PDA

View Full Version : Terrorist attack by doctors



mancroft
3 Jul 2007, 10:54 AM
So some doctors are alleged to have been involved in the London and Glassgow attacks.

I thought that doctors are supposed to help people in distress and not create distress.

Presumably their distorted religious ideas over-ride the Hippocratic Oath that they take.

fripping
3 Jul 2007, 11:08 AM
all doctoring must be banned immediately!

mancroft
3 Jul 2007, 11:13 AM
all doctoring must be banned immediately!

Oi! I'm the Cynical Facetious Heckler.

fripping
3 Jul 2007, 11:16 AM
not in this thread you aren't!

Stoned_Rider
3 Jul 2007, 12:18 PM
You've got to remember that, to them, being muslim overrides anything else. They don't care about their profession, they don't care about Britain, as much as they do about Allah and what he tells them to do. It really is that simple.

Ferrus
3 Jul 2007, 01:49 PM
Presumably their distorted religious ideas over-ride the Hippocratic Oath that they take.
Allah features more heavily in their imaginations than Hippocrates.

LongSilence
3 Jul 2007, 03:02 PM
Maybe they got bored with treating depressing stuff like cancer and colds and wanted some real injuries to grapple with?

cosmicdancer
9 Jul 2007, 11:04 PM
Iraqi doctors Pffft!

It's when the Egyptian dentists get involved that we're in trouble!

Ellipsis
9 Jul 2007, 11:16 PM
You've got to remember that, to them, being muslim overrides anything else. They don't care about their profession, they don't care about Britain, as much as they do about Allah and what he tells them to do. It really is that simple.

This goes along with the INTP notion of never trust religon....But I don't really think thats too true...it isn't really GOd which is making do this stuff, it is the leaders who tell them what God thinks that are at fault. No, in Hilar's Germany the same things happened... it is not God nor even thier own notion of God but better yet what the leader's notion of God....

Islam is not at fault, nor is Christanity at fault for Amercia's wars, no the blame is at the hands of the people who tell you what to think and tell you what "God" thinks....

It is and never was Faith even blind faith in God that did this....no this was blind faith in the leadership....

Anonymous
9 Jul 2007, 11:21 PM
Maybe they were tired of working on people who don't pay them.

ApeTheDog
9 Jul 2007, 11:24 PM
You've got to remember that, to them, being muslim overrides anything else. They don't care about their profession, they don't care about Britain, as much as they do about Allah and what he tells them to do. It really is that simple.

Yes, it is that simple... if you're a simpleton.

How do you know how 'it' is to 'them'? How can you claim to know what these people are like when you have absolutely no frame of reference to go on, or anything to back up your theory (aside from how 'it sounds just about right' to you).

I hope you're joking.

Stoned_Rider
10 Jul 2007, 12:06 AM
If 18 years of being a muslim and (up to this day) interacting with nothing but muslims on a daily basis are anything to go by, I trust my conclusion to be closer to the truth than any other explanation out there. So to answer your question, Ape, I do in fact have a frame of reference and have backed up "my theory" countless times on INTPc before.

PS - GC AGE: Islam <> Christianity.

ApeTheDog
10 Jul 2007, 12:20 AM
I'm wary of all theories that single down the entirety of what a person is, and what they do, into a simple explanation. It reeks of "communists are evil", "black people are stupid", "jews are greed", etc...

Nothing is ever that simple.

But, not having a frame of reference myself, I'm forced not to overextend myself here either, in order not to make myself guilty of what I claim you're doing.

Stoned_Rider
10 Jul 2007, 12:32 AM
I don't think that's a fair comparison because all I'm saying here is "Muslims are primarily Muslims". IMO it all essentially boils down to this.

ApeTheDog
10 Jul 2007, 12:43 AM
For fanatics, like terrorists, this is probably the case. If you were only talking about them - you're probably right.

demagogic_schizoid
10 Jul 2007, 12:51 AM
there are people in the muslim world fighting for women's rights, for secular states, for trade unions rights, for freedom of speech, for a vote, for security from suicide bombers, for governments who do not monopolise the country's wealth on family lines.

and these wealthy muslim doctors in the first world do not think for a second to aid that struggle of their fellow muslims, instead they choose to attack Britain

Not just britain, but Glasgow. Glasgow, of all places. in Scotland. one of Britain's most deprived areas which saw it's heart ripped out by successive Thathcerite governments, a strongly anti-war region according to polls. a region which recently elected a left-wing populist regional government, a city which kept returning Britain's most anti-war MP, George Galloway, to parliament, a region of people trying to get a bit more of a fair share of Britain's wealth compared to South England - you couldn't find a less neo-con city city in Britain - Scotland even had its fucking oil robbed by England too! if these people's problem is imperialism then they should be reaching out to the Scots, who know a fair bit about being an oppressed nation.

what rational good could they possibly expect to acheive by their actions? I expect anyone who makes the slightest excuse for them will also make excuses for fundamentalist redneck queer bashing conservatives, because there is NO difference (except that these terrorists were richer and had more of an education)

I'm glad that whilst they were burning, the people of the airport kicked them in the genitals.

by the way, on an only slightly related note, here's an interesting person who grew up in Somalia and talks about Islam. Maybe what she says is not what enlightened people want to hear, but the girl is hardly unintellectual herself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Lateralus
10 Jul 2007, 01:18 AM
by the way, on an only slightly related note, here's an interesting person who grew up in Somalia and talks about Islam. Maybe what she says is not what enlightened people want to hear, but the girl is hardly unintellectual herself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
I don't know much about her, as I haven't cared enough to investigate. But the Muslims I know consider her to be a fraud.

demagogic_schizoid
10 Jul 2007, 01:37 AM
I don't know much about her, as I haven't cared enough to investigate. But the Muslims I know consider her to be a fraud.

in what sense?

stopharian
10 Jul 2007, 01:44 AM
I don't know much about her, as I haven't cared enough to investigate. But the Muslims I know consider her to be a fraud.

Not really a major suprise since she is a converted atheist who is vocally anti Islam, and anti Mohamed in almost every sense.

Lateralus
10 Jul 2007, 02:43 AM
in what sense?
What I've been told is that she's lied about her credentials and that her movie is a gross misrepresentation. Much of what is depicted in her movie is actually cultural, and has nothing do with Islam.

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know, first hand. Like I said, I haven't bothered to research it. I just happen to know many Muslims (I dated a pretty secular Egyptian Muslim for a year and a half), and this is what they've said about it.

Ellipsis
10 Jul 2007, 05:26 AM
PS - GC AGE: Islam <> Christianity.

Sorry but I don't get the <>, just a guess does it mean: not equal?

....i just dont get it....

demagogic_schizoid
10 Jul 2007, 03:03 PM
What I've been told is that she's lied about her credentials and that her movie is a gross misrepresentation. Much of what is depicted in her movie is actually cultural, and has nothing do with Islam.

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know, first hand. Like I said, I haven't bothered to research it. I just happen to know many Muslims (I dated a pretty secular Egyptian Muslim for a year and a half), and this is what they've said about it.

so you haven't bothered to find out about it but you can be bothered to comment?

Lateralus
10 Jul 2007, 03:11 PM
so you haven't bothered to find out about it but you can be bothered to comment?
Yep

Stoned_Rider
10 Jul 2007, 07:21 PM
Sorry but I don't get the <>, just a guess does it mean: not equal?

....i just dont get it....
Yes that's what I meant (sorry).

Ferrus
10 Jul 2007, 07:23 PM
Yes that's what I meant (sorry).
Maybe it might be best to start from first principles. E.g. 1. different religions believe different things. Shockingly enough.