Saturday, May 27, 2017

Tagged under: ,

Manchester – Don’t Look Back In Anger

Sean Mallory with some thoughts in the wake of the Manchester Massacre.


On Thursday in Manchester centre, the thousands who gathered for a silent vigil were interrupted by one woman when she began to sing Don't Look Back in Anger by Oasis ... the crowd joined in.

An image has appeared on social media which depicts 'Love from Manchester' on a laser-guided Paveway bomb, written by an RAF crew seemingly at an RAF air base in Cyprus used in airstrikes against ISIS. The British Ministry of defence has confirmed its authenticity.

Take Robert Fisk:

Counterbalancing cruelty is no response, of course. Just a reminder ... why not pop into Manchester’s central library in St Peter’s Square and ask for Elsa Marsten’s The Compassionate Warrior or John Kiser’s Commander of the Faithful or, published just a few months ago, Mustapha Sherif’s L’Emir Abdelkader: Apotre de la fraternite? They are no antidotes for sorrow or mourning. But they prove that Isis does not represent Islam and that a Muslim can earn the honour of the world.

17 comments :

DaithiD said...

So, IS does not represent Islam just like the INLA were not representative of Christians, but Thomas Mair (the Jo Cox killer) was representative of Brexit voters, and Alexandre Bissonette (Canada Mosque Shooter) was representative of those who agree with Trumps views? Is there any replicable logic to these allocations ?

AM said...

DaithiD,

but does it not strike you that one theory is as poor as the other and in fact mirror image each other in their form of caricature analysis? They focus on the speck and try to tell us it is the log?

DaithiD said...

AM,Im not even claiming some are better than others this time, but when you know that MPs suppose the INLA to claim to be a Christian group,its has implications for policy. It shows little fidelity to any logic, let alone any principle.

AM said...

DaithiD,

but does it have any implications for policy?

I more recall the INLA being described as a Marxist group: anything but Christian

Simon said...

DaithiD, you seem to argue that ISIS is representative of Islam. You have stated before on the Quill that Islam is an inherently violent religion, that violent Islamists do not deviate from their texts any more than non-violent Muslims. If they don't deviate from the texts any more than peaceful Muslims then why do you latch on to the violent aspect rather than the benign? Why paint it as violent rather than peaceful? Particularly since overwhelming numbers are peaceful and the small minority are violent.

Tony Benn used to jokingly say if you want to get in the papers at a protest match you should smash a high street shop's window. If that happened all the marchers will be held responsible for the actions of the lone brick thrower. It will be painted as a protest that turned violent. That is analogous to present day Islam.

We discussed the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful a long time ago on the quill and you seemed to suggest the majority still support the violence, albeit in silence and secrecy.

You seem to understand Muslim texts more than the average Imam or Muslim scholar who say it is not a violent religion. I would prefer to listen to what a Muslim theologian has to say rather than someone who isn't Muslim when it comes to interpreting their texts. I understand there are examples of violent Muslim leaders in the world but surely they are in the minority and as such are less representative than the others?

I understand this isn't scientific and is just anecdotal evidence but my Muslim friends on Facebook are scathing of ISIS, despise the violence and their posts explaining that it is a peaceful religion are widely "liked" by their Muslim friends. Why should I take your interpretation of Islam as being more sound than theirs?

As for the killer of Jo Cox or the other killer you mentioned very few people say that they are representative of the Brexit vote or of the Trump support. Many people have linked Brexit to the man's actions and Trump's rhetoric to the other's. That is not the same thing as saying they are representative of Brexiteers or Trump supporters.

ISIS are linked to Islam but are not representative of it.

DaithiD said...

Simon, Islam makes no claim to be complicated, infact it was written to improve on the opaqueness of the other religions. Id like to think its simpler than quantum mechanics or statistical thermodynamics, infact i know it is.If you prefer to discuss this with Muslim theologians there isnt much more for me to say, exept your 'majority' sample size becomes irrelevant too if only this strata is an accurate view. Which theologians would you like to discuss this with, one that you know would agree with you before hand?

Simon said...

DaithiD, if I thought there isn't much more for you to say I'd be over the moon.

I prefer to read work by people like Fisk, Chomsky, Peter Taylor, Richard English and not anti-Islamic drivel. I avoid writers I don't agree with to the extent that I don't accept their analysis and they are never persuasive. However I don't unquestionably read the above writers I question them all the time and am not blind to their faults. I even question what I think myself which is just as important. I fail to be persuaded by your conspiracy theories based on who knows which well known and persuasive writer. Perhaps you are not articulating their arguments with any clarity and that's the problem? Maybe they are talking out their proverbial arses and that is why they're not more widely read and it is not your poor positioning that is at fault.

Muslims make up approximately one quarter of the global population. If they were all fueled by Islam into violence we'd soon know about it. An unrepresentative extremely small number of individuals demonstrates nothing except that you like to tar them all with the same brush much like the British did to the Irish after bombs by the IRA in Britain.

I'd rather not discuss theology with anyone, thanks very much for the kind suggestion. I already accepted that there are Islamic preachers of hate. I understand that the media publish commentary by non violent Muslims only and that this can tarnish my views on Islam but they do expose the odd hate preacher and they seem to be few and far between. If the theologians all supported such violence surely there would be a blanket crackdown of some kind?

I suspect you feel Islam may be more simple to understand than quantum mechanics but my sister finds quantum mechanics a doddle and can't make head nor tail of Islam. You might be deluding yourself, ever thought of that? The evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't violent and they don't support ISIS. Yes, not even secretly. Otherwise some reliable whistle-blower or a Muslim who discarded their beliefs would've spilled the secret beans by now.

But hell, why let the evidence get in the way of a half decent conspiracy theory?

AM said...

Simon,

Muhammad Umar Al-Qadri is a trenchant critic of the use of violence by Islamicists.

I fail to understand DaitihiD's persistence on this matter because he never seems to make progress.

larry hughes said...

RAF ensuring another attack in some other Muslim infested UK city. There is an ongoing situation in Mindanao Philippines where a city has been filled with violent Abu Syef types and locals are all fleeing. With a bit of luck Du Terte will caret bomb and flame thrower the lot of them. When they conveniently congregate in one place like that the oportunity should not be wasted. One of those by mamma USA bombs would do nicely.

Simon said...

AM, I suppose it's his stubbornness and the sentiments behind it that make me lose my patience.

The same with his yearning for a capitalist utopia and right wing leanings in general.

I am normally tolerant with views and I normally ignore similar sentiments. However, I'd rather live in a United Kingdom with progressive unionists in charge than in a Republic with an entrenched capitalist market, racism, inequality and intolerance towards difference that would make the old Progressive Democrats wince.

James Connolly would turn in his grave if he thought there was a brand of Republicanism that espoused capitalism a lá Thatcher/Reagan/Trump. A Laissez-faire shit-storm if it ever made any headway.

One of the reasons I shied away from giving Sinn Fein the vote on occasion was the cosying up to Big Business. The acorn of the Private Public Partnerships courtesy of Belfast City Council relatively early on didn't grow into a mighty capitalist oak but it was close.

DaithiD said...

Except im not stubborn, and thats the most annoying thing you have said. If you want to adress my central points, rather than list a load of your own to then accuse of me of ducking them I will accept being proven wrong.As I have done when shown error in other things.I will normally oblige first to get the process moving, but im not interested in being lectured (with insults) by someone I cant verify, its just not interesting, before I even get to the major flaw in the premise. My central point is the life of Mohammed and how this informs Islam todaym which is what every Muslim is concerned with (ask them if you dont beleive it). If you start your analysis in the last 200 years, I feel confident enough to ignore your view because its incomplete, and that will appear stubborn if im not proven wrong as I will maintain it. AM, you are mistaken, this debate has been progressing my way, albeit not on here.

AM said...

DaithiD,

it seems to be progressing your way in all the circles you want to progress away from: Trump/Rudd/Le Pen/Farage.

But how convincing are they?

DaithiD said...

AM, have you ever heard me cite one on Islam? Whose circle does claiming a state knows better than it's prisoners why they are locked up, put you in? Hint : 'Politics is politics is politics .it is not religious it is politics ' a neat and bitchy paraphrase?

AM said...

DaithiD,

make it less convoluted and I might understand WTF you are talking about! This serpentine way of expressing yourself loses the point. Say it straight

DaithiD said...

AnN apologies with the Thatcher reference I don't mean I was trying to get a rise but on reflection that comparison to someone on the blocks during the hunger strike isn't something toss around.

AM said...

Still none the wiser LOL

DaithiD said...

Some of those in UK prisons or that groups like CAGE advocate for claim they are being punished for religious reasons, but these are not accepted as valid by the State or wider society. I was drawing a parrallel with Irish Republican prisoners who insisted they were there for politcal reasons, not crime as the State and wider society claimed. Thatchers comment about the Hunger Strikers status was 'crime is crime is crime. it is not political, it is crime', and I superficially claimed equivlance by restating your position as 'poltics is politics is politcs. it is not religion, it is politics' . But i withdrew that because Thatcher is more than just a historical detail to you and others who served on the H-Blocks she murdered people you loved, I just think it was insensitive of me (not that you complained-but I regretted it instantly upon reading it back).