OT Gunshots Fired Outside Houses of Parliament in London

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

What do we have now? Twenty people down or so?
As I understand it, no guns were used except by the police.
The assailant(s) used knives and vehicles to mangle people.
 
What do we have now? Twenty people down or so?
As I understand it, no guns were used except by the police.
The assailant(s) used knives and vehicles to mangle people.
Get bigger knives.
 
As with the WH intruder this guy was Asian. Connection?
 
Terrible for those innocent victims of stupid rage....nothing but waste ...pointless lunacy
 
If Brits were a free people, the perpetrator would likely have been shot and stopped on the bridge by an armed citizen, preventing the further injuries and ensuing threat to Parliament members.
 
Not waste, not a nut and he sure doesn't appear Asian.
Seem like another son of Islam answering the call to Jihad.

Screen-Shot-2017-03-22-at-1.58.32-PM-400x267.png


http://pamelageller.com/2017/03/fir...officer-dies-dead-catastrophic-injuries.html/
 
If random violence is justified by a religion, that religion is terribly wrong. Such acts are not sane or normal.

Common sense suggests that a person who is thinking straight would never choose to kill or hurt dozens of random strangers.

If a religion teaches random violence against those that have different beliefs, that religion is evil, sinful, and unholy.
 
If random violence is justified by a religion, that religion is terribly wrong. Such acts are not sane or normal.

Common sense suggests that a person who is thinking straight would never choose to kill or hurt dozens of random strangers.

If a religion teaches random violence against those that have different beliefs, that religion is evil, sinful, and unholy.
on the other hand if a fundamentalist nutjob uses violence while hiding behind medieval religious fanaticism...it's the nutjob, not the religion that practices violence. Islam is not a religion of violence....old interpretations of it are from paternal attitudes that go back a thousand years...
 
on the other hand if a fundamentalist nutjob uses violence while hiding behind medieval religious fanaticism...it's the nutjob, not the religion that practices violence. Islam is not a religion of violence....old interpretations of it are from paternal attitudes that go back a thousand years...

Just one example from the Quran, there are over 100 I could quote.

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is in a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield.
 
on the other hand if a fundamentalist nutjob uses violence while hiding behind medieval religious fanaticism...it's the nutjob, not the religion that practices violence. Islam is not a religion of violence....old interpretations of it are from paternal attitudes that go back a thousand years...
i agree. much like Christianity was used as an excuse for the crusades but if you read the bible in full you'll see god does not command anyone to commit violence now that the redeemer as redeemed. many Muslims interpret jihad as a personal growth. attack the negative aspects of your life and conquering them internally. you could relate it to a christian trying to be more "Christ like." the internal war on sin as paul describes in the book of romans. the problems arent with the religions, the problems are from lunatics miss representing the religions and creating a cult following of easily manipulated people. most churches in america for instance subscribe to a formula of emotionally charged song service, followed buy a public offering, using peer pressure to get donations, topped off with an ego stroking feel good message. none of the ritual is commanded in the actual bible. it's just a bunch of manipulative ass holes making money off peoples natural want to be spiritual. Unfortunately people are lazy and would rather follow a persons teachings than reading their holy book themselves.
 
Asians can be and are muslims. I mean come on!
Very good sir. I have spoke with several and can verify your assertion.
But that does not alter the assessment. He does not appear to be Asian except in the sense that everything east of the Bosphorus and south of Urals is sometimes considered
Asia, in a minor way.
 
on the other hand if a fundamentalist nutjob uses violence while hiding behind medieval religious fanaticism...it's the nutjob, not the religion that practices violence. Islam is not a religion of violence....old interpretations of it are from paternal attitudes that go back a thousand years...

The primary distinction here is that there are significant numbers of Islamic fundamentalists teaching that jihad against the infidels is commanded by the Quran. You don't find similar teaching by any mainstream Christian church. A 2013 Pew study found that most Muslims did not endorse violence as a means of defending Islam, but the results were dramatically different in various regions around the globe:

40895893bf.jpg

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

When you have millions of believers supporting violence, unscrupulous leaders willing to exploit those believers, and an Internet to spread the hate and radicalize people around the globe, you have a situation that's totally different than the occasional "Christian" nutjob going off on some crazy shooting spree.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top