To think that Islamic state will cause world war 3

[ReallyTired]

I feel terrified for the future. I believe that the world will reach a point where there will be outright war to stop Islamic state. In the meantime Russia will annexe the Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe.

I am scared that Islamic state will get hold of atomic weapons. There are Muslim extremists with the intelligence to make a nuclear bomb. There are Muslim countries with uranium deposits.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#/media/File:Uranium_production_world.PNG

I'm not sure what you mean by WW3 being likely to break out ? What form would this war take? Do you suppose ISIS and their associated lunatic groups would get sufficient backing to be in a position to take us and our allies on in an all out war? Also what's Russia and Ukraine go to do with it? Are Russia going to announce war with the west over Ukraine?

Ottoman Empire, empire created by Turkish tribes in Anatolia. One of the most powerful states in the world during the 15th and 16th centuries, it spanned more than 600 years and came to an end only in 1922, when it was replaced by the Turkish Republic and various successor states in southeastern Europe and the Middle East. At its height the empire included most of southeastern Europe to the gates of Vienna, including modern Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Romania, Greece, and Ukraine; Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Egypt; North Africa as far west as Algeria; and most of the Arabian Peninsula. The term Ottoman is a dynastic appellation derived from Osman (Arabic: ?Uthm?n), the nomadic Turkmen chief who founded both the dynasty and the empire

part of me does concede that we're only having done to us what we did to others 200 years ago

You are aware that we have all sort of done it to each other over the centuries since as long back as we go, the first crusades .

Gobbolin forgive me for being so dim, but your point is what exactly?

Sheba, you might not have noticed but most people in Britain don't own natural resources. Nor do most of those in Pakistan or Yemen. In common with most places their natural resources are owned by rich people. And they're no good to the people who've apparently 'stolen' them if the countries they are in are in such a state of chaos nobody could exploit them anyway.

It's the chicken and the egg, are these countries poor because they are violent, chaotic and unattractive for investment. Or are they violent and chaotic because they are poor? It's probably a combination of both, but there are poor countries which are not orgies of sadistic violence, terrorism, kidnap and crime. As someone pointed out parts of subsaharan Africa are much poorer but less violent and dangerous.

But, you know, the general left wing view point is all bad things in the world are the result of the actions of white people, all non-white people are powerless and cannot do anything about this but they will not commit any harm themselves and are merely oppressed. Which is normally very convenient for white middle class lefties because it ignores the fact that unlike them swathes of poor white people are powerless. I honestly believe left wing ideology is one of the most racist of all as it banishes all non-white western people to a role of powerless subjugated victim from which they will never be allowed to escape, never be allowed to take responsibility for themselves and never allowed to improve their lot. Because no matter how chaotic, violent or sadistic their countries become they will always have a crowd of lefties standing next to them telling them it's not their fault and it's always somebody elses fault if they chop off someones head, or burn them to death, or crush someone to death or push them off a building. Someone always made them do it...

I agree that liberalism and even feminism have been hi jacked by the white middle class. But are you saying there's something inherent in Islam that leads to radicalisation, violence and political turmoil? I'm not trying to trap you into making a racist remark but I would like to know where you feel the fault lies?

I am not trying to trap you into making a racist remark

And there it is.

Why would she make a racist remark in a conversation that is about religion, not race?

And speaking for myself, I do think there is indeed something inherent within the doctrines of Islam that leads to radicalisation, violence and political turmoil.

That's the point.

I was just trying to be courteous and show you I had no ulterior motive than to hear your views on this subject.

What something would that be. In relation to the current situation / the rise of Isis, for example?

Trying to be courteous or not, you demonstrated that you do think this is a race issue. It isn't.

That "something" is the doctrines themselves. The words of Allah within the Koran, the example of Mohammed who makes ISIS look like a meeting of the WI.

You are familiar with the "holy books" and what they say? The life that Mohammed led? Yes?

But are you saying there's something inherent in Islam that leads to radicalisation, violence and political turmoil?

Yes for those that take large parts of it literally, which is an increasing number of people.

Islam has never been just another religion that deals with purely spiritual matters. It has always proclaimed itself as being a complete way of life and contains edicts for political, economic, social, personal and judicial structures.

The political turmoil and violence are as a result of some muslims wishing to live wholesale under Islamic theocratic codes and to fulfil their mandate of converting the rest of the world also to such rule.

Jihad is not just an internal spiritual struggle, but also a duty involving armed offensives to expand Islams realm. Hence increasing numbers of Western youth leaving to join the Caliphate.

Gobbolin forgive me for being so dim, but your point is what exactly?

Reference to the British Empire, we are not the only ones who have done it.

But, you know, the general left wing view point is all bad things in the world are the result of the actions of white people, all non-white people are powerless and cannot do anything about this but they will not commit any harm themselves and are merely oppressed. Which is normally very convenient for white middle class lefties because it ignores the fact that unlike them swathes of poor white people are powerless.

I disagree with you entirely, the general left wing view point if there is such a thing is that the world is unequal, the level of inequality is directly correlated to the levels of happiness and corresponding measures of well-being in any given society. you are making a very simplistic argument that the left says four legs good, two legs bad. That is untrue and I see no evidence.
Middle class white guilt is a different thing entirely and thankfully something I can't and don't suffer from.

Are you actually saying that there is something in the water in the middle east that makes people there violent? cos subsaharan Africa is full of Muslims too.

I think if you're looking back historically a religion that has it's roots in armed fighting is going to have a tendency towards violence. It also has other factors which predispose it to conflict such as a much more rigid inflexible view of itself which is less open to interpretation. Also the fact that it does not tend to have strong authoritative power structures which can resolve conflict and suppress more radical elements in the way other religions with more defined power structures do.

I think perhaps at some point in the future with a lot of reforming it could be a lot more of a positive force in the world. But there is so much resistance to that, lack of support for that, whilst there is little vocal resistance to radicalism and a lot of support for it, there doesn't seem to be much realistic prospect of it moving in that direction at the moment.

CaffeLatte it seems I'm as disgusting at the family of the Chapel Hill victims:
Link here
Furthermore, there's been a lot of wider discussion about what constitutes what acts of violence get described as terrorism for instance [http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/chapel-hill-shooting-western-media-bigotry-150211083909613.html here]].
So don't be disingenuous and pretend you think it's exclusively my view.

Second link:
Here

I agree with you moan.

I don't think Muslim countries or people are the problem. Most modern wars seem to be caused by the west and its greed and imperialism.

Slaggy

Why does what the family think make a difference? You are not the family and you have no access to information regarding this case other that what the police have said. They have investigated and have decided that this was a parking dispute.

As I said, if you have reason to believe different, contact the Grand Jury.

Your "point" was that if this had been a Muslim killing three white people it would have automatically been considered "terrorism".

No, it wouldn't. But it may well have been suspected initially. And if you don't know why, read the newspapers a bit more often.

Although, I meant to add that I do agree in some sense, Slaggy that if a Muslim had killed three white Christians (or any whites, actually) there would have been a far greater uproar.

Racism is alive and kicking. That can't be denied.

Slaggy, it's not bloody rocket science. Terrorism is violence which is perpetrated with the express intention of furthering an ideology.

It appears that the man in Chapel Hill probably killed them over some type of neighbourhood dispute over parking and noise.

I'm rather puzzled by those articles you've posted links to, because they seem to be very angry about the religion of people who commit acts like Charlie Hebdo being pointed out, even though the people committing the acts identified themselves as Muslims and their motives as driven by Islam. But when Muslim's are victims they are very definite that it must be loudly pointed out that they are Muslim victims even if it's extremely doubtful if that played a role in the crime. I'm dubious about anybody who would claim that a particular characteristic should only be pointed out if it's in a positive context. That way lies a very dangerous sort of propaganda indeed.

Comparing the Charlie Hebdo murders to Chapel Hill is a false comparison. A more accurate comparison would be the Anders Brevik, Timothy McVeigh or David Copeland cases. If we had denied those were terrorist acts or played down the white supremacist aims, then possibly there might be some sort of sense or logic in claiming that Muslim links to terror were highlighted in a way the aims of white terrorists weren't, or that we denied the label of terrorist for similar acts committed by white people.

We don't do that of course. Nor do we praise people like the BNP or EDL for holding 'moderate' versions oftheir ideology either, which suggests a great deal more sympathy and understanding for those whose views tend towards Muslim extremists than white supremacists. Which always confuses me as they seem to be two sides of the same coin.

Incidentally I saw some extremely distrbing racism towards white people in the wake of Chapel Hill, will try to link.

in which case colonialism, imperialism, missionary activity etc should all be seen as terrorism right?

Caffe, really do you think so? I have been horrified how muted the response to Rotherham was. If they were another race attacked by white men there would have been far more outcry. Look at the London riots, that was one man being shot and questionable police behaviour in one incident.

In Rotherham it was thousands of girls over decades, yet if locals protest they are branded 'racist'. More people mobilised to protest about Nigel Farage cutting a ribbon there last week than have mobilized to protest about the industrial scale sexual abuse of girls over 2 decades.

Some types of colonalism and imperialism could certainly be seen as terrorism, particularly things like Belgian atrocities in the Congo. The threat of violence to intimidate the colonised, yes definitely. Economic colonialism which suceeded more through locals cooperating for profit less so as the violent aspect is needed to make it terrorism. Ditto missionaries, I'm not aware of recent missionaries converting via violence, that's the stuff of the Crusades and Middle Ages.

Even slavery was cooperated with by African's who captured andsold other African's, so whilst yes, certainly terror, not necessarily just on the part of colonial incomers. Incidentally the African slave networks were set up originally by, er, Muslims. Muslim slaving far preceded that done by the west and has been supressed much less effectively too...

Also a lot of "atheistophobia" (invented word) in the wake of Chapel Hill.

"See what happens when you don't believe in God!"

Pillocks.

Moan

I was talking more about the American media with regard to Chapel Hill. There is some truth (I think) in the suggestion that people weren't as shocked and outraged as they would have been if it had been whites being killed.

And, yes, I take your point re Rotherham. You're right.

But we can't deny that there isn't racism aimed squarely at Muslims in this country...just as there is aimed at black people, Jewish people etc. People are subjected to hate crimes by others who think that skin colour or ethnicity tells them all they need to know about someone.

My issue is that the term "racist" is frequently and habitually misused when discussing Islam. For all the reasons I've already given.

I would never try to suggest that Muslims aren't sometimes the victims of racial or religious hatred.

Excellent point about "moderate" EDL members.

I've said the same thing (ish).

That we even have to use the word "moderate" when discussing sensible, peaceful Muslims should tell us all we need to know about Islam.

A genuine religion of peace would not need anyone to be "moderate".