New Pat Condell Video

Yet the divider between the otherwise identical groups in those cases is what? Religion. So while the conflict is about land or politics, religion is what separated the groups from each other in the first place. Religion is a divisive label, creating an 'us' and a 'them' where there are none.
 
They were certainly catholics were they not? Why is it okay to lump all terrorism from muslims as Islamic terrorism and not when catholics do it? Most Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it is political.

They weren't acting in the name of Catholicism, they were acting in the name of Irish republicanism.

Islamic terrorism is definitely connected to terrorism, groups like HAMAS and Al-queda are motivated by religion and actively use religion and carry out terrorist attacks in the name of religion. It's just stupid to say that the IRA are even comparable with religious extremism.
 
They were certainly catholics were they not? Why is it okay to lump all terrorism from muslims as Islamic terrorism and not when catholics do it? Most Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it is political.

You're missing the point. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion - that's what makes it so dangerous.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/10/nbari110.xml

Some select quotes:

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), thinks the Government is stoking the tension.

I think the government is stoking tension in the opposite way to which he claims. The government is throwing money at Faith schools and temples of worship which are run by Saudi extremists...


"There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us," he says. "The air is thick with suspicion and unease. It is not good for the Muslim community, it is not good for society."

Britain must, he warns, beware of becoming like Nazi Germany.

"Every society has to be really careful so the situation doesn't lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything and that is not good for any society."

I think the British people have been remarkably tolerant, and I don't think there's any meaningful parallel between 1930s Germany and Britain today. Has Godwin's Law been invoked?

There is, in his view, no such thing as Islamic terrorism.
Wishful thinking at best.

"Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn't say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists."
No, we called them Irish terrorists.

His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures - he says integration must go both ways.
Err, imperialism? As far as I remember, your host nation only integrates into your culture if you are staging an invasion.

British people could, in his view, benefit from arranged marriages. "I prefer to call them assisted marriages," he says.
Oh fantastic!

"Alcohol is the worst drug long-term," he says, and adds that the Government should consider banning drinking in public places, as it has done with smoking.

"Religious dogma is the worst drug long-term," he says, and adds that the Government should consider banning praying in public places.

Dr Bari believes Britain would benefit from a little more morality: "Religion has principles that can help society … Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam … On adultery and living together we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life that helps society"
You don't need religion to be moral.

Is stoning ever justified? "It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances," he replies.
I assume he's not talking about whacky baccy.

OK , when I got up to that point, I concluded he is definitely crazy.

Leader of Muslim Council of Britain: "Stoning is justified, depending on what sort of stoning and what circumstances"
 
That's it in a nutshell.

You should adopt my customs, ban public drinking, allow "assisted" marriages (a euphemism if I ever heard one), treat stoning as a valid form of punishment/execution, and still treat me super nice as a courtesy.
 
I think we can all agree that Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari and his views are quite comparable to a steaming pile of horse manure.
 
You're missing the point. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion - that's what makes it so dangerous.

:LOL:

And that can't be said about any of the other religions? Please, give me a break.
 
So let me get it straight, if we criticize christianity then no one starts saying "well islam does this and that" and "oh but other religions does that too blaabllaba". Ive never seen that happen. But when we talk about other religions, such as Islam, THEN we go ahead "oh well christianity does baalbalbala".

FFS, Pat condell has made as many videos (if not more) towards christianity than towards Islam, so chill the **** out. The video he made was toward Islam, this thread was dedicated to that video, SO WHY THE **** ARE WE TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY??? If you want to, then just create a new thread dedicated to one of his CHRISTIAN videos.

FFS
 

Your point?

The odd Christianity-based law or tradition here or there is not evidence of a Christian political system. There is simply no equivalent to Sharia law or Islamic theocracy in any other religion.
And, guess what, unlike your mythical Christian theocracies and extremists who want to turn the Ten Commandments into law the world over, Islamic theocracies actually do exist. In great numbers. An Islamic legal system does exist.

Also, whereas there may be a handful of areas of Western society that are influenced by Christianity (and is it any surprise, history doesn't disappear overnight), Islamic societies are built that way from the ground up.
And, once again, the USA is like no other country on earth. Christian extremists are about as relevant as Scientologists and Jehova's Witnesses anywhere else in the world, and nobody listens to them.
Even then, the USA has a constitution that is generally upheld and believed in. A constitution based on principles that defined the modern concept of liberty. Comparing the West to Islamic theocracies is nothing short of insulting.
 
They were certainly catholics were they not? Why is it okay to lump all terrorism from muslims as Islamic terrorism and not when catholics do it? Most Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it is political.
Wrong, the official IRA wanted nothing to do with the Catholic Church. And neither the IRA nor it's splinter organizations ever used religion as a justification for their acts.
 
Your point?

The odd Christianity-based law or tradition here or there is not evidence of a Christian political system. There is simply no equivalent to Sharia law or Islamic theocracy in any other religion.
And, guess what, unlike your mythical Christian theocracies and extremists who want to turn the Ten Commandments into law the world over, Islamic theocracies actually do exist. In great numbers. An Islamic legal system does exist.

Sure, so these political movements are perfectly okay as long as they don't attach some scary name to them such as "Sharia Law". The president of the most powerful nation on the planet can say that God told him to invade Iraq and thats just some silly talk that doesnt harm anyone (tell that to the half a million dead Iraqis). That same president can prevent us from researching stem cells which could save millions, can prevent giving equal rights to gays, can appoint right wing religious extremists to the highest courts, can believe that if he helps Israel he will be beamed off to heaven and all of that is just silly christian tradition that doesn't harm anything. His followers can defend the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of gay people and all of this is again just silly talk.

And this is not exclusive to the US. I grew up in Poland, for 4 years I went to a catholic school not because I wanted to but because the only public schools available at the time had a catholic agenda. I have no reason to believe this also isn't the case in other recently communist countries particularly in eastern europe. It is changing but it still exists and will exist for a while. At the same token these muslim countries will also change if people like you stop spewing all this bullshit. Well, not bombing them would also help. :rolleyes:
 
Wrong, the official IRA wanted nothing to do with the Catholic Church. And neither the IRA nor it's splinter organizations ever used religion as a justification for their acts.

I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about the IRA but wasn't much of the conflict because of the divisions between protestants and catholics? And this didn't take me that long to find:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/21/1040174437915.html
 
I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about the IRA but wasn't much of the conflict because of the divisions between protestants and catholics? And this didn't take me that long to find:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/21/1040174437915.html
That's the provisional IRA, whose members were quite often catholic. However they also had atheists in their ranks and protestants. To put the conflict down to purely religious disagreements is wrong. Protestant loyalists did attack and murder catholics simply becuase they were catholic. For a long time all government positions where owned by protestants who did everything they could to keep the catholics down - denying them the vote, right to free assembly, positions in the police.

Catholics joined the IRA, but not out of sectarian hatred, but because of political beliefs in a free society that didn't oppress it's citizens because of their religion. Many protestants also joined the IRA but there were no catholics on the loyalist death squads.
 
That's the provisional IRA, whose members were quite often catholic. However they also had atheists in their ranks and protestants. To put the conflict down to purely religious disagreements is wrong. Protestant loyalists did attack and murder catholics simply becuase they were catholic. For a long time all government positions where owned by protestants who did everything they could to keep the catholics down - denying them the vote, right to free assembly, positions in the police.

Catholics joined the IRA, but not out of sectarian hatred, but because of political beliefs in a free society that didn't oppress it's citizens because of their religion. Many protestants also joined the IRA but there were no catholics on the loyalist death squads.

But you can say that about many of the "islamic" terrorists. Thats simply my point. Religion was not the only motive, probably not even the biggest one, but it did play a role.
 
But you can say that about many of the "islamic" terrorists. Thats simply my point. Religion was not the only motive, probably not even the biggest one, but it did play a role.
I disagree.
The soldiers of the IRA were motivated by the hardship they had experienced and so declared war on the British government. They never targeted innocent civilians.

The 9/11 bombers however had privileged upbringings, university educations, PhD's. They had never experienced hardship, never been 'oppressed' in Iraq or Palestine. They never used these acts to justify their actions. Their motivations were Religious and this is reflected in their actions. They targeted civilians for the crime of not being Muslims.

Sam Harris in his book asks us to consider what would happen if we gave different groups the perfect weapon. This weapon would be able to kill anyone, from anywhere, killing only the target. If we gave this to say the IRA, they would kill politicians and soldiers. Most certainly not children as they have done accidental. Muslims suicide bombers however, would target children and women and non combatants. Their motivations are religious.

Their is no non-religious justification that would drive a sane human being to blow up a school of children. No matter how badly you treat an atheist, no matter how many bombs Isreal drops on his country, an atheist simply would not seek to murder Isreali school children. That takes a religion motivation.

Now maybe hardship and political reasons do drive people into religious extremism. But it is the religion that is to blame for the extremity of their actions.
 
Aside from Solaris' IRA apologist shite. The official aim of the IRA was to end British rule in Northern Ireland, the IRA are also marxist.
 
IRA may be Marxists, but I like them. It's pretty obvious, based on past communistic revolutions, that the revolution will be ditched once their goals are achieved, then then Irish National Government will take over.
 
What is it you like about the IRA, the bank robbing, drug dealing or the murdering?
 
I disagree.
The soldiers of the IRA were motivated by the hardship they had experienced and so declared war on the British government. They never targeted innocent civilians.

The 9/11 bombers however had privileged upbringings, university educations, PhD's. They had never experienced hardship, never been 'oppressed' in Iraq or Palestine. They never used these acts to justify their actions. Their motivations were Religious and this is reflected in their actions. They targeted civilians for the crime of not being Muslims.

Sam Harris in his book asks us to consider what would happen if we gave different groups the perfect weapon. This weapon would be able to kill anyone, from anywhere, killing only the target. If we gave this to say the IRA, they would kill politicians and soldiers. Most certainly not children as they have done accidental. Muslims suicide bombers however, would target children and women and non combatants. Their motivations are religious.

Their is no non-religious justification that would drive a sane human being to blow up a school of children. No matter how badly you treat an atheist, no matter how many bombs Isreal drops on his country, an atheist simply would not seek to murder Isreali school children. That takes a religion motivation.

Now maybe hardship and political reasons do drive people into religious extremism. But it is the religion that is to blame for the extremity of their actions.

Thank you. The element of Islam is very prevalent in much of modern terrorism. While there are certainly political motives in much of these conflicts, such motives would not explain sawing the head off of an accused infidel as Mohammed would have wished in front of camera. It would not explain the horrifying fascination with martyrdom, nor the intentional killing of civilian, non-combatant lives. It would not explain why rich, well-off neighbors who never suffered a grievance would so heavily contribute to these militant causes.

There is something fundamentally dysfunctional with Islam that makes this so, I believe. It is quite unique in its behavior.
 
There is something fundamentally dysfunctional with Islam that makes this so, I believe. It is quite unique in its behavior.

That it's unique I agree with, but fundamentally dysfunctional, that is debatable in the proper context. For example: What is the goal of Islam? To kill Kuffar and establish the Ummah - The Islamic Caliphate. I say they're succeeding quite well at both.
 
The 9/11 bombers however had privileged upbringings, university educations, PhD's. They had never experienced hardship, never been 'oppressed' in Iraq or Palestine. They never used these acts to justify their actions. Their motivations were Religious and this is reflected in their actions. They targeted civilians for the crime of not being Muslims.

Sam Harris in his book asks us to consider what would happen if we gave different groups the perfect weapon. This weapon would be able to kill anyone, from anywhere, killing only the target. If we gave this to say the IRA, they would kill politicians and soldiers. Most certainly not children as they have done accidental. Muslims suicide bombers however, would target children and women and non combatants. Their motivations are religious.

Their is no non-religious justification that would drive a sane human being to blow up a school of children. No matter how badly you treat an atheist, no matter how many bombs Isreal drops on his country, an atheist simply would not seek to murder Isreali school children. That takes a religion motivation.

Come on now Solaris, the IRA killed plenty of civilians, on more than one occasion those civilians were killed simply because they were protestant. You are a smart guy, I have a hard time understanding why you are trying to excuse this.

Your premise that targeting woman and children only relates to muslims is once again wrong not only based on what the IRA did but on many other examples. Today Chechen terrorists do this fairly often, including suicide attacks. And why do they do this? It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with being oppressed and having large numbers of family killed because of the russian government. And you touched on the point of why the IRA did it, and that was because of oppression. Which is exactly why muslims do it, they don't do it simply because we are not muslim, this is a bullshit talking point on the same level of "they hate us for our freedoms" and you should know better.

So why aren't there any large christian groups doing these types of attacks? Because nobody here can name a place where large groups of christians are being killed and oppressed by a government. If it were christians that made up the population of the middle east and we were bombing the shit out of them they would be doing the exact same thing. How can anyone not understand this?

So you want to stop muslims becoming so extreme in Britain? Constantly pointing your finger at them and saying they are evil and should be thrown out of the country sure as hell isn't going to do that. Not bombing their families in the middle east would also have a big effect on this.
 
Come on now Solaris, the IRA killed plenty of civilians, on more than one occasion those civilians were killed simply because they were protestant. You are a smart guy, I have a hard time understanding why you are trying to excuse this.
They killed civilians by accident, innocent civilians were never targeted, they never targeted people purely because they were protestant either, if they did that, why would there be protestants in an anti-protestant organization?
Your premise that targeting woman and children only relates to muslims is once again wrong not only based on what the IRA did but on many other examples. Today Chechen terrorists do this fairly often, including suicide attacks. And why do they do this? It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with being oppressed and having large numbers of family killed because of the russian government. And you touched on the point of why the IRA did it, and that was because of oppression. Which is exactly why muslims do it, they don't do it simply because we are not muslim, this is a bullshit talking point on the same level of "they hate us for our freedoms" and you should know better.
The IRA did not target women and children, please tell me of an example when they did.
Chechen terrorists do this yes, and they are Muslims.

It's a question of tactics, yes, were the Chechen's atheists they would still fight back, they would target Russian soldiers it is most improbable that they would target a school. Give me one example where sane people have targeted children for purely political reasons.
So why aren't there any large christian groups doing these types of attacks? Because nobody here can name a place where large groups of christians are being killed and oppressed by a government. If it were christians that made up the population of the middle east and we were bombing the shit out of them they would be doing the exact same thing. How can anyone not understand this?
I beg to differ, if the Vatican was occupied by say, Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country and all the Priests and the pope were executed, can you really see polish catholics going to Saudi Arabia and blowing up a school, to kill the non believers?

The point I'd like to establish is that not all religions are equally bad; Sam Harris gives us the example of Jainism. The core principles of Jainism is non-violence, an extremist Jainism cannot exist, and if one can, they become less violent the more extreme they become.

With Islam this is not the case, Islam is extreme at it's very core. More than 20% of British Muslims say suicide bombing can be justified against civilian targets to defend Islam.

What other motivation can Muslims have for this belief other than theological? Do you really believe that many Christians would support suicide bombing to defend Christianity? Is out society that far gone?
So you want to stop muslims becoming so extreme in Britain? Constantly pointing your finger at them and saying they are evil and should be thrown out of the country sure as hell isn't going to do that. Not bombing their families in the middle east would also have a big effect on this.
I have never said Muslims are evil, and I would fight anyone who would try and throw them out of the country for being muslims. What I support is education and a change is society where absurd beliefs are no longer tolerated or politely respected.
 
The IRA murdered plenty of innocent catholics aswell. It's more about unionism/nationalism than protestant/catholic.

Although the majority of protestants are unionist and the majority of catholics are nationalists, but the reasons for that are complicated but not religious.
 
The IRA murdered plenty of innocent catholics aswell. It's more about unionism/nationalism than protestant/catholic.

Although the majority of protestants are unionist and the majority of catholics are nationalists, but the reasons for that are complicated but not religious.
They killed them by mistake, it was disgraceful negligence, but a key difference from Muslim fanatics who would target such people.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/436993.stm

Thats one example of many in which the IRA very deliberately murdered civilians.

The difference between Islamic extremists and the IRA, is that the IRA never did anything in the name of Christianity, or invoked God in anything they did. Islamic extremists not only use Islam as propaganda, a recruiting tool, but also as a weapon in the form of martyrs. The fact through Islam they have concluded that it is righteous to go into an Israeli School and blow themselves up shows there is something seriously wrong with Islam.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/436993.stm

Thats one example of many in which the IRA very deliberately murdered civilians.

The difference between Islamic extremists and the IRA, is that the IRA never did anything in the name of Christianity, or invoked God in anything they did. Islamic extremists not only use Islam as propaganda, a recruiting tool, but also as a weapon in the form of martyrs. The fact through Islam they have concluded that it is righteous to go into an Israeli School and blow themselves up shows there is something seriously wrong with Islam.
Yes, but not innocent civilians.
 
And what the ****, did they do to deserve being abducted and murdered?

Jean McConville, mother of ten young children, abducted, multilated and shot dead for comforted a dying British soldier shot by the IRA.
 
This is gonna be interesting, folks! How is Solaris going to rationalize this? Stay tuned after the commercials.
 
I'm too lazy to read. why was he abducted?

Guess the little Marxist won't have much to say about it either way, though.
 
Hell I'm not justifying their actions, whilst as a body I do have sympathies with the provisional IRA and find most of what they did defensible, shooting a mother of ten for aiding a wounded British soldiers was excessive. She should have been shunned out of the community but not shot. I doubt the IRA army council would have authorized it, likely a volunteer who perhaps had grown a taste for killing - these people exist in all armed organizations took it upon him or herself.

However, the woman was not killed becuase of who she was it was becuase of what she did.
 
......and what she did.... was wrong?
Yes, the British army regularly murdered catholics in Northern Ireland. They protected the RUC and loyalist mobs who also murdered, harrased and kept down catholics. The soldier was shot by the IRA who were trying to overthrow the illegitimate and sectarian state.
 
Back
Top