Suicide Attack Kills 3 Soldiers in South Russia

Originally posted by oozyism
I don't think you get what freedom means, heard of freedom to choose? Those radicals who want their freedom are fighting for the freedom to choose to live their own way of life.

No, they're fighting for the freedom to force ME to live their way of life. Their freedom in no way trumps mine.

Sorry mate, I don't believe it is called freedom when the wishes of majority is implemented on to the minority. That is not freedom at all, that is just half totalitarianism and half BS lol..

Sorry, mate, it's even LESS freedom to force the wishes of the minority on the majority.

Every man/woman has the right to live how ever he/she wants based on agreements with their surrounding population. That is freedom. When you take that freedom away from them, you are the oppressor, and they are the freedom fighters.

"Based on agreements with the surrounding population". When did the surrounding population agree that it was OK for the minority to suicide bomb the living daylights out of them until they get their way forced upon said surrounding population?

Yeah, I'm perfectly willing to "opress" that sort of activity. Their freedoms do NOT include the freedom to take MY freedom away.

[edit on 2010/9/6 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

"Based on agreements with the surrounding population". When did the surrounding population agree that it was OK for the minority to suicide bomb the living daylights out of them until they get their way forced upon said surrounding population?

Yeah, I'm perfectly willing to "opress" that sort of activity. Their freedoms do NOT include the freedom to take MY freedom away.

So you claim it is OK to take away their freedom as long as you have your freedom.

I don't think you get the statement (based on agreement with the surrounding population).

That means every individual has the right to live how ever he/she wants, if they want to live in groups (then great), if wants to live alone (then great).

IF they want to live in group, every member of that group must accept the conditions, that means everyone, or they can make partial agreements, not the majority. That is how communities are built, not based on majority pedophiles and kiddie F'ers but based on agreements of the whole. If one person wants to drop out, that person can. If one family wants to drop out, that family can. That is how it is, that is called freedom to choose.

Blowing people up blablabla, that is all your Islamaphobic rhetorics. You know people with brains look at the source of the problem, they don't waste their time on the effects. That is you, looking at suicide bombing and trying to make sense of it, when you know clearly what they want because they say what they want on those videos they make lol

Then just to feed your hate for World Wide Muslim and Islam you will invent the idea that these freedom fighters want to force others to become Muslim, or to enforce their own laws on others. That is where the stupidity comes in to play, because societies are enforcing their ideologies on to others and expecting no resistance, but when resistance comes people like you say, well they want to enforce their ideology on us lol... OHH GOSH..

So I ask you my Muslim hating friend, why doesn't Russia make a deal with that region? Why doesn't Russia tell them to gather all those who want to live the way of life of the resistance then give them a portion of land to live in? Instead of gathering them together and blowing them in to smithereens? You tell me since you are all for freedom and peace, eh, I mean totalitarianism and hate.

Originally posted by Miraj
Why does everyone jump on Muslim bashing with every suicide bombing attack?

Do you guys have something to prove?

Pathetic..

Crazy people do crazy stuff.


Thought that was a fact of life, but not everyone was taught that apparently.

The same reason people bash on US everytime we kill insurgents and or protect our intrests and our citizens from further terrorists attacks.

reply to post by oozyism

Blowing people up blablabla, that is all your Islamaphobic rhetorics. You know people with brains look at the source of the problem, they don't waste their time on the effects.

So youre saying the ends justify the means? Arent you pushing the same ideology that you condemn the US and everyone else who ISNT Muslim for doing?

So I ask you my Muslim hating friend, why doesn't Russia make a deal with that region? Why doesn't Russia tell them to gather all those who want to live the way of life of the resistance then give them a portion of land to live in? Instead of gathering them together and blowing them in to smithereens? You tell me since you are all for freedom and peace, eh, I mean totalitarianism and hate.

Maybe because Russia like America doesnt negotiate with Terrorist........they put bullets in them.......

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by oozyism

 

So youre saying the ends justify the means? Arent you pushing the same ideology that you condemn the US and everyone else who ISNT Muslim for doing?

the ends justify the means? No, I'm saying they are freedom fighters, I'm not saying they are right lol. Freedom fighters can be wrong, i.e. when they go around killing innocent people, but that doesn't mean they are not freedom fighters, that simply means they are freedom fighters and terrorists, because they use terrorism to obtain an objective.

In regards to OP, the attack wasn't again innocent people, it was against soldiers, so it is the right way of doing it..

Maybe because Russia like America doesnt negotiate with Terrorist........they put bullets in them.......

But you can't shoot someone who blows himself up.

----

This is another thread that has to go off my active pages. Ta Ta.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by alien]

reply to post by oozyism


Ah oozy, suppose those Taliban are freedom fighters as well, you know, The Taliban you ran away from?

Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
But to call Muslim extremists, whose very aim is to restrict freedom, 'freedom fighters' is pretty ironic and hypocritical really don't you think.

Islam seems to be in conflict with every society it comes into contact with.
Islam and Europe.
Islam and USA.
Islam and Russia.
Islam and India.
Islam and China.
Islam and Australia.
etc.

What's the common denominator here?

Seems to me these 'freedom fighters' just want the freedom to impose their beliefs on other people and restrict their freedoms.

Edit. Brain and fingers outof synch and keyboard knackered!

[edit on 6/9/10 by Freeborn]

Dagestan & Caucasus are NOT Russian lands.
That is the core of the problem in the area .



[edit on 6-9-2010 by 23432]

reply to post by Freeborn

Islam seems to be in conflict with every society it comes into contact with.

I will take your argument above and take it seriously, in remembrance that Islam is even in conflict with Islam.

I think the fallacy in your argument is that you call resistance fighters Islam, because they are Muslims (as if there are no non-Muslim resistance fighters lol), kind of awkward especially taking in to consideration that the same Islamic extremists are willing to attack the Saudi Government, which is apparently also Islamic extremist.

My point is clear, I don't want anyone to enforce their own way of life in to others. For you to justify the enforcement of your way of life on these extremists because you think they will enforce their way of life on you is what we call an idiotic + backward argument.

That is why I suggested no one should enforce someone to live under their rule, not even one person, without agreements.

See, you are stuck inside a circle you can't come out of it (tit 4 tat, goes around, come around), that is why they are bombing you and you are bombing them, they are killing your civilians and you are killing theirs. Remember what Bush said? We are taking the fight to them, why do you suppose? So their innocent and children can die instead of yours.

That being said, you are stuck inside the box with them, and they are stuck inside the box with you. Then the argument came which suggested and told the world to think outside the box.

reply to post by oozyism


In an ideal world we would all be able to do as we please free from interference from others.
Anarchy.
en.wikipedia.org...
Such a state would negate the need for government, nation and organised religion.
But we are a long way away from that.
And so we must deal with the reality of today.

On a personal level I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to impose my beliefs on anyone.
But I will resist anyone who tries to impose their beliefs on me.
And like it or not, the one's who are most active and forceful in doing so at present are Muslim extremists.

I recognise that Islam is at odds with itself.
Whilst always being there, Islam's intolerance with opposing opinions and beliefs, including other Islamic denominations, seems to be growing to epidemic proportions.

Of course not all 'freedom fighters' are Muslim at present.
But the fact is that the majority are and they are the only one's who are intent on exporting their terrorism and imposing their beliefs upon other nations / people.

I would never attempt to justify or defend what happened in Iraq.

Afghanistan is another story though.

But all this still doesn't alter the fact that Islam seems to be such a confrontational and intolerant belief system and seems to come into conflict with everything it comes into contact with.

I think it's about time that Islam took a step back, had a good look at itself and recognised that not all of the world's ill's and injustices are everyone elses fault and accepted some responsibility itself.


And on a different note; to be able to think outside the box one must first recognise and undertand that there is no box at all.

I hate to burst your bubble of Islamophobia, but there is very little known about this particular attack. The source article is extremely vague. Did you bother to read it? Or just glance over it with a pre-determined interpretation? Because that's what it sounds like.

"Suicide bomber" is being casually equated with "terrorist" here. Tell me, what was the motive of this attack? Which particular group carried it out? Were they native to the land? Were they being oppressed? Were they immigrants trying to force their way of life on the locals? What? You don't know? Then why are you making conclusions and serious accusations against an entire religion? And why are you so certain that the attack was unjustified? You have exhibited no contextual knowledge whatsoever throughout this entire thread.

It's because your emotions and preconceptions about Islam are interfering with and adversely affecting your ability to reason from an objective point of view. It happens to smart people too - they're just better at duping themselves into believing that they're being logical.

Interesting conversation so far , just want to add my 2 cents

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by oozyism

 

Islam and India.
[edit on 6/9/10 by Freeborn]

No the religion Islam has not caused any problem in India. We have millions of Muslims & Hindu's living side by side today. The last racial tensions between Hindu and Muslims were created by a Hindu party called B.J.P. to win elections which they did. I have written about it more here (hope you read it). Yes we have problems with Pakistan but it is not because of religion. It has to do with territory.

reply to post by Ek Bharatiya


I think this is quite an accurate and unbiased view of Indian Muslim extremism.
intellibriefs.blogspot.com...

To suggest poor Hindu - Muslim relations is purely down to Hindu's is not very accurate, surely you remember the Mumbai attacks in 2008.
en.wikipedia.org...

Edit to add:
Oh, and I know quite a few people of Indian and Pakistani origin and to say that the majority of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim people hate each other is an under statement to say the least, regardless of national origin.

[edit on 6/9/10 by Freeborn]

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Ek Bharatiya

 

I think this is quite an accurate and unbiased view of Indian Muslim extremism.
intellibriefs.blogspot.com...

I read the complete article. It was a fair assessment and I also noted that nowhere the religion of Islam was mentioned as the cause of it.

To suggest poor Hindu - Muslim relations is purely down to Hindu's is not very accurate, surely you remember the Mumbai attacks in 2008.
en.wikipedia.org...

I never suggested it is purely the fault of Hindu's. The two racial tensions (Bari Masjid and Ayodhya) were started by a political party B.J.P which incited riots. They don't represent all Hinduism even though they call themselves Hindutva party. You don't know how many people were disgusted by their behavior allover India. They did it to achieve political goals. The terrorist attacks launched by Pakistan with the help of many inside sleeper cells and radicalized youths were terrorist attacks. There is nothing about religion in them.

Edit to add:Oh, and I know quite a few people of Indian and Pakistani origin and to say that the majority of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim people hate each other is an under statement to say the least, regardless of national origin.[edit on 6/9/10 by Freeborn]

No the vast majority of us dont hate eachother. How do you get the idea we do?

Originally posted by space cadet

Who else does suicide bombings?

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

From the link:

Suicide bombings

The LTTE have employed the use of concealed suicide vests.[92] According to Jane's Information Group, between 1980 and 2000, the LTTE carried out 168 suicide attacks causing heavy damage on economic and military targets.[93]

Many of these attacks have involved military objectives in the north and east of the country, although civilians have been targeted on numerous occasions, including during a high profile attack on Colombo's International Airport in 2001 that caused damage to several commercial airliners and military jets, and killed 16 people.[94] The LTTE was also responsible for a 1998 attack on the Buddhist shrine, and UNESCO world heritage site, Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy that killed 8 worshipers. The attack was symbolic in that the shrine, which houses a sacred tooth of the Buddha, is the holiest Buddhist shrine in Sri Lanka.[95] Other Buddhist shrines have been attacked, notably the Sambuddhaloka Temple in Colombo that killed 9 worshipers.[96]

Relatively speaking, there have been fewer operations in the south where most of the Sinhalese live, including the capital Colombo, although such attacks have often engaged high-profile targets and attracted much international publicity as a result.[97]

The LTTE's Black Tigers has been attributed with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, who was killed in 1991 using a prototype suicide vest, and Ranasinghe Premadasa, assassinated in 1993.[93]

More

Not Muslim.

Originally posted by space cadet
What other religion (today) kills people in the name of their god?

No religion kills people in the name of their god, but people may kill people in the name of their god, but who will be disavowed as a result by fellow members of that religion.

The militants in the Caucasus fight not for their God for the sake of fighting for their God, but are fighting for independence from Russia. Some are more religious than others, but this is not a big 'Islamic plot'.

If Muslims and Islam were planning a global takeover, a global jihad, you would know about it. There are over 1 billion Muslims. Trust me. You would know about it.

As it is, the majority of Muslims wish to live in peace, just like you, just like me.

I am sorry to say that yet again, this thread has descended into an excuse to bish, bash, and bosh Muslims and Islam.


Some people who claim to act in the name of their God:

Lord's Resistance Army

From the Link:

Lord's Resistance Army

The Lord's Resistance Army (also Lord's Resistance Movement or Lakwena Part Two) is a sectarian religious and military group based in northern Uganda.

The group was formed in 1987 and is engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in what is now one of Africa's longest-running conflicts. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the "spokesperson" of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[3]

The group is based in apocalyptic Christianity[4][5][6][7][8][9][10], but also is influenced[11] by a blend of Mysticism[12] and traditional religion,[13] and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and Acholi tradition.[3][14][15]

The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, sexual enslavement of women and children, and forcing children to participate in hostilities.[16]

The LRA operates mainly in northern Uganda, but also in parts of Sudan, Central African Republic and DR Congo.[17][18] The LRA is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by the United States.[19][20]

Do these people in the LRA represent Christians and Christianity and prove Christians as wishing to dominate the world?


No. Of course not. So why say the same about Muslims for the actions of groups comprised of people who claim to be acting in the name of Allah?

Groups who are overall disowned by the majority of Muslims?

Because the only explanation I see is at best ignorance and at the very worst Islamophobia, and a xenophobia of Muslims in general.

The actions of the few does not excuse a hatred of the peaceable majority when the peaceable majority condemn the actions of the few.

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya

I think this is quite an accurate and unbiased view of Indian Muslim extremism.
intellibriefs.blogspot.com...

I read the complete article. It was a fair assessment and I also noted that nowhere the religion of Islam was mentioned as the cause of it.

It mentions Muslim extremism and terrorism throughout the article.
That it doesn't solely blame Muslims is commendable and it tries to explain the origins of Indian Muslim extremism.

I never suggested it is purely the fault of Hindu's. The two racial tensions (Bari Masjid and Ayodhya) were started by a political party B.J.P which incited riots. They don't represent all Hinduism even though they call themselves Hindutva party.

Of course they are not representative of ALL Hindu's.
But they DO represent what a portion of Hindu's believe.

You don't know how many people were disgusted by their behavior allover India. They did it to achieve political goals. The terrorist attacks launched by Pakistan with the help of many inside sleeper cells and radicalized youths were terrorist attacks. There is nothing about religion in them.

It is re-assuring to know that not all Indian's sympathize with the extremists from all sides.
For a lot of Muslims there is no distinction between politics and religion, Islam is an all encompassing belief system.
As such politics and religion are intertwined to such an extent that little dstinction can be made.

No the vast majority of us dont hate eachother. How do you get the idea we do?

I base that on my dealings and relations with the quite considerable number of people of Pakistani and Indian origin and ethnicity I have and do know to varying degrees here in the UK.
I assure you there is no love lost between the different communities and little or no sense of common purpose or shared identity.

I am certain that there is considerable interaction and mutual respect between all the different and diverse sections of Indian society, but I also think that to try and portray India as some sort of multi-cultural ideal is naive in the extreme.

[edit on 6/9/10 by Freeborn]

Of course they are not representative of ALL Hindu's.
But they DO represent what a portion of Hindu's believe.

Yes they do represent a small portion of what Hindu's believe (but not Hinduism religion) but if you know the demographics you will find these portions are usually uneducated or in rural areas, where it is easy for them to raise such rhetoric. If I failed to mentioned before I will now, they incited violence to win elections on baseless things.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I base that on my dealings and relations with the quite considerable number of people of Pakistani and Indian origin and ethnicity I have and do know to varying degrees here in the UK.
I assure you there is no love lost between the different communities and little or no sense of common purpose or shared identity.

I am certain that there is considerable interaction and mutual respect between all the different and diverse sections of Indian society, but I also think that to try and portray India as some sort of multi-cultural ideal is naive in the extreme.
[edit on 6/9/10 by Freeborn]

Ah' well sir if you don't live in India and experience yourself how different sects. of people live their everyday life together you really won't know how Indians work and feel based on handful of groups you have come across with in UK. I agree with you though there is animosity between Indians and Pakistanis but it is not due to religion. Many Indians calls Pakistanis names and likewise which you may misconstrue as religion divide but in actuality it's not. It's all due to wars we have been in. You see many people will curse Pakistan because they don't like Pakistan and then later go and play cricket with their Muslims friends or hike a ride and goto college with their friends without bothering if he is Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Jew. It's what you call nationality thing. Same like how you curse your opposing football teams in UK . And I sincerely believe on Pakistan's side it's same as well.

reply to post by Ek Bharatiya


But the core reasons India and Pakistan have had their arguements and wars is essentially down to religious differences.

The majority of people of Indian and Pakistani descent come from families who try to maintain the values, traditions and beliefs that they brought with them from their respective country of origin.
This is obviously done with varying degrees of willingness, conviction and success.
And intolerance for the other side is often a large part of this upbringing.
But it is done with a belief that they are being true to their cultural and religious heritage.

I think the majority of immigrants here in the UK from the Indian sub-continent did indeed come poor and / or rural communities and perhaps intolerance is far more common place there.

As enjoyable and fascinating as I find our discussion I fear we maybe drifting off topic and maybe in danger of completely derailing the OP's thread.
Perhaps we should continue this discussion in another more suitable time or place.

reply to post by Freeborn


I would love to talk about it more with you again about these issues or anything at all. I apologise to the OP for taking the thread off-topic it was not intentional .

Whether the reason for the attack was justified or not. They did attack a military installation and did not target civilians which is always a good thing imo. Suicide bombing in this way is really just a poor mans way of precisely hitting a target with lots of explosives...you have to improvise when you can't drop said explosives from thousands of feet up in a fancy fighter jet i guess.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Solomons]

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by Miraj

 

What other religion (today) kills people in the name of their god?

All of them.

Just about.