RE teacher Gary Smith's Muslim attackers jailed

[flamingjimmy]

"A premeditated and planned attack on someone on their way home from work is comparable to two groups of drunken hooligans having a fight outside a pub, really?

 

These guys scoped the man out, planned their attack days in advance, and then carried it out in the belief that they were doing god's work".

 

]These are your quotes aren’t they? Your first paragraph clearly indicates that you believe that a random brawl is not comparable to an organised attack doesn’t it?

No, it doesn't. You keep on adding your own twist to it, I neither said, nor implied that the brawls were random.

 

And the second drawing particular attention to the fact that their attack was “planned” used to illustrate the difference between a “two groups of drunken hooligans having a fight outside a pub” and a “planned attack”.

Yes, because there is a big difference between a planned attack and a planned fight. Gary Smith was not involved in some rival violent religious sect, he was just some random bloke who had no idea what was coming, there is a huge difference between the two examples.

 

The reason I said 'drunken hooligans outside a pub' was to highlight the influence of alcohol on the violence. In contrast the attack this thread was about was not fueled by alcohol, it was fueled by religious beliefs.

 

They are too different for a meaningful comparison, the fact that fights between football hooligan firms are often pre-planned does not make the comparison valid.

[Rowan22]

"A premeditated and planned attack on someone on their way home from work is comparable to two groups of drunken hooligans having a fight outside a pub, really?"

 

 

 

So perhaps you can explain your use of the question mark after the word "really?"

[flamingjimmy]

But who knows what propelled them to do this- religion is just a side issue. For what we know, they could just be vexed because a white man was teaching Asian children and they wanted to make a point. People can use the term 'religion' until the crows come home- but it does not mean it was religious from a true Islamic perspective.

Did you read about this in the news at all? We do know more than that!

 

Here is a quote from one of the men who attacked Gary Smith

 

"'This is the dog we want to hit, to strike, to kill....

...He's mocking Islam and he’s putting doubts in people's minds...How can somebody take a job to teach Islam when they’re not even a Muslim themselves?'"

 

The attack was religiously motivated, we have the words right from the horses mouth. Also, the judge said:

 

"Your belief is that you carried out a duty to your God and you did so with no mercy.

 

"If you think that people around you in society present an insult or threat to God then you will not hesitate in attacking again in the way that you have acted."

 

You are in denial. Do you have any reason to believe it was racially motivated and not religiously motivated as was determined by a court of law? Other than wishful thinking that is?

 

 

Then what they need is education- from the reports I have read, it seems they were more inclined towards Jihadist movements- so it is just like any other form of extremism that people can take. With the right education (which their local mosques should have encouraged working towards opening their minds and helping these misguided and angry youth of today).

I'm all for Muslim leaders trying to teach them that this is not the way, however that doesn't change the fact that to these men, it was the way, they were inspired by their religion.

 

Like I said, many forms of extremism exist- it is good these people have been put behind bars- may be they can reflect on their actions because no where in Islam does it encourage to attack innocent persons-Muslim or non Muslim.

Islam as you understand it does not encourage violence towards people, Islam as these guys understand it does.

[flamingjimmy]

So perhaps you can explain your use of the question mark after the word "really?"

 

I already have done, you don't seem to have understood it, that's ok.

[Rowan22]

Yes it did, their religion did demand it. If that's what they believed then their religion demanded it, by definition.

 

A premeditated and planned attack on someone on their way home from work is comparable to two groups of drunken hooligans having a fight outside a pub, really?

 

These guys scoped the man out, planned their attack days in advance, and then carried it out in the belief that they were doing god's work.

 

The judge said "If you think that people around you in society present an insult or threat to God then you will not hesitate in attacking again in the way that you have acted."

 

Can you imagine a group of football hooligans planning and carrying out brutal attack with weapons on a teacher at some local school who was insulting manchester united in his lessons?

 

Because I can't.

 

But they were genuinely religious men?!? That's why they acted like they did.

 

I think anyone reading this would reasonably assume that your point is that:

 

 

 

A premeditated and planned attack on someone on their way home from work is comparable to two groups of drunken hooligans having a fight outside a pub, really?

 

Not forgetting:

 

 

"Can you imagine a group of football hooligans planning and carrying out brutal attack with weapons on a teacher at some local school who was insulting manchester united in his lessons?

 

Because I can't".

 

And last but by no means least, my point that football violence is in (fact) organised and "planned" would seem to contradict your point that it isn't doesn't it?

 

It's alright to be wrong Jimmy, it doesn't mean we don't love you anymore!

[flamingjimmy]

Baz1, here is some further damning evidence that the attack was religiously inspired.

 

"Judge Hand said they had “literally smashed Mr Smith’s face in.”

He said the motivation for the attack was solely down to the victim’s religious beliefs. He told them: “You believed there was a higher authority to which you were responsible and that authority dictated you must attack Mr Smith."

 

"Akmol Hussain said: 'Praise to Allah. At that time nobody was there...Bruv, I don’t care about prison as long as I’m doing it for the deen [religion] of Allah...you know what, he's not going to get up"

Arabic chanting in the background included the lyrics: 'If we are killed, then our Lord’s heavens are for us. If we are victorious, it is the inevitable promise'."

 

source

[Baz1]

Did you read about this in the news at all? We do know more than that!

 

Here is a quote from one of the men who attacked Gary Smith

 

"'This is the dog we want to hit, to strike, to kill....

...He's mocking Islam and he’s putting doubts in people's minds...How can somebody take a job to teach Islam when they’re not even a Muslim themselves?'"

 

The attack was religiously motivated, we have the words right from the horses mouth. Also, the judge said:

 

"Your belief is that you carried out a duty to your God and you did so with no mercy.

 

"If you think that people around you in society present an insult or threat to God then you will not hesitate in attacking again in the way that you have acted."

 

You are in denial. Do you have any reason to believe it was racially motivated and not religiously motivated as was determined by a court of law? Other than wishful thinking that is?

 

Of course I read it- but obviously I am not going to dig out every online paper talking about it- however some of the quotes you have given are as per what I did read. However I am not in denial- that is absurd- these guys mean absolute nothing to me. All they have done is create more damage- they did nothing to put an already well documented religion in any new light.

 

What I was alluding to was if you have a thuggish attitude, religion is just a side thing- these chaps are nothing more than thugs but unfortunately claim to follow a religion which they have clearly not understood.

 

 

I'm all for Muslim leaders trying to teach them that this is not the way, however that doesn't change the fact that to these men, it was the way, they were inspired by their religion.

 

Religious or not religious, humanity can teach one another a lot of good- I don't put all Christians, Hindus et al all in one basket. I also know there are extremist atheists who hate religion and its followers- but I don't class all atheists like that.

 

My contention is that they could not have been inspired by religious via the sources used in Islam/shariah- they could be inspired by some cleric or having attended some in house lecture or picked up a book that just happened to be written by an extremist.

 

I don't for one minute believe you subscribe to the views of Sam Harris- who has said "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion’, ‘I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

(that is taken from Jörg Blech, THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists).

 

There are atheists out there who have been inspired by Hitchins, Harris and the like who do not possess the intellectual content which was pioneered by the likes of Hume and Kant. Who is to say they are not being motivated by reading words like those attributed to Harris, and go out to do some damage to people of religion.

[flamingjimmy]

I think anyone reading this would reasonably assume that your point is that:

 

 

 

A premeditated and planned attack on someone on their way home from work is comparable to two groups of drunken hooligans having a fight outside a pub, really?

 

Not forgetting:

 

 

"Can you imagine a group of football hooligans planning and carrying out brutal attack with weapons on a teacher at some local school who was insulting manchester united in his lessons?

 

Because I can't".

 

And last but by no means least, my point that football violence is in (fact) organised and "planned" would seem to contradict your point that it isn't doesn't it?

No, because I didn't make that point. That is a strawman, as I've already said, you have disproved a claim which I did not make.

 

You don't seem to have fully grasped the english language, first you don't know what a question mark means, and now this!

 

I have made this point several times now, each time you have ignored it completely, now I'm going to put it in bold to make sure you actually read it, because I'm beginning to suspect you're not actually reading my posts.

 

there is a big difference between a planned attack and a planned fight. Gary Smith was not involved in some rival violent religious sect, he was just some random bloke who had no idea what was coming, there is a huge difference between the two examples.

 

The fact that they can both be described as 'planned' does not make comparing them a meaningful exercise.

 

I you think that is is, then I'll put my question to you:

 

Can you imagine a group of football hooligans planning and carrying out brutal attack with weapons on a teacher at some local school who was insulting manchester united in his lessons?

[quisquose]

But who knows what propelled them to do this- religion is just a side issue.

 

But we know what propelled them to do it. They're on record planning it, and celebrating it, all whilst praising Allah. It was exactly because of their religion, and if we deny it the problem will continue.

 

We have many examples of mosques inviting speakers to preach anti-western, anti-women, anti-gay messages. When this inevitably results in anti-civilised behaviour, it suddenly becomes the fault of everything but religion. The East London Mosque is addicted to this type of dangerous delusional denial.

 

We are now witnessing the largest increase in sectarian faith schools in over a century, when this inevitably results in sectarian violence, as it will, no doubt the blame will be everything but religion.

 

I know they weren't motivated by YOUR religious beliefs, but they were motivated by your religion. If we continue to allow incendiary preachers to preach hatred, and sponsor faith schools, whilst all the while denying that the inevitable behaviour is anything to do with religion, then society is simply ignoring the cancer of religious intolerance just as obviously as a women might ignore the lump in her breast.

[flamingjimmy]

Of course I read it- but obviously I am not going to dig out every online paper talking about it- however some of the quotes you have given are as per what I did read. However I am not in denial

?!?! Are you serious? You are aware that this is an internet forum and your previous posts are still there. I can read them.

 

You said "For what we know, they could just be vexed because a white man was teaching Asian children and they wanted to make a point."

 

And now you are claiming that you did in fact know better than that, you did know that it was religiously inspired? In which case why bring race into it?

 

Did you have any reason to believe race was involved, other than the fact that you don't like the alternative?

 

Religious or not religious, humanity can teach one another a lot of good- I don't put all Christians, Hindus et al all in one basket. I also know there are extremist atheists who hate religion and its followers- but I don't class all atheists like that.

Extremist atheists lol! What does an atheist have to do to be an extremist? write a book about how he thinks religion is bad and atheism is good? argue about it on the internet?

 

How come those same standards are not applied to religious people?

 

My contention is that they could not have been inspired by religious via the sources used in Islam/shariah- they could be inspired by some cleric or having attended some in house lecture or picked up a book that just happened to be written by an extremist.

Because there is never any disagreement about what to believe and how to behave amongst Islamic scholars right?

 

I don't for one minute believe you subscribe to the views of Sam Harris- who has said "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion’, ‘I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

(that is taken from Jörg Blech, THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists).

 

There are atheists out there who have been inspired by Hitchins, Harris and the like who do not possess the intellectual content which was pioneered by the likes of Hume and Kant. Who is to say they are not being motivated by reading words like those attributed to Harris, and go out to do some damage to people of religion.

This is all sorts of off topic and I can't be bothered to get into it right now, suffice to say I disagree with most of what you're saying here.