bluemonday Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 In the Comment section of The Sunday Times today - Rod Liddle. Islamic terrorists given a bad name The new government-approved term for terrorism carried out in the name of Allah is “antiIslamic activity”. I don’t know how this sits with Allah himself, nor the terrorists – or indeed the people they blow to smithereens. The latter two communities of people would be more tempted to use the phrase “Islamic activity”, I reckon. This new configuration is deployed by that famous Koranic expert Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, presumably as an attempt to appease large sections of the British Muslim community who do not wish to kill the rest of us. Appeasing Muslims is perfectly reasonable, but I wonder if Jacqui might go a little further and actually refer to Muslim terrorists as “Methodist terrorists” or blame it all on dwarfs or homosexuals, so as to divert attention even further from the Muslim community. Jacqui also runs the risk of offending Britain’s real antiIslamic community. For moral and practical reasons, they have yet to blow themselves up outside our airports. We do not wish to be associated with acts of indiscriminate violence. It really does get sillier day by day. Can't remember the Irish being accorded the same courtesy......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 It's quite simple, the killing of another is anti-islamic (also anti-semetic), against the Qu-o-ran (the holy book of Islam) The fact that the terrorists belong to an organisation consisting, almost entirely, of Muslims is a problem but doesn't make any difference to the ideals in the book. I suppose they are also anti-Christianity, anti-Mormonism and anti-Rastafarianism. Seems to me an awful lot of murders are committed by 'men of god'. About time that Islamists admitted some of their brethren have gone off on a tangent instead of pussy footing around with soft facts and spin and stop calling them Muslims altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Murder is murder. Any religion that endorses murder on whatever grounds is frankly f**king rubbish and should not be recognised as a legitimate religion anywhere in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 As I wrote, I can think of no religion that does condone murder as such, just the followers and clerics that interpret the holy books to their own ends. Visit a Scientology site if you want examples of that. Or Jehovahs Witnesses, who re-write theirs all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Always difficult - but most religions have concepts of just war, legitimate defence etc. Waging war - murdering people - within these restrictions is ok, outside it not ok - and hence un-christian, un-Islamic etc. All this gets twisted into lots of politics, power hierachies etc - and in Christianity totally ignores Christ's turn the other cheek. With Islam its easier to justify legitimate violence - Muhammed wrote alot about it. Moderate scholars are working very hard to say suicide bombers, attacks on civilians etc are illegitimate - radical one's the opposite. Trying to get an environment where as many "opinion" formers as possible - especially in the Islamic communities - agree that terrorism and its ilk are illegitimate and un-islamic the better. So I think Mr Riddle is being churlish and is deliberately missing the point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 Churlish? He's just lamenting the failure to call a spade a spade. Defining Terrorism as The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. So when commited by followers of Islam who claim their religion as motivation for the acts, why can it no longer be called what it actually is - Islamic Terrorism? A rebrand to 'antiIslamic activity' is meaningless twaddle. Working on that logic should the activities of PIRA INLA etc be retrospectively rebranded to antiIrish activity? A spade is a spade regardles if you call it a box of chocolates or a fluffy kitten - it is still a spade. "Activity"? It's murder pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Isn't the point that it's only a tiny minority of Muslims who endorse this activity and to tar all Muslims with the same brush is unrepresentative and unfair. It's a daft term though, they should think of something else. Like Shitheads. That works for me. Removes religion from it entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 I see what your saying. How about Murdering Cowardly Shitheads - nice abreviation - MCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.