At least 80 killed in Kabul blast; 2 Japanese embassy staff among 320 injured

The problem cannot be fixed if the patient refuses to admit he's sick

Wrong analogy. It's maybe more accurate to say there's a terrible sickness going around the villiage, and it can be just as dangerous to be honest about the possible causes.

Many brave Muslims have been killed or put on hit lists for being honest about the causes. These people deserve nothing but the highest respect.

You know you've drawn the short straw (or annoyed someone) when you get a diplomatic posting to Kabul.

More senseless deaths. Ordinary people obliterated by terrorists.

Senseless to you maybe, but not to the bombers. The deaths made perfect sense to them and they did not consider the dead to be ordinary people. Until we pull your heads out of the sand and engage with the ideological beliefs these people hold we will never be able to deal with this.

No indication that the victims were all Muslims. Just ordinary people, likely of different ethnic background, most of whom probably also happened to be Muslims of one sect or another.

Honestly, how are they radical in your opinion? Is it radical for a spiritual person who genuinely believes in the divinity of their holiest book to take it literally when it calls for things such as terror to be cast into the hearts of the disbelievers?

Because they are killing people in the name of their religion. A non-radical doesn't do that, as evidenced by the literally billions of people in the world who are religions, yet aren't killing anyone, regardless of what their bible or koran is saying.

It almost seems like some in the West want to dehumanise these people as idiots who will believe anything they are told.

Some of them are. Some of them are just angry, and the radicals give them a way to focus their anger in a direction.

In reality, they read their holy book carefully, they ask questions of their spiritual leaders, they make absolutely sure that this is what Allah wants of them and that they well definetly go to paradise, and only then do they carry out these atrocities.

Actually, most of them are told how to read the book by the leaders of their radical groups. Questioning is wrong, and they don't do it.

The difference between them and non-radicals is that non-radicals see that killing is wrong, and they don't do it. These guys either decide it's ok, or believe it's ok when they are told.

Also, your position on this seems very inconsistent. Last week (in a conversation which no longer exists), you insisted that we cannot objectively define Islam in order to judge the religion because it's up to each individual Muslim to decide what Islam is for themselves (and the versions could be infinite).

I still say that.

However, today you are prepared to label some Muslims as being 'radicals'.

And I'm saying that too.

This suggests Islam can be objectively assessed in your opinion, because you clearly think some versions are more or less radical than the (or at least, your) objectively identifiable neutral version of Islam.

I think both groups are Muslims, because they both identify as such. There is no saying one is Muslim, and one is not Muslim, because there is no objective definition of it beyond those that identify as such.

However, in their own interpretation of the religion, some go radical, and some don't. I have no problem with identifying those that do as Radical Islamics, as they are both Radical, and Islamic. I haven't objectively Identified what Islam is, I've observed the difference in those that identify as Muslims. It's still up to them to identify as such.

As you can plainly see, there's no inconsistency there.

I don't know. We have people on this site talking about how people have done wrong should be executed all the time. Are they radical?

With respect, the death penalty for heinous crimes isn't what I'm getting at here although I oppose it.

I'm not sure that there are too many posters here who would say that suicide bombing against innocents, non-combatants, is justified.

With respect, the death penalty for heinous crimes isn't what I'm getting at here although I oppose it.

It's not always the death penalty, it's not always heinous crimes, and often it's before the person has even been to trial, much less founded guilty. So are they radicals?

We are talking about two very separate things here. I am asking whether someone who strictly adheres to the fundamentals of Islam as revealed in the Quran can be called a radical.

If they are killing people in the name of their religion, then yes, they can be called radical, as they are taking radical measures in the name of their religion.

You're definition of radical seems to rest only on a statistical analysis of how the rest of the community behaves (regardless of what the religious texts demand of them).

No, my definition of radical is someone who kills in the name of their religion. Same as I would label a Christian who did the same. Don't forget the bible calls for killing homosexuals. Fortunately there are less Christian radicals than Muslim radicals these days.

By your definition, a self-identified Muslim who completely denies the existence of God or that Mohammed was his messenger would not be radical provided he was able to convince most people in his community to agree with him.

I don't know where you go that definition from, but it's not mine.

I would respectfully suggest that what makes your 'Islam is in the eye of the beholder' theory intellectually curious also makes it largely worthless when it comes to finding practical solutions to the problems we face.

It's not just Islam in the eye of the beholder, it's all religions. Who is anyone to say that someone who identifies as a believer in a religion, isn't.

As for being a worthless definition for solving the problems we face, well that's just too bad isn't it. The definition is what it is. It's not there to serve a political purpose. And as much as you are criticizing it, you haven't been able to show how it's incorrect.

Now as for finding practical solutions, what do you propose?

@strangerland

Leave them to themselves, and stop making ourselves targets of their hatred.

YOu don't think 95% of Westerners now are keen to get the heck the out of there? Of course we are. The problem is the pattern: the horror and misery the local people inflict on themselves rapidly escalates into "humanitarian crises," which the the world community looks to the West to solve. Think Obama and the "Arab spring." Obama was strongly anti-intervention at the outset, remember.

If the Westerners left, say hello to the genocide throughout the Mosul region and a mass slaughter of Afghan girls who try to attend school, to name just a few, at a much, much worse scale. ISIS grew and spread when the Western soldiers starting leaving, remember.

More senseless deaths. Ordinary people obliterated by terrorists.

I'd say check the 2015 Pew poll results in some Muslim-majority countries on the subject of the legitimacy of suicide bombing against non-combatants in defense of the faith. The numbers are horrific. What's more horrific is that the countries regarded as the most extreme aren't included.

These people don't see killing as wrong. Can they also be seen as radical?

I don't know. We have people on this site talking about how people have done wrong should be executed all the time. Are they radical?

The strength of Islam is in the very contradictions within the Qu'ran, making it valid for different people and differing interpretations.

The problems come when it is cherry-picked and then internal timelines and other supporting scriptures (Hadith etc.) are selected by a venerated scholar who builds a 'faithful' following. Think Khawarij, Wahabism and Salafism. This is blind faith toward one interpretation, allowing of no other and of no compromise.

Depends on how you look at it. Join us, (which goes way beyond just being a Muslim by the way) or die... Has a certain ring to it doesn't?

A sad day indeed, well for some people this is every day... That is much sadder.

Still no claim who did it. Hopefully it was Daesh. Taliban has at least a little, maybe ever so slightly credibility. Daesh none.

The problem is terrorism. The people who died were Muslims. Not terrorists.

The problem is terrorism.

Yes, 'terrorism' is the problem. It's a manifestation of 'hate' from those who 'twist' or perhaps 'misread' the faith or are actually 'not Muslims' depending on who you ask.

Or so I'm told.

Perhaps a new line of thinking is required. Maybe this form of terrorism is like a deadly virus, and needs to be addressed as such ?

@Strangerland

Just to make sure, you do draw a moral distinction between those who advocate the death penalty for criminals, and those who believe innocents are fair game in suicide attacks?

Just to make sure, you do draw a moral distinction between those who advocate the death penalty for criminals, and those who believe innocents are fair game in suicide attacks?

For sure.

RIP to all the victims. Looking at the video of the explosion and how ridiculously massive it was, like a miniature nuke, I assume the final death toll will never be known for sure

They are so bent they will kill their own just to prove their point.

They aren't their own. The killers are radical Islamic terrorists, and the victims were average people going about their day.

The difference between them and non-radicals is that non-radicals see that killing is wrong

I'd say check the 2015 Pew poll results in some Muslim-majority countries on the subject of the legitimacy of suicide bombing against non-combatants in defense of the faith. The numbers are horrific. What's more horrific is that the countries regarded as the most extreme aren't included.

These people don't see killing as wrong. Can they also be seen as radical?

@Strangerland

Because they are killing people in the name of their religion. A non-radical doesn't do that, as evidenced by the literally billions of people in the world who are religions, yet aren't killing anyone, regardless of what their bible or koran is saying

> I haven't objectively Identified what Islam is, I've observed the difference in those that identify as Muslims. It's still up to them to identify as such.

We are talking about two very separate things here. I am asking whether someone who strictly adheres to the fundamentals of Islam as revealed in the Quran can be called a radical. You're definition of radical seems to rest only on a statistical analysis of how the rest of the community behaves (regardless of what the religious texts demand of them).

By your definition, a self-identified Muslim who completely denies the existence of God or that Mohammed was his messenger would not be radical provided he was able to convince most people in his community to agree with him. Conversely, a Catholic in the West who still goes to Church on Sundays is a radical. I think the better way to go about things is to find an objective defintion of the faith according to its texts. This is not as impossible as you suggest.

I would respectfully suggest that what makes your 'Islam is in the eye of the beholder' theory intellectually curious also makes it largely worthless when it comes to finding practical solutions to the problems we face.

Radical Islamic Terrorism strikes again.

Sadly, Islamic terrorists are even more successful at blowing up their own people than the are Westerners.

@Strangerland

The killers are radical Islamic terrorists

Honestly, how are they radical in your opinion? Is it radical for a spiritual person who genuinely believes in the divinity of their holiest book to take it literally when it calls for things such as terror to be cast into the hearts of the disbelievers? It almost seems like some in the West want to dehumanise these people as idiots who will believe anything they are told. In reality, they read their holy book carefully, they ask questions of their spiritual leaders, they make absolutely sure that this is what Allah wants of them and that they well definetly go to paradise, and only then do they carry out these atrocities. They are true believers, and we shouldn't try to take that away from them.

Also, your position on this seems very inconsistent. Last week (in a conversation which no longer exists), you insisted that we cannot objectively define Islam in order to judge the religion because it's up to each individual Muslim to decide what Islam is for themselves (and the versions could be infinite). However, today you are prepared to label some Muslims as being 'radicals'. This suggests Islam can be objectively assessed in your opinion, because you clearly think some versions are more or less radical than the (or at least, your) objectively identifiable neutral version of Islam. Which is it?

YOu don't think 95% of Westerners now are keen to get the heck the out of there? Of course we are. The problem is the pattern: the horror and misery the local people inflict on themselves rapidly escalates into "humanitarian crises," which the the world community looks to the West to solve. Think Obama and the "Arab spring." Obama was strongly anti-intervention at the outset, remember.

As I say, we need to leave the ME to the ME. That includes letting them deal with (or not) their humanitarian crises. A complete and utter withdrawal from the ME. Tough love.

But the reality is that it's not the humanitarian crises that will keep the west in the ME, it's money. A lot of the West makes a lot of money there, and they won't be willing to give that up.

If the Westerners left, say hello to the genocide throughout the Mosul region and a mass slaughter of Afghan girls who try to attend school, to name just a few, at a much, much worse scale. ISIS grew and spread when the Western soldiers starting leaving, remember.

Yeah, it would be sad, but if we aren't willing to do that, then more of the west will pay as a result.

John Brown - very interested to hear what "credibility" the Taliban have. Care to elaborate?

That puts the Ramadan deathtoll at 184 and 14 attacks. Last year we had 47 attacks and a deathtoll of 280 by the 5th day. Every cloud has a silver lining I guess?

Another sad fate of the worldwide Muslim community is the huge number who refuse to even recognize the problem and can't bring themselves to say the words Radical Islamic Terrorism.

The problem cannot be fixed if the patient refuses to admit he's sick