Terrorist attack thread

[PappyTron]

3 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Right so without the politics crystallising it the religion alone isn't substantial enough to elicit the response.  They're mad but they ain't THAT fuckin' mad   But the politics, even without the religion, is enough to produce terrorism.  And thats the point I'm making.  I tell ya what though, you really start to hear some pretty humanitarian people whistling a different tune when this shit hits home.  It's worth thinking y'know about how we react to the POTENTIAL of threat and what the reactions of people that lives under the constant rain of fire might be feeling.  

The sad part is it's all for nothing.  It's all for the biggest fuckin' nothing in history.  To me the worlds really simple, the people in power fuck over their subjects and whoever the fucks in charge, regardless of religion or creed or race, is there to a large degree cuz they've had the requisite guile to keep the ones under them in their place.  I have no illusions about the fact that like, whoever was the superpower of the day they wouldn't be beyond doing some of the things America are doing...and a great many of em would do a helluva lot fucking worse.  There is no moral equivalency, no higher principle, no just ends here...just a bunch of people ripping another bunch of people off.  The best you can do i suppose is, like the Jean Genie thing, pray you find yourself far from the thin end of the wedge.

I'm not sure that I agree with the first point. I think that the religion, on its own, is enough for all of this malarkey, so long as one follows it to the letter. The politics is simply used to provide a physical example of what the Koran is talking about; always easier to show people with real examples rather than discuss the Almighty's words in an abstract form.

Agree 100% with the second paragraph; those on top endeavour to stay that way, by hook or by crook.

[Graeme]

2 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

I'm committed to the Eddie Hitler principle of 'you get born, you keep your head down...and then you die.  If you're lucky', i ain't a part of anything

You know what the fuck I meant .

Edited March 24, 2016 by Graeme

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

I'm not sure that I agree with the first point. I think that the religion, on its own, is enough for all of this malarkey, so long as one follows it to the letter. The politics is simply used to provide a physical example of what the Koran is talking about; always easier to show people with real examples rather than discuss the Almighty's words in an abstract form.

Agree 100% with the second paragraph; those on top endeavour to stay that way, by hook or by crook.

My point is that without the politics you wouldn't have the environment where people would be considering following the more barbaric bloodthirsty aspects.  Because what would merit it? Therefore you wouldn't have anyone following it to the letter.  Otherwise there'd've been a lot more suicide bombings a lot earlier rather than just them being a recent phenomenon.  I guess this is where we differ but i think history bears me out on this, people are more susceptible or more likely to follow extreme doctrines when they're presented with extreme propositions or environments.  Kinda like Germans and Uncle Adolf, they'd've probably been less inclined to file in behind the mad bastard were it not for hyper inflation and all the madness going on in Germany at the time.

[Graeme]

Have we not covered this ground already a page ago with the discussions around fundamentalist Christianity being literally as bloodthirsty and batshit crazy as fundamentalist Islam? I don't think you can divorce the current trend of Islamic terrorism from the political climate.

[PappyTron]

Just now, Len B'stard said:

My point is that without the politics you wouldn't have the environment where people would be considering following the more barbaric bloodthirsty aspects.  Because what would merit it? Therefore you wouldn't have anyone following it to the letter.  Otherwise there'd've been a lot more suicide bombings a lot earlier rather than just them being a recent phenomenon.  I guess this is where we differ but i think history bears me out on this, people are more susceptible or more likely to follow extreme doctrines when they're presented with extreme propositions or environments.  Kinda like Germans and Uncle Adolf, they'd've probably been less inclined to file in behind the mad bastard were it not for hyper inflation and all the madness going on in Germany at the time.

Oh, absolutely; extreme situations + extreme beliefs = extreme actions. However, what I was saying is that, politics or no, the core of the texts are always there and we can't really get away from that, no matter how nice we make life. Following a religion to the letter is hard, and it's much easier to say "You know, I know that the Koran says not to drink and gamble and fornicate, but...." than it is to say "I believe that ad-Dajjal will return and it is my sacred duty to fight against him".

[Len Cnut]

In defence of Pappys point though, perhaps I'm devaluing the power of religious faith because although it's a broader internationally political envoirnment its not like lads in England or Belgium are being presented with the issues first hand, so the effect isn't quite the same as what I've been outlining.  Perhaps it is the power of the religious faith that bridges that gap.  

3 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Have we not covered this ground already a page ago with the discussions around fundamentalist Christianity being literally as bloodthirsty and batshit crazy as fundamentalist Islam? I don't think you can divorce the current trend of Islamic terrorism from the political climate.

That doesn't really disqualify the validity of what Pappys saying though.  That Christians fundamentalism is nuts too I mean.

2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Oh, absolutely; extreme situations + extreme beliefs = extreme actions. However, what I was saying is that, politics or no, the core of the texts are always there and we can't really get away from that, no matter how nice we make life. Following a religion to the letter is hard, and it's much easier to say "You know, I know that the Koran says not to drink and gamble and fornicate, but...." than it is to say "I believe that ad-Dajjal will return and it is my sacred duty to fight against him".

The fuckin' crumpet bit always gets em eh?   

[PappyTron]

2 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Have we not covered this ground already a page ago with the discussions around fundamentalist Christianity being literally as bloodthirsty and batshit crazy as fundamentalist Islam? I don't think you can divorce the current trend of Islamic terrorism from the political climate.

There is a core difference though. Fundamentalist Christians believe that additional revelation will be given to man, whereas the Koran teaches that all revelation has already been given. That is to say, the Koran and Hadiths are final, as are their instructions. Lastly, Christians can point to the differences between the Old Testament and the New, whereby they can claim, though I believe erroneously, that Jesus removed the burden of Old Testament laws; you cannot do that in Islam if you wish to remain true to the teachings, which are divine.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, PappyTron said:

There is a core difference though. Fundamentalist Christians believe that additional revelation will be given to man, whereas the Koran teaches that all revelation has already been given. That is to say, the Koran and Hadiths are final, as are their instructions. Lastly, Christians can point to the differences between the Old Testament and the New, whereby they can claim, though I believe erroneously, that Jesus removed the burden of Old Testament laws; you cannot do that in Islam if you wish to remain true to the teachings, which are divine.

Always appeared like a convenient adjustment to me, though quite shrewd when looking at the broader picture.

[Graeme]

56 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

There is a core difference though. Fundamentalist Christians believe that additional revelation will be given to man, whereas the Koran teaches that all revelation has already been given. That is to say, the Koran and Hadiths are final, as are their instructions. Lastly, Christians can point to the differences between the Old Testament and the New, whereby they can claim, though I believe erroneously, that Jesus removed the burden of Old Testament laws; you cannot do that in Islam if you wish to remain true to the teachings, which are divine.

And the logical conclusion of the argument you're pursuing is that this facet of their doctrine makes Muslims more likely to become monsters who want to kill and rape people, to such a statistically significant extent, that we should presume this is the case of most Muslims we encounter?

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, Graeme said:

And the logical conclusion of the argument you're pursuing is that this facet of their doctrine makes Muslims more likely to become monsters who want to kill and rape people, to such a statistically significant extent, that we should presume this is the case of most Muslims we encounter?

The logical conclusion is evidentiary in nature, though one that you seem to have misunderstood, either through innocuous or injurious means, in order to build your very own Man of Straw. To state "this facet of their doctrine" as though the teachings of the Hadiths are some bauble to be placed upon the tree rather than the tree itself, is to be woefully inaccurate in summation of which you seek to ask me. There is no assumption that Muslims must be murderers because they are Muslims, but that is not the same as stating that those who follow true Muhammadism are like you or I; they are not and to believe so is jejune. Feel free to continue to naively conflate fundamental Islam and fundamental Christianity though.

[SoulMonster]

12 hours ago, PappyTron said:

The fundamental issue though is mass immigration of people who possess a culture that is anathematic to our own. The truth is that radicalisation is an extremely simple and easy process, and one that is made all the simpler when the target group's core belief is that the west must fall. I hate to break this to you, but every Muslim, even if in the back of their mind, is aware of what the Koran and Hadiths say about the west. They may choose to ignore it and they may choose to practice a more "moderate" (read: inaccurate) form of Islam, but the knowledge is still there. You then say that there needs to be better integration, and I agree. However, the integration must come from the visitor, not the host, and that integration is generational; you're looking at 50-60 years, at least. Moreover, moving away from terrorism and look at all of the other issues; healthcare services, educational issues, rape gangs... It is lunacy to try and take cultures that are poles apart and try and smash them together into a giant, harmonious unit. Just like the Roman, I can see the Tiber foaming with much blood.

I am not worried about Muslims having knowledge of the contents of the Quran and the Hadith because most Muslims don't abide by every word in that book, just like most Christians don't embrace the most atrocious parts of the Bible. Religions are more than the scripture, it is a combination of parts of scripture and established traditions. Don't get me wrong, I consider every form of theism a problem to humanity, both the fundamentalistic and the moderate, I just don't share the general fear or worry over Muslims you seem to have. Neither statistics or my own personal experiences tell me I have something to worry about, that I should fear the fact that Muslims may be knowledgeable to the whole extent of the books they base their religion on. Neither do I fear Christians who are aware of the gruesomeness of the Bible. 

In contrast to you I don't know which practise of Islam is accurate and which is inaccurate. Just like with Christianity you have various denominations and sects, each with their own peculiar interpretations and emphases. To me, and presumably to you, they are all wrong, regardless of how literally they follow their scripture, but I don't think there is one "true" version of Islam. In that sense, you agree with the ISIS and their ilk who persecute other Muslims for not being "hardcore" enough.

I don't think it is lunacy to mix cultures. It is risky, sure, but it has worked times and times again (and failed times and times again, it really is about the execution, not the principle). Besides, we are not accepting immigration because we want to mix cultures in some sociological experiment, we accept immigration because we feel it is our humanitarian duty to share our wealth and give protection to those that suffer, especially since we partly caused the problem they are fleeing away from.

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, JeanGenie said:

You dont live where I live.

But that's the thing. It doesn't matter on what particular geographic spot you happen to exist, whatever experiences you get from living there can't be used to extrapolate to Muslims all over the world. It is like trying to draw a straight, correct line from one data point. Again, as stated earlier, non-integrated Muslims in ghettos in Europe tend be more radical than Muslims living elsewhere. And these are the ones you see. They are the ones committing terrorism. You are colored by bad inexperiences, and believe me, I am sympathetic to that, but what you have experienced is more a sign of failed integration, a flawed system, of bad apples, and not indicative of the mentality of a huge and extremely ethnic diverse groups as Muslims.

I fear that this post and earlier posts from me may be construed to me not acknowledging problems with Muslim immigration. That is not correct. I just believe we could avoid the worse problems through better systems and integration. I am not saying we will avoid all problems nor whould my posts be understood as if I want completely open borders. Not at all. We also tend to compare Christians and Muslims. I have previously stated that Christians are "house-trained" and more suited to live in our society, than Muslims immigrants who tend to come from countries with more problems than ours and cultures less "evolved". I know this sounds harsh and I should probably spend some more time here trying to find the right words. Anyway, there are problems inheret in immigration, I know and agree, but I believe we could accept immigration and through more demands on their part, and better systems, we can make it work. It is the morally right thing to do.

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, JeanGenie said:

I know that. I have no idea in which countries they are living and how many immigrants with this particular ideology are living there but it's always easy to demand other people to open their hearts and pockets and say 'thank you' after you got kicked in the face. 

But noone is saying that. What I am saying is that Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes. Well, we have all failed to various degrees. We have been naive, we have been trustworthhy, we have been blind. We must learn and improve.

[Lio]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But noone is saying that. What I am saying is that Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes. Well, we have all failed to various degrees. We have been naive, we have been trustworthhy, we have been blind. We must learn and improve.

JeanGenie is from France. I'm the Belgian

It seems MB, JeanGenie and I have roughly the same experiences, so that's the Netherlands, France and Belgium.

[PappyTron]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am not worried about Muslims having knowledge of the contents of the Quran and the Hadith because most Muslims don't abide by every word in that book, just like most Christians don't embrace the most atrocious parts of the Bible. Religions are more than the scripture, it is a combination of parts of scripture and established traditions. Don't get me wrong, I consider every form of theism a problem to humanity, both the fundamentalistic and the moderate, I just don't share the general fear or worry over Muslims you seem to have. Neither statistics or my own personal experiences tell me I have something to worry about, that I should fear the fact that Muslims may be knowledgeable to the whole extent of the books they base their religion on. Neither do I fear Christians who are aware of the gruesomeness of the Bible. 

In contrast to you I don't know which practise of Islam is accurate and which is inaccurate. Just like with Christianity you have various denominations and sects, each with their own peculiar interpretations and emphases. To me, and presumably to you, they are all wrong, regardless of how literally they follow their scripture, but I don't think there is one "true" version of Islam. In that sense, you agree with the ISIS and their ilk who persecute other Muslims for not being "hardcore" enough.

I don't think it is lunacy to mix cultures. It is risky, sure, but it has worked times and times again (and failed times and times again, it really is about the execution, not the principle). Besides, we are not accepting immigration because we want to mix cultures in some sociological experiment, we accept immigration because we feel it is our humanitarian duty to share our wealth and give protection to those that suffer, especially since we partly caused the problem they are fleeing away from.

I don't fear Muslims, not do I fear Islam; whatever gave you that idea? You say that most Muslims don't abide by every word in the Koran and Hadiths; I put it to you that they are not Muslims. They are people practicing what they consider to be Islam, but they are not Muslims. If you not only don't follow, but actively reject, the divine instruction of your God, then you are not a follower of that God, no matter what else you proclaim to be doing. In that sense, yes, I believe that ISIS are closer to following the instructions of Muhammad, and in turn Allah, than the 1 billion+ who are not. Don't agree with it, but that is not the same as not understanding it.

We obviously don't mix cultures for the hell of it, but that is largely of no importance. What is important is that the mixing of cultures has happened and continues to happen and that the net result is not a positive one for those involved. You're Norwegian; why don't you pop along to your Scandinavian neighbours in Stockholm and ask them how Islamic integration is working out. Or, go south and ask some people in the Netherlands, or Belgium, or France, or Germany, or go to the Midlands in England and ask some people there. Not an Islamic issue with immigration, but a cultural one.

Edited March 24, 2016 by PappyTron

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Lio said:

JeanGenie is from France. I'm the Belgian

It seems MB, JeanGenie and I have roughly the same experiences, so that's the Netherlands, France and Belgium.

Oh sorry, I was sure JeanGenie was Belgian, too

Anyway, a lot of the same problems with Belgium applies to France ("ghettofication", demographics, failed integration, historicty, etc). It's a mess

[PappyTron]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is the morally right thing to do.

Morals, like society, are man-made constructs and therefore there is no inherently "moral" thing to do. Besides which, why does it fall in the laps of Europeans to take in mass immigration? Where are the safe harbours in Africa, South America and the Middle and Far East? It's the same with the "War on Terror"; everyone expects the US and Europe to do all of the fighting even when the issue is on their own doorstep. Qatar can spend $200 Billion on a World Cup, but doesn't want to get involved in hunting down terrorists in the region.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

I don't fear Muslims, not do I fear Islam; whatever gave you that idea? You say that most Muslims don't abide by every word in the Koran and Hadiths; I put it to you that they are not Muslims. They are people practicing what they consider to be Islam, but they are not Muslims. If you not only don't follow, but actively reject, the divine instruction of your God, then you are not a follower of that God, no matter what else you proclaim to be doing. In that sense, yes, I believe that ISIS are closer to following the instructions of Muhammad, and in turn Allah, than the 1 billion+ who are not. Don't agree with it, but that is not the same as not understanding it.

We obviously don't mix cultures for the hell of it, but that is largely of no importance. What is important is that the mixing of cultures has happened and continues to happen and that the net result is not a positive one for those involved. You're Norwegian; why don't you pop along to your Scandinavian neighbours in Stockholm and ask them how Islamic integration is working out. Or, go south and ask some people in the Netherlands, or Belgium, or France, or Germany, or go to the Midlands in England and ask some people there. Not an Islamic issue with immigration, but a cultural one.

Well, if you define Muslims as only those who abide with every word in the Quoran and Hadits (how is that even possible to do, with all the contraditions therein? :D), then these people shouldn't be allowed into our countries. What they believe in is totally incompatible with our cultures. But luckily, the vast majority of people claiming to be Muslims aren't like this. They are moderates. They care about parts of the scripture and follow a religion that mixes these parts with established traditions. Just like most Christians they don't take every part of their scrioture literally, or believe it relates to their lives. Again, not saying I am particularly happy with moderate Muslims, either (or Christians or any other theists), but there is a huge difference between these two groups.

Oh, I certaily believe the net result is positive to the immigrants. I am sure it is much better to live in an apartment here in Trondheim than in war-torn Syria where you either had to fight for the regime or for the rebels. I am confident we have improved the lives to millions. Yes, it costs us. The net effect on us may even be negative (although this can only be assessed far into the future when the full effect of immigrations plays out), but that is charity in a nutshell. We could close the borders to people fleeing war and persecution and be "richer" and enjoy "the net positive effect" of that policy, but that is not a society I want to live in. But some balance must be reached, and we have to raise demands to thsoe that come, and be smarter about how we do things.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Morals, like society, are man-made constructs and therefore there is no inherently "moral" thing to do. Besides which, why does it fall in the laps of Europeans to take in mass immigration? Where are the safe harbours in Africa, South America and the Middle and Far East? It's the same with the "War on Terror"; everyone expects the US and Europe to do all of the fighting even when the issue is on their own doorstep. Qatar can spend $200 Billion on a World Cup, but doesn't want to get involved in hunting down terrorists in the region.

Whether it is man-made or not doesn't really matter. We want to help and that is why we do it.

It doesn't only fall in the laps of Europeans. But maybe we are obligated since we helped create the problem? Just like Germany due to their collective guilt is at the forefront of helping out now. And it is not like other regions don't accept immigrants. People move across borders everywhere, in Africa, and South America, too. There are regional problems everywhere, and usually we help out. It is also natural that neighbours try to help out, and some countries in the Middle East accept more immigrants from Syria (per capita) than European countries (not all though, famously so, which is a shame).

[supercool]

the downfall of industrial society

[PappyTron]

On 24/03/2016 at 8:06 AM, SoulMonster said:

Well, if you define Muslims as only those who abide with every word in the Quoran and Hadits (how is that even possible to do, with all the contraditions therein? :D), then these people shouldn't be allowed into our countries. What they believe in is totally incompatible with our cultures. But luckily, the vast majority of people claiming to be Muslims aren't like this. They are moderates. They care about parts of the scripture and follow a religion that mixes these parts with established traditions. Just like most Christians they don't take every part of their scrioture literally, or believe it relates to their lives. Again, not saying I am particularly happy with moderate Muslims, either (or Christians or any other theists), but there is a huge difference between these two groups.

Oh, I certaily believe the net result is positive to the immigrants. I am sure it is much better to live in an apartment here in Trondheim than in war-torn Syria where you either had to fight for the regime or for the rebels. I am confident we have improved the lives to millions. Yes, it costs us. The net effect on us may even be negative (although this can only be assessed far into the future when the full effect of immigrations plays out), but that is charity in a nutshell. We could close the borders to people fleeing war and persecution and be "richer" and enjoy "the net positive effect" of that policy, but that is not a society I want to live in. But some balance must be reached, and we have to raise demands to thsoe that come, and be smarter about how we do things.

I define, when being strict about it, Muslims as those who follow the teachings of Allah and Mohammad. If you pick and mix what parts you like and which parts you don't then what are you? You can call yourself a Muslim, people can call you a Muslim, but when all is said and done you are not following the teachings of your God. I mean, if I make Kransekake, but start putting in chocolate and dried fruit and nuts, and maybe remove the almonds and egg whites...well, you can call it a Kransekake , but it really is not no matter how much I say it is. Now, if "God" had given the recipe for Kransekake and I started making all of those changes...

The issue is that there are more people seeking aid than it is possible to assist. What happens is that the quality of life in all of the rich countries who try to help goes down and the problem still remains. It's like the EU. When it was formed we were all told that goods and services in our rich countries would come down to those of the poorer states. In reality, the prices stayed the same or went up and we received an influx of millions of people from eastern Europe. There are schools in the UK where the pupils speak 50-60 different languages, and other schools where none of the students speak English as their mother-tongue.

Going back to the topic at hand, you need to look at who is doing the acts of terrorism and why they come about. Like said before, it's culture clash and social alienation as the base, and then religious justification which really gets the fire going. Now, how to deal with that? I don't believe that it is the duty of a society to alter its culture in order to better accommodate those who wish to seek refuge there; it is down to the seeker of aid to fit in. If I moved to Norway tomorrow it would be down to me to learn the language and traditions and to try and fit in no matter how hard it may be. I should not expect everyone to talk English to me and to bow down to, or even be knowledgeable of, English culture.

Edited March 26, 2016 by PappyTron

[Bumblefeet]

30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Just like Germany due to their collective guilt is at the forefront of helping out now.

What collective guilt? Germany is a rich (christian) nation, they aren't helping out due to some 'collective guilt' (from what might I ask? The war?) rather because they can and on the long run it's in their best interest as I'm still convinced Europe is letting as many refugees enter simply because they need cheap labour force. Where this does pose a security risk is in the lack of oversight and transparency of who they are letting enter Europe.

It has now come out that one of the kamikaze bombers who was at Zaventem airport had been on parole after Belgium court let him cut short a 10 year sentence for armed robbery and shooting at the police and released him after only 4 years despite negative advice from the prison (!) He then broke his parole by going to Turkey (border with Syria) where he was detained and extradited. He chose to go the Netherlands with warning by the Turkish government that he was dangerous (!) The Netherlands claim to know nothing and Belgian justice claims to have had no reason to arrest him despite him breaking his parole (!). It's another clusterfuck of incompetent policing and miscommunication; too many layers of governing and no clear oversight of these criminals' activities.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Bumblefeet

[Lio]

17 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Lio's a girl by the way.  I think her perspective was more like, here and now, with the bodies of dead Belgians still warm, the last thing she wants to hear about is attempting to understand the demographic from where these problems are coming from, i can understand that.  Still dont mean Graeme was being out of order or anything, sensitive times and that yknow?

Although, bodies of dead Belgians still warm might not cut it. As of now, two days after the attacks, no 'bodies' have been formally identified. (Although one Peruvian and one Moroccan woman, both living in Belgium, another Belgian woman and two men are said to be among the deadly victims.) I suppose they're still trying to put the pieces together, as gruesome as it may sound.

[PappyTron]

13 minutes ago, Bumblefeet said:

What collective guilt? Germany is a rich (christian) nation, they aren't helping out due to some 'collective guilt' (from what might I ask? The war?) rather because they can and on the long run it's in their best interest as I'm still convinced Europe is letting as many refugees enter simply because they need cheap labour force. Where this does pose a security risk is in the lack of oversight and transparency of who they are letting enter Europe.

It has now come out that one of the kamikaze bombers who was at Zaventem airport had been on parole after Belgium court let him cut short a 10 year sentence for armed robbery and shooting at the police and released him after only 4 years despite negative advice from the prison (!) He then broke his parole by going to Turkey (border with Syria) where he was detained and extradited. He chose to go the Netherlands with warning by the Turkish government that he was dangerous (!) The Netherlands claim to know nothing and Belgian justice claims to have had no reason to arrest him despite him breaking his parole (!). It's another clusterfuck of incompetent policing and miscommunication; too many layers of governing and no clear oversight of these criminals' activities.

Yup, it's definitely not collective guilt for WWII from Germany's point of view.

The second paragraph is something that I read about all of the time; a person will have so many red flags yet they slip through all of them and then do something.

[Lio]

17 hours ago, Dan H. said:

I didn't read anything Graeme said as being insulting to you personally man. Obviously you have had experiences on the front line of this conflict, and while you provide valuable insight onto the topical comings and goings of this terrible attack, and its aftermath, most of us (including Graeme, self admittedly, in his own post) are not privy to the cultural implications and motivations of Islam. For the most part it seems like the Muslim community is pretty quiet, private, and close knit, and having Amir and Len provide insight that most of us folks with Western, white, and middle to upper class experiences may not have been exposed to.

 

Being white doesn't mean you 'understand nothing' nor should you be so sensitive to Graeme's comment man. There is certainly insight into the culture of Muslims that yes, can only be fully understood and realized by those who grew up or were constantly surrounded by that culture, and in some ways that insight is more valuable than bearing witness to the attack first hand.

 

Btw, pretty sure Graeme is a white dude. Apologies if I'm wrong on that.

We'll just agree to disagree then. Of course the insight of people of Muslim descent is important and valuable, but I'll try to explain it in another way. I was raised a christian, a catholic. But when I hear about catholics in Ireland and how they're raised, or when I hear about Christians still believing today that God created the world a few thousand years ago, I'm baffled. I can't for the life of me relate to that. So I couldn't possibly give any insight on how they are feeling or what they are thinking. I don't know if you're religious or an atheist, but if you're an atheist, I'm sure you could tell much more relevant things about Christians in the US or the area where you live, than I could.

I think we've all agreed on 'Muslims' being a diverse group. Some of us, posters from France, Belgium and the Netherlands, have expressed they have similar experiences with mostly North-African immigrants (of whatever generation). So, yes, I do believe we have more insight in those particular groups that live here than Amir or Lenny. Just like you have more insight in American Christians than I have. We don't live in an ivory tower and even if there are ghettos, I at least come across and interact with Muslims on a daily basis. We do live together here.

(No worries about the gender mix-up. And I do know Graeme's white )