It continues to amaze how apologists and appeasers tie themselves into contortions and do back flips to keep their idea of Islam as a peaceful religion. Is there no end to the idiocy of multiculturalism?
Little Green Footballs reports that in an article in England’s Sunday Herald a controversial paper presented to the British Society of Criminology’s international conference in Glasgow last week argued that a major factor that led four Muslims to bomb London was that they thought themselves to be deficient as men. It wasn’t the promise of Islamic paradise that motivated the 7/7 bombers but rather a desire to prove their masculinity. To which the Religion of Peace adds:
To whom, we might ask are they proving their masculinity? When you kill yourself, then you obviously aren’t around to relish the admiration of others. What kind of an idiot fails to plan that far ahead? (and, speaking of masculinity, suicide blasts aren't too kind to male appendages... which might be somewhat of a disappointment to the virgins... or not).
Then this bit of - hell, I don’t know what you call it, I’m not an academician – muddled incoherence?
According to the academics, males aged between 18 and 24 are at the optimum age at which to carry out atrocities, as they are also at this time struggling to be identified as men. They claim that in Britain’s consumerist society, in which masculine success is equated with material wealth, young Asians who are poor or disenfranchised or who feel oppressed will feel inadequate and will be vulnerable to manipulation by older men to commit horrific acts such as mass murder.
This rises the question again of why don’t young males from other populations in England blow themselves up to show their masculinity? They don’t because they’re not Muslims.
Then this piece of tripe.
“It’s a very understandable dynamic. Young Muslim men in the British culture experience a lot of internalised pressure to conform to the idea of manhood – the ideal of courage and standing up for yourself. “How does that affect you if you are a Pakistani male living in a council estate with a BNP councillor and a guy with no hair shoving shit through your letterbox? Social disadvantage equals disadvantage in being a man as well. We are coming at this from the wrong angle. We are making the assumption that it’s all about Islam.”
Maybe those academics should take tie and actually leave t heir ivory tower and talk to or listen to those that caused the bombing in London. Like this.
Whitehead’s paper coincides with the first anniversary of the July 7 bombings. Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Jermaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Mir Hussain, 18, killed 52 people when they detonated their bombs on London Underground trains and a bus. Yesterday a senior al-Qaeda operative claimed Tanweer and Khan had spent time at an al-Qaeda training camp prior to the attacks. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a 55-year-old doctor believed to be Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command, said they had visited al-Qaeda bases before they returned to the UK to carry out the attacks. The claim followed the release on an Islamic website of a video of Tanweer talking about his motivation. He says: “For non-Muslims in Britain, you may wonder what you have done to deserve this. Your government has supported the genocide of more than 150,000 innocent Muslims in Fallujah. You have openly declared war on Islam.”
Well, what do you know? It was about Islam all the time.
3 comments:
Looks like some people will go to whatever length to conjure up total balderdash to be apologetic to a brazenly violent religion and wish to live in denial.
Even after they lose their own to these jehadis
Sad..
peace
G
young Asians who are poor or disenfranchised or who feel oppressed will feel inadequate and will be vulnerable to manipulation by older men to commit horrific acts such as mass murder.
-yeah, and so what is motivating those older men?
`Masculinity' has been a fashionable theme in academe for nigh on 20 years now, and so, inevitably, every so-called academic "expert" trained in the appropriate "theory" wants to interpret events in light of his theoretical expertise.
I used to read some of this stuff in my university days. I never found it intellectually sophisticated. Just for starters, we might note this author's dependence on a differentiation of masculinity nad religion as possible motivating factors. But ultimately, where does he think humans get their ideas of manhood from? Well, the anthropologically wise know that humans first modelled themselves on the gods before they learned to model themselves on each other. And still today, our ideas of manhood owe much to people's conversations with personal Gods, like Allah. Our western idea of personhood, for example, emerged from people taking the model of Jesus as the ideal person (the word comes from the Latin, persona, or mask: in order to follow and imitate Jesus, one has to take on his mask, one has to transform oneself into a new kind of man ... an idea that still motivates many millions or billions today). The concept of masculinity, shorn of its religious foundations, is actually an intellectual reversion to some more primitive and naive form of human self-understanding where mysterious gods and natural forces are held up to explain human conduct - and not our obedience to, or failure of, the moral law of the one God, the monotheist idea which to atheist and theist alike should appear more sophisticated that its contemporary academic (pagan) rival.
Funny how the author of the report equates masculinity with material wealth- and then completely overlooks the well-known fact that at least one of the bombers was relatively wealthy. I guess it's best not to let facts get in the way of a comforting theory.
Post a Comment