Finsbury Park: 'Several hurt' as vehicle hits pedestrians

[Fairy In Boots]

3 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

You are looking at the wrong fools in my opinion.

When you listen to some that were there last night it's quite obvious that being "muslim" is a significant part of their identity and they feel constantly attacked for it, angry about it despite your complaints of people protecting them. There is a lot of discourse by non-muslims that isn't tailored to take into account their identity. They have no respect for any concept of a Muslim identity.

Some individuals talk about reforming islam or integration using a sledgehammer instead of coaxing the Islamic community into behavioural changes the way they want it.

The likes of Douglas Murray act as if emotional connections do not exist. He believes behavioural change can come about by stigmitisation and degrading people for their beliefs. That is only 1 form of social control and tends to actually only work when someone is an outlier within a group. Trying to do it from outside a group will achieve nothing but to polarise, push hatred and suspicion.

Yes I can see your point, it's a complete life guidance system so they're always going to identify as Muslim, the system was designed as such. 

Where I'm with the likes of Murray, Harris & co is that ridicule will work. The closest example is Christianity in the west, it's in full scale retreat and that's come about by openly criticising it. Pandering to a 6th centrury cult just legitimises it, there's very little it offers for society moving forward. We let these people spout utter garbage in the name of tolerance we need to talk over them, the moderates as you well know just get hounded out often violently so it's not going to reform itself peacefully in an organic fashion. Making these idiots look stupid is a great weapon, whether intellectually or through other methods such as satire. 

17 minutes ago, Spike said:

I dislike how people tend to focus on the Crusades. You cannot forget that the Arabic conquest of Eastern-Roman lands began 500 years before Christians invaded the Levant. Islam and Christianity's relationship was born in blood, this 'feud' is older than Crusades by a half-millennium and began the day that an Arabian warlord had 'prophetic visions'. It doesn't matter who began what, we aren't children here but what matters is that the 'religious war' started on day one. Well, you could even say that same thing about Christians and Jews, Christians and European Pagans, Muslims and Zoroastrians, etc.

It's a coping mechanism, far easier to justify it rather than accept a horrible mistake has been made. 

[IgnisExcubitor]

5 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Trying to do it from outside a group will achieve nothing but to polarise, push hatred and suspicion.

The voices on the insides (or former Muslims) aren't allowed to by Muslims or the left. The likes of Ayaan, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, etc are threatened by Muslims and bullied, censored and targeted by the so-called-left. I just came across  Imam Tawhidi, and turns out the usual suspects have already started targeting him. 

[Batard]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

I think many more things are liable to kill a person. Falling over in a shower, falling out of bed, car crashes, cancer, and a host of other things. Hell, a rogue coconut is lethal when it decide to attack someone's skull from atop it's tree.

I suspect furiously masturbating over big tits and dying of heart failure will be statiscally more likely for me.

[Panna King]

2 hours ago, Batard said:

I remember being in Amsterdam back in 2007 when a Dutch Moroccan male was shot dead for stabbing or trying to stab a Dutch police officer. To me it seems the way these stories are reported has changed so much to whip up fear. Lest we forget, we are more likely to die choking on our food than in a terrorist attack

Not really a terror attack, Dutch Morrocans have the highest crime rate in the whole of the Netherlands then any other. 

 

The problem what we have now is the people who speak out agaisnt Islamists get the blame to what happened in Finsbury park and will be targeted like the Dutch politician  Pim Fortuyn who was killed by the press he used to recieve.

[Honey Honey]

29 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Yes I can see your point, it's a complete life guidance system so they're always going to identify as Muslim, the system was designed as such. 

Where I'm with the likes of Murray, Harris & co is that ridicule will work. The closest example is Christianity in the west, it's in full scale retreat and that's come about by openly criticising it. Pandering to a 6th centrury cult just legitimises it, there's very little it offers for society moving forward. We let these people spout utter garbage in the name of tolerance we need to talk over them, the moderates as you well know just get hounded out often violently so it's not going to reform itself peacefully in an organic fashion. Making these idiots look stupid is a great weapon, whether intellectually or through other methods such as satire. 

You spun that into Islamic exceptionalism, but identity is a common factor across all of us.

Outside ridicule of Islam increases the probability of someone turning deeper into the religion and away from integration. Not just the worst people, the worst are the product of the good being pushed away far enough to give the worst a feeling of legitimacy. I've seen even on Big Questions on BBC good Muslims getting very agitated when someone attacks something (their religion) that they are proud of. Interviews with very agitated young girls whose backs are up against the wall it seems.

Objectively that might not be a rational agitation, it doesn't look like it is to me, but it exists, so that is a part of what we are dealing with. If you truly want reform you have to understand the mind of the people who you want to change. 

Christianity certainly didn't start changing because of an out group criticising and ridiculing it. It was broken out from within, through people with respect, trust and family connections whose bond enabled them to survive whilst dissenting. 

I get the idea that doing the same thing to Islam should in theory have the same effect. But in my opinion the difference really is the messanger. 

The tact needs to be amended. 

 

5 minutes ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

The voices on the insides (or former Muslims) aren't allowed to by Muslims or the left. The likes of Ayaan, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, etc are threatened by Muslims and bullied, censored and targeted by the so-called-left. I just came across  Imam Tawhidi, and turns out the usual suspects have already started targeting him. 

Some Muslims will have ultra conservative family members locking them down sure, but that isn't everyone. The same thing happened to the first homosexuals who came out, the first of every main dissent from a groups social values. They were abused and ostracized in a last gasp attempt to control their behaviour. Some had to flee because their network was overwhelmingly ultra conservative, but others had enough support to chip away their own network.

[Happy Blue]

Neighbour Saleem Naema, 50, a taxi driver, said: “I can't believe it. I know him. I've lived here for five years, he was already living here when I moved in.

"If I ever needed anything he would come. I just can't believe that he did that. I am a Muslim."

Khadijeh Sherizi, who lives next door to Osborne, said: "I saw him on the news and I thought 'oh my God' that is my neighbour.

"He has been so normal. He was in his kitchen yesterday afternoon singing with his kids. He was the dad of the family. He has kids. He lives next door. He seemed polite and pleasant to me. I just can't believe it."

Mrs Osborne, 72, told ITV News her son was a "complex" person, adding: "I'm not going to defend him but you know he's my son and it's a terrible terrible shock and it's not just robbing the bank, it's an atrocity

he was "disturbed" and had been on medication for mental health problems. She said she had recognised him straightaway in television reports, describing it as "every mother's worst nightmare".

“My son is no terrorist — he’s just a man with problems and I don’t know how to cope with all this", she told The Sun. 

Neighbours described Mrs Osborne as "long-suffering”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/darren-osborne-everything-know-finsbury-park-mosque-suspect/

[Dr. Gonzo]

Hmm not sure I agree with his mum that he's not a terrorist because he was mentally ill. I'd venture to guess that very few terrorists are of sound mind.

[Batard]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hmm not sure I agree with his mum that he's not a terrorist because he was mentally ill. I'd venture to guess that very few terrorists are of sound mind.

His mum is kidding herself. More worrying will be people sympathizing for this spanny

[Danny]

It's a shame that only one section of British society are afforded leeway under the national press' gaze due to mental health issues.

The papers reaction to this being markedly different to BRITISH Muslims who've carried out terror attacks is not in the least bit surprising.

[Beelzebub]

On 19/06/2017 at 9:53 PM, Spike said:

I dislike how people tend to focus on the Crusades. You cannot forget that the Arabic conquest of Eastern-Roman lands began 500 years before Christians invaded the Levant. Islam and Christianity's relationship was born in blood, this 'feud' is older than Crusades by a half-millennium and began the day that an Arabian warlord had 'prophetic visions'. It doesn't matter who began what, we aren't children here but what matters is that the 'religious war' started on day one. Well, you could even say that same thing about Christians and Jews, Christians and European Pagans, Muslims and Zoroastrians, etc.

If Christianity for you only means 'Catholic' then Yes!  Islam and Christianty's relation was born in blood but if for you Christianty means more then 'Catholism' then No! that statement is bogus.Google 'The first migration to Habsha' there you will see how 'Non-Catholic' Christians helped Muslims during the early days of Islam and also try to Google 'History of Christian Muslim relations in Russia' 

[SirBalon]

2 hours ago, Danny said:

It's a shame that only one section of British society are afforded leeway under the national press' gaze due to mental health issues.

The papers reaction to this being markedly different to BRITISH Muslims who've carried out terror attacks is not in the least bit surprising.

It was published by the SUN and there are others we know about of the same ilk.  I agree with you mate...  We've seen no delving in to the everyday social lives of Islamic terrorists and how they were seen by their neighbours while only depicting all the niceties and shock at finding out what they really had was a bad apple living in and amongst them.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Azeem98 said:

If Christianity for you only means 'Catholic' then Yes!  Islam and Christianty's relation was born in blood but if for you Christianty means more then 'Catholism' then No! that statement is bogus.Google 'The first migration to Habsha' there you will see how 'Non-Catholic' Christians helped Muslims during the early days of Islam and also try to Google 'History of Christian Muslim relations in Russia' 

To which those Coptic Christians of Ethiopia were conquered through war by...an Islamic warlord. You also can't forget the near 1000 year war between Arabic states and the Eastern-Roman Empire (which I may add was not Catholic and was schismed from Western Christianity after 1054). You mean how the Russian Empire would gather up Muslims and deport them to the Ottoman Empire? There was ethnic cleansing under the Orthodox Russian Empire throughout the Caucasus with ethnic groups identifying as Muslim being targeted. Just because you can throw a few examples of Christians to Muslims and vice-versa being kind doesn't mean it is the rule, it's the exception. The trail of dead, persecuted, slaughtered, and pillaged is far longer on both sides than any kindness. Controversially enough after the initial slaughter during the first Crusade the Muslim population 'flourished' under Christian rule just by mere the chance that the Christian rulers weren't as brutal and cruel as the previous Fatimids, Seljuks, and Abbasid rulers. History isn't as cut and dried as you may think it is, the end results are never these guys are evil and only did evil things, and these guys are virtuous and good. So there you go, even the first Crusader states were as capable of kindness as the Coptic Christians of Ethiopia but that doesn't negate or atone for the 1,500 years of violence and struggle. To every ying there is a yang. Even the revered Caliphate established by Saladin was toppled from the inside from a marginalised group of Muslims, the Mamluks. Neither side is even safe from internal death and destruction.

The history of Christianity is far more complicated than the Catholic Church v Islam. The Catholic Church as it is today didn't exist when Islam was founded, the predominant Church of the Roman Empires was 'Nicene Christianity' (even then there were observational differences between west v east Rome) with Arianism being the most common outside of the Empire. 

So, no. It is complete nonsense to state that Catholicism is the only religion under Christianity to oppose Islam and vice versa.

[Fairy In Boots]

21 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

You spun that into Islamic exceptionalism, but identity is a common factor across all of us.

Outside ridicule of Islam increases the probability of someone turning deeper into the religion and away from integration. Not just the worst people, the worst are the product of the good being pushed away far enough to give the worst a feeling of legitimacy. I've seen even on Big Questions on BBC good Muslims getting very agitated when someone attacks something (their religion) that they are proud of. Interviews with very agitated young girls whose backs are up against the wall it seems.

Objectively that might not be a rational agitation, it doesn't look like it is to me, but it exists, so that is a part of what we are dealing with. If you truly want reform you have to understand the mind of the people who you want to change. 

Christianity certainly didn't start changing because of an out group criticising and ridiculing it. It was broken out from within, through people with respect, trust and family connections whose bond enabled them to survive whilst dissenting. 

I get the idea that doing the same thing to Islam should in theory have the same effect. But in my opinion the difference really is the messanger. 

The tact needs to be amended. 

 

Some Muslims will have ultra conservative family members locking them down sure, but that isn't everyone. The same thing happened to the first homosexuals who came out, the first of every main dissent from a groups social values. They were abused and ostracized in a last gasp attempt to control their behaviour. Some had to flee because their network was overwhelmingly ultra conservative, but others had enough support to chip away their own network.

Broken out from within because of exposure to other viewpoints outside the bubble of the faith. I distinctly remember upsetting my Catholic teacher in a catholic school in an RE lesson discussing pro life  by telling her "quit your contraception nonsense it's causing mass death in Africa through HIV" it was exposure and open challenges from others not within the catholic religion that made me question that. I'm not a  

How could a similar process not be beneficial for Muslims? I had a discussion with one about homosexuality yesterday and he conceded that maybe the religion needed to change after awhile. In fairness it was hot he was fasting he was probably just trying to shut me up in the end, but I'd like to think I'd made a good point. I deal with them everyday they retreat when challenged behind the doctrine and its sacrosanct so nobody presses further. We have to though if we're going to have a peaceful future. 

[Beelzebub]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

To which those Coptic Christians of Ethiopia were conquered through war by...an Islamic warlord. You also can't forget the near 1000 year war between Arabic states and the Eastern-Roman Empire (which I may add was not Catholic and was schismed from Western Christianity after 1054). You mean how the Russian Empire would gather up Muslims and deport them to the Ottoman Empire? There was ethnic cleansing under the Orthodox Russian Empire throughout the Caucasus with ethnic groups identifying as Muslim being targeted. Just because you can throw a few examples of Christians to Muslims and vice-versa being kind doesn't mean it is the rule, it's the exception. The trail of dead, persecuted, slaughtered, and pillaged is far longer on both sides than any kindness. Controversially enough after the initial slaughter during the first Crusade the Muslim population 'flourished' under Christian rule just by mere the chance that the Christian rulers weren't as brutal and cruel as the previous Fatimids, Seljuks, and Abbasid rulers. History isn't as cut and dried as you may think it is, the end results are never these guys are evil and only did evil things, and these guys are virtuous and good. So there you go, even the first Crusader states were as capable of kindness as the Coptic Christians of Ethiopia but that doesn't negate or atone for the 1,500 years of violence and struggle. To every ying there is a yang. Even the revered Caliphate established by Saladin was toppled from the inside from a marginalised group of Muslims, the Mamluks. Neither side is even safe from internal death and destruction.

The history of Christianity is far more complicated than the Catholic Church v Islam. The Catholic Church as it is today didn't exist when Islam was founded, the predominant Church of the Roman Empires was 'Nicene Christianity' (even then there were observational differences between west v east Rome) with Arianism being the most common outside of the Empire. 

So, no. It is complete nonsense to state that Catholicism is the only religion under Christianity to oppose Islam and vice versa.

I know all about and ashamed of  the crimes done by different Muslim regimes against Orthodox christianity especially the Ottomons they were devil, should have mentioned it earlier. That Hagia Sophia which was the Cathedral of Eastern Christianity at that time these Ottomons shamefuly converted into it a mosque.If it was upto me i would have returned it back to them.

But my point was that when both Muslim and Orthodox Christian rulers waged war against each other did they openly declared this as a 'Holy war'? like the Crusades

These Abbasids massacared the Umayyads(fellow muslims)and even dug up the graves of some and flogged their dead bodies in public. So if an Arabic Muslim state and Roman Christian state fought and killed each other that does not mean its a war between to religions unless if it is declared as a 'Holy war' by both sides.Like when the Pope used to address the people that 'Go there is a Holy war going on' Did the Patriach of the Russian Orthodox Church gave any sermon like that?

Abbasid,Seljuks,Ummayads, they were conquerers and every conquerer brings his domain with him and their domain was Islam.Its just like the British spread Christanity every where they colonized through missionaries.

[Beelzebub]

@Spike It would be same to say that Pakistan India wars where Muslims and Hindus killed each other were between Islam and Hinduism. They were wars between two states not two religions.

[SirBalon]

14 minutes ago, Azeem98 said:

@Spike It would be same to say that Pakistan India wars where Muslims and Hindus killed each other were between Islam and Hinduism. They were wars between two states not two religions.

Wasn't the reasons behind the separation of Pakistan based on religion and Muslims wanting their own state?

[Spike]

44 minutes ago, Azeem98 said:

I know all about and ashamed of  the crimes done by different Muslim regimes against Orthodox christianity especially the Ottomons they were devil, should have mentioned it earlier. That Hagia Sophia which was the Cathedral of Eastern Christianity at that time these Ottomons shamefuly converted into it a mosque.If it was upto me i would have returned it back to them.

But my point was that when both Muslim and Orthodox Christian rulers waged war against each other did they openly declared this as a 'Holy war'? like the Crusades

These Abbasids massacared the Umayyads(fellow muslims)and even dug up the graves of some and flogged their dead bodies in public. So if an Arabic Muslim state and Roman Christian state fought and killed each other that does not mean its a war between to religions unless if it is declared as a 'Holy war' by both sides.Like when the Pope used to address the people that 'Go there is a Holy war going on' Did the Patriach of the Russian Orthodox Church gave any sermon like that?

Abbasid,Seljuks,Ummayads, they were conquerers and every conquerer brings his domain with him and their domain was Islam.Its just like the British spread Christanity every where they colonized through missionaries.

The Crusade (the first) wasn't a 'holy war' it was a political war (from the Papacy's viewpoint). It was to divert the attentions of the feudal lords (particularly in France) from one another to another common enemy, the idea was to refill the Papal coffers while occupying the impetuous European nobility with war. It was also instigated by Roman Emperor Alexios (Orthodox) as a method of reconquering Byzantine land from Muslim subjugation as the Seljuks at the time had conquered most of Anatolia; the very Crusade you as the crux of your point is an Orthodox creation. 15th century Ottoman invasions into Europe were Holy Wars. Secularism didn't exist in Islam so any war waged against another religion or sect is by definition a 'holy war' because by definition a war waged by a Caliph is a 'holy war' as a Caliph is a religious successor of Muhammed. The King was France by contrast was not a religious title due to secularism between the head of church (the Pope) and the head of state (the monarch). A Caliphate is a 'religious state', a European monarchy didn't follow the same organisational structure.

Nonsense, of course they were holy wars. Religion was far more intertwined with the politics of state than it is today, language, culture, and religion were all de jure methods of claiming land by nobility. Religion has always been used as a method of rallying an us vs. them mentality, what better way to inspire the fervent than by crushing the heathens?

And yes, the Russian Patriarch has called for holy war, in fact it happened last year.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, SirBalon said:

Wasn't the reasons behind the separation of Pakistan based on religion and Muslims wanting their own state?

I believe when the British left India the lands of Bengal and Punjab were partitioned into Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India. A huge amount of people were displaced and many Muslims were deported to Pakistan.

[SirBalon]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

I believe when the British left India the lands of Bengal and Punjab were partitioned into Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India. A huge amount of people were displaced and many Muslims were deported to Pakistan.

I studied history at University but not this area at all which means I'm ignorant to all of it.  But I have been told that this was religious based on a big part.

To say that religion doesn't have a massive part to play in these types of conflicts is mad.  The difference between Christianity and Islam is the reform each particular church has made (I'm not even talking about the famed reformation).  Even today in the Roman Catholic church Pope Francis is fighting hard against his own peers to reform many things and bring them into the modern era...  Beliefs that have nothing whatsoever to do with scriptures and where even parables are taken out of context to mean a uniform statement.

Religion is political and always has been.  It's for the weak minded person that needs a comfort feeling of "real" fairies to believe in.

[Beelzebub]

17 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Wasn't the reasons behind the separation of Pakistan based on religion and Muslims wanting their own state?

Yes! but you are not getting it, it wasn't like that all Muslims got one one side and Hindus on the other and then they fought and then Pakistan got separated. Many Muslims didn't agreed with the idea of Pakistan and stayed in India.There were refrendums in every province/state just like the Catalonia thing.

Think of it as as the separation of Czechcoslovakia.

[SirBalon]

1 minute ago, Azeem98 said:

Yes! but you are not getting it, it wasn't like that all Muslims got one one side and Hindus on the other and then they fought and then Pakistan got separated. Many Muslims didn't agreed with the idea of Pakistan and stayed in India.There were refrendums in every province/state just like the Catalonia thing.

Think of it as as the separation of Czechcoslovakia.

I know that much of it because I remember my father commenting on these things.  I'm not saying it's clear cut as nothing ever is.  What I am saying though is that the underlying argument was one based on theological beliefs.

[Spike]

26 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

I studied history at University but not this area at all which means I'm ignorant to all of it.  But I have been told that this was religious based on a big part.

To say that religion doesn't have a massive part to play in these types of conflicts is mad.  The difference between Christianity and Islam is the reform each particular church has made (I'm not even talking about the famed reformation).  Even today in the Roman Catholic church Pope Francis is fighting hard against his own peers to reform many things and bring them into the modern era...  Beliefs that have nothing whatsoever to do with scriptures and where even parables are taken out of context to mean a uniform statement.

Religion is political and always has been.  It's for the weak minded person that needs a comfort feeling of "real" fairies to believe in.

I think the last statement is very cruel and reductionist.

[SirBalon]

Just now, Spike said:

I think the last statement is very cruel and reductionist.

Which part?  Religion is political or that religion is a comfort feeling for many?

[Spike]

1 minute ago, SirBalon said:

Which part?  Religion is political or that religion is a comfort feeling for many?

You didn't say 'many' you flat out stated that religion is for weak minded people.

[SirBalon]

Just now, Spike said:

You didn't say 'many' you flat out stated that religion is for weak minded people.

Many is what I believe and I apologise for the sweeping statement as I don't want to offend those with measured faith.  But I do believe that religion has two states of being which is political (control) and comfort feeling in a controlling father figure that will offer you paradise in the "afterlife".  Only one of those factors is otherworldly though and there is my tendency to sweep all before me without malicious intentions intended.