Great, now we have the followers of Lyndon LaRouche and ISIS on the same side.
But she seems such a nice old lady! 
In other words, a full success for Muslim extremists.
Jeez, what was their plan to kill her? Just, like, waiting a little while?
I can see the conversation now:
*Advisor to the Crown Prince: Your Highness, there is a plan afoot to “eliminate” the Queen.
Prince Charles: That’s rich, ol’ chap, very rich. That broad will never kick off. Why I’ve been waiting forever and she’s still here.*
About Islam:
[ol][li]There is no one authority. There are many different sects, and different movements within sects, in Islam. It’s a mistake to view all of Islam as “one church”.[/li][li]The various sects/movements within Islam are not consistent in recognizing another group as either part of Islam or not part of Islam.[/li][li]It’s an incredibly big mistake to consider the Qur’an as the only text that governs Muslim life. There are various schools of jurisprudence and they are not consistently mutually recognized. At least one tradition even allows for female jurists (for religious law).[/li][li]The manner of interpretation is also different among the various sects/movements. This is notably true with how the words of the Qur’an are to be interpreted. Thus it’s also a mistake to take the Qur’an’s literal text as what it appears to you to be saying and apply that to the complex issues that have been–are are still today being–argued by actual Muslims with decades of education and over a thousand years of history to bolster one or another side of the argument pertaining to the issue.[/li][li]How do you determine who is or isn’t a “moderate Muslim”? What does “moderate Muslim” even mean? If you peg a particular person as a moderate cleric, then a few questions come up as far as the radicals are concerned:[/li][list=a][li]What branch of Islam does the so-called moderate cleric claim to belong to?[/li][li]What school of Hadith does the so-called moderate cleric claim to follow?[/li][li]What authority (deduction, tradition, rank) does the so-called moderate cleric claim for making any declaration about Islam’s position on an issue or if a particular action today is contrary to Islam?[/ol][/list][/li]
I’m sure it feels good to vent or shout “The moderates need to do this or that” but it’s just as wrong when you apply it to Islam as it is when you apply it to Christianity or any other religion or group with about a billion members. You seem to think the extremists have taken over. From what I see, the vast majority of Muslims are not out killing and therefore the extremists haven’t taken over the religion. While the extremists are obviously dangerous, they are not thde majority. So, out of idle curiosity, what have you done lately to rid folks of their misconceptions, especially when it comes to using actual extremists of the following groups, about:
[list=a][li]Catholicism[/li][li]Mormonism[/li][li]Freemasonry[/li][li]Buddhism[/li][li]Hinduism[/li][li]America[/list][/li]I picked those to ask because those are the ones I’ve heard extremely wrong “information” about in just the past few weeks. It would be just as ridiculous for me to blame you for not re-educating the people who hold onto those mistaken views about those groups as it is to hold “moderate Musli clerics” and “moderate Muslims” responsible for the acts and words of terrorists.
Personal note: On another board on which I participated until the board closed down, there was one individual who demanded in almost every post he made that I, along with every other Mormon, apologize for what he considered to be the misdeeds of Mormons over a hundred years ago. He finally got banned (only one of two people ever banned on that board). Do you see how your call to “moderate Muslims” is the same and is just as mistaken?
Just an aside here: Have you read the entire Qur’an and commentaries on same from more than one Islamic tradition?
It still seems obvious that people within the Muslim community have a better understanding of the situation then a complete outsider. There must be things that could be tried to prevent youths from getting radicalized. They don’t have any obligation to help, but it is in their own self interest. If they want to sit on the sidelines and watch that’s their right too.
It seems almost certain radicals will continue their strategy of angering the West with outrageous killings and acts of terrorism. Eventually it will fuel more anti Muslim feelings and emotions will boil over. That’s just basic human nature. You can only push people around and spit in their faces for so long before they react. Mild harassment of Muslims has already started in some places. I linked a very trivial incident earlier. Hopefully it won’t get any worse any time soon.
For the love of…THEY ARE NOT SITTING ON THE SIDELINES! The terrorists are not the majority. How many youths, as a percentage, of Muslims do you think are getting radicalized anyway? Also, what are you personally doing to prevent youth in your community from joining a radical version of Christianity (I’m assuming you’re living in a Christian-majority area)?
Wow, stereotype much? Caves? Seriously?
Tu quoque aside, Eric Rudolph never rallied 20,000+ to his cause. McVeigh never seized territory the size of Britain. No one ever kidnapped hundreds of abortion doctors and sold them as sex slaves to their soldiers. There’s only one kind of radical that has done that in the past century.
Granted, there are a billion Muslims screaming for these bastards to stop their rampage, yes, but that doesn’t obscure the fact that these young men find something appealing in Islam as an outlet for their anger. Islam may have little to do with “the issue,” but there’s no denying “the issue” has everything to do with Islam.
Indeed. Among those things better understood, the extent to which Muslims are denouncing ISIL et al. The “complete outsider” apparently missed that class.
Well, first they need to get access to Reggie Jackson…
The amount and severity of radicalisation within Islam seems to be enough to raise a small army, take over a country and cause atrocities around the world.
The amount getting radicalised for Christianity seems less of a problem. I’m sure they exist and I’m sure they kill for their sectarian beliefs (Hutu’s vs Tutsi’s perhaps?) but I don’t think they try to impose this worldwide.
Those affected by terrorism don’t much care about comparing percentages, they care about the amount and the reach. A .001% radicalisation within Islam is a huge amount of people intent on death across the world regardless of the sect they represent.
That’s why Islam is such an issue at the moment. There are billions of muslims and a small but dedicated group is willing and able to commit atrocities with the intent of terrorising.
My own personal “crusade” to prevent radicalisation (I’m atheist) is to be inclusive, humanist and ethically sound. I make those judgements in light of what I consider to be the right thing to do. I make no reference the supernatural and don’t consider any texts to be infallible. I want people to be free to believe what they want but that freedom stops at the point their beliefs materially affect others. Treat people as you want to be treated is a fair maxim. I try to instill this into my children and argue the merit of this approach with others when the subject arises.
Until the faiths start taking this approach we’ll be doomed to idealogically driven terrorism of one sort or another, but at least it won’t be coming from, or supported by me.
While there’s a flourishing conversation about Islam in this thread, all I can think of to add is that while many European countries refer(red) to the heir apparent as “Crown Prince”, that’s not the usual English custom.
hangs over garden wall
There’s a language barrier. The Queen is safe. The jihadists are upset about Bohemian Rhapsody.
You know, if Charles does manage to outlive his mother, he’ll be the oldest person ever to suceed to the throne. Even Edward VII, son of Victoria, was in his late fifties. Charles will be sixty-six in less than a week.
Any assailant who gets within stabbing range, she’ll whap to death with her purse while using her hat as buckler shield.
But I’d be giving a royal appointment to High Street shop to prepare a Kevlar-and-ballistic-ceramic girdle, just in case.
My understanding from colleagues with a more republican bent is that she’s of reptilian persuasion, so I would imagine that the last thing any assailant hears within striking distance will be the zzzt! of her tongue just before impact.
Also, in looking at the memorial service this morning, I had a fleeting moment’s wonder if Prince Edward now regrets not doing any military service. Andrew Marr had a brief description of his dad, brothers, nephew and other assorted relation’s military service, and then there’s the Count of Wessex who’s like an honourary Boy Scout master’s assistant if the regular guy is on holiday. Or something. His wreath looked like something from Poundland compared to the others.
This needed to be repeated. And should be again and again.
She’s been the head of state for 60+ years, and the Crown Princess for several years before that. Lots of people have wanted to kill her for almost her entire life. Her great-uncles were in the purge, and even her uncle was murdered by the IRA. It’s not like “oooh, Phiilip, I might be killed!” is a new concept to her.
She’s lead a life, unique AFAICT, where she’s become older than almost all her peers despite having very real threats against her life since she was about 10.
I’ve always suspected this.
Slightly more seriously, it wouldn’t be that surprising if she did sleep with a gun under her pillowcase. I could actually see her disposing of a would-be-assassin in her bedchamber and then sitting up, checking how many rounds she had, and patiently waiting for the next guys.
And, given her age, if she were killed by an assassin and the govt decided not to start a war, they would cover it up. She died in her sleep.
Actually, that would be extremely rare for most European countries other than the British ones, since we have this horrible tendency to speak languages other than English. “Crown Prince” is what you guys call our heir apparents, that when you don’t insist in explaining to us that if we call our heir apparent “heir apparent” it’s not the Crown Prince.