Islam

Post Reply New Topic

The version I heard wsa: Let justice be done, even though the skies fall"

ruveyn

Sir Francis never had to deal with people who die with the expectation of banging 72 dark eyed whatevers for the rest of eternity and never get tired.

ruveyn

there should be a religion called "isn'tlam"

I am sure that is exactly what the poor sods aboard the underground trains thought before Islamic explosives tore their bodies apart.

ruveyn

I wonder if muslims like müsli?

if they are robbed of that final "m", then it will become an interminable theme to add to their grievances that are never ending.

here is just a sound play:
dogs, when they yap and bite should be "muzzled"
so i would say to the controller of a group of yapping snapping dogs "muzzle 'em!! !"

is that what should be said to muslims? no. it is just a word play and they are just as alive as anyone else.

The Arabic language is a bit like Hebrew, or so I understand, with words built around 'roots' and the root of the word Islam is S L M salam, or 'peace'.

Suicide is also abhorrent in Islam.

The vast majority of muslims are moderates in their views, who don't twist the teachings of the Qu'ran to justify their violence.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you do realise, don't you, that none of the hijackers were either Iraqi or Afghan? So what was the justification for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan?

American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).

United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).

United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

How would you feel, Ruveyn, if I said I thought that Judaism ought to be expunged off the face of the earth because of the actions of a small minority of Jews, killing women and children in Gaza? (Even the IDF soldiers have recently admitted shooting women and children with white flags.) Such views would quite rightly be viewed as anti-Semitic. So why do you think it's acceptable to blame the very vast majority of law abiding, moderate Muslims for the actions of a very small number of extremists? I don't blame *all* Jewish people for the actions of a small number of misguided individuals who are extreme in their views and actions. So why do you see fit to blame people like me for the criminal and murderous actions of others, over whom I have no control?

My home town was bombed in 1996 by the IRA. Luckily - and miraculously - no one was killed although people were injured. Such was the devastation that it took 10 years to rebuild that section of the city centre.

To my recollection, no one suggested going and bombing the sh!t out of Dublin as revenge, or attacking New York and Chicago, as revenge for Irish-American support and funding for the IRA.

Such a reaction would have been ridiculous, attacking innocent civilians to punish them for the misdeeds of others.

What I would propose is not to be so bloodythirsty and demanding an eye for an eye, or ten thousand eyes for an eye. When the perpetrators of such atrocities kill themselves in the course of their acts, they can't be brought to justice, there is no neat solution. All the authorities can do is try to find their co-conspirators, people who funded or enabled the attacks and bring them to justice.

So you recommend holding all muslims to account, for the actions of a very small minority? This is absolute nonsense.

On an individual level, this would be like a serial killer being on the run but identified by DNA, and so haven't caught the perpetrator, so you send his brother to the electric chair, because there's no way of telling whether the serial killer's brother is similarly homicidally-minded.

If you sincerely believe that it's justified to blame all Muslims for the actions of an extremist minority, then you're just as bad as those extremists who blame all Jews for the actions of an extremist minority, or those who blame all Americans for the actions of the neocon hawks whose answer to everything is violence. You can score a victory over violence with more violence - you just perpetuate the tit-for-tat cycle.

So where do you suggest I should be deported to, then? I'm British, was born in Britain, my family were/are English. I do agree that people who are originally from other countries negate any right they might have to asylum if they preach hate speech and call for the killing of others in their host country, and that they should be deported back from whence they came. As for people who come from the same country, if they are a danger to others, or are inciting violence, then they should be prosecuted and punished.A pre-emptive strike is an attack.

That is a correct translation of "Fiat iustitia, ruat caelum."

Sir Francis had to deal with people which believed that killing protestant, an especially Elizabeth I and her councillors, would provide a direct ticket into heaven. Really not a big difference at all.

But the spirit of what you just wrote is sarcasm

This is the problem I have with this term "War on Terror". In policing and within the justice system it is not allowed to punish or to kill innocent people. In war it is within some limits allowed. If someone is arrested within the law enforcement context there is a need to prove a case against him, which finally will end either in a trail or in the release of this person. In the context of war you can arrest a person without such a procedure and keep him until the war is ended.

Pulling the fight against terror out of the realm of the law enforcement and putting it into the area of war does provide the government with rights more suited to an dictator than an civilised state.

There is also the other problem: In a war in the sense of International Law there are ways to determinate when the war ended formally (a peace treaty is the most prominent one, but not the only one). All this methods are based on the fact that there are governments able to speak and handle in binding and authorative way. Such an institution does not exist for "terror".

We had just recently the killing of some soldiers. The death toll of the IRA is by magnitude higher.

F**king A! Better to get him before he gets you. Preemption is kosher when attack is imminent. That is how Israel won the Six Day War.

The threat of attack is sufficient grounds for taking action.

ruveyn

Israel handled with states. Also: Israel was in formal state of war with Egypt and the others. This is a totally different legal situation.



For such a case the US may apply to:

International Court of Justice
Chancellery
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ Den Haag
The Netherlands

or bring this to the attention of the UN-Security council. The Charter of United Nations, also signed by the USA, guaranties the right of self defence, but also does provide a clear proceeding to deal with such situation. The idea of a "pre-emptive strike" is by term of International Law not allow and does certainly not fulfil the criteria for a Just War.

I've watched a showcase yesterday about what goes on in the world, this one was about the case of Afghanistan and Irak and the reconstruction. It might not occur to you but there are a lot of widows with quite a few children, and when they lose their husband, they cannot sustain their lives. They are even shunned by their society unless they remarry. One of them couldn't even get money from the government because her husband was "missing" and they had no proof of his death. Moreso, the bureaucracy takes so long that they have to PAY the officials to hasten the process.... Some of the people have even designated that there is an organized mafia which is infiltrating the ministry, but ofc they are denying all accusations -.- (The husband from the above mentionned person is missing because of the sunnites-chiites intestinal war, not because of the American conflict). Some NGO spokesperson was invited, (Care Canada or something...) and well, there are some progresses, but security is hard to attain in order to build something afterwards... He also said that due to the corruption, states that are giving money should NOT give it in large amounts in one shot (as it attracts a lot of greedy hands), but rather by smaller amounts with a delay between each injections. In any event, an interesting show (too bad it's in french :> ) .