many do, many do not and that is what needs to change.

[August1991]

the extremist jews did it in palestine, in order to drive the british out. they also committed terrorist attacks on palestinians by attacking civilians and creating a culture of fear to drive them out of the land that they wanted. many of the leaders of these extremist groups went on to become part of the israeli government.

Bud, if I understand your logic, you think this terrorist bomb is an effort to oust the Swedes from Sweden just as Jewish terrorists wanted the British to leave Palestine.

Or do you mean that this terrorist bomb in Stockholm intends to make the Swedish army leave Afghanistan?

I'm confused.

[dre]

On no...

Not the "moderate muslims should speak out!" narrative again... one of the dumbest memes of all time.

[wulf42]

On no...

Not the "moderate muslims should speak out!" narrative again... one of the dumbest memes of all time.

Well that would be up to them but if they soon don't speak out they will start seeing a backlash from Europeans....the Germans and French are already heading that way.

[JB Globe]

Well that would be up to them but if they soon don't speak out they will start seeing a backlash from Europeans....the Germans and French are already heading that way.

As with most Islamist terror attacks, Muslim leaders are speaking out, but as usual - those who don't listen, can't hear.

And when you trawl islamisevil.com for all your information, you're not going to hear for example, that the Imam of the largest mosque in Stockholm, Hassan Mussa, condemned the attacks and issued a fatwa against suicide bombing.

But of course, you didn't know that, because you don't give yourself an opportunity to learn information that goes against your "Islam is evil" narrative.

[bloodyminded]

As with most Islamist terror attacks, Muslim leaders are speaking out, but as usual - those who don't listen, can't hear.

And when you trawl islamisevil.com for all your information, you're not going to hear for example, that the Imam of the largest mosque in Stockholm, Hassan Mussa, condemned the attacks and issued a fatwa against suicide bombing.

But of course, you didn't know that, because you don't give yourself an opportunity to learn information that goes against your "Islam is evil" narrative.

If you could find a thousand examples, you would continue to hear people wondering aloud where all the "moderate Muslims" are.

[kimmy]

Since Muslims are unequivocally opposed to terrorism and universally offended by those who would disgrace their faith by committing violence in its name, they really appreciate the help of CSIS and the FBI in rooting out terrorists who may have infiltrated their mosques.

-k

[Argus]

If you could find a thousand examples, you would continue to hear people wondering aloud where all the "moderate Muslims" are.

If you could find a thousand examples - which, of course, you can't.

And allow me to express my cynicism about Muslim religious leaders who say one thing in English to the press but say quite different hings in Arabic in their mosques to their followers. We've seen quite a few of those.

[bloodyminded]

If you could find a thousand examples - which, of course, you can't.

I don't consider the notion of thousands of people distinctly opposed to terrorism out of 1.5 billion to be anything near an outrageous claim. On the contrary, it's a conservative claim. With a similar amount of effort, we could easily find thousands of Westerners who support terrorism. I've had discussions with at least three or four here, on this forum. (Mind you, they claim to oppose terrorism, often directly before justifying it.)

And allow me to express my cynicism about Muslim religious leaders who say one thing in English to the press but say quite different hings in Arabic in their mosques to their followers. We've seen quite a few of those.

No doubt there are plenty of these guys, who I'd say are essentially oily political animals, cognizant of PR niceties among disparate audiences.

Edited December 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[JB Globe]

Since Muslims are unequivocally opposed to terrorism and universally offended by those who would disgrace their faith by committing violence in its name . . .

Thanks, I always wanted a strawman for Christmas.

[JB Globe]

If you could find a thousand examples - which, of course, you can't.

I could do a thousand easy. After all - there's been a thousand major/minor attacks over the years, and at least an equal number of condemnations/fatwas/criticisms/etc.

But there's no point, really.

You'll just say they're all practising Taqiya and lying to advance the faith (even though, Taqiya has nothing to do with that)

So why bother?

Some folks are just a lost cause.

[Bob]

Since when is Sweden "the most tolerant society in the world"? Second, what does tolerance have to do with Islamic terrorism?

[Argus]

I don't consider the notion of thousands of people distinctly opposed to terrorism out of 1.5 billion to be anything near an outrageous claim.

Oh, I'm sure there are millions, hundreds of millions opposed. That really isn't the point, is it? Rabble rousing speeches filled with vitriol and hatred are standard fare throughout the Muslim world, in mosques, political rallies, in government newspapers and magazines, on government television, in school textbooks, and very large numbers of people are influenced by them. Islamism is growing stronger, not weaker, as even the so-called moderates don hijabs and stare suspiciously at 'infidels'.

And as I've said before, their 'moderates' would, if you made them western Christians, be referred to by most here as radical conservative religious fanatics.

[bloodyminded]

Oh, I'm sure there are millions, hundreds of millions opposed. That really isn't the point, is it? Rabble rousing speeches filled with vitriol and hatred are standard fare throughout the Muslim world, in mosques, political rallies, in government newspapers and magazines, on government television, in school textbooks, and very large numbers of people are influenced by them. Islamism is growing stronger, not weaker, as even the so-called moderates don hijabs and stare suspiciously at 'infidels'.

And as I've said before, their 'moderates' would, if you made them western Christians, be referred to by most here as radical conservative religious fanatics.

I suppose it's a matter of terminology. Perhaps, in our discussions, we've obediently chosen to adopt the language of State...in which Saddam Hussein, for example, was once considered a "moderate." (Meaning, of course, obsequious to Washington.)

Or, if by "moderate," we mean "not inclined to terrorism," then moderates are of course everywhere, the absolute norm.

I have an acquaintance from Pakistan, a devout Muslim, and a modern fellow with a modern family. He makes radical conservative Christian fanatics look like....radical conservative Christian fanatics.

Oh, I'm sure there are millions, hundreds of millions opposed. That really isn't the point, is it?

??? It was precisely the point to which you offered dispute. In fact, you offered it for a hell of a lot fewer than "hundreds of millions."

Edited December 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Let's get right to the point. Bloodyminded, are you or are you not implying that incitement and hatred of "the other" and propensity for violence is not significantly more prevalent in the Arab world than it is in the West? If you knew Arabic, would you expect to read and hear things over there that you would consider "over the line" in the same manner and volume as in the West? Whether it be newspapers, websites, videos, television, movies, cartoons, statements from political leaders, religious commentary in mosques, or the dinner table, are you suggesting that we are in no position to criticize the venom and hatred that many of us know is rife in the Arab world because we have similar problems in the West?

You seem to be trying to draw parallels between what you describe as "Christian fanatics" and the people we're at war with. You also seem to be suggesting that there isn't a distinct and disturbing trend of incitement and hatred in the Arab world that is unique today and largely stands alone.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

Let's get right to the point. Bloodyminded, are you or are you not implying that incitement and hatred of "the other" and propensity for violence is not significantly more prevalent in the Arab world than it is in the West? If you knew Arabic, would you expect to read and hear things over there that you would consider "over the line" in the same manner and volume as in the West? Whether it be newspapers, websites, videos, television, movies, cartoons, statements from political leaders, religious commentary in mosques, or the dinner table, are you suggesting that we are in no position to criticize the venom and hatred that many of us know is rife in the Arab world because we have similar problems in the West?

You seem to be trying to draw parallels between what you describe as "Christian fanatics" and the people we're at war with. You also seem to be suggesting that there isn't a distinct and disturbing trend of incitement and hatred in the Arab world that is unique today and largely stands alone.

This is an odd response, for a few reasons.

First of all, I wasn't talking about "Christian fanatics"....so I can't see why you'd state that I "describe them as" such, and use quotation marks to underscore your error.

I said plenty of Westerners support terrorism; not Islamist terrorism, but any that is used for our ostensibly noble purposes. And that I have had discussions with them on this board. Are such things not to be mentioned in polite society, as we worry properly about the Communi....er, Islamist threat?

I never drew any comparison between numbers of supporters, which is at any rate less clear-cut than you seem to think; rather, as usual, I take the radical stance of being more concerned about what we and our allies do. This is the elementary moral stance, accepted by philosophies of morals and ethics generally, and is one which we teach to our four-year-olds. That it is not only instantly forgotten every time it is announced we are at war, but is considered actively bad, a kind of "moral equivalence" or even seditious thoughtcrime, is not my fault; it is the fault of the moral relativists who think we should ignore our nations' or cultures' wrongdoing, focussing laserlike upon official enemies instead. This is an ancient formulation, with nearly the weight of religious faith, by probably every country ever at war with anyone, and for any reason.

And no, I never said that "we are in no position to criticize the venom and hatred that many of us know is rife in the Arab world because we have similar problems in the West." Rather, I think it hypocritical to pretend that we don't have similar problems in the West, including within mainstream culture, by our own "moderates" (ie roughly centrist, soft-liberals and soft-conservatives, who receive the lion's share of public commentary).

That the murderous rhetoric is under the cosmetic guise of "realpolitik" rather than under the guise of religious superstition is of almost no moment, at least not to me.

But more to the point here, I was responding to a poster, whom I had thought was suggesting that "thousands" of terrorist-opposing Muslims out of 1.5 billion would be difficult to prove; I countered that it was obviously a conservative estimate, and that we could similarly find thousands of Westerners (including prominent ones, though I didn't bother adding that point) who quite clearly support and defend terrorism....usually under a "lesser evilism" premise, which needless to say accounts for the view of Islamist terrorists, in exactly the same way.

That is, this all makes sense, perhaps, only if we take it as a given that terrorism is inherently a bad thing. I do, but obviously many people disagree with me on that point.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded