"Allahu Akbar"

[Ramira]

@Shodan

So the Iranians mean it when they chant “Death to America”, because they think they have a legitimate grievance.

So apparently your ideological Algorythm can not parse not White/Black statements?

I said I can detect no religious component in the phrase “death to America”. I did not say anything about “mean it” (whatever this means, this idea of mean it [literally?] is the invention of the ideological Strawmen constructors).

But of course besides the deliberate distortions / misunderstandings (as I do not believe that even Ideological Algorhythm repeaters can actually have understood what I wrote this way), the idea that there are many completely non-muslim/non-relgious reasons for certain of the Iranians (like certian of the Venezuelans, like Cubans, like Argtetines) to chant 'death to America’ (as all of these have done and do) does not say “they mean it” or their reasons are “legitimate grievances” (or not). It only highlights how stupid and bankrupt the obvious attempt at melange is.

Of course it could be the Algorythm is simply mentally incapable of logical thought, like the Cowboy who has fallen too many times on his head from the horse.

However, a Muslim terrorist who chants “Allahu akbar” and thinks he has a legitimate grievance doesn’t mean what he says.

It is hard to even understand what this confused phrase even means logically. What are the choices in understanding this?

[ul]
[li]Does a terrorist, muslim, mean sincerely God is Greatest? I suppose, although this has nothing to do with his various motivations - multiple as they can be. [/li][li]Does a terrorist, muslim, have a legitimate grievance (what does this phrase mean? I am not sure as it is the invention of the Algorythm) but not sincerely believe that God is Greater?[/li][li] Does it mean that somehow the Algorythm thinks that there is a contradiction between having a grievance with sources other than religious and making a religious expression? [/li][/ul]

Of course I know well that the internjection of the phrase “legitimate grievance” is a pure invention as a way to attempt to create a StrawMan to distract from how utterly stupid and bankrupt the sad deformations are, trying to make it seem as if I have made opinions about legitimacy or not of greivances, contra highlighting the illogical and ad-hoc melange typical of the party politial Ideologues running their set Algorythms.

Is that what you are saying?

not to anyone who is not a machine translator or a liar, no, that has always been clear.

Maybe we get this strange idea from Hizbollah’s original charter in 1985

What strange idea, ah, it is your distortion and straw man. Of course I noted what, I noted

The idea that the Palestinian groups wishing to destroy or defeat the Israel is particularly Muslim and indicative of some thing specifically Muslim is also one of those strange things that Americans of a certain blinded political tendency have convinced themselves of for their own ideological reasons. The Arab Christian led Palestinian factions - indeed the ones founded by and within the community, have sought the same objectives and indeed were the first to use organized terror tactics, drawing on the fashionable extreme Left model then.

So, yes, the specifically hard-line organization that is the Hizbullah or HAMAS has framed its objectives via the language of its ideological framing. But the actual objectives do not differ from that of the Christian Arab led organizations.

So there is not any logical basis to make an argument that it is particularly Muslim derived - but of course the reality that the Arab (maybe he is more comfortable with camel jockey or other cowboy phrases) Christian do not fit the American christianist narratives.

But of course they didn’t mean any of it.

of course the Algorythm thinks he is clever, when he is just repeated mechanically some set phrases as required from his Political Tribalism program, even though they are illogical.

These are sad strawmen - more pitiful if the Algorythm actually has such bad mental capacity so that he really does understand the world through his Cowboy White-Hat Black-Hat distortions

Disdain,

[septimus]

@elucidator

There are more than a hundred thousand hungry ghosts wandering the wasteland of Iraq, whispering in unheard spectral voices “Why did you kill us? Why are we dead?”.

But, no, we did not say “Death to Iraq!”, that would be wrong, that would be uncivilized. Rude.

At least the hungry ghosts can console themselves by knowing that they weren’t hated, the way some Arabs hate Zionists, or some Americans hate Blacks, or bloated-amygdala types hate progressive thinkers.

The Iraqis were just collateral damage; their deaths were necessary to inflate the Grand Adventure, whose cost was a triumphant victory for the business interests of Bush-Cheney and their friends.

[lance_strongarm]

@astorian

Always remember, folks, that “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “I’m a lone wolf and I’m killing these people for no particular reason, so don’t you dare connect this to my faith, you hateful Islamophobes.”

Oh my God!

:smack:

[andros]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Reread the post. That’s not what I said.

I did not say because “we in the Timbers Army …”. I said because “no one …”.

The rest of your post is premised on your reformulation, and thus moot.

:sigh: Fair enough. You’re absolutely right, disrupting a moment of silence immediately after the Paris attacks was exceptionally prickish.

That’s really your whole point?

[Stringbean]

@Ramira

The article is not useless but it is extremely incomplete and on its assertion of the good foundation of the idelogy in the ‘medieval’ theology, it is just wrong.

Why would ISIL insist that their mission is to create a “caliphate” if not for an ideology clearly referencing the middle ages?

The ubiquity of term shows that they are ideologically rooted in the middle-age struggle between the “Christian” lands and the “Islamic state.”

Everything ISIL does, from the beheadings, to the constant references to Muhammad’s teachings, to the belief in an all-encompassing Islamic caliphate, indicates they have a vision of restoring an archaic landscape much more aligned to the middle ages.

The Atlantic article does an excellent job of explaining this central motivation to ISIL, which you unconvincingly seek to dismiss by simply claiming it “wrong.”

[Fuji]

@Gary_Kumquat

Should I use this example to accuse all catholics of disrespecting the fallen in WW1? Actually it’s worse than that. Remembrance sunday is also meant to respect those who fell in WW2. Clearly Catholics supported Hitler.

Or, you know, drunken football fans can be pricks. Perhaps we should demand all football fans apologise on their behalf?

Firstly - in responding to my post, why do you seem to imply that I have attempted to attribute the actions of some Muslims to the nature of all Muslims, when I have actually done no such thing?

Secondly - your counter-example is a poor parallel to the Turkish match. Perhaps if the Turkish football players had decided to be the only ones in European competition to refuse to wear black armbands, and the Turkish football association had publicly distanced themselves from some of their fans’ obnoxious behavior and said they are not welcome at future matches, then your example might have been illustrative.

[Fuji]

@Gary_Kumquat

“Who’s that lying on the seafront…
who’s that lying on the shore…
It’s Norman Tebbit and his wife, and she’s paralysed for life…
And they wont be going to Brighton anymore!”

As sung by the “bhoys” in the Jungle at Celtic’s first home game after the Brighton Bombing. You have to give it to them, they didn’t have a lot of time to put that together. Should we interpret this as proof that all Catholics supported IRA atrocities during the troubles?

No, that would be unreasonable. But it would not be unreasonable to suppose the same of those fans who actually did make that loathesome chant.

Conversely, lordd knows there were plenty of Ranger songs mocking Bloody Sunday, and the famines, so should we take that as proof that all Protestants supported british atrocities in Ireland.

Likewise, it would hardly be surprising to discover that those fans who sing those songs are actually anti-Catholic and/or anti-Irish.

@Gary_Kumquat

The discussion started with this:

Any clearer to you know why I then provided examples of Celtic fans (catholic) and Rangers fans (protestant) acting in a similarly fuckwitted manner. They’re not doing it because they support terrorism. They do it because they like to cause massive amounts of offence to rival supporters.

:dubious: How do you know that a disproportionate number of those fans don’t in fact support terrorism, either in word or deed? It’s not as if both sides in the Troubles didn’t receive external backing from somewhere…

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You’re misrepresenting the exchange.

I was responding to a specific point made by andros. If you want to respond to those other people you quoted, don’t drag me into it.

Try to keep up, there’s a chap. Andros’ response was to my reply in the chain I just quoted:

@Gary_Kumquat

Should I use this example to accuse all catholics of disrespecting the fallen in WW1? Actually it’s worse than that. Remembrance sunday is also meant to respect those who fell in WW2. Clearly Catholics supported Hitler.

Or, you know, drunken football fans can be pricks. Perhaps we should demand all football fans apologise on their behalf?

@andros

In the US, with fairly thorough societal opposition to explicitly racist, homophobic, or anti-religion expression, we limit ourselves to other ways of prickery. On any given weekend, I am quite happy to join my drunken prick friends in a rousing chant of “Fuck Seattle.”…

…But of course none of that should be taken literally. We’re White and American. Unlike what those foreign supporters do. That’s different.

:rolleyes:

So, Andros gives another example of sports fans being arseholes and chanting offensive things, which you then claim can be discounted because there aren’t “a lot of people throwing Seattle footballers on bonfires and burning them etc.”

So, as you have argued it only counts if there’s actual physical occurrences of the threats in question, I give you some more examples of chants about violent events that clearly and most certainly have happened. Prompting a response from you that I’m misrepresenting the exchange, which frankly suggests you have a serious problem with context.

[Ramira]

@Stringbean

Why would ISIL insist that their mission is to create a “caliphate” if not for an ideology clearly referencing the middle ages?

Referencing the classical period or even the Ottoman period does not make their actual ideology ‘medieval.’ They are in reality being ‘innovative’ in their interpretation.

Of course just like the current Chinese Communist Party referencing the Marxist texts and claims to be keeping up with the central tenants, the reality underneath their Agitation & Propaganda is they have onnovated and reinterpreted themselves out of the Marxist-Leninist framework for the social and economics.

Why this is so hard to understand puzzles me.

The Atlantic article does an excellent job of explaining this central motivation to ISIL, which you unconvincingly seek to dismiss by simply claiming it “wrong.”

I dismiss a point, not the entire article - the badly supported and superficial claim that their ideology / theology is classical. It is not, although becuase of the framing of the Salafiste theology, although they innovate, they always have to claim they are returning to roots. It is the ideological imperative they have.

The imagary and actions of the DAESH are to the Islamic classical precepts as the Swords and Sorcery medieval settings are to the actual medieval society and culture, they are archaicised covers on the modern.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Fuji

why do you seem to imply that I have attempted to attribute the actions of some Muslims to the nature of all Muslims, when I have actually done no such thing?

Seeming to imply? No, I am explicitly accusing you of insinuating that behaviour at a football match reflects on Islam as a whole. Did you forget your opening gambit:

@Fuji

Could one of our resident Islamic scholars explain the meaning of the OP’s phrase in question within this particular context? :dubious:

You’re looking for an Islamic scholar to explain the meaning of people booing and chanting “God is the greatest” during a minutes silence at a football match. Do you want a scholar of Christianity to advise why Celtic fans booed during the minutes silence for Remembrance Day, or chanted songs about a politician’s paralysed wife after a terrorist bombing? Either you’re a complete fuckwit (entirely possible really) or you’re a bigot with double standards.

Then again, considering how quick you were to doubt the obvious option, it could well be both:

@Ramira

Encore, drunk Turkish football hooligans being cretins at the match with their rival, what scholarship do you need?

Or you think there is something muslim about hooligans acting like assholes?

@Fuji

I don’t know. As far as I am aware, none of the other national football matches this week have been disrupted in a similar manner. I am also led to believe that less than 3% of the Turkish population speaks Arabic as a mother tongue.

Now the first part is pretty fucking amusing, considering your opening cite pointed out “The Turkey-Greece soccer game was not the only European match where the minute of silence was interrupted. In Monday’s Ireland-Bosnia Euro 2016 playoff game, a Bosnian fan disrupted the moment of silence yelling “Palestine, Palestine.”, but hey who needs to read their own cites, right? But the second part…well just what do you relevant in the proportion of native Arabic speakers?

Tell you what, why don’t you forego further JAQing about, and actually put a position out there. How do you interpret the behaviour of the Turkish fans, considering you asked that question in a thread dedicated to mocking the practice of not blaming all of Islam for the acts of terrorists.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Gary_Kumquat

Try to keep up, there’s a chap.

I’m not going to go round in circles with you. In brief, you conflated two issues:

[ol]
[li]Whether and when football chants and the like should be interpreted literally versus figuratively/hyperbolically.[/li][li]The extent to which one can attribute the sentiments of these chanters - having established what that sentiment is - to other members of their ethnic or religious group.[/li][/ol]
If you reread the exchange with this in mind you’ll see the problem (assuming you’re genuinely interested in understanding). I see now that Fuji has undertaken to explain the same issue to you. Perhaps he has more patience and interest at this time than I do.

[andros]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The extent to which one can attribute the sentiments of these chanters - having established what that sentiment is - to other members of their ethnic or religious group.

So based on the actions of some prick football supporters, we can assume that all Turks hate Paris and celebrate the bombings, because…um…
Yeah, that’s the part that you have not communicated.
.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@andros

So based on the actions of some prick football supporters, we can assume that all Turks hate Paris and celebrate the bombings, because…um…
Yeah, that’s the part that you have not communicated.
.

Maybe I’ve not communicated that part because I’m not making any such claim.

Have you ever considered that possibility?

[xenophon41]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Maybe I’ve not communicated that part because I’m not making any such claim.

Have you ever considered that possibility?

Can you provide a simple declarative statement indicating what you think the import of that soccer audience chanting was? Because you’ve insisted to **Gary Kumquat **that the distinction between the “two issues” is important, and you seem to be concerned with the second issue:

2. The extent to which one can attribute the sentiments of these chanters - having established what that sentiment is - to other members of their ethnic or religious group.

So it would be helpful perhaps to all of us who’ve misunderstood your subtle point if you, like, unsubtled it for us.

[elucidator]

You seem to have a great deal of trouble making yourself understood.

[andros]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Maybe I’ve not communicated that part because I’m not making any such claim.

Have you ever considered that possibility?

So, again, your entire point is that the prickish Turkish fans were exceptionally prickish?

Seriously, please just assume I’m stupid (should come easy) and explain your actual point, rather than telling me over and over what your point isn’t.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@xenophon41

Can you provide a simple declarative statement indicating what you think the import of that soccer audience chanting was? Because you’ve insisted to **Gary Kumquat **that the distinction between the “two issues” is important, and you seem to be concerned with the second issue: So it would be helpful perhaps to all of us who’ve misunderstood your subtle point if you, like, unsubtled it for us.

I don’t agree that I “seem concerned with the second issue”. My primary “concern” with the second issue is that it not be confused with the first issue, which was the sole focus of my initial comments.

In andros’ post #213, he argued that these Turkish football fans were comparable to himself and his “fellow pricks” chanting at football games, in that none of what they say should be taken literally. My response, in post #215, was to explain why the two circumstances are not comparable, and that they (in the Turkish case) should be taken as a genuine expression of support for violence, on the part of those fans. That’s it.

I was not commenting one way or the other on whether these chants (in and of themselves) proved that all Muslims are violent or anything of the sort. To the extent that I’ve addressed this second issue it’s only to repeatedly point out that my comments were not about this issue.

It’s odd. I see your comment like this:

FP: My position is X, for such-and-such reason
Other Poster: That doesn’t establish Y
FP: I’ve not said Y, I’ve said X
Other Poster: X doesn’t prove Y
FP: Right. X and Y are different issues.
Xenophon: You keep talking about Y - obviously it’s very important to you. So why won’t you explain your position on Y in a clear manner?

[xenophon41]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s odd. I see your comment like this:

FP: My position is X, for such-and-such reason
Other Poster: That doesn’t establish Y
FP: I’ve not said Y, I’ve said X
Other Poster: X doesn’t prove Y
FP: Right. X and Y are different issues.
Xenophon: You keep talking about Y - obviously it’s very important to you. So why won’t you explain your position on Y in a clear manner?

Could you remind me with a link to the first post in that progression? The one I’ve bolded? (I’m assuming “FP” = Fotheringay-Phipps, and that you’re asserting you’ve declared a definite position and given your reasons for it.) I cannot find where you did that.

[andros]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

the two circumstances are not comparable, and that they (in the Turkish case) should be taken as a genuine expression of support for violence, on the part of those fans. That’s it.

Thanks for the clarity. I disagree that the Turkish fans’ boorishness is necessarily indicative of their support for violence.
.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@xenophon41

Could you remind me with a link to the first post in that progression? The one I’ve bolded? (I’m assuming “FP” = Fotheringay-Phipps, and that you’re asserting you’ve declared a definite position and given your reasons for it.) I cannot find where you did that.

Post #215. (See also post #222.)

[X is “that they (in the Turkish case) should be taken as a genuine expression of support for violence, on the part of those fans”. Y is whether this proves that all Muslims are violent or support violence. Things began going off-track in post #228; see also post #230.]

@andros

Thanks for the clarity. I disagree that the Turkish fans’ boorishness is necessarily indicative of their support for violence.
.

OK. It’s a subjective judgement call and hard to argue about.

But I do think it’s clear that you can’t support your position by reference to your own behaviour at football games, because the context is so different, as described.