Explosion hits Government Buldings in Oslo,Norway!

[jonny88]

Oxymoronic. Why can't he just be a terrorist? If ignorance is bliss some of you guys must be on cloud 9.

because we need to know what kind of terrorist. just like the jewish terrorist who highjacked an airplane, but wanted to use his airmiles. if l just said terrorist this wouldn't be funny.

 

[thenammagazine]

because we need to know what kind of terrorist. just like the jewish terrorist who highjacked an air plane, but wanted to use his airmiles. if l just said terrorist this wouldn't be funny.

Because racist jokes are funny?

 

[sprig0701]

Because racist jokes are funny?

Sure they are ..... to a racist.

 

[Bannister]

So you'll think he'll walk after just 21 years(100 days max for everyone of the 76 victims)?
As per Norwegian law.


Doesnt sound like justice to me.

I heard them say on the news they can keep adding five years to his sentence after the 21 years are up or something to that effect if they feel he is a danger to society.

 

[jonny88]

Because racist jokes are funny?

Sure they are ..... to a racist.

sounds like a couple hypocrits here. many jokes are funny as long as they aren't not said in a hating manner. don't tell me you have never laughed at a joke about other cultures.

 

[devilof76]

I like Catholic schoolgirl jokes.

 

[Rock83]

because we need to know what kind of terrorist. just like the jewish terrorist who highjacked an airplane, but wanted to use his airmiles. if l just said terrorist this wouldn't be funny.

Why not just call him a norwegian terrorist?What difference does it make if you call them a christian or a muslim terrorist?

 

[jonny88]

Why not just call him a norwegian terrorist?What difference does it make if you call them a christian or a muslim terrorist?

l wasn't the one who started the "this guy is a christian terrorist" thing.

l think if somone commits terrorism because of their religion then their religion will always be in the title.

i'm not sure if this guy is a terrorist or just a crazy mass murderer?

 

[intothevoid]

l wasn't the one who started the "this guy is a christian terrorist" thing.

l think if somone commits terrorism because of their religion then their religion will always be in the title.

i'm not sure if this guy is a terrorist or just a crazy mass murderer?

Well - to me his (totally warped) reasoning behind the atrocity points to him being a Christian extremist far right category of terrorist. The exact way in which Al Qaeda etc are extremist Islam based terrorists. Of course Christians will say that what he did has nothing whatsoever to do with their religion and what it teaches them - and that is absolutely right! The same way Muslims have been saying the same thing for the last 10 years about Islam, but with limited real understanding from non-muslims.

If there is any good that can come out of this tragedy it might be that the ordinary Muslims and Christians can begin to understand each other's faiths a little better, particularly the fact that neither faith preaches hatred, it is only an extremist minority which carries this message.

 

[devilof76]

l think if somone commits terrorism because of their religion then their religion will always be in the title.

The reason why religion is emphasized in cases of Muslim terrorism is because they identify themselves with the Islamist goals of expanding and consolidating the political power of the religion, as well as eliminating Western influence in those regions they seek to control. The religion is a clear motivating factor in their actions. They commit acts of terror to advance the cause of Muslim hegemony. Remove Islamism from the equation, and there would be no 'Muslim' terrorism. All there would be are random psychopaths with an axe to grind against society, like Tim McVeigh, or Jared Loughner, or this maggot in Norway. What has been coming out of the Middle East (since the Marxists became Islamist) is not random, albeit still psychotic. Muslim terrorism since 1979 has been conscious, deliberate, principled, and it shares its goals and motives with a steadily growing number of this planet's occupants. It may be a minority that sheds blood for the cause, but the popularity of the cause is hardly restricted to that minority.

 

[intothevoid]

The reason why religion is emphasized in cases of Muslim terrorism is because they identify themselves with the Islamist goals of expanding and consolidating the political power of the religion, as well as eliminating Western influence in those regions they seek to control. The religion is a clear motivating factor in their actions. They commit acts of terror to advance the cause of Muslim hegemony. Remove Islamism from the equation, and there would be no 'Muslim' terrorism. All there would be are random psychopaths with an axe to grind against society, like Tim McVeigh, or Jared Loughner, or this maggot in Norway. What has been coming out of the Middle East (since the Marxists became Islamist) is not random, albeit still psychotic. Muslim terrorism since 1979 has been conscious, deliberate, principled, and it shares its goals and motives with a steadily growing number of this planet's occupants. It may be a minority that sheds blood for the cause, but the popularity of the cause is hardly restricted to that minority.

I think the whole Mid-East revolution we have seen this year is evidence to the contrary - Muslims in general are not after some hegemony devoid of western influences, they are after the very basis human rights of freedom of speech, action, expression, and the opportunity to earn a better living - all qualities severely lacking in most Muslim states, hence creating a very deep sense of resentment

 

[intothevoid]

Funny reading this because for some ____ed up reason, some Freaks posting here don't think this same rule applies to al-Qaeda, Hamas or the Taliban.

Yeah. It's by the exact same reasoning that this killer could have convinced himself that those condemning him are not true Christians. Islamists reason this way when they claim that moderates are not true Muslims.

That is true - but the terrorists (i refuse to call them Islamists or Islamic extremists) don't have the first clue about what Islam really means. They are brainwashed to the extreme.

FYI: Islamists =/= Islamic Extremists

I have always taken 'Islamist' to mean the interpretation of Islam that follows from Sayyid Qutb's conclusion that all Muslims not living under Sharia are apostates. Is that incorrect?

I would say that is Incorrect, yes. I don't believe there is any such general meaning for 'Islamists'. Like I said, anyone who follows the Al Qaeda etc ideology is simply a terrorist. They are not muslims.

Nah, I'll just call it what it is. I don't see why anyone who does not believe in the politicized form of Islam should be offended when I have bad things to say about it. If I acknowledge that a terrorist was motivated by Islam when his understanding of Islam is exactly what motivated him to kill, I am in no way indicting those Muslims who do not believe Islam condones (nor outright demands) mass murder of non-Muslims.

It is their MIS understanding of Islam which motivates them to kill. Complete and utter misunderstanding and ignorance. Political Islam does not have to equal repressive or terrorist Islam. Unfortunately though, that is the only form of political Islam that is ever visible.

 

[-Super Hans-]

Well - to me his (totally warped) reasoning behind the atrocity points to him being a Christian extremist far right category of terrorist. The exact way in which Al Qaeda etc are extremist Islam based terrorists. Of course Christians will say that what he did has nothing whatsoever to do with their religion and what it teaches them - and that is absolutely right! The same way Muslims have been saying the same thing for the last 10 years about Islam, but with limited real understanding from non-muslims.

If there is any good that can come out of this tragedy it might be that the ordinary Muslims and Christians can begin to understand each other's faiths a little better, particularly the fact that neither faith preaches hatred, it is only an extremist minority which carries this message.

 

[devilof76]

That is true - but the terrorists (i refuse to call them Islamists or Islamic extremists) don't have the first clue about what Islam really means. They are brainwashed to the extreme.

Brainwashed by whom?

I would say that is Incorrect, yes. I don't believe there is any such general meaning for 'Islamists'.

Is there any general meaning for the word? How about a specific meaning? Was Qutb not and Islamist, and did he not innovate the conception of apostasy to include non-politicized Muslims?

Like I said, anyone who follows the Al Qaeda etc ideology is simply a terrorist. They are not muslims.

According to you, they are not Muslims. I believe there is a great deal of disagreement amongst Islamic scholars (now, and in the past) as to whether or not that is the case. I'm pretty sure that they themselves would disagree with you.

It is their MIS understanding of Islam which motivates them to kill. Complete and utter misunderstanding and ignorance. Political Islam does not have to equal repressive or terrorist Islam. Unfortunately though, that is the only form of political Islam that is ever visible.

...so where do they hide the non-repressive political Islam?

 

[intothevoid]

Brainwashed by whom?


Is there any general meaning for the word? How about a specific meaning? Was Qutb not and Islamist, and did he not innovate the conception of apostasy to include non-politicized Muslims?


According to you, they are not Muslims. I believe there is a great deal of disagreement amongst Islamic scholars (now, and in the past) as to whether or not that is the case. I'm pretty sure that they themselves would disagree with you.



...so where do they hide the non-repressive political Islam?

Brainwashed by the recruiters of Al Qaeda, by ignorant and illeterate 'scholars' who teach at 'madrassas' across Pakistan and Afghanistan. I have seen this first hand.

Look (for the sake of full disclosure) - I am a Muslim, and very much a fully practicing one. I pray 5 times a day, keep all my fasts in Ramadan, etc. Yet I have absolutely no connection or understanding towards these terrorists - they have taken the Quran and twisted its words and teachings in a completely abhorrant way to the point where to call them Muslims is an insult to any (in my view) true Muslim who understands the message of Islam.

At it's core Islam is about being a good honest human being and being thankful to Allah for life and all its blessings. That is the core message. There is no way any form of Islam can be compatible with killing innocent people. Therefore, terrorists can never be muslims.

 

[devilof76]

I'm really not talking about terrorism. Any fool can call a mass murderer evil. My issue is with political Islam, and the degree to which the terrorists they disavow themselves of manage to advance the agenda of non-violent Islamists.

I think the whole Mid-East revolution we have seen this year is evidence to the contrary - Muslims in general are not after some hegemony devoid of western influences, they are after the very basis human rights of freedom of speech, action, expression, and the opportunity to earn a better living - all qualities severely lacking in most Muslim states, hence creating a very deep sense of resentment

Do the revolutionaries of the past year seek to establish Sharia as their legal foundation? Because a theocratically inspired legal system is at root contrary to freedom of speech, action and expression.

And how does what you said apply to those European Muslims who refuse to integrate into European society, who seek to impose Sharia into the legal codes of their host countries, and the growing influence of radical clerics amongst those populations?

 

[intothevoid]

My issue is with political Islam, and the degree to which the terrorists they disavow themselves of manage to advance the agenda of non-violent Islamists.

How is their agenda being advanced? If anything - their agenda is damaged irrepairably every time a so called Islamic terrorist engages in a mad act of violence

Do the revolutionaries of the past year seek to establish Sharia as their legal foundation? Because a theocratically inspired legal system is at root contrary to freedom of speech, action and expression.

I have not heard or seen anything to suggest that these revolutionaries are pro-Shariah. I am not pro Shariah - I think it is outdated - the Shariah is not contained within the Quran itself - read this:

https://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/09/week_36_sharia_1.html

I am totally against Shariah law - it was developed as a law for that time (1400 years ago) and tailored to Arab customs. It takes punishments deemed for extreme scenarios in the Quran and codifies them as the norm. It's application in many instances can be described as wholly injust whereas a principal tenet of the Quran is justice.

"The one who changes his religion, what are we going to do? We kill him, kill ... "

This is, of course, in direct contradiction to what the Qur'an categorically states, and what we have already discussed about apostasy: that there should be "no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

She goes on: "The judgement about adultery: what is the law? Stone them".

Nowhere in the Qur'an we find anything remotely related to stoning.

"If someone makes themselves like a man, a woman like a man, the punishment is kill, kill them. Throw them from the highest place ... homosexuals".

Once again, this could not be more further from what the Qur'an teaches.

"We have to look for hudd", the Saudi-educated scholar tells her student, "the hudd is to kill them".

As we have already seen, hudd, meaning outer limits or boundary, has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with establishing the moral tone of the Muslim community. Yet, it is being propagated here as the norm. There seems to be only one rule: kill everybody who disagrees with you, or is seen by you as deviant, or breaks your rules. It is the total antithesis of the spirit of the Qur'an.

And how does what you said apply to those European Muslims who refuse to integrate into European society, who seek to impose Sharia into the legal codes of their host countries, and the growing influence of radical clerics amongst those populations?

You have to look where these people came from and their circumstances to understand why they are the way they are. In general these people came from poor villages in Pakistan, Africa, India, Bangladesh etc. In general, standard of education was extremely low in their places of origin and they all generally had extremely conservative family customs, which they confused with religion (and with Islam).

As a result, the descendants of the early immigrants now still live in their own bubbles, seperate from the reality of the world around them. You only have to briefly visit a town like Bradford in the UK or London suburbs like Southhall to know what I am talking about. The policy of multiculturalism while noble in its ideology, has just served to facilitate this further unfortunately.

They seek to establish Shariah as they believe it is their only means to live a life compatible with the Quranic teachings, and it is their way of trying to 'shield' themselves from all the Western immorality all around them (alcohol, drugs, sex etc.) - what they fail to understand is that the Quran at its root is nothing to do with Shariah, and they can integrate perfectly well in Western society but still have true Islamic values. E.G there is nothing wrong with having non-muslim friends and hanging out with them at a bar after work - so long as you're not drinking yourself.

 

[BadMoon]

Interesting article on CNN today about how the threat is growing in the US as well.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/25/domestic.extremism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

 

[devilof76]

Then intothevoid, I wish your interpretation all the best in being the understanding that dominates over that which rules in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Gaza, West Bank, Somalia, Sudan, Malaysia, and anywhere else where the primitives have made governments sympathetic to rule by the faith. I also applaud you for having no desire to change the laws of your country to advance the influence of your religion.

But if you would like to know how the terrorists advance the agenda of political Islam, you only have to look at the extent to which the west seeks to appease political Muslims by catering to them. In an effort to appear non-judgmental, the west has lowered it's guard to the prospects of integrating Islamic legal principles with it's own.

Personally, I don't care who is a Muslim and who is not. All I care about is keeping religion out of western law. Democratic majority, or bomb carrying zealot---I oppose both equally as threats to liberty and a just society, and please don't tell me that they are not both after the same thing. There are too many Dutch cartoonists still in hiding for me to entertain the notion that these sentiments are marginal.

 

[intothevoid]

Then intothevoid, I wish your interpretation all the best in being the understanding thatdominates over that which rules in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Gaza, West Bank, Somalia, Sudan, Malaysia, and anywhere else where the primitives have made governments based on faith. I also applaud you for having no desire to change the laws of your country to advance the influence of your religion.

I hope so too. I know I am not alone in my interpretation - nearly all my educated Muslim friends share this view. It is just unfortunate the the sane voices are drowned out by the insane screams. We have only ourselves to blame for not making the true, moderate, centralist version of Islam more accessable ... but I try.

But if you would like to know how the terrorists advance the agenda of political Islam, you only have to look at the extent to which the west seeks to appease political Muslims by catering to them. In an effort to appear non-judgmental, the west has lowered it's guard to the prospects of integrating Islamic legal principles with it's own.

Personally, I don't care who is a Muslim and who is not. All I care about is keeping religion out of western law. Democratic majority, or bomb carrying zealot---I oppose both equally as threats to liberty and a just society, and please don't tell me that they are not both after the same thing. There are too many Dutch cartoonists still in hiding for me to entertain the notion that these sentiments are marginal.

Yes, there is some appeasement (or a lot, depending on where you look). Most blatant is the failure to reign in Saudi Arabia and its terrorist funding elite for fear of endagering the supply of oil to West.

But anyhow, this discussion can carry on into infinity. I guess we can agree on the basic notions