London Terror Attack(s)

[Deleted-355425]

Most of the world knows about japan and how its stupid mistakes involving the handling of fukushima has panned out. btw you cant just call someone a racist for no good reason then get upset when someone calls you a racist for no reason.

Here you go, have a watch if your country allows it lolol

 

[smile72]

Most of the world knows about japan and how its stupid mistakes involving the handling of fukushima has panned out. btw you cant just call someone a racist for no good reason then get upset when someone calls you a racist for no reason.

I did have a reason I italicized my reason and you werent talking about the mistakes of Fukushima. You were associating our debt with Fukushima which is obviously not true. And then you write awful messages such as enjoy your cancer...yeah not ignorant at all...you don't even know where I live...so...you are suggesting all of Japan could be radioactive... and my last italicized message where again you brought up radiation. You know NOTHING about Japan. Well, I'm done with you. I won't reply anymore. You have no point. And you are a troll and a stupid one at that.

 

[Deleted-355425]

I did have a reason I italicized my reason and you werent talking about the mistakes of Fukushima. You were associating our debt with Fukushima which is obviously not true. And then you write awful messages such as enjoy your cancer...yeah not ignorant at all...you don't even know where I live...so...you are suggesting all of Japan could be radioactive... and my last italicized message where again you brought up radiation. You know NOTHING about Japan. Well, I'm done with you. I won't reply anymore. You have no point. And you are a troll and a stupid one at that.

So acording to you I'm a racist because I said your country has debt because of the nuclear power plant meltdown you had?

You sir are an idiot.

 

[Viri]

Holy hell, I don't think our other monthly terrorist attack threads went to shit this bad!

 

[Deleted-355425]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse

Here is how the nuclear spill looks like from Fukushima in Japan

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

the verse that says that (98:6) doesnt say that these people are not innocent, merely wrongdoers.

I said there are different views on the word innocent and I will prove it by pointing to what you said further down.

9:29 has to do with the Tabuk expedition. Here's a hadith on it:
...
Notice the fact that they were already there. It would suggest it was they who had started it.

You must be kidding. I appreciate your calmness and politeness but this is just... wow. There are actually people who argue the 3rd Reich only defended itself but I don't like to argue with these people. Pointless. Arabia was of no interest to the Romans. It was mostly desert and crude oil hadn't been used yet. Furthermore both the Romans and Persians were weak after killing each other for such a long time. There was no reason to threaten or conquer Arabia.

It was not his wife it was a slave. The issue with this is that she was killed for doing it continuously without pause.
He chose to kill her after giving ample warning to stop and by disregarding and slandering Islam she was killed. Of course, this does not mean Muhammed apporoved of the way it was done, we may never know. It is also not fair to make an entire religous ruling based on one course of action that may not represent the "right way".

It was not the only incident. Right underneath it is a Hadith of a man killing a Jewish woman for the slandering Muhammad and he stated nothing should be done about it. Even if we disregard the assassinations (I couldn't find a reference about a singing girl for example) for a moment and just analyse your response:
"she was a slave" -> Does it make a difference? Are their lives worth less?
"The issue with this is that she was killed for doing it continuously without pause."? Are you serious? If my anyone called me an asshole for the rest of my life it would never occur to me to kill her. How can you seriously defend this?
"Of course, this does not mean Muhammed apporoved of the way it was done, we may never know." Maybe he could have said: "Thanks for wanting to protect my honor but next time don't put a F*CKING KNIFE IN HER!" ? Just an idea...
"It is also not fair to make an entire religous ruling based on one course of action that may not represent the "right way": Muhammad is a role model according to Islam. That's why Muslims around the world imitate him.

Again, don't take it personally but you sound just like fundamentalist Christians who defend vile teachings in the Bible ("the Kaananites were sinners", "those laws were only for a limited time" etc).

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Arabia was of no interest to the Romans.

You've got to accept the fact that the Byzantines were there before Muhammed declared war. This hadith is Sahih, by the way.
You're just giving an opinion that, mind you, is baseless.

Right underneath it is a Hadith of a man killing a Jewish woman for the slandering Muhammad and he stated nothing should be done about it

Two different occasions are still not enough for a legal ruling. Anyway, slandering the prophet was punishable by death and was not considered the right thing to do when people were given places to live thanks to that same man. So basically biting the hand that feeds them. Whether or not this fits into Shariah is a debated topic.

"she was a slave" -> Does it make a difference? Are their lives worth less?

I was clarifying your point, and no it doesn't change anything.

Are you serious? If my anyone called me an asshole for the rest of my life it would never occur to me to kill her. How can you seriously defend this?

That's completely different if they were fed and clothed by you and then went on to attack you for it? Yeah, I would stop clothing them. Muhammed never excused their actions but he didn't punish them either.
But I refer you to my above comment.

Thanks for wanting to protect my honor but next time don't put a F*CKING KNIFE IN HER!

"As for killing a dhimmi unlawfully, it is major sin, and the warning concerning that is very stern, as was proven in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (3166) from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr (may Allaah be pleased with him) who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever killed a mu’aahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years’ travel.” Imam al-Bukhaari included this report in a chapter in his Saheeh entitled “Chapter: the sin of one who kills a mu’aahid unlawfully.”

Just a quote I found.

Muhammad is a role model according to Islam

Yes he is. And did he order her to be killed unlawfully?

 

[deinonychus71]

Ok firstly you seems like a dinosaur to me !
More seriously you said you worked but most of them don't work ! You've seen the exceptions. Not representative ! In France you can live quiet well with social wellfare. And also the more children you've got the more money and the more free services you get ! Far away from US. And we can id the terrorists : muslims ! No boudhists, jews, or catholics ! May be some converted from the last one searching their path.... lol (i don't feel like to laugh however)

Even if that statement is true, what do you do with all of them who actually work and are perfectly well integrated? What do you do with people who look like they might be muslims but don't actually have a religion?
They exist, you won't hear about them because they don't cause issues. So what do we do, do we ID them as terrorists too? Do we arrest them? Welcome to another Hitler era.

Do not alienate the people that are on your side.

 

[Viri]

Spoiler

Heh

 

[Deleted-355425]

1st victim has been named, a Canadian national .. poor soul

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40153090

 

[barak06]

Even if that statement is true, what do you do with all of them who actually work and are perfectly well integrated? What do you do with people who look like they might be muslims but don't actually have a religion?
They exist, you won't hear about them because they don't cause issues. So what do we do, do we ID them as terrorists too? Do we arrest them? Welcome to another Hitler era.

Do not alienate the people that are on your side.

You did the hitler Thing !!! The Godwin point !! You should be banned for this dirty trick (The muslims were on his side during wwII by the way )
But i don't Want to insult you, you.re not worth it. You're not confronted with the invasion of muslims in your country, like we are in Europe specially in France.
I Know it's too late. And we can't kill them all, afterall they are human beings like us .... seriously how old are you ? 16 ?

 

[deinonychus71]

You did the hitler Thing !!! The Godwin point !! You should be banned for this dirty trick (The muslims were on his side during wwII by the way )
But i don't Want to insult you, you.re not worth it. You're not confronted with the invasion of muslims in your country, like we are in Europe specially in France.
I Know it's too late. And we can't kill them all, afterall they are human beings like us .... seriously how old are you ? 16 ?

*sighs*. Another jewel of argumentation.
- Hitler being a meme on the Internet doesn't automatically invalidate an argument. In the present context, you did well at making my point.
- Someone must be worth it for you to be insulted. Interesting.
- I lived for about 25 years in France, I am sorry for presenting a slightly alternative version of your reality of good and evil.
- No you can't kill them all. Thanks to the majority of the French still having some common sense.
- I'm 27, but I do believe even a teenager can understand why hateful speeches are counter productive.

Seriously, you guys still haven't figured why Marine LePen did so awful during the second debate? Not every discussion belongs on 4chan.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Sorry for responding so late. I will keep it brief.

the verse that says that (98:6) doesnt say that these people are not innocent, merely wrongdoers.

It says they are the worst creatures. Let's leave it at that. I hope you can see how this mindset could POTENTIALLY make Muslims think very little of their fellow man.

Notice the fact that they were already there. It would suggest it was they who had started it.

Does a small Roman outpost at the north of Arabia (which they didn't even try to retake) justify an all-out war with an empire?
9:29 and 9:30 say that Christians and Jews need to be humiliated, paying the Jizya tax. That sounds like a takeover of cities (civilians), not some forgotten outpost.

I should've been clearer, you can tell your parents your lack of faith, but they can't ever lay a hand on you unless you publicly announce it.

So you don't see a problem with that?
You defend an oppressive system that even calls on family members to hand over each other to Sharia law, i.e. being killed if one denounces his faith.
Both Muhammad and Muslims demand tolerance when they are weak (e.g. small minority) but show no tolerance once they are strong. Did Muhammad preach publicly in Mekka or not? He did. By your own standards, he should have been killed in the very beginning by the non-monotheists of his time!
The Quran mentions Abraham' father and how he threatened him with death if he didn't stop preaching monotheism. By your [the Muslim] standard, Abraham's father should have killed Abraham for preaching publicly.
Pls explain why you don't have a problem with this double standard.

It was not his wife it was a slave. The issue with this is that she was killed for doing it continuously without pause.
He chose to kill her after giving ample warning to stop and by disregarding and slandering Islam she was killed.

And that's shocking! Quran allows (actually orders) men to hit disobedient women. But first they need to be warned. Aaah so then everything is ok.
No it isn't! Men shouldn't hit their wives at any point (unless maybe in self-defense, but that's obvious) and people shouldn't kill others for insulting a prophet or VIP or ideology. How can you defend this?

Of course, this does not mean Muhammed apporoved of the way it was done, we may never know. It is also not fair to make an entire religous ruling based on one course of action that may not represent the "right way".

If I kill your enemy and you publicly say I should not be prosecuted, then it is approval.

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

And that's shocking! Quran allows (actually orders) men to hit disobedient women. But first they need to be warned. Aaah so then everything is ok.
No it isn't! Men shouldn't hit their wives at any point (unless maybe in self-defense, but that's obvious) and people shouldn't kill others for insulting a prophet or VIP or ideology. How can you defend this?

The Bible also says that.

Anyways, this debate is not useful. If people want to follow one of the books (it being the Torah, the Bible or the Quran) at the letter, they can't live in the 21th century. Like how Christian countries for the most have entered modernity, some Muslim countries also did (Morocco, Algeria, etc.). People who want to follow a book written 1,400 years ago are retards.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

The Bible also says that.

We are talking about Islam because the London terrorists said "for Allah" when stabbing people. They were radical Muslims.
Why do you feel the need to deflect? Once we see weekly terror attacks from Christians killing for Jesus, then we can analyze the Bible.
Commands like that (killing people who worship idols for example) exist in the Bible but I don't see too many terror attacks emerging because of it.

Anyways, this debate is not useful.

Then don't participate. You sound just like Angela Merkel who said this sentence when a book was published that Muslims found offensive.

If people want to follow one of the books (it being the Torah, the Bible or the Quran) at the letter, they can't live in the 21th century. Like how Christian countries for the most have entered modernity, some Muslim countries also did (Morocco, Algeria, etc.). People who want to follow a book written 1,400 years ago are retards.

Say the last sentence publically in Morocco and Algeria. Let us know how it went.

 

[sarkwalvein]

We are talking about Islam because the London terrorists said "for Allah" when stabbing people. They were radical Muslims.
Why do you feel the need to deflect? Once we see weekly terror attacks from Christians killing for Jesus, then we can analyze the Bible.
Commands like that (killing people who worship idols for example) exist in the Bible but I don't see too many terror attacks emerging because of it.


Then don't participate. You sound just like Angela Merkel who said this sentence when a book was published that Muslims found offensive.


Say the last sentence publically in Morocco and Algeria. Let us know how it went.

I think stating it is not useful is a valid way of active participation.
Explaining it is misleading and also not going into any productive direction.
Don't cut somebody out (or them order not to participate) because of a whim of yours, for fucks sake.

 

[Hayleia]

We are talking about Islam because the London terrorists said "for Allah" when stabbing people. They were radical Muslims.
Why do you feel the need to deflect? Once we see weekly terror attacks from Christians killing for Jesus, then we can analyze the Bible.
Commands like that (killing people who worship idols for example) exist in the Bible but I don't see too many terror attacks emerging because of it.

You're spending too much time on details. StarTrekVoyager didn't deny Islam had bad sides, he just said all religions were and that instead of focusing on the one that causes problems right now, it would be better to get rid of them all.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

So if people debate climate change the comment "this debate is not useful" is a valid way of active participation? Aha.

It is useful as there is a (moderate?) Muslim user defending the killing of a person who denounces his faith publicly and for killing a person in private who doesn't stop insulting a prophet despite being warned. I want to understand this kind of mindset.
So yes, the discussion is useful. And it has been pretty civil so far.

 

[sarkwalvein]

So if people debate climate change the comment "this debate is not useful" is a valid way of active participation? Aha.

It is useful as there is a (moderate?) Muslim user defending the killing of a person who denounces his faith publicly and for killing a person in private who doesn't stop insulting a prophet despite being warned. I want to understand this kind of mindset.
So yes, the discussion is useful. And it has been pretty civil so far.

That is your opinion, and exactly because you have the right to state it, you don't have the right to silence someone else's. You are not special, you're just another average temper, and whatever the self entitlement that makes you think you have more of a right than somebody else to state your opinion is no more than a self aggrandizing delusion.

 

[G0R3Z]

Being British, other British people might like the #thingsthatleavebritainreeling tag on twitter. Now these will shake your very soul.