What is it about Islam that prompts things like this?

[Twilight Hue]

Quite frankly, I believe it is individuals who do violence. It doesn't seem right to blame an entire faith/religion or an entire country, etc. for these kinds of acts. I've said this before and I will probably say it again later.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree but it's Islam of late that terrorists ascribe to that puts the religion in the spotlight. Plus the frequency of such acts towards civilians that have nothing to do with anything and as mentioned, Muslims against Muslims.

 

[Gharib]

I agree but it's Islam of late that terrorists ascribe to that puts the religion in the spotlight. Plus the frequency of such acts towards civilians that have nothing to do with anything and as mentioned, Muslims against Muslims.

Read post 37 if you don't mind.

 

[Philomath]

To me it looks like they knew the victim well since they knew that he was a soldier.

As for what they did, like I said I can't say that it is right just as I can't say that it is wrong. I try not to form an opinion of my own when it comes to things like this because all I know is what the media says. And we all know how biased they can be.

It really could have been any soldier since the attack took place outside of a barrack. There's no good reasoning behind such actions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And does anyone have any clue why Islam and it's adherents have become so 'violent' and 'evil' in the last few decades?

I mean, if Islam was evil or violent then surely those before us would have been just as evil as this generation but you don't hear anything about Muslims killing anyone from any country.

Does anyone have any idea why that is?

That is exactly the point by making the thread and my op.

There were obviously issues beforehand for a long time, but what exactly happened of late that caused such a flashpoint by people using Islam as a core vehicle for terrorism.

911 seemed to be the match and all hell broke loose affecting people everywhere on earth changing the manner and lifestyle in many countries to where it's at now.

I cannot see how it helps adherents except bringing the violence to a new level and demonizing a religion that claims peaceful status at one time. There are Muslims against terrorism, but where or who are the imans with enough influence to speak out and help quell whats occurring and bring about a resolution.

I think someday things will settle but when and at what cost?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To me it looks like they knew the victim well since they knew that he was a soldier.

As for what they did, like I said I can't say that it is right just as I can't say that it is wrong. I try not to form an opinion of my own when it comes to things like this because all I know is what the media says. And we all know how biased they can be.

Maybe you can't, but I can. It was wrong.

 

[Assad91]

So let me get this straight. Can't attack civilians, and can't attack soldiers. So in other words, lay down and accept it. Right.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So let me get this straight. Can't attack civilians, and can't attack soldiers. So in other words, lay down and accept it. Right.

I'm not actually sure who you are addressing that to. But no, I didn't suggest laying down and accepting it.

Do you want to argue the point from a moral standing or a military strategy standing, because I am pretty happy to go either way with this one.

 

[Windwalker]

So let me get this straight. Can't attack civilians, and can't attack soldiers. So in other words, lay down and accept it. Right.

One name. Gandhi.

Did he win? Did he hack human being to death in the name of God? Let's wake up, already.

 

[Aquitaine]

So let me get this straight. Can't attack civilians, and can't attack soldiers. So in other words, lay down and accept it. Right.

Wait, are you protesting against not being allowed to attack Civilians? Would attacking Civilians accomplish anything?

 

[outhouse]

Its my opinion attacking the innocent is exactly what spineless cowards do and the backbone of terrorism, there is no way anyone can justify or make excuses for this kind of violence towards your fellow man no matter what religion anyone belongs too.

There is wrong and there is wrong, and this act of violence was wrong.

 

[Assad91]

Wait, are you protesting against not being allowed to attack Civilians? Would attacking Civilians accomplish anything?

Of corse not. Civilians should be free from any type of attack.

But soldiers? Not at all. AQ and Taliban, though I don't agree fully with them and all they do, but attack foreign troops in their lands? I see nothing wrong.

 

[Assad91]

Of corse let me note, that I personally am unable to even think of doing such. I believe in a different form of protest, which doesn't include killing anyone at all.

 

[Aquitaine]

Of corse not. Civilians should be free from any type of attack.

But soldiers? Not at all. AQ and Taliban, though I don't agree fully with them and all they do, but attack foreign troops in their lands? I see nothing wrong.

Except the British soldier you've been "justifying" the death of was in his own country, no weapons, no armour, off-duty. For all we know he could have never even stepped foot in a "Muslim" country, let alone fire at anyone.

Still see nothing wrong?

 

[LuisDantas]

Returning to the thread question, maybe I am misreading things somehow, but I believe this is far more of a matter of politically-motivated revolt becoming violence than something of Islam itself.

It is easy, probably too easy to confuse the two matters because Islam has an explicit goal of creating theocratical governments and Arab society probably still feels some level of mistrust of "the West" for the end of the Caliphate in early 20th Century. My impression is that while very few Muslims actually support the violence, far many more find its causes way too understandable to not sympathize to some degree.

Unfortunately, such important nuances are pretty much lost on the press and public opinion of North America, the UK and Europe, and it all becomes a matter how to deal with the "violence of Islam". It is a sorry cycle where each interaction further feeds mistrust from both sides.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Except the British soldier you've been "justifying" the death of was in his own country, no weapons, no armour, off-duty. For all we know he could have never even stepped foot in a "Muslim" country, let alone fire at anyone.

Still see nothing wrong?

Meh...I'm not justifying the attack, so please don't read this in that manner. But just for comparison, do you see the French Resistance as wrong in WW2?

 

[Assad91]

Except the British soldier you've been "justifying" the death of was in his own country, no weapons, no armour, off-duty. For all we know he could have never even stepped foot in a "Muslim" country, let alone fire at anyone.

Still see nothing wrong?

Same can be said of Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, etc. Droping bombs on civilians, is not a way to make friends.

It doesn't matter where he is, or was, or what he has done. He works for the military. His actions supports the military. He helps kill innocent civilians directly or indirectly.

If I became a reporter for Hamas' media, am I a target? Yes.
If I am a scientist for Iran, working on nuclear program, am I a target? Yes.
If I am Osamas water bringer, am I a target? Yes. Regardless of never picking up a weapon, or a bomb, or anything. Just being a part of the wrong groupmakes one a target regardless of what the job description is. So really, don't be blind or a hypocrite.

 

[jazzymom]

Of corse not. Civilians should be free from any type of attack.

But soldiers? Not at all. AQ and Taliban, though I don't agree fully with them and all they do, but attack foreign troops in their lands? I see nothing wrong.

This soldier was in his own country, Great Britain. The Muslim terrorist was a British citizen and a convert to Islam. He came from a Christian family.

His family originally came from Nigeria.

I saw the video on BBC of him with bloodied hands still holding the weapons going on and on about how what he did was justified.

It was barbaric and he is a terrorist.

 

[Assad91]

This soldier was in his own country, Great Britain. The Muslim terrorist was a British citizen and a convert to Islam. He came from a Christian family.

His family originally came from Nigeria.

I saw the video on BBC of him with bloodied hands still holding the weapons going on and on about how what he did was justified.

It was barbaric and he is a terrorist.

I find invading, bombing, occupation, etc to be terroristic and unjustified aswell.

 

[jazzymom]

So let me get this straight. Can't attack civilians, and can't attack soldiers. So in other words, lay down and accept it. Right.

The soldier was unarmed.

They hit him with a car then got out and started hacking at him with knives and cleavers and they had a gun.

But he was unarmed.

He was not fighting anyone.

 

[Assad91]

It wasn't Muslims who started this. And whats chilling is this event reminds me of what Anwar Al-Awlaki said in his "last message to America". I'd advise people to watch it.