JCC 'Terror' Attack in South London

Yes, clearly he has chosen his own adventure. That's the enduring nature of religious text.

I've always found the Skeptics Annotated Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon to be a good read.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

 

These are also good for some light comic relief.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com.au/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

 

No, they're not. They're good for warming the hearts of liberals and Islam apologists by drawing incredibly facile false equivalencies that an amateur exegete can see through. .

The Hebrew Bible is chiefly a narrative; we certainly read a lot about God being a genocidal bully, but we're not necessarily told to emulate him. Indeed, the patriarch of Judaism itself rebukes God for his bloodlust for Sodom and Gomorrah. One of the central themes of the book of Job is that His Ways are not Our Ways. When we read of Samson's violent act of martyr, are we explicitly told that his example of terrorism is "an excellent model of conduct"? (And, more to the point, if a Jewish terrorist ever brings down a building and tells us that he did it to emulate Samson, are you going to set out on a quixotic quest for the "root causes" of his act?) Or is that story embedded in a much larger narrative whose overarching theme is that the lack of a central authority begets violent anarchy?

In fact, if the compendium of texts comprising the Hebrew Bible can be said to share any one single theme, it's that of Jews trying to reconcile their own human desires and sufferings with the larger divine plan that has been set out for them. The Qu'ran is the complete opposite; it teaches almost nothing but that you need to obey God and resist the infidels so that you can avoid the fires of hell.

Also, a must-read article on "Islamophobia"

 

I'm sorry, but describing Samson's actions as an "act of terrorism" is beyond stupid. He was a recognized political leader in the Israelites' political system, captured by a nation with whom there were declared and active hostilities. He destroyed a building that was filled with Philistine leaders. Terrorism is non-state actors engaging in unsanctioned violence--often, though not necessarily, against civilians--to make a political or ideological point. Pretty much no part of that definition is met by the scenario above. As incredible as you may find it, the opposing sides usually kill each other during a war.

 

Wednesday's killing was very bizarre and all you can say is RIP to Drummer Rigby and condolences to his family.

Beyond that, and fascinating as this thread is, I really don't think the murderous actions ot two random nutcases really demands such in-depth debate and discussion. By doing so we're just granting far more importance to the killers than their senseless, pointless act actually deserves.

Best to let them rot in jail and quickly move along, IMO.

 

I agree that the meaning of the word "terrorism" in contemporary discourse has been skewed beyond any possible concrete definition. By the traditional definition--non-state actors engaging in violence to make an ideological point--there is no difference between Osama Bin Laden and Anders Breivik. Yet the substantive grievances of both are diametrically opposed. Their shared identity as classical "terrorists" is virtually meaningless, and hence the the classical definition of "terrorism" as well. In the post-9/11 world, it's come to acquire the meaning of "a religious person killing in the name of his religion", which is the connotation I had in mind when I deployed the word. In any case, nothing about the overall point I was making hinges upon these rather esoteric niceties, so I'm not sure what the point of even discussing this is.

 

Sorry, but that's beyond ridiculous. Maybe that's the definition as defined in Fox News stylebook, but I highly doubt a majority thinks "oh religion" every time the word "terrorism" is used.

 

Right. I'm sure if your brother rudely awakens you tomorrow at 3AM and says, "Schwarz, wake up! There was a terrorist attack in Washington!", your gut reaction will be, "There was an attack by a secular non-state actor in Washington? What's going on?!"

 

I'm European. If I was woken up and told "There was a terrorist attack in the capital!" I'd think separatism.

WORLD != AMERICA

 

The concept of a "post 9/11 world" is extremely stupid. The idea that the entire world needs to change definitions based on American policy because of an attack that happened in America is ridiculous.

 

The post 9/11 world means that "Enemy" rebooted from:



to

 

I'm waiting for that Lando guy to show up and say that these criminals must be disemboweled and hung for all to see, and that anyone who disagrees with him is a communist menace.

 

...or beta!

 

the crusades are like rocky movies - the fourth one is the best by far

 

You are right, but wrong. The Crusades ARE like the Rocky movies, in that the third is the most entertaining, but the first is arguably the only real achievement.

 

And the fourth featured a comedy relief robot.

 

also brigitte nielsen

 

So what you're saying is that Islam is an inherently violent religion that's bent on conquest? Well the vast majority of Muslims seem to lack this sort of bloodlust, so either they've taken the view that such actions are no longer necessary, or they're a bunch of wayward believers who've neglected their sacred duty for a couple centuries now.

Also, I don't really plan on reading the Koran because it doesn't particularly interest me.

If he considers himself an atheist, then his actions can no longer be considered religiously motivated now, right? So that leaves sentiment towards what you call an "ethnoreligious group" (which I would guess means Middle Easterns or the "Muslim world") as the sole motive. And if this guy was motivated more by identification with a particular group than by religion, then how about all those other al-Qaeda type guys? Are they crusaders heeding the call of God, or just terrorists whom, because Islam is already part of their everyday lives, add a dose of religious justification into their activities?

 

It is the second one. Islam is sort of the perfect meme.

 

Quite right, Islamic Extremism is the new Communism.

They are very different in practise of course, but where you had lots of people subscribing to the Communist idea 30 years ago you now have people being taken in by radical Islamists.

One has replaced the other as the new global threat, though it is arguably a more difficult problem to deal with.

 

ahaha oh my god

 

"The Communist idea"