I think it's sad that people felt that they need to do this, and the effects will be bad. I also avoided making a thread about it, for reasons that you will see when krellin logs on for example.

I am uninformed on this topic I know sort of what happened but could some one tell me the details

I read about this earlier...

Why would they attack one soldier (and with a meat cleaver?) and just the one?

I mean, they'd either be shot or captured...if you're going to commit an act of terror...

Well, wouldn't it be something larger, such as the Boston bombing? Why just behead a random soldier, how is that sending any sort of message and being anything more than senseless and disgusting brutality (which is what the Boston bombing was as well, but still, "at least" in that case the terrorists instilled terror and caused a major world city to go on lock-down for the better portion of a day and a half or so...these were just two zealot fools killing a single soldier, how does that "pay off" from the view of the terrorists? If the goal is to instill terror, the Tsarnaev brothers DID do that, they put a whole city in a state of fear for a day or so...I can't imagine London is trembling right now because two disgusting individuals decapitated one man on religious or political grounds...so why do it, from their point of view?)

What's more--I've had it with this "Islamophobia" term, or at least how it's being used now.

It's certainly true that there are those who would irrationally be bigoted towards an entire people.

It is NOT irrational to fear or show disdain for those who kill in the name of religion and are SUPPORTED TEXTUALLY by that religion--

It's not a matter of "abusing" Islam; violence towards other groups is endorsed in (to be fair) all three Abrahamic religions in one manner or another.

That we are evolved enough to disregard those passages and either disregard religion on the whole or (as I assume most of the religious folks here hold) prefer to see the good in religion and see the good as outweighing the bad is irrelevant to the factual point that this IS the sort of thing condoned by religions, and I'd say this if it were a killing in the name of Judaism or Christianity, so it's NOT me picking on Islam alone.

But likewise, it's not picking on Islam without cause, not when Islam gives textual support to this sort of action and when there are entire states out there which would condone the actions of these men.

It is NOT an irrational phobia, but a justified fear against an unjust ideology.

Again--just to be clear--this says NOTHING about the actual PEOPLE...

Anyone implicitly fearing or viewing Arabs as negative in any way are unjust.

But there is a perfectly legitimate reason to fear Islam as an ideology and stand against it when it actively and textually encourages THIS sort of action and, of course, other and worse terrorist actions across the globe.

So much for "Islamophobia."

It's completely wrong to fear Islam at all. It pushes for just as much good and commands just as much out of its people as either Christianity or Judaism, and all three, in a looser sense, are the same general thing. If you fear Islam over such minor things, you fear Christianity and Judaism as well, which is undoubtedly irrational.

Obi, you can never justify that and you can never offer up a "perfectly legitimate reason to fear Islam as an ideology," and you certainly can't offer up a reason to "stand against it." That's why the Arab people hate Israel. That's why Israel hates the Arab people. They say these things back and forth to each other. It's not helpful; it's flat out wrong.

Actually, you are wrong, bo -- Christianity/Judiasm do not call for the death of those that won't convert - Islam does.

I know people who listen to filtered news sources like to pretend Islam is peaceful, and pretend you know something about it, but most likely you have never *truly* done any research into the religion, and you are simply fooling yourself in to this belief so you can pat yourself on the back for being "tolerant" and politically correct...and the radical Islamist are laughing their ass off at you as they make their way to the bomb-makers...

Don't pretend that Christians and Jews throughout history haven't killed over apostasy.

bo - God you are a moron. Yes, throughout history Christians and Jews have killed -- but it isnt' codified in their documents. they aren't commanded to do so. Those acts were misguided, falsely done in the name of religion.

Islamicists kill because it is written that they are to do so. HUGE difference.

SERIOUS QUESTION: Should Germany allow the NAZI party to be resurrected. If not, why not.

It's a terrible, tragic, disgusting event, and the hearts of all people of good will go out to those who knew and loved the victim.

Another tragedy is that this incident gives more ammunition to theophobic bigots like Obiwan. It feeds his (willfully) ignorant, myopic, unsophisticated, and totally un-nuanced view of religion - particularly the Abrahamic faiths - and rational, sane people rightly fear his extremist views, especially in light of the various church shootings that have gone on in the last few years.

Here's a hint, Bo - the NAZI party is banned because it comprises a set of beliefs -- a religion, if you will (as Adolf claimed to be an atheist, this therefore "replaces" his religion - The Nazi party was the culmination of his personal philosophy enacted). It is generally agrees that to allow Nazi's to return would be bad because of the violence and genocidal tendency of the beliefs.

But...but Nazi's ALSO fostered many great things...they researched technology, they fostered the arts and culture. Damn..what a wonderful society they envisioned...onyl...yeah...that whole kill the jews and dirt-people thing...

Kind of like the loving Muslims, with their great art and culture....except for, you know...kill those who won't convert thing...

krellin: have you? Do you even know what a Jihad means? Do you know how many Muslims condemn those terrorist attacks?

In context, the texts are not implying you have to kill anyone. They say killing is a sin.

Is everybody just commenting about this without actually knowing anything about it? This doesn't have anything to do with forcing conversions to Islam. It's blowback for the Western interventions, and more specifically frequent killings, in the Middle East. It's not really about Islam, at least as a religion, but more as an identity (a religious self-conception that the West generally doesn't have any more).

This is what the killer said:

"""""“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die?

“No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.”"""""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10073910/Woolwich-attack-terrorist-proclaimed-an-eye-for-an-eye-after-attack.html

This thread was such a bad idea--I'm so glad I didn't make it.

I suspect the point (from the terrorist pov) was that any single guy can be a threat in the street - even if they just target one enemy soldier.

I believe that terrorism is defined by the political end, combined with the violent means.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). " (source wikipedia)

I've heard english people say how nice and civilised it was of the IRA to bomb targets in england but send coded warning messages so the police could evacuate the targets (the IRA considered themselves an Army, so they chose to avoid civilian targets)

"In context, the texts are not implying you have to kill anyone. They say killing is a sin."

You are not correct - your sin of ommission condemns you.

Killing a BELIEVER is a sin. Killing the INNOCENT is a sin. We Christians and Jews in the US...the great Satan...do not fall under such protections.

Nice try....not really. You are just showing your ignorance, really.

Killing a human is a sin.

You'll find things like fighting non-believers in those texts, but again, they only mean killing when you take them out of context. They refer to converting people.

If not, prove it. Show us you're not the one being ignorant.

Really, I know enough muslims who don't give a damn about what you believe. As long as you don't call yourself a muslim when that's not what you believe.

"Christianity/Judiasm do not call for the death of those that won't convert - Islam does."

Citation please.

"Yes, throughout history Christians and Jews have killed -- but it isnt' codified in their documents."

Um... http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

@Tolstoy ... traditional interpretations of apostasy in Islam call for the execution of those who convert out of the religion without offering "repentance." Numerous reform movements have made this interpretation much less common and it really only exists anymore in Sharia law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Execution

However, as you pointed out, the aspect of insane reasons for execution is no different in the other major religions. Similarly to Islam, those religions have reformed over time away from those things.

@steephie: there may be some disagreement among Muslim scholars on this, as some believe that Mohamed's example should be followed: "In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan."

I suspect the confusion is not just a scholarly one...

Krellin - Just remind me what the bible says we should do to blasphemers? Shouldn't we stone them? Is the bible instructing death to blasphemers any worse than the Islamic faith preaching death to those who don't convert? Should I be fearful of both faiths or neither?

I feel terribly sorry for the soldier and his family and loved ones. I understand why some extremists want to hit back at the UK because of our actions. I don't think their actions are justified, but I can understand why they think they are justified (if that makes sense). I recall politicians of all colours warning prior to the UK's intervention in iraq that it could act as a recruiting sergent. We should not be surprised when this actually happens. When pearl harbour was attacked many American's signed up, when the Falklands were invaded many Brits queued around recruitment centres. When people feel they are being attacked they want to defend their way of life. I didn't know where the Falklands were until they were invaded and I certainly didn't know they were part of Britain, yet I would have signed up if I had been old enough. I now think my eagerness to serve was maybe misguilded as those who killed yesterday are misguolded.

@Tolstoy....sigh....it's hardly worth explaining something to the willfully ignorant.

One, "murder" is different that "killing" for legal purposes.
Two, simply because someone is murder in the Bible in the context of a story does not mean it is something we should do -- it is not commanded.
Three - though God commanded at times that Isreal slay their *enemies* in the Old testament, we do not live under Old Testament Law any more - you know, that whole Jesus thing, New testament, etc. You may not understand how the Bible works, but yoru ignorance does not mean your arguments are correct.

Therefore, unless you can point out where we are commanded under the current agreement between God and man to kill people, you are simply wrong.

Islam, on the other hand, does NOT operate ni such a way, and *current* Islamic written instruction orders the killing of infidels. That, by the way, would be you and me.

Funny how all the Islamic apologists love to say, "Well, Christian and Jews kill under the name of religion!!!!" and then scram bloody murder when someone suggest an Islamic person might kill under their religion.

Truly hilarious hypocrisy. Bravo, retards.

http://imgur.com/jb7JF9c

"traditional interpretations of apostasy in Islam call for the execution of those who convert out of the religion without offering "repentance.""

That's an odd claim. In the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, the prophet Muhammed himself permitted apostates to leave Medina and return to Mecca while it was still ruled by the Quraysh. There was no penalty for these apostates. I don't think you can get to any more traditional interpretation of Islam than what the prophet Muhammed himself did; if he felt there should be no punishment for apostasy, it would be safe to say that those who disagree are not 'traditional' at all, but are engaging in bid'ah.

In later years when religious identity became synonymous with social and political identity, *then* is when you start having some Muslim scholars declaring that apostasy is a capital offense. Why? Because leaving Islam means you are not just leaving the religion, but also the socio-political organization it is inextricably attached to and are going over to "the other side". For example, some Muslims in the levant converted to Christianity during the crusades because they thought the Christendom was on the rise, embrace of Christianity was a requirement to 'get ahead' in the Crusader states, and they wanted to be on what they thought was the "winning team". This conversion also meant that they would fight in the armies of the crusaders, or would at least support them. "Apostasy" in the medieval period is essentially synonymous with "treason". This is why some Muslim jurists advocated for execution of apostates/traitors. But as your wikipedia link points out, there was never a clear consensus (your link says "a minority" of jurists held that apostasy is not a capital crime, and correctly points to Ibn Taymiyah as being of that opinion, without noting that he was far and away the most important Muslim jurist of the late medieval period).

You had the same kind of thing going on in Christianity as well during the reformation, when religious orientation was as much a political statement as a religious one. For Catholics, the real threat of Protestantism (and pre-protestant heresies for that matter) was that it threatened to upset the established order - this is what made the various religious wars of the 16th-17th centuries worth killing and dying over to those involved (not, I think, what language those weirdos in the village down the road printed their bibles in).

Not.About.Religion.

When a person kills a soldier for invading and killing people in his home.

Christians, Atheists, and Muslims are all equally capable of being human and investing in hate.

"One, "murder" is different that "killing" for legal purposes. "

So... are you saying that Muslims "murder", but Jews and Christians "kill"? Or vice versa? And is one really better than the other? I am confused as to your point here.

"Two, simply because someone is murder in the Bible in the context of a story does not mean it is something we should do -- it is not commanded."

Hmm... "Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel." Sounds pretty commanding to me, as do the rest of the verses listed.

"though God commanded at times that Isreal slay their *enemies* in the Old testament, we do not live under Old Testament Law any more"

LOL. If that is true, why are Christians so obsessed with having the ten commandments posted in courthouses? Was Jesus lying when he said he had come to "uphold the law" and was not bringing any new commandment? And anyhoo, you were lumping Christians and Jews into the same category, suggesting that both are bound by the same rules. Now you're saying the opposite.

"Islam, on the other hand, does NOT operate ni such a way, and *current* Islamic written instruction orders the killing of infidels"

Still waiting for a citation, thou esteemed expert on Islamic jurisprudence.

Krellin's entire post is fucking hilarious...

And Tolstoy, the whole point of what I said is that it's technically written (see the Wiki page), but the only ones that do it are the extreme governments. I know there was a case in Afghanistan in 2006 but I don't think the execution actually occurred...

@ Tolstoy
+1 for an outstanding analysis of the "religious" wars of Reformation Europe.

@ Krellin - you had better start giving quotes *in full context* unless you want to sound like Obi on one of his ignorant anti-Bible rampages. Just a friendly caution.

"And Tolstoy, the whole point of what I said is that it's technically written (see the Wiki page)"

No, it's *not* technically written. If you read the rest of the section in your wiki link, you will read the opinions of many prestigious scholars who point out that there is *no* earthly punishment specified in the Qu'ran for apostasy.

Can I point out the Muslim Quran has an entire chapter called al-Kafirun condemning violence as a means of converting, I have read the whole thing.