Barbaric attack in the U.K.

[Guest]

Yeah, I was thinking more of the last 50 years than the last 500. But then, it might just be that every little thing is reported on now, and we are saturated with news of people doing unspeakable things to one another.

[Argus]

I don't see hacking a soldier to death any more barbaric than wiping a bunch of little kids out with clusterbombs in Iraq.

And can you point to when the US or west did this on purpose?

Edited May 25, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Wow you really haven't been paying attention. The whole Middle East and Central Asia have been consistently raped by western imperial intervention at the point of a gun, and then its done its best to funnel as many weapons as possible into the fray in order to encourage divide and conquer tactics.

Drivel.

[Argus]

The Buildings were called Blowback from years of western imperial intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia

Drivel. Every weak country gets kicked around and always has. The middle east has been nothing but a sand box for various powers to play in for thousands of years. Whether it was the Persians, the Mongols or the Romans, the Europeans or the Ottoman Empire. The only difference over the last century or so was that they were in the relatively benign hands of the West, and were thus granted their freedoms. Of course, being largely uneducated and unsophisticated, they didn't do much with that freedom. But to say it's the fault of the West that their governments are corrupt, self-serving and brutal is so much twaddle.

As I said if you're going to brag about kicking their ass, then don't whine like a little baby when some guy gets hacked to death in response.

By a pair of NIGERIANS born in the UK who converted to an Islamist cult. And yet you seem to think this is because of "imperialist" interference in the middle east... somehow.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

I think being civilized has everything to do with it. I don't see living in a place where the need to be armed (real or perceived) is as civilized as living in a place where one doesn't. The issue of whether British police need to be armed or not will run its course but for the present, the fact they don't is one of the things about them I admire.

The only reason the Brits can go unarmed is because they're an island, which makes it more difficult to smuggle weapons in. The police in Nordic countries are armed, and they're a pretty civilized bunch, more civilized than the Brits, in fact, in many respects.

[Argus]

Check out Switzerland, Costa Rica (no military), Iceland (also no standing army) etc. etc.

That you can't even fathom living in a peaceful society like in so many other countries is pretty sad.

Iceland, like Britain, is an island, even more isolated, in fact, so easier to keep gun free. But the Swiss and Costa Rican police are armed.

[Wilber]

The only reason the Brits can go unarmed is because they're an island, which makes it more difficult to smuggle weapons in. The police in Nordic countries are armed, and they're a pretty civilized bunch, more civilized than the Brits, in fact, in many respects.

I'm not judging countries, I'm just saying that living in a place where there is no need to walk around armed is more civilized than living in a place where you do.

[G Huxley]

G Huxley, on 23 May 2013 - 3:37 PM, said:

I don't see hacking a soldier to death any more barbaric than wiping a bunch of little kids out with clusterbombs in Iraq.

And can you point to when the US or west did this on purpose?

When it chose to use clusterbombs and fire them from 30,000 feet on a country that never attacked it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise the murderous savageness of such an attack.

[G Huxley]

BCsapper again you don't even want to contemplate living in a peaceful society like other peaceful societies on earth, it is anathema to your fear, belief/faith in and love of war. Hell if Switzerland could maintain a peaceful society in the 1940s Canada can maintain a peaceful society in the 20th century.

Edited May 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Iceland, like Britain, is an island, even more isolated, in fact, so easier to keep gun free. But the Swiss and Costa Rican police are armed.

Having been through Switzerland extensively, I never once saw an armed police officer.

The attacker didn't use a gun here.

Edited May 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest]

BCsapper again you don't even want to contemplate living in a peaceful society like other peaceful societies on earth, it is anathema to your fear, belief/faith in and love of war. Hell if Switzerland could maintain a peaceful society in the 1940s Canada can maintain a peaceful society in the 20th century.

If Switzerland could maintain a peaceful society in the 1940s, what on earth was the rest of the world doing? One would imagine that peace is preferrable to war, right? How come they all fought instead of gave each other cakes and things?

Were you not around to tell them that they were doing it wrong?

Never mind. You're here now, so I daresay war's days are numbered.

[Guest]

Having been through Switzerland extensively, I never once saw an armed police officer.

The attacker didn't use a gun here.

You realise almost every male in Switzerland has a gun somewhere, right?

[G Huxley]

"Drivel."

Ignorance.

Every weak country gets kicked around and always has. The middle east has been nothing but a sand box for various powers to play in for thousands of years. Whether it was the Persians, the Mongols or the Romans, the Europeans or the Ottoman Empire. The only difference over the last century or so was that they were in the relatively benign hands of the West, and were thus granted their freedoms. Of course, being largely uneducated and unsophisticated, they didn't do much with that freedom. But to say it's the fault of the West that their governments are corrupt, self-serving and brutal is so much twaddle.

Again you display your ignorance, you ignore the fact that their governments were often forced on them by the west.

The west destroyed Democracy in Iran by taking out the Democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh, and replacing him with the Shah.

The west destroyed Afghanistan first by the Soviets taking over and trying to 'modernize it,' then the US doing exactly the same.

Iraq was invented by Britain in the 20th century in order for Britain to gain rich access to the oil in the Mosul region in order to feed its empire. The chief Architect Gertrude Bell comitted suicide, when Iraq failed to materialize.

The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was invented by Britain in the 20th century.

The House of Saud took power in Saudi Arabia enabled by the actions of Britain and the States.

Qassim the leader of Iraq was taken out most likely in a CIA backed coup, and the Baathists took power. When Saddam took control the west backed him for years to fight Iran.

The Israel/Palestine and that mess was created by Britain, then was backed by the Soviets, then and now is backed by America.

The west raped Libya in the 1st half of the 20th century, then Gadaffi came into power and was initially supported by the US, then he was supported by the Soviets.

Nasser was initially supported by the US, and then was backed by the Soviets.

Ben Ali was the corrupt friend of the west.

The Islamist AK Party in Turkey was backed by the Americans as their Islamic NATO ally in the MIdeast.

The Kuwaiti Monarchy was established by the British and defended by the US.

Modern Pakistan is the fallout of British Imperialism and then US backing of Pakistan during the Cold War.

Syria was backed by the Soviet Union and is still backed by Russia as the west funnels weapons to Islamists and turns the country into the another Iraq.

The list continues to go on. The West has simply ruined a huge region by its deep ignorance and addiction to imperialism and oil.

As I said if you're going to brag about kicking their ass, then don't whine like a little baby when some guy gets hacked to death in response.

"By a pair of NIGERIANS born in the UK who converted to an Islamist cult. And yet you seem to think this is because of "imperialist" interference in the middle east... somehow."

Islam is a universalist, rather than a nationalist belief. In Islam if Islamics are attacked somewhere it is the duty of Islamists anywhere to defend those attacked.

I'm an atheist. As an atheist its pretty obvious how religions work.

[G Huxley]

Having been through Switzerland extensively, I never once saw an armed police officer.

The attacker didn't use a gun here.

You realise almost every male in Switzerland has a gun somewhere, right?

Yet they still live in a peaceful society. OK that would be option #4 I hadn't added.

Have a peaceful society where most people have a gun. (Switzerland sole example).

Arming the UK would still be option #1 Orwellian Society with guns.

[G Huxley]

If Switzerland could maintain a peaceful society in the 1940s, what on earth was the rest of the world doing? One would imagine that peace is preferrable to war, right? How come they all fought instead of gave each other cakes and things?

Were you not around to tell them that they were doing it wrong?

Never mind. You're here now, so I daresay war's days are numbered.

The 2nd world war happened, because of war mongers both in World War I and in World War 2. Those War Mongers have their equivalent today in the westerners who think it is their duty to invade and rule over the Middle East.

[G Huxley]

The final reason why the west can never succeed in its imperial visions for the Islamic world.

A: It doesn't respect it, its people, or its culture. Your posts above are proof of that.

When a people are disrespected and patronized, they resist.

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over expecting a different result despite all previous attempts being failures.

[betsy]

I was just reading John Sandford's latest novel which had the Mexican cartel going after families. The ranting of this killer who calmly explained why they did this atrocity - summing it up to revenge for the killings of Muslim women and children - it did cross my mind how this kind of avenge-killings could possibly befall to any random family slaughter that would target women and children. The possibility is there.

They aim to make a loud statement thus it was done in broad daylight, on a busy street.

Do you think now is a good time to give up your means of protection?

[Guest]

The final reason why the west can never succeed in its imperial visions for the Islamic world.

A: It doesn't respect it, its people, or its culture. Your posts above are proof of that.

When a people are disrespected and patronized, they resist.

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over expecting a different result despite all previous attempts being failures.

Do you respect it? The beheadings, the stonings, the hangings, the acid, the shootings, the burkas, the executions for blasphemy, the fatwas for writing books, the murders for drawing cartoons and making movies, etc.

Which bits do you respect?

[G Huxley]

That's the thing that's the only part of them you see. You are effectively blind to a billion people on the earth and their real lives, not just what the media microscope wants you to see.

The west has killed hundreds of thousands of Islamic people and displaced millions for its imperial objectives, and tortured in the most hideous way thousands of Islamic people.

In the 20th century alone Europe and the West killed tens of millions of people with its 'civilized culture.'

.

Since humans are closely related to chimpanzees it is not surprising that every culture has its own forms of cannibalism.

I don't see an ounce of a difference between the two, but to claim that is the sole part of their culture is to claim that killing murder and torture is the sole part of North American and European culture.

It would be false in both cases.

Edited May 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Here is what I respect about peoples in the Islamic world.

A: They are friendly
B: They are extremely hospitable.

C: They are human

D: They succeed in a tough environment eeking out a survival with incredibly tough lives, but still feed their families at the end of the day and live in dignity.

E: The world would be much the poorer without their culture, music, and traditions.

F: Their architecture is fantastic.

G: We wouldn't have a 0 and our modern mathematics without them.

H: They have some of the most delicious food in the world

I: They are family oriented
J: Their culture has a high level of ethics built into it.

K: Poetry from the Islamic world is beautiful.

J: Their culture values sobriety

L: I've felt much safer traveling in the Islamic world than in Europe where in fact at various times I have had a gun pulled on me, (Latvia), a knife pulled on me, (Russia) a hammer pulled on me, (Portugal), had 3 people try to pick pocket me in a 24 hour period (in Belgium), had a bottle thrown at my head by a drunk (in England).

Edited May 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest]

That's the thing that's the only part of them you see. You are effectively blind to a billion people on the earth and their real lives, not just what the media microscope wants you to see.

No see, that's where you're very wrong. It's the typical knee jerk reaction of the politically correct to assume that any criticism of Islam is somehow a criticism of all Islam, and all Muslims. (as an aside, the media is very much on your side of the argument)

Like you, I'm an atheist (agnostic atheist, to give someone else's definition)

I have no problem with anyone indulging in their own beliefs as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others.

Catholics can eschew birth control if they wish, but they have no right to prevent others from using it. Christians can refuse to have an abortion, but they have no right to prevent others from having one. Hindus can eat no beef if they wish, but they have no right to stop me from doing so.

I have the utmost respect for any muslim who will not burn his koran, but will not act to prevent anyone else from doing so. Who will not create an image of Muhammad, but will not act to prevent anyone else from doing so. Who will not commit adultery, but will not advocate punishment for anyone else who does. Who, while maintaining his own views towards women and gay people, does not allow those views to affect his dealings with them. Who will not blaspheme, but will also not act to restrict the freedom of others to do so.

You get my drift, right?

Are you totally blind to the aspects of Islam that I pointed out in my previous thread? Do you think I was just making those up?

[Guest]

Here is what I respect about peoples in the Islamic world.

A: They are friendly

B: They are extremely hospitable.

C: They are human

D: They succeed in a tough environment eeking out a survival with incredibly tough lives, but still feed their families at the end of the day and live in dignity.

E: The world would be much the poorer without their culture, music, and traditions.

F: Their architecture is fantastic.

G: We wouldn't have a 0 and our modern mathematics without them.

H: They have some of the most delicious food in the world

I: They are family oriented

J: Their culture has a high level of ethics built into it.

K: Poetry from the Islamic world is beautiful.

J: Their culture values sobriety

L: I've felt much safer traveling in the Islamic world than in Europe where in fact at various times I have had a gun pulled on me, (Latvia), a knife pulled on me, (Russia) a hammer pulled on me, (Portugal), had 3 people try to pick pocket me in a 24 hour period (in Belgium), had a bottle thrown at my head by a drunk (in England).

Yeah, the only place I was ever robbed was in Stockholm. I didn't let it colour my view of Sweden or the Swedish.

Some of the nicest, kindest, most gentle and hospitable people I ever met were Jordanians. That said, while I was working with them, I was also working with Baluchistanis. They were not so nice. In fact, next to people from Alsace Lorraine, they might have been the most miserable, stroppy crowd I ever met. But both they and the Jordanians were muslims. I don't think it mattered.

Edited May 25, 2013 by bcsapper

[Guest American Woman]

Hell if Switzerland could maintain a peaceful society in the 1940s Canada can maintain a peaceful society in the 20th century.

Switzerland was likely able to "maintain a peaceful society in the 1940's" only because other countries were willing to fight.

Edited May 25, 2013 by American Woman

[G Huxley]

No see, that's where you're very wrong. It's the typical knee jerk reaction of the politically correct to assume that any criticism of Islam is somehow a criticism of all Islam, and all Muslims. (as an aside, the media is very much on your side of the argument)

No we were talking about Islamic culture. That DOES apply to all Muslims.

I have no problem with anyone indulging in their own beliefs as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others.

That's ironic, because that is EXACTLY what the West is doing.

Are you totally blind to the aspects of Islam that I pointed out in my previous thread? Do you think I was just making those up?

No, but like I said we have our own versions. Islamic people commit, torture, rape and murder, the curtailing of civil rights, wrongful imprisonment, our culture commits torture, rape and murder, the curtailing of civil rights and wrongful imprisonment.

Just because the west does it in a sometimes allegedly secular manner doesn't make it any different.

Edited May 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

American Women, as I already answered that response before:

The 2nd world war happened, because of war mongers both in World War I and in World War 2. Those War Mongers have their equivalent today in the westerners who think it is their duty to invade and rule over the Middle East.