London Bridge Atrocity

[SusanDoris]

Ippy

I googled an have watched a few of the youtubes where he is in debate. From what I have seen so far, I think he is presenting the facts clearly and well; also factually which I definitely like.
 

[ippy]

Ippy

I googled an have watched a few of the youtubes where he is in debate. From what I have seen so far, I think he is presenting the facts clearly and well; also factually which I definitely like.

I can't fault the man, it's a plain case of hitting the nail on the head every time he speaks.

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I can fault him - I have come across his arguments before and I have also seen the You Tube link that NS put up of the lady on the panel stating that moderate majorities are irrelevant because it is the violent minority that kill people. Both Douglas Murray and the lady on the panel seem to be displaying double standards.

Yes there are extremists in all societies and I think Western societies deal with their extremists slowly because of rule of law and the legal process. For example it took years for the Chilcot report to come out to try and hold accountable the minority who dropped bombs and blew up people in Iraq, destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure and security services, permitted mass looting and corruption by Iraqi officials and Western oil corporations - all pretty extreme acts especially the ones involving dropping missiles in cities.

It's unfortunate that minorities in Western liberal democracy can commit acts that lead to the death of thousands and it is unfortunate that the moderate majority in Western liberal democracies proved to be irrelevant in preventing their governments from carrying out these violent extreme acts, but we don't say that we need less Western liberal democracy simply because a minority of extremists are part of Western liberal democratic governments.

Chilcot was only published in 2016 even though the extremist acts that endangered Iraqi lives and society took place in 2003. I believe Blair still maintains that he does not regret his actions or decisions because it was his job as the leader of the country to make the best decision he could for national self-interest based on the complex geopolitical situation at the time. He thinks regime-change was justifiable. Hopefully holding those Muslim extremists who want regime-change in the UK accountable won't take 13 years as well, but as Chilcot shows, yes it takes time to follow all the steps that are part of a Western liberal democracy's legal process in dealing with extremist acts. So Douglas Murray and people who agree with him better get used to patiently dealing with the slow process of accountability, much like the peaceful and irrelevant majority of the Iraqi people have had to do during the Chiclot inquiry.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella #202

I have read through your post but cannot see where you have actually 'faulted' Douglas Murray.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I fault him on all his lazy generalisations - where he categorises Muslims and Islam as a problem rather than focusing on the extremists.

I fault him on his double standards - whereby he blames Islam for extremist Muslim violence in British society, but applauds Western liberal democracy even though such democracies result in acts of extremism or violence by Western liberal democratic governments.

I fault him for claiming that violent passages in the Quran or Hadith means Islam is a violent religion and that it is incompatible with Western democratic values. Not sure where this special incompatibility arises from since Western democratic values includes violence, and furthermore, as far as I can see, nation states and international law have mechanisms to deal with violence carried out in the name of Western liberal democratic interests which can also be used to deal with Muslim extremist violence.     

[wigginhall]

Yes, I thought that Murray conflates targeting extremists, which I assume nobody has problems with, with 'less Islam'.   I suppose his argument is that without Islam, there would not be extreme Islamists.    However 'less Islam' has a sinister flavour, as if we should reduce the number of Muslims.   How would you do that?   Deport them, imprison them, put them in internment camps?   Anything like that would tend to increase radicalization. 

There is also Gabriella's point about Western violence, which is one of our primary exports!

[Bubbles]

Well If you really 'knew' Islam it's the same thing, I'm afraid.

Nick

Omg 

[Bubbles]

No, R, I don't feel you know nowt about Islam, sorry. It was more a sarcy remark to some here that would happily open ALL our doors to some real filth.!!!

You have a real problem trippy!

Please keep it to yourself.

[Dicky Underpants]

I fault him on all his lazy generalisations - where he categorises Muslims and Islam as a problem rather than focusing on the extremists.

In a discussion on 'The Sunday Politics' a few weeks ago, he was quite specific in some respects - in the cited case, blaming the disgusting attitude of Salford University which spawned this sad little non-entity who thought he was a hero:

Jo Coburn: Sara Khan's view there, and Douglas Murray and Sara Khan join me now. Douglas Murray, you wrote a book, Strange Death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you say, "Let's get serious?"


Douglas Murray: Several things. Just one example I can give you. The young man who carried out this atrocious attack last Monday night was two years a student at Salford University. He was on a campus which is, from its leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of the government's only counter-extremism programme. They not only oppose it they boast they're boycotting it. They always did this. The university that he was at was against the only counter-extremism policy this state has.

(Jo Coburn interviewing Murray and Sara Khan, whose efforts Murray certainly supported, but suspected might be in vain)

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

Go Gabby go!! ( is it okay if I call you Gabby )

Yes I love it when here in the west we think we are are all innocent and can point the finger at the nasty terrorists as if we had bugger all ( excuse my language ) to do with it.

Here in Glasgow we come together and show real solidarity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-40242188

Christian, Muslim coming together ( I am sure I will get it in neck for not mentioning other religions, the Church of atheism ) but I know there has been other Islamic gathering's condemning the Manchester and London atrocities, these should be highlighted more.

And this man should be highlighted more when we talk of Islam,

 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/abdul-sattar-edhi-google-honours-angel-mercy-170227140720826.html

No Religion higher than Humanity

Gonnagle.

[trippymonkey]

You have a real problem trippy!

Please keep it to yourself.

Do please go back to your nice warm little room blocked off from the real world.

[jeremyp]

I fault him on all his lazy generalisations - where he categorises Muslims and Islam as a problem rather than focusing on the extremists.

Because Islam is the problem. These people think they are doing the right thing because their religion (Islam in this case) tells them it is.

Another thread here is about a Facebook poster who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. That's Islam fucking up the lives of ordinary people again.

[Shaker]

Another thread here is about a Facebook poster who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. That's Islam fucking up the lives of ordinary people again.

Butbutbutbutbut it's not Islam, it's only the Muslamic fundamentaloids!

[/sarcasm, for the irony deficient]

[trippymonkey]

I agree but it's Islam & The Quran that these EFF-Wits are using to justify their behaviour, isn't it?

[Bubbles]

Do please go back to your nice warm little room blocked off from the real world.

It's not blocked off from the real world.

I can walk to my nearest mosque.

Muslims are just a part of my life,  as neighbours friends and work colleagues.

Why would I listen to you? And your prejudices.

[Robbie]

Quite right Rose.

Thanks too to Gabriella for your balanced posts.

Trippy do you never think about anything else?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Because Islam is the problem. These people think they are doing the right thing because their religion (Islam in this case) tells them it is.

Another thread here is about a Facebook poster who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. That's Islam fucking up the lives of ordinary people again.

Lazy generalisations - just like the Muslims who blame 'the West' for everything as though everyone in 'the West' holds the same set of values and ideas just because some Western governments think they are doing the right thing by pursuing foreign policies that inflict damage on some Muslim communities in other countries.

[wigginhall]

Islamism is the problem, isn't it?  In fact, violent Islamism, since there are peaceful Islamists.   So people like Murray are saying that Islam leads to violent Islamism.   I can't see the argument here.    As Gabriella says, that's like saying that the West automatically breeds violence. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

Go Gabby go!! ( is it okay if I call you Gabby )

Yes I love it when here in the west we think we are are all innocent and can point the finger at the nasty terrorists as if we had bugger all ( excuse my language ) to do with it.

Here in Glasgow we come together and show real solidarity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-40242188

Christian, Muslim coming together ( I am sure I will get it in neck for not mentioning other religions, the Church of atheism ) but I know there has been other Islamic gathering's condemning the Manchester and London atrocities, these should be highlighted more.

And this man should be highlighted more when we talk of Islam,

 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/abdul-sattar-edhi-google-honours-angel-mercy-170227140720826.html

Gonnagle.

Yes, given the number of times elected European governments have exported violence to Muslim majority countries and persuaded nationals of those countries to agitate violently against their own leaders and fellow- countrymen, it is surprising that Douglas Murray wants less Islam but not less European democracy.

Murray seems to have a problem when people in Britain or France start dying because of an ideology, and calls for less Islam, but I am wondering how troubled he was by people in other countries dying as a result of certain British or French foreign policies based on ideology.

As far as I know he is not blaming the concept of Democracy or Capitalism and calling for less Democracy or less Capitalism because some citizens in 'the West' vote for leaders who pursue violent foreign policies for their country's economic and commercial gain.

[jeremyp]

Lazy generalisations - just like the Muslims who blame 'the West' for everything as though everyone in 'the West' holds the same set of values and ideas just because some Western governments think they are doing the right thing by pursuing foreign policies that inflict damage on some Muslim communities in other countries.

No, I'm not generalising.

I'm not blaming all Muslims, I am saying that Islam provides the motivation and "justification" for the bad ones, including, it appears, the Pakistan justice system.

I'm sorry, but it is true. The London Bridge bombers weren't shouting "this is for Dawkins". They weren't even shouting "this is for the Syrians you bombed", they were shouting "this is for Allah".

[jeremyp]

As Gabriella says, that's like saying that the West automatically breeds violence.

Well, it pretty much does, or so it seems. I am really disturbed that our government is in a state of denial about the fact that our military action has a direct input into the terrorist attacks here. Having said that, most of the violence perpetrated in the Middle East is done so by people from the Middle East. Not only that, they are mostly driven by Islamic ideology.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, I'm not generalising.

I'm not blaming all Muslims, I am saying that Islam provides the motivation and "justification" for the bad ones, including, it appears, the Pakistan justice system.

I'm sorry, but it is true. The London Bridge bombers weren't shouting "this is for Dawkins". They weren't even shouting "this is for the Syrians you bombed", they were shouting "this is for Allah".

Yes you are generalising - there isn't one single concept of Islam because everyone has their own understanding of what that concept is. Of course some people can be persuaded to follow a particular part of someone else's concept - that applies to any concept or abstract idea because concepts and ideas keep evolving depending on the brain that takes up that concept.

The Quran permits violence on the battlefield because anything else is impractical and unrealistic in 7th century Arabia. Non-violence is still unrealistic in 21st century Western democracies - hence Jeremy Corbyn gets a hard time for wanting nuclear disarmament.  Someone can take the concept of a just war and decide the whole world is a battlefield in asymmetric or unconventional warfare or decide that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is justified.

Are you saying that if British soldiers kill someone or fire a missile while shouting "this is for Queen and country", and the international community condemns the action as contrary to international law but some members of the British Army support the killing, the killing becomes the Queen's fault because the concept of monarchy provided the motivation to fight and kill for your Queen and country? Or is it the fault of international law because international law has a concept of 'just war'?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, it pretty much does, or so it seems. I am really disturbed that our government is in a state of denial about the fact that our military action has a direct input into the terrorist attacks here. Having said that, most of the violence perpetrated in the Middle East is done so by people from the Middle East. Not only that, they are mostly driven by Islamic ideology.

If you agree with Murray then the solution is less West. Murray is talking rubbish when he comes up with these simplistic slogans. The  solution is to promote ideas that create a more ethical foreign policy and combat extremism and division. There is no quick fix to unethical foreign policy, self-interest or violence to achieve short-term political goals. There is no quick fix to combat the idea that the end justifies the means.

[Sriram]

Yes you are generalising - there isn't one single concept of Islam because everyone has their own understanding of what that concept is. Of course some people can be persuaded to follow a particular part of someone else's concept - that applies to any concept or abstract idea because concepts and ideas keep evolving depending on the brain that takes up that concept.

The Quran permits violence on the battlefield because anything else is impractical and unrealistic in 7th century Arabia. Non-violence is still unrealistic in 21st century Western democracies - hence Jeremy Corbyn gets a hard time for wanting nuclear disarmament.  Someone can take the concept of a just war and decide the whole world is a battlefield in asymmetric or unconventional warfare or decide that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is justified.

Are you saying that if British soldiers kill someone or fire a missile while shouting "this is for Queen and country", and the international community condemns the action as contrary to international law but some members of the British Army support the killing, the killing becomes the Queen's fault because the concept of monarchy provided the motivation to fight and kill for your Queen and country? Or is it the fault of international law because international law has a concept of 'just war'?

Hi Gabriella


I agree that most muslims are peace loving and good people. But it is a fact that Islam through its teachings (or interpretations) does promote violence and disregard for other people and their beliefs.

This is something we in India have seen again and again. Whether it is about the repeated muslim invasions over the centuries, the killing of millions of Hindus and the destruction of innumerable temples and Hindu scriptures across the land, the forced conversions.....and more recently, the partition or  the Kashmir issue or Pakistan sponsored terrorism....it is all about Islam, Koran and Allah.

It is not just about  some madcaps doing their own thing. 

I think Muslims in general should take some responsibility for the violence and destruction unleashed by their community over the centuries and still continue  to  do.  Some isolated extremist groups like the ISIS or Al Qaeda cannot be blamed for everything.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Sriram

Not sure centuries of empire-building and warfare is relevant, given empire-building and warfare was the done thing at the time all over the world. Which particular passages in the Quran do you hold responsible for Muslim invasions of India, forced conversions, the partition of India etc?

Also, I would expect that a 7th century message regulating human behaviour would need to regulate violence if it was going to be remotely useful or relevant - similarly Hindu religious books promote violence in certain circumstances. So violent passages in a religious book are not a problem. Violence is an unavoidable and ugly part of human life - that was true in 7th Century Arabia and it is true today, regardless of religion or political beliefs. Yes, some individuals can avoid violence and be pacifists but only because other individuals are prepared to fight on behalf of the pacifists.

Not sure what you mean by Islam teaching disregard for other people's beliefs. The Quran is a message that promotes monotheism and worship of an undefinable supernatural entity, and regards idol worship as incompatible with this concept so it is going to say that that the worship of idols is wrong. It wouldn't be much of a message in support of monotheism if it says a trinity or polytheism or idol worship is ok too. If that's what you mean by disregard then yes I agree the Quran teaches disregard of certain beliefs that are incompatible with beliefs promoted by the Quran. It also teaches that it is up to individuals to freely accept or reject the message of the Quran. Those who reject the message presumably disregard the beliefs about Allah's punishment for polytheism or idol worship on a Day of Judgement. So not really sure what the problem is about disregarding particular beliefs - we all disregard certain beliefs that other people hold.

Regarding Muslims taking responsibility - I am a Muslim. What would be an example of me taking responsibility for the Muslim invasions of India or the attack on London Bridge? How do you as a Hindu show you take responsibility for the murder of Gandhi by the Hindu nationalist, Nathuram Vinayak Godse? You probably already know the speech Godse gave the court during his trial:

I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. (In the Ramayana) Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. (In the Mahabharata) Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations, including the revered Bhishma, because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed the total ignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essential for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhi has merely exposed his self-conceit....

I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds in Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually, but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US