WhatIfTheyWereMuslim?: Bomb Defused in Northern Ireland Would Have Caused Devastation

Categorized | Loon Violence

Tags | Anti-Muslim, Bomb, Devastation, Islam, Islamophobia, Muslims, Northern Ireland, WhatIfTheyWereMuslim

WhatIfTheyWereMuslim?: Bomb Defused in Northern Ireland Would Have Caused Devastation

Posted on 02 May 2012 by Emperor

Widely (un)reported terrorist bomb attack, would have killed many,

“To put it in perspective – anyone within 50 metres of this device would have been killed and anyone within 100 metres, seriously injured,” District Commander Chief Superintendent Alasdair Robinson told a news conference.

“This was a very significant device. If this had exploded it would have caused devastation.”

Bomb defused in Northern Ireland would have caused devastation

(news.yahoo.com)

BELFAST (Reuters) – Two bombs planted by militant Irish nationalists, including one packed with enough explosives to have killed anyone within a 50-metre (yard) radius, were defused in Northern Ireland on Saturday, police said.

The 600-pound (270-kg) bomb, roughly the same size as one used to kill 29 people in the town of Omagh in the single deadliest attack of Northern Ireland’s three decades of violence in 1998, was left in an abandoned vehicle in the town of Newry.

Police blamed nationalist groups opposed to a 1998 peace deal that largely ended violence in the British-controlled province, and said the device was fully primed to cause devastation.

“To put it in perspective – anyone within 50 metres of this device would have been killed and anyone within 100 metres, seriously injured,” District Commander Chief Superintendent Alasdair Robinson told a news conference.

“This was a very significant device. If this had exploded it would have caused devastation.”

Army bomb disposal experts defused a similarly sized bomb in the border town of Newry this time last year. Another bomb was also found near the main Dublin-to-Belfast motorway earlier this month that police said had the potential to kill.

The other bomb also made safe by the army on Saturday was discovered under a parked car in Belfast where 80 people were moved from their homes for five hours overnight. There was no confirmation yet of its size.

Police investigating dissident activity also found guns and ammunition in the mainly Catholic Ardoyne area of Belfast.

The 1998 peace agreement called a halt to more than three decades of violence between mainly Catholic Irish nationalists opposed to British rule of Northern Ireland and predominantly Protestant unionists who wanted it to continue.

But dissidents, many of them belonging to splinter groups that have broken away from the IRA, fight on with mostly unsuccessful and sporadic gun and bomb attacks.

(Reporting by Ivan Little; Editing by Padraic Halpin/Maria Golovnina)

Michael Elwood

@Believing Atheist

“Ah you are quoting from a 1947 pamphlet.

We both quoted from the same pamphlet. But my quote was bigger than yours.

“Read his 1953 essay where he says”

That quote doesn’t really clarify the issue. Most atheists claim that they would except God’s existence if they were shown some some (usually outlandish) evidence. I think the other quote was more telling:

“I never know whether I should say ‘Agnostic’ or whether I should say ‘Atheist’. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

“On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”

Although I’ve read a lot of stuff about philosophy, and I think and argue like a philosopher, I’m not a philosopher. I’m the ordinary man on the street. Therefore, I say that he is an atheist.
http://www.summerseale.com Summer Seale

@Ilisha

I’m sorry I wasn’t back earlier and I’m not really back now. I just have a few minutes to say that I got your replies via email and I’ll have to look at them later this week. I’m glad you did a better translation and I will read it soon. I’m still traveling and really busy RL and when I get to my laptop at 10pm at night, I’m not really much up for a debate. Unfortunately, I have a lot of places to go to this week but I’m going to make time as soon as I can. I saved the thread in my email so I can get to it soon.

If you go to my G+ stream, you’ll notice it has been mostly completely idle in the last few days as well, whereas you can also see that I’m normally very active there. But I really don’t have time at the moment to debate for too long as I’ve got a ton of work to do in the evenings and my travel and meetings have been taking a major chunk out of my online debating times (as well as reading my news feeds and posting and the like).

I am RSS subbed to this blog though so I’m sure I’ll catch up on other stories here as well eventually.
Ilisha

@Believing Atheist

I brought this task on myself with my open challenge, but that’s okay. I will keep this link because it’s not the first time someone pasted such “proof” here, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

Actually, what’s good is that we’re seeing some of the diversity among atheists.

I appreciate the fact you’re willing to look at an issue with a broad perspective, and consider multiple factors–including religion, but not religion exclusively. That’s rational skepticism, which I appreciate.
Believing Atheist

@llisha,

Hahahah. It seems you have your hand full with one atheist, imagine replying to two atheists on this thread. Aren’t you glad that I am on your side most of the time?
Ilisha

@Summer Seale

(7) Quran (9:29)

Loonwatch writer Danios:

“…As for your claim that v9:29 is what gives the reason to go to war, this is plainly false. The reason is given in 9:13:

“Will you not fight against a people who have broken their peace treaty with you, have decided to expel the Messenger, and who were the first to attack you?”

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/the-bibles-prescriptive-open-ended-and-universal-commandments-to-wage-holy-war-and-enslave-infidels-iii/comment-page-3/#comment-73220

Loonwatcher Khushboo:

“Bob, you do realize that 9:29 is referring to the Oppressors right, not just innocent non-Muslims. You can’t just read one verse, you have to read the whole chapter. Check out 9:11-15 which states Fight those who fight you first. You should not fear them but God instead. Fight them until they stop. God will remove the anger of their hearts and HE turns in forgiveness to whom HE wills. Throughout the Quran, it mentions how God is merciful (ar Rahman) and compassionate (nir Rahim). I know this because I’ve read the WHOLE Quran…

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/its-the-occupation-stupid/comment-page-2/#comment-30970

Further commentary from The American Muslim:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_929_commentary

**********

(8) Quran (9:30)

This refers to God punishing blasphemers. It has nothing to do with my challenge, since it doesn’t command Muslims themselves to do anything. I’m not sure why it’s included here.

Further commentary:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

**********

(9) Quran (9:73)

This is addressed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in a specific context, so how does it apply?

Loonwatcher Michael Elwood:

“As for v9:73, it’s important to read the context of that verse.”

I did read the verse in context. I also squinted my eyes and looked at it sideways. And I still couldn’t tease the “Jihad doctrine in Islam”, as you understand, it from the verse.

“Similarly as with verse v9:81, which is talking about striving on the battlefield – v9:83 makes this clear beyond any doubt.”

The funny thing about this is that, as your hero Robert Spencer likes to say, those verses (9:73, 9;81, and 9:83) are descriptive not prescriptive. They are describing past conflicts, not prescribing future conflicts. Verses 9:73 and 9:81 even specifically mention the prophet/messenger. So, how did you tease your amusing “Jihad doctrine in Islam” from them?

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/why-cant-robert-spencer-debate-danios-of-loonwatch-again/comment-page-2/#comment-132961

Further commentary:
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=73&to=74

**********

(10) Quran (25:52)

There isn’t much commentary on this defending against false accusations, probably because it’s obvious that it isn’t a call for aggression against anyone. There’s no discernable reason for it to be included here:

25:50 We present this wondrous phenomenon to them over and over again that they may learn a lesson from it. But most people simply decline everything except disbelief and ingratitude.
25:51 Had We so willed, We would have raised up in every town a warner.
25:52 So, (O Prophet), do not follow the unbelievers but engage in a mighty striving against them with this Qur’an.

Further commentary on the context of this verse:
http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=25

**********

(11) Quran (47:3-4)

This verse applies to battle:

47:4 So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds.

It’s sometimes noted for its mercy, because it specifies that, when enemy is defeated, he should be made prisoner rather than be killed.

The BBC actually has a decent summary of the rules for war in Islam, where this verse is mentioned:

Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.

In brief, war is permitted:
* in self defence
* when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
* if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

War should be conducted:
* in a disciplined way
* so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
* with the minimum necessary force
* without anger
* with humane treatment towards prisoners of war
* Muslims must only wage war according to the principles of Allah’s justice….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

Further commentary on the context of Chapter 47:
http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=47

**********

(12) Quran (48:29)

This is a misleading translation and also, it refers to those who persecuted and attacked Muslims:

…The Arabic word “ashidda” does not mean ruthless, but strong and firm. Ruthless is an unacceptable translation. Translations of ashidda:

Pickthall: hard; Yusuf Ali: strong; Daryabadi: stern; Khan-Hilali: severe; F. Malik: strong; Shakir: firm of heart; Arberry: hard; Irving: strict

Also, the disbelievers being referred to in these verses are the those who persecuted and attacked the Muslims….

Further commentary from The American Muslim:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/uran_4829_and_554_commentary/

**********

(13) Quran (61:9)

9:22, 48:28, and 61:9 are all very similar, and all are prophesy. Allah Himself, these verses say, will spread His one true religion throughout the world.

What does this have to do with my challenge?

**********

That’s all of the verses from the Qur’an. I didn’t mention the hadith, and I’ll leave that for someone else, if anyone is interested.
Pingback: The Jewish Atheists « Musings of a Muslim Pakistani American Mom in Riyadh