Jump to content

Talk:2003 Istanbul bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yahel Guhan (talk | contribs) at 04:53, 19 July 2008 (→Islam and antisemitism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Talkheaderlong

Comments

On November 15, 2003, two truck bombs slammed into the Beth Israel and Neve Shalom synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey and exploded. The explosions devastated the synagogues and killed twenty-seven people, most of them Turkish Muslims --Shouldn't that be Jews? 74.71.215.198 13:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Sax[reply]

I doubt that. Unless the synagogues were in session (or whatever you call it, sorry don't know much about Jewish religious practice) then there probably wouldn't have been many Jewish people near or in them (since the Turkish population is predominantly Muslims), so most likely the people killed were mostly Muslims. Nil Einne 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB reading the article, further, it becomes clear Muslim is correct Nil Einne 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal?

The two suicide bombers also died. Do you think this should be edited out? I mean, if they're suicide bombers I doubt people need to be told they died. Isaiah A. 07:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's possible to survive a 'suicide' attack. 80.47.119.128 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but when someone thinks of a suicide in general they usually assume they're dead. I think the status of the attacker should only be brought up if they live, since that is the least assumed.Isaiah A. 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and antisemitism

Can someone justify what this article has to do with the "religion of Islam"?Bless sins 04:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakka was convicted of plotting the attacks and giving the militants more than $150,000 (£125,000) to put the plans into action in Istanbul. Unrepentant to the last, he called on his supporters to wage a holy war. “We are close to victory. The time for jihad has come, but don’t worry about me. I will get out, then I will once again join your jihad,” he said shortly before the verdict.

— The Times
And Sakka is a religious authority on Islam?Bless sins 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He perpetrated his act in the name of Islam. One need not be a scholar of a religion to be inspired by it. -- Avi 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Syrian, Loai al-Saqa, was jailed for masterminding and securing finance for the attacks on the UK consulate, two synagogues and an HSBC bank branch.…As the verdicts were read out to a packed courtroom, several defendants shouted "God is great".…The court was told that a group of men, calling themselves Warriors for Islam, came together to plan the attacks on the direct orders of Osama Bin Laden.…In court, many of the defendants admitted attending training camps in Afghanistan for Islamic extremists - but all but one man denied any part in the Istanbul attacks.

— BBC Europe
Is "Warriors for Islam" some recognized sect of Islam? Or is it just the figment of imagination of some fringe elements, not shared at all by the world's 1 billion+ Muslims.Bless sins 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a group inspired by their (hopefully faulty) understandings of their religion, is it not? -- Avi 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the court delivered its verdict, Fevzi Yitiz, who was sentenced to life imprisonment, shouted "Long live hell for the infidels!" while Ertul chanted "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great".

— Australian Broadcasting Company
Your point is? Saying "God is great" doesn't make one a respected authority on Islam.Bless sins 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but one does not need to be a respected authority on a religion in order to be inspired to act by one's (hopefully faulty) understanding of its strictures and requirements. --

-- Avi 04:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know just because someone says something about a topic (religion or not) doesn't mean it is correct. (Well, actually it depends on who that someone is) But if I find a crazy source saying that the Sabra-Shatila massacre was inspired by Jewish ritual murder are we obliged to repeat that blood libel?

What I really don't understand is why you are bent upon characterizing Islam as the murder of innocent people?Bless sins 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than evidence in this article to cite that this attack was done by Muslims in the name of Islam. It seems odd that BS could contest this. It is not like this type of incident is rare or unheard of. There is no doubt That Muslims perpetrated this atrocity against a group of people simply due to the fact they were Jewish. I am reverting his whitewash yet again. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in, if I understand the language rightly, the term "Islamism" exists for this reason: to differentiate the politicization of Islam by marginal elements from the religion itself. So, if some fellow believes he can (politically, in his own interpretation of Islam) declare his murder a "jihad", that actually wouldn't be an Islamic attack but rather an Islamist attack, for its being an interpretation of Islam. Is that clear? (And is my understanding correct?)
I guess what I'm trying to say is, quoting the killers saying that they are doing it for Islam does not change the fact that they've politically interpreted Islam for themselves: thus, Islamism. To suggest that the attack involves "Islam and antisemitism" is to define Islam as the radicals define it, rather than as the vast majority of Muslims define it. What do you think? I may be quite wrong, of course; if my views are correct, there should certainly not be a category "Islamic terrorism", either. (But the language is so jumbled... Maybe my definitions are not so clearcut?) DBaba (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you. Many claim that Islam does teach antisemitism, but that depends on how one defines "antisemitism". If antisemitism means claiming Islam is more true than Judaism, then yes most Muslims would be antisemitic. Similarly the Qur'an criticizes the Jews (along with other non-Muslims) for not acknowleging it as a book from God. However, this is not different from other religious polemics.
What Islam does not teach, however, is killing Jews. Throughout history Jews have been considered ahl-al dhimma. Thier status was although restricted, it granted them the security of life and the right to keep thier religion.
There is not evidence that these terrorist acts are representative of Islam or the Qur'an.Bless sins (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore the category without discussion here first. Some of my concerns still haven't been answered.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Yahel, you ahve failed to come up with a source that calls this an example of "Islamic terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? Are you seriously going to attempt to deny that a terrorist attack by al queda is not islamic terrorism? Or are you seriously going to argue that blowing up an active synogogue is not antisemitic? Give me a break. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News

What happend then: news from Hürriyet.com.tr. It sayt that som bombers escaped from Ebu Gureyb/Iraq. --Ilhanli (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_Istanbul_bombings&oldid=226578707"