Naivity that makes you sick
 

Not to mention that it could kill you. Sometimes I see a naivity beyond a level of absurdity in something that it just leaves me speechless.

Yeah. Their mommies didn't love them, I'm sure.

In this same week this Anglican suicide-fool above has voiced his genious thoughts, the Vatican made naother step to distance itself from Isalam after the self-deceptions of the last 40 years and concluded that turkey by no means is ready to join european communities. Since February, four Catholic priests have been stabbed and killed on Turkish streets.

Is that a promise ? :up:

:p

Nice one Drebbel :rotfl:

:lol:

What a surprise: Jihadwatch manages to take something said by an Anglican ArchBishop and completely distort it to use as a punching bag for their ideology hatred and intolerance of Islam. And Skyrider then posts it verbatim as though the Jihadwatch spin resembles at all the article they cite.

Point #1: "Dr John Sentamu said it was not enough to rely on the security services and tough laws to combat the killers."

And it isn't. And this should be common sense to anyone, and counter-terrorism experts have even said as much themselves. If extremists want to kill you badly enough they will find a way, and 9/11 and the thousands of terror attacks before and after are proof of this.

Point #2: "During his presidential address to the General Synod of the Church of England, he said the country needed to "out-imagine, out-plan and out-think" would-be bombers."

In other words, its time to think outside the box because what we've been doing so far hasn't stemmed the tide of terrorism, it didn't stop 9/11, the Madrid bombing, or the 7/7 attack, or almost the daily attacks in Iraq and in Israel.

Point #3: "Speaking at the University of York, the archbishop said flourishing, safe, clean and generous neighbourhoods need to be created."

I don't know if or how much this will help, but it is an idea that hasn't been tried and is worthy of at least some further thought if nothing else, rather than being dismissed outright.

Point #4: "And he said the grievances which would-be bombers use as a reason to kill must be addressed."

This thinking is very much outside the box, because the current attitude is that these people kill simply because they hate, and that if we can kill them in return then terrorism will end. This is the paradox that counter-terrorism professionals face, and while it may be necessary to kill them to prevent an attack, or future attacks, it does nothing to combat the underlying forces that lead to radicalization. It simply puts a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Final point: "Offering a vision of wholeness in a compelling and imaginative way that is so persuasive that would-be bombers would come to see this as their own vision."

Here he is not talking about the Jihadis who are about to strap on the suicide belt, he is talking about those Muslims who are suseptible to the Osama Bin Ladens, who are so good at inspiring them by giving them "a vision which tragically is used solely for evil ends".

In other words, the Arch Bishop says they need to be reached before they cross the line seperating the ordinary Muslims from the Jihadists. He believes the way to do this is to really integrate them, the ordinary Muslims, into our society where they will be more likely to adopt our values, which don't include suicide bombing, than toss them into ghettos as is the norm in much of Europe, and discriminate against them based upon their religion, and otherwise treating them as second class citizens and outsiders who are then left to become the prey of those who preach extremism.

Now maybe none of you agree with the solution he offers, but in any case its a far cry from the spin made by Jihadwatch, which has once again distorted something to make it into a target for their endless spew of hatred, derision, and intolerance.

Skybird, how quick you are to attack someone who offers solutions without even stating what, it is you disagree with and why. Not to mention the fact that the Arch Bishop you are attacking is at least offering solutions to be thought about and discussed, which is a hell of a lot more than you do around here given that you have no solutions of your own - just more of the same bull**** from you: hatred, intolerance, distortion, and hysteria. You are endless fountain of that.

So ein Quatsch. :lol:

If you're talking about the crap from Jihadwatch, then I agree. Why not try something novel and show us how you would solve the problem? Because you are all hat and no cattle, that's why.

I leave the outhinking of Islam and the rewriting of it's teachings to clever smart minds like you. When Islam is done with you, doing so will have prooven to be the shortest way to get rid of you. ;) Your queer quoting above already was a good start. :up:

Ah, and come to Germany occasionally. Just to see that your smart suggestions alraedy have tried here. And failed.

Uh huh. This is precisely the hysteria I refer to Skybird. There is no threat to me from Islam. Period. There is a very remote chance that I may become the victim of a terrorist attack, with a Muslim as its perpetrator, but it is far more likely I will die instead of any of the following:

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Respiratory disease
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7. Influenza and Pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's
9. Kidney disease
10. Septicemia
11. Suicide
12. Liver disease
13. Hypertension
14. Homicide

But those are only facts, and why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good hysterical rant?

.....

Point taken Skybird. How silly of me to dismiss it so completely in light of the 14 major threats (in order) in this part of the world:

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Respiratory disease
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7. Influenza and Pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's
9. Kidney disease
10. Septicemia
11. Suicide
12. Liver disease
13. Hypertension
14. Homicide

Better to fear that which doesn't even make the list than to deal with those things that are killing millions of us here in the Canada and the US every year.

What is interesting to me is how many of those causes of death at the top are largely, or entirely, the product of our own Western lifestyle. The #1 cause, for instance, Heart Disease, is linked directly to our dietary habits, stressful lifestyles, and rampant obesity; #2, Cancer, has also been linked to environmental byproducts of our Western society such as various pollutants, food additives, insecticides, and health hazards in the work place.

But why shed a thought to those tangible aspects of our own society that kill millions of us every year when we can instead worry about another culture's religion which doesn't even make the list?

I suppose because the Heart Disease that is the #1 killer isn't so sensational and because having a war on it would entail some discomfort in modifying one's dietary and lifestyle habits, while the boogeyman that is Islam requires only that you exercise the hatred and intolerance that comes so naturally to some people anyway.

So if more people die from these things than from Islamic based terrorism, that means the latter is negligible?

I live in Israel. I'm not going to bother looking up what here kills more people, simply because it makes no difference.

Indeed sickening naivety.

Too silly.

He is putting the responsability on the hands of the Europeans, as if their lack of love is the cause of extremism.

Sure, the mere thought of Muslims being responsable for their own actions and choices is a scandal.

Great humanitarians scare me. Pessimists don't offer a colorful rainbow on the horizon but they don't kill or lead to any deaths either.

I hadn't said that, you tell me.

Really? Let's look at where I live then, Canada, where there hasn't been a domestic terrorist attack in decades. Now pretend you're the government, whose job it is after all to provide for the education, health, safety, and security of the people and to do that you have a budget of say $100 million dollars.

Since "it makes no difference" how we attribute our resources, why not spend the bulk of the money reassigning law enforcement to counter-terrorism, hardening possible terrorist targets, manning our vast border, logging and tracking all domestic and electronic communications, and putting into place a vast surveillance network?

It matters because resources are finite, and every resource you allocate to one task is a resource that isn't being put to use on something else. Civil liberties aside, I would be horrified if my country took the funding that is put into say healthcare and squandered it on the creation of a Big Brother style surveillance network to combat a threat that is non-existant only to end up neglecting those getting sick and dying of those things that are actually killing people here.

Islamic terrorism is a threat, sure, but it needs to be met in manner that is both responsible and proportional, and in a manner that also combats the roots of the problem rather than just its symptoms.

No Avon, naivety is becoming hysterical over the sensational items that hit the front page, having no clue at all about the illness of which they are only a symptom, having no solutions at all as to how to deal with them or their causes, and all the while ignoring the more mundane but far more lethal causes of death that are the true epidemics.

I assume you mean the Arch Bishop, and he isn't saying this, you are. What he is saying is the if you treat Muslims as second class citizens, segregate them into ghettos, and interact and regard the lot of them as though they were part of a terrorist sleeper cell, would you expect them to then adopt Western culture and values anyway when they've already been rejected by this culture? I wouldn't, and the Arch Bishop doesn't either.

From that he then asserts that, having been denied the reason and opportunity to internalize the values of the host country - the very values that would prevent them from ever strapping on a suicide belt - they become prey for the ideologues.

However you read that and conclude that the Arch Bishop is saying that the Muslims shouldn't take any responsibility for their actions. I read the same article and didn't see him state that anywhere. What I did read, though, was that Europeans should take responsibility for their own actions rather than believing as some of them do that you can treat people like **** because of their religion or ethnicity, consign them to squalor, deny them the opportunities you allow everyone else, and then expect them to treat you with love when you've only shown them contempt.