Meanwhile yesterday there was that triplet of terror-murders in Tunisia and Kuwait and France.
In a matter of hours and on three different continents, militants carried out attacks on Friday that killed scores of civilians, horrified populations and raised thorny questions about the evolving nature of international terrorism and what can be done to fight it.
On the surface, the attacks appeared to be linked only by timing.
In France, a man stormed an American-owned chemical plant, decapitated one person and apparently tried to blow up the facility. In Tunisia, a gunman drew an assault rifle from a beach umbrella and killed at least 38 people at a seaside resort. And in Kuwait, a suicide bomber blew himself up inside a mosque during communal prayers, killing at least 25 Shiite worshipers.
I dispute the three continents claim. Eurasia is one continent, not two.
Earlier this week, the spokesman for the Islamic State, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, greeted the group’s followers for Ramadan, telling them that acts during the Muslim holy month earned greater rewards in heaven.
“Muslims, embark and hasten toward jihad,” Mr. Adnani said in an audio message. “O mujahedeen everywhere, rush and go to make Ramadan a month of disasters for the infidels.”
In other words go out and murder as many people as you can because it’s holy month.
Hellooooooo, religion of peace!!
Misogyny and murder.
Repeating my comments from the hijab thread:
“I see the hijab as a continuum with what has happened today around the world… the horrific murders in France, Tunisia, Kuwait and Somalia (not to mention Syria). The hijab is Islam’s Confederate flag.”
“All religions are bad but Islam is especially oppressive.
[Islamism is] “…the most vicious ideology on Earth since the demise of Naziism and Stalinism.“
[Edit – this is that video of a man being thrown off a roof, so don’t click if you don’t want to see that again. I decided I didn’t after a few frames. OB]
And, in honor of yesterday’s US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage…
http://sendvid.com/nnp1nt2m
(Warning: graphic images)
… the most vicious ideology on Earth since the demise of Naziism and Stalinism.“
“…greater rewards in heaven.”
What even more virgins?
Have courage Kuffars the jihadis are only “a tiny minority of extremists”—with automatic weapons, high explosives, the capacity to attack anywhere, anytime and Allah only knows, how many active supporters within the Muslim community. Nothing to do with Islam of course.
It’s going to fascinating, if somewhat nauseating, to see how the usual clique of multi-culti, useful idiot apologists ‘explain” how these latest atrocities are the fault of Western society.
rjw1, that is just stupid. The idea that the West attacking the middle-east has no involvement in these and previous atrocities is magical thinking. Do you think IS would exist if the U.S. didn’t invade Iraq? It was setup by Bathists who were given the sack by the U.S. Viceroy so put their skills to work, using religion as the glue. But no, it’s just religion here, we can bomb the shit out of people, kill 100s of thousands, use drones daily, killing indiscriminately, but they have no reason to flock to extremists groups, no sir except for religion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html
rjw didn’t say “the West” had nothing to do with it, and it’s equally fatuous to say religion has nothing to do with it.
@rjw1
As you predicted.
@5 Brian E
“The idea that the West attacking the middle-east has no involvement in these and previous atrocities is magical thinking.”
Straw man.
As Ophelia has indicated, I didn’t make that assertion, I don’t think it’s necessary every time I comment to preface it with a condemnation of Western, particularly US policy in the ME.
It’s equally arrogant and patronising to assume that Muslims are simply responding to Western aggression, the jihad and terrorism have been intrinsic to Islamic ideology for 1400 years. The religion was invented by a bandit leader and his followers.
Helene,
Yes, (sigh).
@rjw1
It seems that Muslims never have any agency. (Except, maybe, when they are making “feminist” statements by wearing the hijab!) Rape, terrorsim and theocratic thuggery? Cherchez les Occidentaux!
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1006337992717995/?l=0f584070cc
Stewart @10
Peace? “Pacifism”?
What rjw1 said @8 : “…jihad and terrorism have been intrinsic to Islamic ideology for 1400 years“
@ Helene #11:
Of course. But the existence of many Muslims who do not engage in violence and cherry-pick their religion for its peaceful aspects, just as Christians and others do for theirs, confuses many about what the true nature of Islam really is (if there can even be said to be such a thing). That’s why a thought experiment, attributing acts of violence to the very definition of non-violence, can be interesting to engage in. It’s an attempt to sharpen the arguments about who bears responsibility when non-Muslims look askance at “moderate” Muslims (who may genuinely believe they adhere to a “religion of peace”) because of the acts of extremist Muslims. An early version of the idea expressed here pondered the question of whether, by letting oneself be influenced by the acts of pacifist terrorists, one should then be pilloried as a “Pacifistiphobe”. The heading “Thought Experiment” should be kept in mind throughout.
Stewart,
Well, I don’t subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty dictionary, wherein a word “means just what I choose it to mean”. Most Muslims may be pacific (everyone I know in the Muslim side of my family merits that adjective) but Islam itself is not. Not by a long shot. And the more literalist the Muslim the more un-pacific they may be. Unlike mainstream Christianity and Judaism, mainstream Islam remains largely literalist, never having undergone an “enlightenment”. When and if that occurs I may cease to be an “islamophobe” and enjoy Islamic art and architecture with a free heart.
We’re not in disagreement. I don’t think it’s too simplistic to look at the texts held sacred by a religion and see what they contain. Unless the highest authorities in that religion explicitly repudiate content that could be considered inflammatory, whether calls to violence or disparagement to any degree of non-believers, and order those passages expunged, I must regard all moderates who nonetheless adhere to those texts as disingenuous.