Manchester Attacks

[Cool Girl]

Hey guys, Cool Girl here bringing you another "blog talk/article" as you probably would call it. So, today, just wanted to express my thoughts and deepest condolescence on the Manchester attack that happened.

 

On May 22, 2017, an Ariana Grande concert was going on. Everyone was having a blast and the concert ended. As everyone was exiting, a loud "boom" was heard and everyone panicked and started running. 23 dead and 116 injured. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Ariana's tour was suspended and she went back to America "traumatized". Days later, she announced she was going to do a benefit concerts for the lives lost.

 

This is truly sad. Concerts are suppose to be place where you relieve the stress and you come to relax and it is ruined by panic and attacks. Artists like Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, and Shawn Mendes refused to cancel their concerts. They said that we shouldn't give in to fear.

 

I agree with them. If they were to cancel their concerts, then ISIS would have won. Regardless of what happens, we should unite and stay strong! And I disagree with the people saying that all muslims are terrorists! ISIS is a group who use their religion as an excuse to commit crimes! And if you want to debate with me on that, then I'm happy to! 'Cause I'm a Muslim and regardless of what happens, I will always believe that there are good people out there!

 

I think I ranted on long enough. Let me know your thoughts...

[Artemis]

i completely agree with this, I'm from the UK and Manchester is one of my favourite places here

It's really sickening how ISIS can target places like concerts where families and people get together to enjoy music

but the city and country has been strong 

and i love how the people of Manchester are united in such a bad time, offering whatever way to help people in trouble

whether it be by offering police cups of tea or allowing people to come charge their phones to call loved ones

the state of our world saddens me  

[Chase]

People speak of ISIS as if they are only in the terror business to instill chaos - be it to defend the integrity of other Muslims, or just to rationalize boldness.

 

Its a pretty thought, but it's also highly naive. Before ISIS, it was the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Organizations that have real goals with regards to governance. It's not just a horror show or killing for the sake of killing.

 

Superiors lie to their underlings about promises and benefits of committing destruction and death using the holy texts as justification. Out of the same reverence peaceful Muslims hold, aggressive ones affiliated with these groups go out and provide the world atrocities such as this one.

 

There's a war raging in Syria every day involving ISIS. It's not about "scaring" the rest of the earth. There's a territorial conquest factor in play. ISIS doesn't win when people bow up and respond to them.  They win when they defeat their enemies.

 

Stop telling people not to be afraid of something that is a real threat. I understand generalizing all Muslims is wrong. That's been the message out of D.C. prior to President Trump being there for eight years.

 

Peaceful Muslims are hurt the most by these groups' carnage. If rational fear sullies their reputation, they need to spend more time differentiating themselves from their "criminal" counterparts abroad. Instead of taking to the internet to complain about tolerance.

 

Its an insult to those who have lost loved ones to be told how to deal with the matter - and being the target instead of those responsible for the loss by their peers is hardly helpful.

---

 

In short - we agree that Islam is a front for ISIS, but we don't see eye to eye in how to respond to that fact.

 

[Felicity]

People speak of unity and love whenever a terror attack comes around. It evinces an insecurity as an attempt to reaffirm what should be solid, unspoken strength.

 

I first heard about the attacks and it only hit me in the same way the Paris attack did over a year ago. It was ethereal but i nodded and spared a thought for those afflicted. It took time, it was a slow burn, but now I despise this attack so much more. I'm not much of a patriot but these were my people. I hope they drop fire and thunder on the bastards.

[Maelstrom]

4 hours ago, Chase said:

Peaceful Muslims are hurt the most by these groups' carnage. If rational fear sullies their reputation, they need to spend more time differentiating themselves from their "criminal" counterparts abroad. Instead of taking to the internet to complain about tolerance.

 

Sometimes, it's simply the things a person doesn't do that differentiates themselves from others who rightfully earn blame but share a commonality with other people who do not. And that's harder to notice, for some reason. Look at the Westboro Baptist bastards. Why don't YOU do something to differentiate other catholics and christians from THEM. For all the 1.3 billion muslims in the world... unheard are the violent acts the vast majority of those people choose do not do, or even had a thought to do at all.

 

It's not so clear cut and easy. Or else you might as well give up and say christianity and conservativsm is a front for misinformation and superstition as a means of mass control of uneducated people in order to mold more people to share the same perceptions and ideas... which is indeed the typical demographic of republicans. You know, the people who would be most negatively impacted by the proposed budget cuts, etc, etc.

 

But I digress.

 

Quite frankly, it bothers me that you speak like every other muslim out there knows somebody shady, who might be a current or future terrorist. That's not the reality. While we're at it, you're in Texas right? Let's lynch up the shady folks in your area. Prove to me you're different, brother. Oh, let's knock out white supremacists while we're at it. Surely, a few of those live on your block, mate.
 

Should I make more insulting presuppositions or should I let you make some more first?

 

 

Be afraid? Man, do you know how easy it would be to commit an extremely effective act of terrorism with just a few people and do it just about anywhere? Should you be concerned about it? Yes. Fearing it doesn't help. It doesn't help you or anyone when you're too afraid to step out into the world and do your job, or simply exist. I get that you're trying to get people to become active and aware, but there's only so much you can do without joining the military or a government agency. The desire to stop and end terrorism is one thing. Simply being afraid is counterproductive.

 

Maybe there is something to your argument, though. Let's cancel everything we enjoy doing focus on the threat at hand. Pool our efforts away from entertainment, luxury, profiteering... and do something about the real world we live in. Not the stories on tv or in our games. But what can we all contribute or give up to make a difference if one doesn't have the courage or conviction to pick up a weapon and march into danger and uncertainty?

[Alphagar]

I just hope whoever is really behind it is caught. ISIS claims responsibility for everything to further their fear-mongering. May those lost R.I.P.

[FairFamily]

9 hours ago, Chase said:

If rational fear sullies their reputation, they need to spend more time differentiating themselves from their "criminal" counterparts abroad. Instead of taking to the internet to complain about tolerance.

 

They don't have to do anything except say that they not condone this type of action which they already do. They are in no way accountable for the behavior of a terrorist cell nor are they responsible for the sullying of their reputation. The notion that the fear to them is rational is just wrong, society always have had people who did heinous things , it's not exclusive to muslims. So why do they get the focus and why do they need to do more effort instead of other groups? Each of these groups have a big majority of the people being good functioning members of society that it is all they need to do. Tolerance should be a right , simple as that.

Edited May 28, 2017 by FairFamily

[Chase]

On "Tolerance is a right."

 

I'll use that defense if I ever commit an atrocity in court. If you mean it as "simple" matter of fact - everyone, from a Christian white dude who is a good person to a Christian white dude who kills people for the "sake of Christ." deserves tolerance. It's a right - and definently not contingent on right and wrong in any way possible.

 

For those that already do - Kudos. I wish I could say everyone does condemn ISIS publically.

 

On "Misconceptions with Mael involving Chase part 2: electric boogaloo + ad hominem"

 

My point was NEVER to say all Muslims hold reasonable suspicion. I even agreed with CG that ISIS isn't a solely "Islamic" institution and the first part of your quote indicates the area where Non-aggressive Muslims are the ones hurt the most by ISIS - especially in terms of unreasonable perception.

 

I also didn't say anything remotely akin to "Man, never go see Ari live in concert again" or to assume the position in your bomb shelter the rest of your life. I never made an insinuation about how one should -act- at all, in fact.

 

But if you were a Brit afraid of terror attacks being a possibility in Manchester - this terror attack would affirm those fears as COMPLETELY rational. ISIS also has proved time and again that being self assuring DOES NOT deter them or stay them in their purpose. They are still here attacking the same people that are so fearless and taking their lives.

 

I'm just going to ignore the rest of that because it doesn't hold any relevance to Cool Girl's topic.

[Eviora]

ISIS, conversion therapy, Scientology, and a thousand other evils - they are all heads of the same hydra. The body is unjustified supernatural beliefs combined with a willingness to follow them all the way to their logical conclusion, no matter where that leads. Those beliefs are all it takes to turn the devoted into monsters.

 

If you believe in a supernatural entity, and that entity appeared before you, performed a bunch of miracles to "prove" they were who they said they were, then told you to go kill people, what would you do? Obey or defy? Does conviction justify hurting people?

[Chase]

To answer your question - I personally would defy this entity. I don't want to kill anyone and the thought of having to do so eliminated a few career options for me... I wouldn't want to follow Jesus if Jesus was a tyrannical figure.

 

That being said - revelation confirms the existence of such deity - making it a justified belief and putting your hydra model in danger.

 

There are definitely more than a few ISIS agents that would argue killing is justified by the irrefutable existence of Allah (not all, I'd imagine - but some for sure.) I don't agree with them - but I can't blame their reasoning in that scenario.

 

This again isn't the point though. An atheist or agnostic painting Islam as unjustified is just as bad as a Christian doing the same. I'm certain Mael won't object to the former though. Consistency is overrated.

[Eviora]

To simplify what I said to "Islam is unjustified" is to miss the point. Every religion I've ever heard of advocates for something I'd deem "bad". The question is whether the believer prioritizes the well being of others over religious imperatives when such situations arise. I know a lot of religious people who are decent enough to find an excuse to dismiss at least the absolute worst parts of their holy texts.

 

By the way, revelation proves less than you'd think. A being capable of making you believe in the supernatural is very likely to also be capable of deceiving you. If I were a demon I'd tell people I was a god.

[Chase]

The possibility of deception is more than fair. It's there where some religious doctrines falter and fail their adherents. If you are not allowed to question, hold doubts, or seek for truth on your own there are is absolutely a risk of being led astray.

 

Radicalized doctrine - say, Crusaders of the Holy Catholic Church, Colonial Puritanism, Westboro Christianity (See Mael, I can condemn "like" others!), or ISIS-approved Islam - has a tendency to discourage self discovery and handles the common effects of doubt the wrong way.

 

This missing discovery is one reason why Crusaders, WBCers, and most relevantly Islamic terrorists are dangerous. Faith without reason can be taken advantage of by some heirophant and the results could be catastrophic.

 

As peers to one another, unity and addressing these matters head on IS important. I would argue that ISIS "wins" when we are divided and see either "all Muslims" or "Intolerant people" as the real enemy. To be afraid of terrorism is rational. It happens all over the world unfortunately - and a better way to unify people is to admit reality rather than offer platitudes about courage and berate your neighbors for their views on the situation.

 

These ARE frightening times. For the sake of rationality though - go see Ariana's benefit concert. Or to that ballgame. Not because terrorism isn't possible, or that we can beat ISIS with steeled hearts and unity, but because life goes on and you shouldn't spend it hiding underneath your bed.

[Abyssreaper99]

The aftermath of these terror attacks is just as sad as the loss of life during the attack sometimes. I feel for the relatives and friends of those who have died during the attack. Me and some friends held a few minutes silence in the library as the school couldn't hold it due to year 11 GCSEs. I felt that some of the media were very disrespectful towards the incident, with one newspaper focusing on slandering a political party rather than gathering accurate information about the bombing and delivering it in a sensitive way. 

 

It's also saddening how these terror attacks are causing hatred towards Muslims when it's a minority that have radicalised the religion as a tool to hate against the Western world. It annoys me how the public aren't working with Muslim communities as much as they should to help them feel integrated within society, this may prevent radicalisation of Muslims who feel that ISIS ideals are correct because of prejudice received from white people and those in other religions. However, I also note there are some people joining ISIS just for the "lolz". The media never reports any condemnation of ISIS from people within the Islamic community, which is not allowing some people to see that most Muslims oppose what is going on.

 

Yes, it was heartwarming that the taxi drivers turned off their charging meters for the night as well as that one bloke who came to Manchester to take people around even though he had work the next day. However, the acts that followed later are unforgivable and the actions are not acceptable. I hate how innocent people were affected because of a terror group that uses their religion as a scapegoat to justify their shitty acts. Why can't people accept that most Muslims do not condone ISIS's actions just like many of the Irish did not condone what was going on with the IRA?

[IntSys]

I am saying the following as an outsider. Take it with a grain of salt, if you will. On top of that, I did type all this an hour before bed, at my peak sleepiness, so yeah.

 

The Manchester attacks were horrible, just as horrible as every single one that had come before it. One would imagine that the frequency of such problems would only lower as everyone would start to learn how to deal with it. One would also imagine that it had also been enough time to see whether a policy was correct or not. After all, it has been over two years since the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Evidently and unfortunately, that's not the case at all. Perhaps the only case of "success" would be Hungary, who took an incredibly defensive position as well as a controversial one. However, that's not the success others want. They want the success to be a win-win, one that protects the modern values of human rights.

And so, here we are, countries struggling to decide whether to go on the longer, harder path that protects the noble values, or the shorter, easier path that simply shields themselves from the crisis as they 'wait out the storm.'

From what I can see, the problem is that the countries that want to go down the longer path is unable to dedicate themselves fully to it. Refugees and non-refugees suffer from the indecisiveness together, as refugees struggle to stand up in a poor work environment and thus creating social unrest, and non-refugees falling victim to the said unrest.

But wait, are ISIS operations directly caused by the refugee crisis?

Where does ISIS come into play, anyway? It's clear that the suicide bombers in the many terrorist attacks and the people who contributed to the rising crime rate are different groups of people, with the former being of ISIS, and the latter being of refugees. After all, refugees escaped to Europe to live, not to die. It doesn't matter whether there are refugees or not. ISIS doesn't need the guise to get its suicide bombers into Europe. The guise of tourism works just as well, if not, even more effective. We should treat the overall social unrest and the major terrorist attacks separately, as they don't necessarily connect with each other.

Though, in that case, why wasn't Hungary attacked? To tell the truth, I don't really know. It might be just that it's not their "turn" yet, and that attacking Hungary would have little to no effect in their campaign. ISIS made it clear that no cities were safe, so we can at least be sure that while the Hungarian policy on refugees did manage to lower social unrest, it is unable to truly prevent terrorism. Then again, there isn't a country that has successfully prevented terrorism so far, and that's a whole different issue to solve.

 

To sum it all up, two things:
1) The countries in Europe should make up their mind on whether to do their best to assist the refugees in their integration, or just push them aside and let the ones who really have the heart to do so take care of them.
2) Refugee issues are independent from ISIS operations, and they should be solved separately.


p.s. Note that I've only said refugees, not Muslims. It should go without saying that the Muslims that were already there before the whole crisis has nothing to do with this whole ordeal. It should also go without saying that the fact that they're refugees - people in dire need of asylum - is much more important than the fact that they're Muslims.

[Chase]

The reason Islam matters when considering the motive of Islamic terror groups is because it's incredibly naive - again - to ONLY assume it's a front used to distract people or a means of enticing recruits.

 

It also matters because in the last 20 years - if one says "terrorist organization" - the names Al Queda, Taliban, Hezbollah, and ISIS are the first pronouns to come to mind. In the current day - the most recognizable terror groups claim some connection to Islam.

 

That, regardless of the PC culture that tries to shove it under the rug, is unavoidable fact. YES it's unfortunate. YES it has brought widespread Islamophobia and it is unjustly damaging the rapport of adherents of a major world religion. NO, I don't think most Muslims endorse these groups.

 

but all the same, the notoriety is there. It deserves the attention of theologians and investigators just as much as the possible ulterior motives these groups have.

 

---

 

I have MANY Muslim friends - of whom I've shared and have been lucky to have been shared with theological points. Just because I am leaving the door open and choosing to scrutinize the big picture does not mean every Muslim is involved in some global conspiracy and should be patronized and discriminated against.

 

However - I am not mourning living Muslims. I'm mourning dead Manchester citizens and tourists who just wanted to see Ariana Grande perform live. How much longer is the blood we see on the news just an image on a screen?

[Maelstrom]

On 5/28/2017 at 0:11 PM, Chase said:

To answer your question - I personally would defy this entity. I don't want to kill anyone and the thought of having to do so eliminated a few career options for me... I wouldn't want to follow Jesus if Jesus was a tyrannical figure.

 

That being said - revelation confirms the existence of such deity - making it a justified belief and putting your hydra model in danger.

 

There are definitely more than a few ISIS agents that would argue killing is justified by the irrefutable existence of Allah (not all, I'd imagine - but some for sure.) I don't agree with them - but I can't blame their reasoning in that scenario.

 

This again isn't the point though. An atheist or agnostic painting Islam as unjustified is just as bad as a Christian doing the same. I'm certain Mael won't object to the former though. Consistency is overrated.

 

that being said, a dude in a book written by another dude is proof... that someone wrote a book.

 

I'm curious as to where you define your limitations of disbelief.

 

I mean, you look at these sorts of things and the bible and say.... yeah, nothing in the bible is questionable because nothing should be questioned because if one thing is obviously and demonstrably wrong, then everything becomes questionable and becomes fallible. One common example.

 

I know you're not really your own person. A selective interpretation of the book colors your entire outlook on life, and a certain 'news' channel colors your outlook on 'facts'.

 

While you can say that nowadays, the actions of the current church are improved over the old church... I maintain that their true goal is one of control, which includes a rigid exclusion of outside ideas.

 

 

It isn't that I think you intend for your ideas to be bad... you just haven't thought it through and understood WHY they are bad, because that involves scrutinizing the organizations you believe in and actually following thoughts to their conclusion.

I can't begin to explain to you how much of the conservative agenda is to block other groups from doing what they themselves do. Indoctrination at early ages, irrational refutation of outside ideas, and methods and strategies used to make sure you look at things the way they want you to, and no other way.

 

When they complain of a 'war against christmas' and other issues, they complain of sociological and mental tactics that the church has notoriously used in the past to spread its reach, influence and power. When you look at the church and their complaints, and what comes to mind first, is the way they are able to recognize their own historical techniques. Holy wars, censorship, selective information, campaigns to change the perspective of the general public towards certain issues and ideas. The church is a pro at manipulating people and opinions, and it's no surprise when they project their own goals and ideas onto people who disagree.

 

 

Quite frankly, the American church and republican party are corrupt. And it's been painfully obvious for a long time now.

The vast majority of Republicans still support Trump... or refuse to act against him because doing so would end the political clout they hold as majority party... they would rather wield political power to their own ends than honestly condemn someone unfit for office by their own standards.

I enjoy this whole video, but you should probably just skip to 6:47 for the relevant bits.

Spoiler

 

 

I kinda googled up something, and I want to ask you to look into your bible and confirm or deny whether this is in there or not. I'm genuinely curious and somewhat skeptical, but if this is there... I'll have to ask to look back again to your answer to Eviora's question.
 

Spoiler

Deuteronomy 17

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

 

 

[Chase]

Yes, the charge that one should stone a person who had served another god is in Dueteronomy - among many other various instructions that have no place in the church today.

 

• Dueteronomy was primarily Jewish doctrine that predated Jesus - who is responsible for making the current accord with God. The Messianic covenant and the Mosaic covenant reached by Moses are not one in the same, and as covenants are changed so are the manner in which believers practice their faith. See: Jesus and the Adulteress. The man himself doesn't have the greatest track record of stoning those the law would have stoned.

If you -want- to talk about Moses though, he's quite contradictory even without the covenants shifting. See: Thou shall not kill being one of the Ten Commandments.

 

This thread has nothing to do with the GOP or with Hunter and how he chooses to believe things. This is an entertaining discussion - one that you, Evi, and I have had numerous times before - but it's long been not appropriate here.

 

I am not a pre-1st century Jew, and God has done a lot since Dueteronomy was penned. But, my not killing has me well within the law anyway.

 

"Some of these laws only exist because Humans choose to be assholes" - Jesus.

 

 

[Eviora]

Discussion of religious imperatives and how far one should go to follow them seems very relevant here, as it is quite likely that, thanks to religious beliefs, many of the terrorists who are part of ISIS legitimately believe they are doing the right thing. Within the context of their particularly harmful brands of Islam, their actions probably seem quite necessary. Sad to say, but indoctrination is more than capable of making well-intentioned people do monstrous things.

 

1 hour ago, Chase said:

"Some of these laws only exist because Humans choose to be assholes" - Jesus.

 

 

Can you provide me with the verse where Jesus says this? I'm quite interested to read it in context. Of course, that's assuming that this surprisingly modern quote really is in the Bible and not just a crude paraphrasing of Christian apologetics.

 

In turn, let me offer a Biblical quote of my own. One that really is said by Jesus, according to the text.

 

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

[Chase]

Thank you for not generalizing me as a part of some cult Evi.

 

I am trying my best to keep the focus in the ballpark of Manchester and terror perhaps too stringently - and Mael seems to avoid that in favor of trying to determine what I personally am beholden to - which is why I have tried to be cautious with thread direction.

 

The context of which the essential jist (It is a crude paraphrasing - of something Jesus said) is found in Matthew 19, where Jewish religious leaders are questioning Jesus as to why he believes divorce is not lawful when Moses commanded it be so.

 

He responds with the following:

 

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

 

He then asserts that divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality is adulterous if the man were to remarry.

 

Paired with Jesus' blatant disregard for tradition regarding the Sabbath, regarding executing those as the law commands, and so on and so forth, it's safe to glean this from Jesus in other aspects of the Torah as well.

 

Essentially, human depravity made opting out of a marriage a necessity.

 

Now your verse is very interesting. It follows Jesus saying that his presence isn't to replace the law but to fulfill it.

 

If we assume Jesus is who he claims he is and is truly the only human without sin. He is the only human TODAY who has fulfilled the law.

 

This is extremely significant because Jesus pays the price for the inability of EVERYONE else to fulfill the law through the Crucifixion. People who claim Jesus as their savior and believe him to be the lord of their life effectively put Jesus on trial for their transgressions in their stead. Because Jesus was a lawful man whose purpose it was to save humanity from inevitability - the ransom is an acceptable trade.

 

In short, there's only one person who can live up to the Law's standards. Jesus didn't come to make the law redundant - he came to be the lawful human other humans would not be able to be from birth to death. This allows for the law to be important - but also serves to magnify Jesus' importance and existence.

 

One can choose to forgo Jesus - but then the law still fully applies. Only then - it applies to you and not Jesus. That generally isn't great odds.