Islam - What's your view on it?

[TRGTspecialist]

Organisers of a bomb drill in central Manchester have apologised after the pseudo-perp shouted "Allahu Akhbar" during the attack. In the organisers' defence they were following a script that mirrored recent events across the globe.

It's still worth remembering that previous bombings of Manchester have always been carried out by white christians. BBC.

I'm usually on the "well that was a stupid thing to do" side of the fence with these things but I'm not really seeing the racial stereotyping here. As you refer to it was specifically simulating an attack by a "Daesh-style organisation" which presumably makes the "Allahu Akhbar" cry reasonable to include.

Aside from that, I can see how it stereotypes Islamic extremists as suicide bombers............but how can you conclude from that the GMP were stereotyping mainstream Muslims? I appreciate that many people sadly conflate the two but the complaint in the article is specifically directed at the GMP.


Sorry missed this bit:

Manchester is actually in Manchester (oddly enough) and the IRA are still active.

Yup but only in a couple of much-reduced forms (and a third if you change "active" to "exists"). I don't know the police's view on them but I'd guess the threat levels to the mainland are low (or lower than that of ISIS + its supporters at least).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So let's not get ridiculous about it, having the police apologizing for trying to keep their drill realistic.

What did "keeping the drill realistic" actually achieve? All it did was reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims.

 

[mister dog]

What did "keeping the drill realistic" actually achieve? All it did was reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims.

I'm sure IS and Islamic terrorism by itself is reinforcing that negative stereotype a lot more.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What did "keeping the drill realistic" actually achieve? All it did was reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims.

Only in the minds of liberals and progressives. The rest of us are capable of making the distinction.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm sure IS and Islamic terrorism by itself is reinforcing that negative stereotype a lot more.

That doesn't mean that the British police should unnecessarily make the situation worse, even by the smallest of increments.

 

[LeMansAid]

What did "keeping the drill realistic" actually achieve? All it did was reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims.

Meanwhile, you're reinforcing the perceived links between terrorist so called Muslims and garden variety Muslims. My understanding is that you'd usually be at pains to separate the two. Not here apparently - with perhaps the want to be offended taking precedence.

To be clear...... it was a TERRORIST drill. If we're meant to believe that acts of terrorism have no place in true Islam, we need to be consistent in the application of the principles, and view something like the drill as having no reference to true Islam. Otherwise it ultimately amounts to defeating one's own ideals.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If we're meant to believe that acts of terrorism have no place in true Islam, we need to be consistent in the application of the principles, and view something like the drill as having no reference to true Islam.

So, the mock suicide bomber was supposed to read a ten-page disclaimer about how they're not really a representative of true Islam, even though an actual suicide would claim to be representative? Do you honestly think that a mock terrorist attack is the best forum for that discussion?

 

[LeMansAid]

So, the mock suicide bomber was supposed to read a ten-page disclaimer about how they're not really a representative of true Islam, even though an actual suicide would claim to be representative? Do you honestly think that a mock terrorist attack is the best forum for that discussion?

What are you on about!!? No, people learning of the terrorism drill are meant to not immediately associate it with what they believe it has no association with.

Somehow when a real Islamist terrorist incident happens, many are quick to draw a very distinct line between true and misrepresentative Islam, but when a mock incident happens those same people want to marry the two, and are up in arms about the offense it will cause. They're either unrelated or not.

Now, there's an argument that making it a costume drama replete with shouts of "Allahu Akbar" was a superfluous addition, but that shouldn't having any real bearing if we are resolute about keeping the perceptions of true and misrepresentative Islam separate.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

when a mock incident happens those same people want to marry the two, and are up in arms about the offense it will cause. They're either unrelated or not.

The difference is that a mock attack is advertised in advance. The police cannot simply stage an attack without warning, because that will cause actual panic. The entire point is to gauge the response of emergency services in dealing with an actual oncident. As such, everything is run under controlled conditions and in the public eye. So what does shouting the phrase actually achieve? Nothing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Meanwhile, you're reinforcing the perceived links between terrorist so called Muslims and garden variety Muslims. My understanding is that you'd usually be at pains to separate the two. Not here apparently - with perhaps the want to be offended taking precedence.

To be clear...... it was a TERRORIST drill. If we're meant to believe that acts of terrorism have no place in true Islam, we need to be consistent in the application of the principles, and view something like the drill as having no reference to true Islam. Otherwise it ultimately amounts to defeating one's own ideals.

I think it's important to look at the context of a terrorist drill in Manchester. The Muslim community's links with the area go back nearly 2,000 years and they formed a significant, thriving community from around the 1700s onwards. They are a part of Manchester and were victims of the bombing as much as anybody else was.

It's right and proper that attack drills are held in likely targets - exactly the kind of places attacked by terrorists in Manchester over the years. However, I don't see the point of religiously identifying the pseudo-perp, it adds nothing to the scenario and only serves to single out some historical victims of terrorism in the city as the new perpetrators. There has been, as far as I'm aware, no similar religious proclamation at any of the other similar events held around Britain over the last couple of months. If there were a use to the "Allahu Ackbar" shout then one might reasonably expect that all those events would have featured it.

At a time when the idiot-percentage are being drip-fed a diet of isolationist white-nationalist fear it was a badly-thought-out feature to include.

Yup but only in a couple of much-reduced forms (and a third if you change "active" to "exists"). I don't know the police's view on them but I'd guess the threat levels to the mainland are low (or lower than that of ISIS + its supporters at least).

They're certainly reduced. However, the only people repeating the line that "The IRA are gone, their weapons are gone nih" are ex-Republican-terrorists themselves whose new political careers hinge on the IRA's non-existence.

The RUC don't seem convinced and nor do MI5. It's definitely true that as recently as last week self-proclaimed IRA members (continuity and 'real') have stormed events and murdered people while dressed in SWAT-type gear and carrying AK-47s.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

At a time when the idiot-percentage are being drip-fed a diet of isolationist white-nationalist fear it was a badly-thought-out feature to include.

Was it scripted, or was it some wit thinking that he was in character?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Was it scripted, or was it some wit thinking that he was in character?

I don't know, I suspect the latter.

 

[Drave]

First let me say I am very dispassionate about things, I am not an emotional person, I deal in pragmatism.

What do I think of Islam... that it has as much to do with terrorism as Christianity or any other religion.

Go look at the LRA in the DRC if you want a modern day take on Christian barbarism on a vast scale... murder, rape and massive mutilations on an industrial scale for the past 20 years or so.

Terrorism is a viewpoint. Winston Churchill for example was a truly massive fan of terrorism, just a fact. It is all about perception isn't it, your freedom fighter is their terrorist and vice versa. The French Resistance were just terrorists to the German mind of the time.

So, in reality, there's a very few people who basically follow one of the 50+ sub sects of the 20 main branches of Islam ..who engage in terrorism because they perceive that is the way to get their message across. That sect is Wahhabism and essentially that is IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Ansaru and really all the rest of the groups. The extremist Wahhabis sect people are in fact just as dangerous to people of the Islamic faith who are not aligned to the Wahhabi sect as they are a to anyone else

There are c.2.80 people who identify as some sort of Christian in the world and c.2.08 Billion who identify as Islamic in some way... if all c.2.08 Billion followers of Islam were 'kicking off' I suspect we would have noticed.

It always strikes me as a shame that people are so busy surviving their every day life that they spend very little time taking in further information. A bit like the driving test at 17 and never take further lessons for the next 60 years ... so many leave school and apparently never read a non fiction book again. This is not supposed to be disparaging of anyone, just an observation born out by so many of the 'opinions' one sees.

If one asks oneself a very simple question and are honest with yourself, then you'll see what I am saying - where does your opinion come from? Not only on Islam but on basically any given subject? For most that answer is media of some form, TV or newspaper or internet. Which is fine but ALL of that is someone else's opinion of what they have been told and you do not know 1) What they have been told 2) What their own agenda is

Take Syria... take The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights........

Now that sounds all very official and that name appears on reports from the BBC, CNN and all the major TV news stations, it is quoted in newspapers... and by politicians

Who is the The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights then? Maybe backed by the UN? No, it is one man who is a Syrian refugee who lives in a house in Coventry UK and has not seen Syria in 12 years.

My point being... people hear this stuff and simply to the most part do not question the origins or the veracity of the media

It is also important to remember that who we are as a species has changed very little in thousands of years... we carry the same hopes and fears.

People like to discount any reference to the Nazi state of Germany, people who it seems know very little about it other than what they have read in the media

We all know about the feeling of the Nazi State against Jews or imagine we do anyway. Did they murder endless millions of Jews and others.. yes, that is without any doubt. Can it be argued that countries such as the USA, UK and France could have done a very great deal to have mostly or even completely averted that holocaust? Yes. But that is another story.

However, that gives context to this point. When Germany and Russia invaded Poland in Sept 1939, in the build up to that many Poles were very upset and attacked ethnic Germans, killing around 2,000 in 2 weeks. This was wrong, this was a war crime which was never appraised nor acted upon.

But, it was very valuable to Goebbels whom in the German popular press and the press fed to the Wehrmacht (Regular German Army) turned that 2,000 dead into 600,000... yes 600,000. Now all the information anyone of the masses had was that... so they already having been built up on a constant diet of hate and fear, believed it. Think about that, 600,000 people dead in a couple of weeks.. Hiroshima/Nagasaki, nuclear bombs directly onto those cities to specifically kill civilians.. death toll c.129,000. If you think about the death of 600,000 people at the hands of the public in two weeks it is obviously a lie. Now we have not only the hind sight of WW2 and other wars we also know that it took c.90% of the Rwandan population, the Hutu, around 3 months to machete and hack 1 million Tutsi to death for no good reason... except they had once again been taught to fear and hate.

Why did Goebbels so inflate the figures? He did this, as seen his personal diaries, so that when the Totenkoph Einsatzgruppen (Specialist SS Annihilation squads) arrived in Poland and started systematically slaughtering innocent men, women and children, the Wehrmacht and the German masses said... " Well, they did kill 600,000 Germans so they deserve it... and the kids would grow up as bad!!" The exact same thing that was said about the Jews, Gypsies, the disabled and all the rest that the Nazi State deemed of danger to the 1000 year Reich which lasted the whole 12 years but cost the lives of well over 60 million people

So what do I think of Islam? Well, I am not religious at all, neither am I political in a party political sense, though there is an existential argument that we are all political with a lower case p. Our son fought in Afghanistan and did 3 tours, if anyone says anything negative about Muslims in general he gets very upset as he has spent sometime picking up parts of their kids. He is now a Mathematical physicist but his war experiences do not leave him

I know 99.999999% of people who follow Islam are just like everyone else. They love their kids, they watch the TV, they struggle to pay the bills. I have lived in Muslim majority countries and never had a moments issue.

It's a factual reality that any of you on here or anywhere in the west and a Muslim mother of 6 who lives in a Baghdad back street has more in common with you and vice versa, than any of you have to your governments and politicians or media - you are all being played.

For the past 25 years the western public has been told ... 'Muslim bad' and as Goebbels identified, great propaganda is a simple message often repeated. As the head of Atari games once said "The public will accept a simple lie but never a complex truth'... so Muslim Bad, welcome to your simple lie

Now you see if you read the above carefully, it is basically just fact or factual reality. It is not 99% my opinion, as my opinion would probably get me banned. What this means is I do not reply, engage nor will I even look at the thread again....

In summation people, be careful what you believe is my advice; drop the paper, turn off the TV, switch off the internet... read some non-fiction books on your Kindle and then form you own thoughts about Islam and everything else.

 

[Scaff]

Now you see if you read the above carefully, it is basically just fact or factual reality.

It may well be, but without sources no one can say.

It is not 99% my opinion, as my opinion would probably get me banned. What this means is I do not reply, engage nor will I even look at the thread again....

No one has been banned from GTP for stating an opinion, they get banned for breaking the AUP. Please do not imply you (or anyone) whould.

In summation people, be careful what you believe is my advice; drop the paper, turn off the TV, switch off the internet... read some non-fiction books on your Kindle and then form you own thoughts about Islam and everything else.

And the non-fiction books could not be as, or more biased that the paper, TV or internet because......................................?

 

[photonrider]

.................. curated by academia.

 

[Drave]

It may well be, but without sources no one can say.

I really never do reply to these sort of things but.....


The sources are myriad and called 'libraries' ... I had no idea this was an academic forum and the submission criteria required a full reference list. I stand corrected as the man said in the orthopaedic shoe

What you have to do is, you read a great many books on the same subject and then taking the facts, the contrary facts and after weeding out any obvious personal viewpoints... then one takes an educated position.

I have a position on say Goebbels.. because I have read around 40 or so books on the man directly or around him, along with the latest academic work which directly studies his personal diaries.

So no, I agree that you personally couldn't say because you have not I suspect read that much about propaganda, Goebbels, or Islam... but please let me know what you have read a great deal of in non-fiction terms and hey, we'll rap (Rhythm and Poetry... yes it means something)


Knowledge really doesn't come easy, it doesn't get spoon fed once out of school. It takes time and effort... unfortunately it doesn't come with a link to Wikipedia or a 01:30 second video on You tube...

There is simply no need for sources.... everything I have written in my previous post should be common knowledge.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The sources are myriad and called 'libraries' ... I had no idea this was an academic forum and the submission criteria required a full reference list. I stand corrected as the man said in the orthopaedic shoe

At least your tone isn't at all condescending, even if your position might seem archaic to some (why paper libraries when those online are far more extensive and accessible?), and the grammar of your joke is horrendous.

What you have to do is, you read a great many books on the same subject and then taking the facts, the contrary facts and after weeding out any obvious personal viewpoints... then one takes an educated position.

I still detect a whiff of condescension. The process you describe is that of a subjective education. Fine, it's a start.

So no, I agree that you personally couldn't say because you have not I suspect read that much about propaganda, Goebbels, or Islam...

I'm still missing the part where you explained why a geographically-fixed paper library was essential for garnering information. I can personally answer your Islam point; I've studied theology and the koran. I wouldn't claim to be an expert but I can generally help point out facts. Does that qualify me in your eyes?

hey, we'll rap (Rhythm and Poetry... yes it means something)

Whoopee, now I get to finally use my Masters. Rhythm and poetry is a 'backronym', so it naturally means something, like all backronyms do. Shame on me though, all my sources were electronic. I guess I'm out.

Knowledge really doesn't come easy, it doesn't get spoon fed once out of school. It takes time and effort... unfortunately it doesn't come with a link to Wikipedia or a 01:30 second video on You tube...

The thing is... as part of the same source discernment that you described earlier... it can.

There is simply no need for sources.... everything I have written in my previous post should be common knowledge.

Really? To my own mind that seems a little... arrogant. You're not talking about the basic pillars of the topic, how should any of us know who Rami Rahman is? Sources can be required and, in the case of the post, most certainly are.

 

[Scaff]

I really never do reply to these sort of things but.....


The sources are myriad and called 'libraries' ... I had no idea this was an academic forum and the submission criteria required a full reference list. I stand corrected as the man said in the orthopaedic shoe

What you have to do is, you read a great many books on the same subject and then taking the facts, the contrary facts and weed out the obvious personal viewpoints... then one takes an educated position.

I have a position on say Goebbels.. because I have read around 40 or so books on the man directly or around him, along with the latest academic work which directly studies his personal diaries.

So no, I agree that you personally couldn't say because you have not I suspect read that much about propaganda, Goebbels, or Islam... but please let me know what you have read a great deal of in non-fiction terms and hey, we'll rap (Rhythm and Poetry... yes it means something)


Knowledge really doesn't come easy, it doesn't get spoon fed once out of school. It takes time and effort... unfortunately it doesn't come with a link to Wikipedia or a 01:30 second video on You tube...

There is simply no need for sources.... everything I have written in my previous post should be common knowledge.

So you do reply.

Now we have a few things here, first you mistakenly assume I need to study on the subject or never have, that would be incorrect.

Secondly, if you claim something as fact, particularly if you are also claiming it may be not be common knowledge then you are the one that sources it.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think it's important to look at the context of a terrorist drill in Manchester. The Muslim community's links with the area go back nearly 2,000 years and they formed a significant, thriving community from around the 1700s onwards. They are a part of Manchester and were victims of the bombing as much as anybody else was.

It's right and proper that attack drills are held in likely targets - exactly the kind of places attacked by terrorists in Manchester over the years. However, I don't see the point of religiously identifying the pseudo-perp, it adds nothing to the scenario and only serves to single out some historical victims of terrorism in the city as the new perpetrators. There has been, as far as I'm aware, no similar religious proclamation at any of the other similar events held around Britain over the last couple of months. If there were a use to the "Allahu Ackbar" shout then one might reasonably expect that all those events would have featured it.

At a time when the idiot-percentage are being drip-fed a diet of isolationist white-nationalist fear it was a badly-thought-out feature to include.

All valid points, just not addressing the core of my argument. It being "a badly thought-out feature to include" is something that I'd quite easily agree with, but who should be offended that they did include it? Personally I don't give a rat's that they portrayed an Islamist because I believe that has absolutely nothing to do with a peaceful interpretation of Islam. It's not right to push the two apart with one hand, and bring them closer together with the other.

The difference is that a mock attack is advertised in advance. The police cannot simply stage an attack without warning, because that will cause actual panic. The entire point is to gauge the response of emergency services in dealing with an actual oncident. As such, everything is run under controlled conditions and in the public eye. So what does shouting the phrase actually achieve? Nothing.

I'm quite sure that you know what the word superfluous means. I used it for a reason.

 

[Scaff]

Sorry missed this bit:


Yup but only in a couple of much-reduced forms (and a third if you change "active" to "exists"). I don't know the police's view on them but I'd guess the threat levels to the mainland are low (or lower than that of ISIS + its supporters at least).

And the day you say this the terror threat level for IRA attacks on the UK mainland gets increased.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36267052

Is it as big a threat as say ISIS? No, but its not far behind it and the groups involved have a lot more experience of attacks on the UK and with the 100 year anniversary coming up its certainly something to plan against.

 

[ECGadget]

Is it bad to say that I don't know who I am concerned with most, IRA or IS? Reason being, with IS I can work out their twisted idealogies from an Islamic viewpoint and know where they are wrong, but I don't know enough about Christianity to understand exactly where the IRA can even pull reasoning from.

Not sure what worries me most, IS and how they can twist a religion, or IRA and not knowing enough about how they twist a religion.

Also, as @LeMansAid says, I think the 'Allahu Akbar' was quite superfluous.

In addition, this whole IRA thing makes it seem stupid to have portrayed the terrorist as having an IS background. Should have said something generic in my opinion:

"FOR BOB!"

 

[FoRiZon]

Speaking of Britain, currently elected London Governor is a Moslem, Sadiq Khan. I read about him and he's actually quite progressive, ones that I actually like.

Kudos to him.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't know enough about Christianity to understand exactly where the IRA can even pull reasoning from.

The IRA are probably more politically-inclined than religiously so, though religion plays a part in it.

Historically, there have been deep divisions within Ireland. It stems from Henry VIII establishing the Church of England; as a result, England was Protestant where Ireland has been Catholic. This came to a head when Northern Ireland was established as part of the United Kingdom, and has therefore been Protestant.

So while the IRA might be considered a "Catholic terrorist group", they were more interested in driving English influence out of Ireland and unifying the island as one nation, rather than ISIL trying to establish a caliphate. Officially, they're largely disbanded, or have at least moved to a more diplomatic approach through political parties like Sinn Fein, but there have always been concerns about a resurgence of the violence.

 

[BobK]

"FOR BOB!"

Hey, wait a minute...

 

[Scaff]

Officially, they're largely disbanded, or have at least moved to a more diplomatic approach through political parties like Sinn Fein, but there have always been concerns about a resurgence of the violence.

Officially.

However like always seems to happen you have members who don't agree and want to keep the fight going (hence the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and New IRA), all of whom are still very much active and have carried out attacks taht have resulted in the loss of life. To date that has been restricted to NI, but a move to the UK mainland is what the recent threat level increase has been about.

What would cause that to increase further would be the three main splinter groups merging.

 

[Dotini]

What percentage of Ireland and Northern Ireland practices Islam?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What percentage of Ireland and Northern Ireland practices Islam?

RoI, about 1.5%

In Northern Ireland it's about 0.2%, far lower than the rest of the UK. I'd guess that's because if a family want to move to the UK there are far many more established Muslim communities in the other constituent countries.

How is that relevant?

 

[Dotini]

How is that relevant?

At first sight, only relative to a bunny trail on the IRA. But it could serve to rally interest in a new, wide-open destination for migrants and refugees.

 

[FoRiZon]

No talk for current London Governor? Or you probably just used to it already.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No talk for current London Governor? Or you probably just used to it already.

It's not really a big deal... we've had Muslims in senior political positions since 500 years ago, the novelty's worn off

At first sight, only relative to a bunny trail on the IRA. But it could serve to rally interest in a new, wide-open destination for migrants and refugees.

Ireland has a far greater number of Christian adherents than the UK, with the exception of Northern Ireland. Secularism isn't as widespread there which is, I guess, why Muslim communities haven't flourished in either of those countries in great numbers. My own experience of the island is that while the people are very friendly and welcoming the communities remain tremendously insular outside the largest cities.

And I'm half Irish. Want to buy a pig?