Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
OverSword

Mom of slain girl criticizes Trump

77 posts in this topic

 

Quote

 

The mother of a backpacker slain in an Australian hostel wrote an open letter to U.S. President Donald Trump, rejecting the decision to label her daughter's death as a terror attack.

The August slayings of Mia Ayliffe-Chung, 20, and fellow Briton Tom Jackson, 30, were on a list of 78 attacks the White House says were "executed or inspired by" the Islamic State terror group — and under-reported by the media.

Rosie Ayliffe says the possibility of terrorism was discounted early in the investigation.

"My daughter's death will not be used to further this insane persecution of innocent people," she wrote.

Police in Australia allege that suspect Smail Ayad shouted "Allahu akbar" — an Arabic phrase meaning "God is great" — during the attack, but said there was no indication the assault was motivated by extremism.

 

Source

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Police in Australia allege that suspect Smail Ayad shouted "Allahu akbar" — an Arabic phrase meaning "God is great" — during the attack, but said there was no indication the assault was motivated by extremism.

So if it's not motivated by extremism but it still has a religious element, how are we supposed to interpret this?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police determined that while the perpetrator was of Islamic persuasion and according to a witness yelled Allans Snackbar when committing the murders, it was determined that drug use was probably a more likely factor. What she is protesting is that the official conclusion was not terrorism, but a lone wolf acting on a drug high. and that does happen to be the case. 

 

LINK - Mother of slain British backpacker Mia Ayliffe-Chung says she feels 'pity' for her daughter's killer - as the heroic man who died trying to save her is nominated for a bravery award

The kickboxer screamed 'Allahu Akbar', Arabic for 'God is great', while stabbing her, say witnesses, and hurt 12 police officers who used pepper spray and a taser to subdue him.

Despite his jihadi-style outburst, police have ruled out links to terrorism, and say tests found he had been using cannabis.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

The parents of the attack's other victim also spoke out against the president.

“I’m pretty sure he and his advisors know full well — or could very easily verify — that Tom and Mia died not as the result of an act of terror but rather through the actions of a disturbed individual,” Les Jackson wrote on Facebook.

“Of course, that doesn’t suit his agenda.”

“The fact anyone would want to make something political out of Tom dying is just beyond me,” Jackson told the Post. “We're still struggling to come to terms with it and probably never will. This has just brought the whole experience of last summer crashing about us.”

Smail Ayad, a 29 year old from France, was charged with the murders. During the attack, he allegedly shouted "Allahu Akbar," the Guardian reported. But he also rambled incoherently and stabbed a dog.
 
At the time of the attack, Ayliffe wrote that Ayad was "not an Islamic fundamentalist," adding he has "never set foot in a mosque."

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/318445-parents-upset-over-trumps-false-terrorism-claims

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Police determined that while the perpetrator was of Islamic persuasion and according to a witness yelled Allans Snackbar when committing the murders, it was determined that drug use was probably a more likely factor. What she is protesting is that the official conclusion was not terrorism, but a lone wolf acting on a drug high. and that does happen to be the case. 

allans_snackbar_chs5u8.jpg

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allan's Snackbar is how everyone in my house refers to the nuttier arm of Islam, usually in the Sing-Song Call to Prayer manner to boot.

were going to hell now according to at least two religions.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He was definitely on drugs to yell that out.

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Allan's Snackbar is how everyone in my house refers to the nuttier arm of Islam, usually in the Sing-Song Call to Prayer manner to boot.

were going to hell now according to at least two religions.

I've never heard it before. Urban Dictionary hasn't either.  The more common phrase, used by military around the world, is Aloha Snackbar. 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aloha snackbar

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDJvcJNg1WBgkq3iyQHyw

Edited by The Butler
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Cannabis?????  What is is this?  1950 where refer madness causes people to go insane and murder?????  The dude yells about how great God is while killing another human, that is enough for me to go ahead and label it religious extremism.  If you kill for religion then I'm fine with throwing it under the blanket of terror.  The fact that Australian authorities don't want to call rain wet  doesn't make it dry.  Not calling this what it is, is simply PC BS.

LMAO! So awesome, isn't it?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sweetpumper said:

LMAO! So awesome, isn't it?

What's pathetic is the amount of people willing to agree.  If you don't acknowledge there is a problem how can it ever be dealt with?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point, of course, is that this case - and most of the others on Clump's list - were extremely well covered by western media.

That Trump himself never read about them in the National Enquirer (junior edition) is neither here nor there.   Just because he admits to ignorance doesn't mean the rest of us don't pay at least a passing attention to the daily news! 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Essan said:

The other point, of course, is that this case - and most of the others on Clump's list - were extremely well covered by western media.

Was it covered well enough to label it religious extremism or terror?  Nope.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Was it covered well enough to label it religious extremism or terror?  Nope.

Nah, remember Osama...Obama just says they're 'folks'.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a crime passionel to me by an extremely deranged individual. The input of the mother is impressive. If more had her rational, clearmindedness - even at a horrendous time like this - the world would be a much better place.

Rest in Peace, Mia Ayliffe-Chung. May G*d be with you.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Seems like a crime passionel to me by an extremely deranged individual. The input of the mother is impressive. If more had her rational, clearmindedness - even at a horrendous time like this - the world would be a much better place.

Rest in Peace, Mia Ayliffe-Chung. May G*d be with you.

Rational clearmindeness or emotional hysterical denial.  Which is more likely?  The latter.

Crime of passion?  Passion for Allah?

Edited by OverSword
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Was it covered well enough to label it religious extremism or terror?  Nope.

Well no, there was never any sugestion it was due to religious extremism or terror.   Because it wasnt. 

That Flump thinks it should have been just shows what an idiot he is

But there are other incidents on his list which may have been down to religious extremism and terror.   And were also extensively reported in the Western press.   The point is surely that Thump doesnt read the papers.
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Rational clearmindeness or emotional hysterical denial.  Which is more likely?  The latter.

Crime of passion?  Passion for Allah?

 

Thats funny, for me all those people lamenting this mother not playing into the 'Islamic terrorist' hysteria seem the ones with the unhealthy, conditioned behaviour. Strange how views can differ, isnt it. Think she's in a better position to establish what the situation was than someone who read an article on the internet and ran with it, wouldnt you say?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Thats funny, for me all those people lamenting this mother not playing into the 'Islamic terrorist' hysteria seem the ones with the unhealthy, conditioned behaviour. Strange how views can differ, isnt it. Think she's in a better position to establish what the situation was than someone who read an article on the internet and ran with it, wouldnt you say?

(it's possible that I'm being a bit of a troll)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is a religious element to this crime that can't just be waived away. If he'd yelled anything else while killing this poor girl, it would have been equally linked to his actions. The MSM fall over themselves to detach themselves from the obvious though.

Having said that, I can completely understand the mother's perspective in not wanting her daughter to be used as some kind of political pawn. Right or wrong, I can't help but feeling that it seems pretty crass.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

one word can turn a regular crime into hate crime, same way 1 word can make a crime a religious crime. and it really was, allah allows to rape infidels, according to allah it is not a crime, neither is killing nonebelievers, it is a duty actually

Allah allows Muslims to rape non-Muslim women

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aztek said:

one word can turn a regular crime into hate crime, same way 1 word can make a crime a religious crime. and it really was, allah allows to rape infidels, according to allah it is not a crime, neither is killing nonebelievers, it is a duty actually

Allah allows Muslims to rape non-Muslim women

 

What wondrous nonsense. The emerging Islamic religion provided unprecedented and progressive standards of ethics regarding (the treatment of) slaves, demanding the respectful treatment of 'women whom your right hands posesses', on par with how a wife should be treated. 

 

[Qur'an 24:33] "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

 

Quote

Traditional Islamic jurisprudence

Principles

In Islamic jurisprudence, slavery was an exceptional condition, with the general rule being a presumption of freedom (al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya — "The basic principle is liberty") for a person if his or her origins were unknown.[2] Lawful enslavement was restricted to two instances: capture in war (on the condition that the prisoner is not a Muslim), or birth in slavery. Islamic law did not recognize the classes of slave from pre-Islamic Arabia including those sold or given into slavery by themselves and others, and those indebted into slavery.[2] Though a free Muslim could not be enslaved, conversion to Islam by a non-Muslim slave did not require that he or she then should be liberated. Slave status was not affected by conversion to Islam.[48]

Treatment

In the instance of illness it would be required for the slave to be looked after. Manumission is considered a meritorious act. Based on the Quranic verse (24:33), Islamic law permits a slave to ransom himself upon consent of his master through a contract known as mukataba.[2]Azizah Y. al-Hibri, a professor of Law specializing in Islamic jurisprudence, states that both the Qur'an and Hadith are repeatedly exhorting Muslims to treat the slaves well and that Muhammad showed this both in action and in words.[49] Levy concurs, adding that "cruelty to them was forbidden."[50] Al-Hibri quotes the famous last speech of Muhammad and other hadiths emphasizing that all believers, whether free or enslaved, are siblings.[49]Lewis explains, "the humanitarian tendency of the Qur'an and the early caliphs in the Islamic empire, was to some extent counteracted by other influences,"[1] notably the practice of various conquered people and countries Muslims encountered, especially in provinces previously under Roman law. In spite of this, Lewis also states, "Islamic practice still represented a vast improvement on that inherited from antiquity, from Rome, and from Byzantium."[1] Murray Gordon writes: "It was not surprising that Muhammad, who accepted the existing socio-political order, looked upon slavery as part of the natural order of things. His approach to what was already an age-old institution was reformist and not revolutionary. The Prophet had not in mind to bring about the abolition of slavery. Rather, his purpose was to improve the conditions of slaves by correcting abuses and appealing to the conscience of his followers to treat them humanely."[51] The adoption of slaves as members of the family was common, according to Levy. If a slave was born and brought up in the master's household he was never sold, except in exceptional circumstances.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Treatment

 

Al-Hibri quotes the famous last speech of Muhammad and other hadiths emphasizing that all believers, whether free or enslaved, are siblings: "Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them."
[Source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124 ]

 

Quote

There is a huge difference between the slave girls of those times and the system of prostitution which is so prevalent as a disease in today’s society. The slave girl was a social issue of the times, which if not solved by Islam would give rise to adultery and prostitution. In prostitution, the woman sells here services for a fee to anyone who is willing to pay. The slave girl was taken into a household as a full member.

In prostitution, the woman has sexual relationships with many men. The slave girl would have sexual relations only with the person she was given to; very similar to the husband-wife relationship, the only difference being that the wife came into the house through a marriage contract, and the slave girl was allotted to the person by the state.

Prostitution is a result of illegal lust, and is a huge sin in the eyes of Allah. The allocation of slave girls was a issue of the times to envelope the woman taken as slaves in a war into the Islamic society. Prostitution and adultery do not have any responsibility attached to it. The man- woman have a one-off relationship and depart. The slave girls were a responsibility of the person, who spent on them, gave them a place to live, fed them, clothed them, and raised their children as his children.

The children from adultery and prostitution are regarded as born out of wedlock and grow up without the name and without the shadow of a father. The children of the slave girls were known as the children of the person, grew up with his other children, and had exactly the same rights and inheritance as the other offspring. The system of slave girls was accepted and respected by the Islamic society of the times. The slave girl was treated like his wife, and the children from these slave girls were treated like their children by society.

 

..While the norm back was having sex with and raping slave girls, using them as mere objects to fullfill worldy needs and desires, discarding them after they played their part. Including but not limited to the Holy Roman ('Christian') Empire. The reaility is the complete mirror image of what is supposedly claimed by this 'Al Azhar Professor', which is ofcourse jumped on by the usual suspects like a pack of ravenous wolves.

To further indicate the raging bias, lets take a peek at the Bible why not..

Quote

The Bible contains several references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. The Bible stipulates the treatment of slaves, especially in the Old Testament.[1][2][3] There are also references to slavery in the New Testament.[4][5]Israelite slaves were to be offered release after six to seven years of service, with some conditions.[6][7][8]Foreign slaves and their posterity became the perpetual property of the owner's family,[9] except in the case of certain injuries.[10]

In contrast to the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, which contain no explicit description of manumission for slaves of non-Israelite origin, the Holiness Code states that non-Israelite slaves shall serve forever. Even the master's death did not free such slaves - they were to be treated as inheritable property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Manumission

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

What wondrous nonsense.

yes your entire post is just that.

reality could not care less about your quotes. neither do i

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.