[Closed] Shots fired outside Westminster

I'd dissociate myself from those passages and condemn those that stick to them.

But I'd carry on riding because I love it, and to show that I can perfectly well enjoy it without having to follow some out of date doctrine. And I'd continue to be a perfectly pleasant person to other mtbers, and roadies, and commuters, and recumbent riders, and tricyclists, reflecting that in the end we're all cyclists together.

My immediate thoughts this morning, watching the coverage on the BBC are that someone from the Met needs to tidy up the police tape behind the presenters.

And also some thoughts about Sally Nugent but that's not appropriate. Even though she is wearing every coat she owns currently.

I suppose giving up would be over the top when I could go back to secular rough-stuff touring wearing plus twos and a cloth cap rather than a hydration pack.

Official news is that yesterdays terrorist attack [b]is[/b] being linked to Islamist extremism.

My comment on this thread last night was fully justified.

You must be so happy with yourself.

My comment on this thread last night was fully justified.

I did think it was very strange throughout all the mainstream media coverage that they didn't mention the attackers race or possible motive, it was like they were deliberately withholding that information.

For fear of reactionary attacks against the religion of the perpetrator?

Seems obvious is obviously..

jekkyl

I did think it was very strange throughout all the mainstream media coverage that they didn't mention the attackers race or possible motive, it was like they were deliberately withholding that information.

That's standard. You might remember the BBC reported that a lorry had attacked a group of people in Nice, for example. They do this to prevent the spread of rightwing, racist xenophobic stupidity and it's working well. Really, really, really well.

It was like they were waiiting for confirmation.

Only if you think that a terrorist linking themselves to an organisation legitimately makes them a representative of it.

When someone acts in accordance with the doctrine of the organisation as expressed in the texts that define the organisation then they are very much representative of it. You could argue that if the leaders of the organisation disregarded some of the published doctrine they were less represenative than the "terrorist". And therein lies the problem.

I had debates with junior on these lines because some of his school mates were into the radical Web. It's difficult to argue that the moderates are the true representatives when the radicals have the original texts on their side.

Drac - Moderator
It was like they were waiiting for confirmation.

Unless he had a pile of supporting documentation to explain his reasons and motives along with membership cards for all the organisations he was affiliated to the police would need to have investigated. I think the MET have moved beyond the colour chart detection methods these days.

Yeah but they were showing pictures of the attacker wounded on the pavement receiving medical attention. When they do those 'what do we know so far' lists they didn't mention the attackers race. I feel they probably would have if he was white.

When they do those 'what do we know so far' lists they didn't mention the attackers race. I feel they probably would have if he was white.

I think the police/media were rightly frugal with speculation and waited for confirmation. It tool one photo of the perpetrator for me to jump to my own conclusions. "That ain't no hipster". We're all pre-wired and I try to fight against it but sometimes things are what they appear to be.

While mountain biking was still based on a book with passages calling for killing non-mountain bikers

Ed, how.much have you studied the Quran? How much context do you understand? How much have you talked tho those who live by it?

his colour or appearance tells us nothing, I'm not inferring anything Mike, I just highlighted the fact that they deliberated withheld mentioning his race. Calm down. With so much time to fill usually they waffle on about any old tenuously linked stuff

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/you-dont-need-to-look-much-further-than-the-quran-for-proof-that-islam-is-a-peaceful-religion-a6847031.html%3Famp

I share two things with one now-dead notoirious "terrorist". A name and skin colour. However, the thing I have choice over, the grooming of my beard and hair, is very different.

Another friend of junior sported a characteristic 1930s German hair style for some years. I found it very difficult to discuss anything with him and even harder not to let his look influence how I talked to him.

People are tribal, they groom and dress in tribes and identify with groups. Be it punk, rad MTB, climber, metal head, petrol head, manif pour tous, goth, rockers... you can spot them at 50 paces. Some tribes have elements in them that are dangerous and if you don't want trouble you don't adopt that particular tribal dress.

Motrocyclists should avoid having wings on their leathers
People who ride scooters should avoid a parka
And members of religions who want a peaceful life can avoid wearing certain symbols or grooming in a particular way.

But they don't. Some of it is conviction and belonging, but some of it is a provocative statement. Watch some of the Luton radical vids on YouTube and they state as much.

Molgrips, I've tried defending your point of view against junior's literal interpretation and failed. The texts are there and they really aren't ambiguous. Saying they are not a call to kill infidels is contrived and the literal interpretation is clear. I have spent a lot of time looking at the matter, reading various clerics (at risk of getting prosecuted for visiting dodgy websites) and my conclusion is that if the texts really don't incite killing then every copy of the Koran needs to be destroyed and a new edition produced that removes any possible liberty in the interpretation.

I'd quote the texts but the mods would remove my posts again.

The texts are there and they really aren't ambiguous

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree?

molgrips

The texts are there and they really aren't ambiguous

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree?

...because there are multiple sects, and mulitple interpretations. And there's no single person or organisation who can pass judgement over them. And it can't be reformed or go through a process of modernisation because the Koran dictates that it can only be written or recited in the tongue of the prophet and to do otherwise is heresy, and heretics should be put to death. And so on.

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree?

The same reason most moderate Christians don't stone homosexuals? There's probably dodgy rules like these in every major religion, but most folk of faith don't take them too literally.

Interestingly, the people who do try and take them literally are the ones who tend to be very anti (insert particular religion here).

Because moderate Muslim clerics know that the texts are unacceptable in modern society, so make an interpretation that though hard to follow suits them, Molgrips. Read it yourself and you're likely to doubt the reading ability of the clerics.

Christians do the same with their interpretation of Luke 19:27 which some regard as a fable and some as an instruction. The officila line of the Christian church is that it's just a story but anyone reading is likely to interpret it as a call to kill enemies of Jesus.

Christians make a distinction between the Greek and Hebrew texts Peyote. The message in the Bible evolves through the message of the prophets, the ultimate word going to Jesus. though some people say that because Jesus endorsed the Moses code then all the hate and bile towards adulterers and homosexuals in Lévitique (Leviticus?) should stand.

edit when I say Moses code I mean "lois Mosaïques" = laws given to Moses by God, the tablets of stone and all that rather than anything else

but anyone reading is likely to interpret it as a call to kill enemies of Jesus.

Can you highlight which killing sprees have been inspired by this parable?

In a chaotic emergency situation, the people responding have better things to do than feed the 24 hour news machine. We seem to have lost the ability to wait for the facts to be reported when they are actually established. I turned off the radio last night because I didn't want to listen to hours of space filling speculation that added nothing to my knowledge of yesterday's events.

I must say this shift to using vehicles as weapons seems a threat that's hard to counter

Christians make a distinction between the Greek and Hebrew texts Peyote.

Interesting, the ones I've met don't. Maybe it's the more academic ones.

Either way, the point is that all religions offer differing interpretations of their texts, singling one out to be worse than others seems wrong.

All the monotheistic religions share the same basic texts and tenets - which include a lot of vile things they should do including killing their enemies. Christianity included. Religion is responsible for a lot of hate and killings from Tony Blairs holy crusade to northern Ireland to Hindu supremacists on the indian sub continent

Going back a few steps, the BBC have a policy of only reporting facts when they have got two sources to back them up. Hence they are usually slower to report breaking news than other interweb commentators.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html

Lot's of pretty 'dated' stuff in the bible too. A tiny, and don't lose sight of this fact, tiny minority of Muslims take their text literally, but damming a whole religion based on that tiny minority is ok?

The Crusades, Grateape, past and present. It's the line that means Christians can overlook the Christian message of peace and go about slaughtering their opponents.

Also have a look at how Bush justified his invasion of Iraq to Jacques Chirac.

If the French constitution included a line about killing anyone non-French I would damn the whole nation state. Just as the rest of the world damned a nation state that set about eliminating Jews. If the doctrine is wrong then it needs to condemning until it is revised.

Heavy, heavy police presence around Glasgow Central station this morning. Can't remember seeing anywhere near as much before. Much respect to everyone in the emergency services.

If the doctrine is wrong then it needs to condemning until it is revised.

I don't think this is really the place for this discussion, but I think you are wrong. Fundamentalists, of any religion, will always go to the base text. You simply cannot, for instance, amend them. That's nonsensical. Would you, for instance, condone the rounding up, and wholesale burning, of all bibles, to be replaced by a revised version? That doesn't sound like a country I'd want to live in.

France is a NATO member, isn't it? That requires it to fight when other NATO members are invaded? Sounds similar to the Quran I think.

If you wish to condemn the whole of Islam Ed then I think you are ignorant and misguided.

There is no centralised top down interpretation of Islam, unlike Christianity.

I would ban the publication of all the religious texts as the currently stand as they break the laws of my country. I wouldn't go as far as destruction of historic artifacts but I'd ban further publication as

[url= https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_contre_le_racisme_et_les_discours_de_haine ]All th ereligious texts fall foul of this law[/url]

I note that the murdered PC would probably still be alive if he had had more than a truncheon and an air of authority to protect himself.

Given that the scumbag was bought down by pistol fire from other (plain clothed) officers almost immediately, shouldn't we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?

Depends on which branch of Christianity, Futon.

If I'm "ignorant and misguided", Molgrips, how do you qualify the writers of the Bible and Koran?

Can't resist an insult when you don't agree with me can you.

Given that the scumbag was bought down by pistol fire from other (plain clothed) officers almost immediately, shouldn't we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?

I do find it surprising he was unarmed in such a high risk location and agree we should probably see more armed officers in these type of locations.

#badreligion

"I would ban the publication of all the religious texts as the currently stand"

So they way to beat extremism is to reduce freedom (of speech) in liberal society?

"shouldn't we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?"

I suspect the rozzer was caught by surprise. So if he'd been armed the scumbag could have killed him from behind and sourced a pistol.