Chindie Posted December 16, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2014 The flag he had was a flag that is considered a banner of a Islamist group, I forget which, but as you say the fact he apparently asked for the ISIS one (which is slightly different) really does suggest that this bloke didn't really know what was what when it came to any political motivation. The self styled 'cleric' thing seemed to suggest he wasn't exactly stable, as well. He seemed to be playing at being something more substantial than he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Had apparently also started referring to himself as 'Sheikh', too. It's very early days but this one appears to be more the 'poor bugger' end of the evil spectrum (as opposed to the other current story from Pakistan). It doesn't excuse anything, just in case anyone misunderstands my meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) What a clearing in the woods that Tony Abbott is. link ...there are less and less of people trying to explain and justify terrorism in the name of religion … whether it be in this country, whether it be in the Middle East whether it is on the subcontinent … Fewer and fewer people today are trying to justify, rationalise or explain terrorism ... because it is simply evil, it is simply wrong. ... Yep, rationalizing something and trying to explain it are bad things. You dolt. It's just 'simply wrong' - that's so that when you stand up against it you're 'simply right'. PR on the back of the dead. Edited December 17, 2014 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It specifically prohibits the killing of children. I'm sure there will be contradictory bits in there that they are using for justification. The killing of unbelievers bit, or the Islamic version of the Bible's "an eye for an eye". You can find anything in religious texts (written hundreds of years ago by primitive people) to justify any hideous action if you're deranged enough. The events in Pakistan do not have anything to do with religion. It's a war between the tribal groups and the government for control of territory and resources, like we have seen many times around the world. The two groups are of the same religion, religion doesn't come into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The siege occurred just a few days after the guy's Supreme Court appeal was rejected regarding his hate mail campaign against Aussie soldiers. While not denying his purported links to extremism I get the feeling that denied appeal was the main trigger for what he's done. Being the sort if nutjob he was and the associations he had with radical Islam perhaps dictated his approach but his criminal activity and overall lack of mental capacity was the cause. That's my thinking at the moment anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The events in Pakistan do not have anything to do with religion. It's a war between the tribal groups and the government for control of territory and resources, like we have seen many times around the world. The two groups are of the same religion, religion doesn't come into it. For me, it's difficult to deny that religion is part of the equation, because the Taliban's entire existence is predicated on a devout and extreme religiosity, and this slaughter is a continuum of violence against the broader society which they view as too secular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'm not convinced that if there was no religion then the 220 million people of Pakistan and Afghanistan would all be content and there would be perpetual peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The events in Pakistan do not have anything to do with religion. It's a war between the tribal groups and the government for control of territory and resources, like we have seen many times around the world. The two groups are of the same religion, religion doesn't come into it. For me, it's difficult to deny that religion is part of the equation, because the Taliban's entire existence is predicated on a devout and extreme religiosity, and this slaughter is a continuum of violence against the broader society which they view as too secular. Wasn't the Taliban formed by the American government/CIA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Wasn't the Taliban formed by the American government/CIA? They definitely gave them the weapons anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This sounds more like a mad man with a gun than terrorism - but with the media spin on everything who knows what to beleive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Had apparently also started referring to himself as 'Sheikh', too. It's very early days but this one appears to be more the 'poor bugger' end of the evil spectrum (as opposed to the other current story from Pakistan). It doesn't excuse anything, just in case anyone misunderstands my meaning. He sounds a bit like the 'Sheikhs' advertising in the Metro. Basically astrologists but this time with added guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted December 17, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 17, 2014 It specifically prohibits the killing of children. I'm sure there will be contradictory bits in there that they are using for justification. The killing of unbelievers bit, or the Islamic version of the Bible's "an eye for an eye". You can find anything in religious texts (written hundreds of years ago by primitive people) to justify any hideous action if you're deranged enough. This is very true. It's also true that you can use anything to justify your actions: - Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge used political idealism to justify their genocide - Serbians used Race to justify their "ethnic cleansing" - Football fans use football to justify violence towards supporters of opposite clubs And the list of offenses and excuses goes on and on. The common denominator? Man. We are individually capable of hideous actions and can and will find any means to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 17, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 17, 2014 I do think religious inspiration is particularly dangerous because it gives people the belief that they aren't answerable to their fellow humans, but to some higher power. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 17, 2014 Not to mention the promise of reward in the after life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I do think religious inspiration is particularly dangerous because it gives people the belief that they aren't answerable to their fellow humans, but to some higher power. hmmm, not convinced sorry I won't reel off the list of non-religious nutters that have inspired the deaths of millions, we've all rehearsed the arguments perhaps we need some sort of scoreboard? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The events in Pakistan do not have anything to do with religion. It's a war between the tribal groups and the government for control of territory and resources, like we have seen many times around the world. The two groups are of the same religion, religion doesn't come into it. For me, it's difficult to deny that religion is part of the equation, because the Taliban's entire existence is predicated on a devout and extreme religiosity, and this slaughter is a continuum of violence against the broader society which they view as too secular. Wasn't the Taliban formed by the American government/CIA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 17, 2014 Administrator Share Posted December 17, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I do think religious inspiration is particularly dangerous because it gives people the belief that they aren't answerable to their fellow humans, but to some higher power. I think that most people who do objectionable and sociopathic things don't consider themselves accountable to their fellow humans, in the broad sense. Perhaps accountable to a carefully selected group of fellow humans who are already sympathetic to them; the gang, the party, the club, the remuneration committee. Because religious people hold themselves accountable to an imaginary being, or the carefully selected and vetted highlights of what said being is thought to stand for, doesn't make them noticeably more unaccountable. People generally don't like being held to account, when it means being challenged and criticised. They often tend to claim support for the principle of accountability. Usually their support for accountability is in direct proportion to the degree to which they have managed to shield themselves from it being exercised critically against them. I don't find religious people noticeably worse in this regard than others; I speak as an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I do think religious inspiration is particularly dangerous because it gives people the belief that they aren't answerable to their fellow humans, but to some higher power. I think that most people who do objectionable and sociopathic things don't consider themselves accountable to their fellow humans, in the broad sense. Perhaps accountable to a carefully selected group of fellow humans who are already sympathetic to them; the gang, the party, the club, the remuneration committee. Because religious people hold themselves accountable to an imaginary being, or the carefully selected and vetted highlights of what said being is thought to stand for, doesn't make them noticeably more unaccountable. People generally don't like being held to account, when it means being challenged and criticised. They often tend to claim support for the principle of accountability. Usually their support for accountability is in direct proportion to the degree to which they have managed to shield themselves from it being exercised critically against them. I don't find religious people noticeably worse in this regard than others; I speak as an atheist. Lots of the most objectionable people on earth (eg Dubya, Bliar) do all that AND hide behind the pretense of religion. The electriic chair would be too good for the pair of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Still no explanation of what happened inside, and not one of the hostages has yet said anything to the media. Which strikes me as perhaps a little strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts