[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

[img] [/img]

The question of rights vs right and of freedom of speech vs being a **** is a pretty complicated one and I'd be amazed if we can have a sensible discussion on here tbh...

We were doing ok till you turned up 😉

I thought it had been pretty good for here tbh.

JHJ - does your mum not get tired of you never opening the curtains in your bedroom?

I’ve been thinking about how people can do such things and this is the closest I can get to understanding it: If you believe in a god you believe in something that stands above human life. Such a belief can lead down two routes. For most religious people it is a humbling experience that leads them to love and respect their fellow beings. This is the best of what religion does. For some though, it leads them to believe their god is more important than their fellow beings. This devalues human life and makes it possible for people with this kind of faith to commit atrocities like the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

As long as there is religion there will be religious fundamentalism. Islam is not the problem, any more than Christianity is, any more than judaism is, anon. Perhaps it's time to debate the purpose of religion and its value to modern society?

I'm genuinely baffled by what is, by all rational analysis, a nihallisic death cult, indulging in medieval barbarism, tacitly being supported by, or certainly not condemned, by the supposed 'moderates' of the religion it's attached itself too.

Binners, did you apologise for or condemn publicly any of the IRA or Loyalist killings in Ireland (assuming you're Christian)?

This is an interesting contrast:

Wiganer, I think that comment needs further explanation.

It's all or nothing I'm afraid JY

Utterly pointless ultimatum-speak.

certainly not condemned, by the supposed 'moderates' of the religion it's attached itself too.

try and google Mulsims condem French attack...literally no hits not one
None in this article either

Saudi Arabia called it a “cowardly terrorist attack that was rejected by the true Islamic religion”. The Arab League and Egypt’s al-Azhar university – the leading theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world – also denounced the incident in which masked gunmen shouted “Allahu Akbar” – “god is great ” in Arabic.

Iran, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria and Qatar all issued similar statements........
The Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, which represents more than 250 Muslim organisations across the country, condemned the killings. Tariq Ramadan, a leading Muslim thinker, commented: “It is not the prophet who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted.” The Muslim Council of Britain said: ”Whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life.”

Aye the [s]inability to google[/s] silence is deafening from the moderates .......probably because we cannot hear it for all our "moderates" * screaming about freedom of speech 😕

Have you lent Hora your log in or something ?

We can disagree , and we will, but that is just factually inaccurate.

* for example - It's all or nothing I'm afraid JY

I have always felt uneasy when Muslims are asked to condemn an attack of this sort. I would feel affronted to be asked this if I was a Muslim.

Even Hezbollah and Hamas have come out against the attack ffs.

How many lives have been taken by humans in the last month?

All humans should condemn such heinous acts!!

Of course they are heinous. We all deplore these acts as human beings, I just wonder how a Muslim would feel being singled out to condemn them simply for being a Muslim. I have never read the Koran, however I imagine these despicable crimes fall outside any preachings of the Koran. That being the case why should Muslim's be singled out to condemn them as if to receive redemption?

I posted a video. The section that sticks in my head is'

"Watch out Lee, they are terrorists!"
"No they're not, they're baggies."

What's a Baggie?

West Bromwich Albion supporter.

So far I am aware of 6 " Muslims " in this story. 3 are members of a minority islamist death cult and self selected to feature as the badies, their statistical value as being representative of Muslims is therefore slight . The other 3 are in the story by random chance that makes their value in assessing Muslims far greater . one chose to work at a satirical magazine that had at its core western values of free speech and published cartoons that mocked the islamist death cult. One chose to be a policeman in Paris and died confronting that death cult and one saved people who he knew would include Jews from that islamist death cult.

I have seen two public paid islamist troll be quasi supportive of the Terrorists and two what look to be teenage boys on face book amid a sea of Muslim condemnarion for them. That includes from mosques mainstream Islamic websites and the Muslim in the street.

The vast bulk of Muslims are not interested in converting the world to Islam nor are they bothered by cartoons . The islamist death cult can only recruit from Muslims . Their is a purpose behind this attack to create a backlash against the Muslim population in order to alienate and terrify them so they become a more fertile recruiting ground.

If you use Paris as an excuse to judge or vilfy Muslims you play the Islamist's game and join purposes with AQ and ISIS.

Have you publicy announced your condemnation of the attacks to the nation binners?
Have you apologised for your part in the attacks?

As a moderately Irish person, I'd like to apologise for and condemn the extreme version as portrayed by Mrs Brown's Boys. 😐

There's no excuse for Mrs Browns boys....

But somehow I must disassociate myself from it khani. Apparently I must do it loudly enough for the bigoted to be satisfied. What am I to do?

Sometimes guilt by association is inescapable....
It becomes pointless even trying cos the peeps doing it don't listen anyway,

Theres an interesting debate on 5 Live at the moment. A muslim journalist is just saying that that islamic terrorism is the direct result of Western Foreign Policy. A view I've got a certain amount of sympathy for.

He then went into detail about the radicalisation of younger members of the community. When asked why community leaders were not doing more to combat this violent radicalisation in their midst, his answer was 'because they've washed their hands of their own youth'

Mind you. They've still not been guilty of anything as bad as this...

[img] ?resize=350%2C230[/img]

You've got a lot to answer for Bravissimo

All I got from that video by jivehoneyjive was a boner, Israeli women are gorgeous.

I’ve been thinking about how people can do such things and this is the closest I can get to understanding it: If you believe in a god you believe in something that stands above human life. Such a belief can lead down two routes. For most religious people it is a humbling experience that leads them to love and respect their fellow beings. This is the best of what religion does. For some though, it leads them to believe their god is more important than their fellow beings

You're looking in the wrong place. Religion is incidental. Its front and centre of discussions because people committing terrorist attacks are saying it is. We're idiots for taking the claims at face value.

The acts are the actions of people who are marginalised. Marginalisation happens a lot, theres a whole spectrum of circumstances that cause maginalisation and a whole spectrum of social ailments that result from it. Depending on all sorts of factors people can respond and act in quite wildly different ways to the same basic condition - some people internalise the issue, blame themselves for their circumstances and become self destructive - careless, unhealthy, suicidal, addicted and so on. Others lash out. That can mean a life of crime and anti-social behaviour but its easier to lash out if you feel you can lash out at [i]something[/i] and so there are 'causes' floating about that allow someone who just feel broadly malcontent to be able to feel important.

The foot soldiers on both sides of the northern irish troubles were just thugs, but thugs who were able to feel they had something important to do. The EDL - just thugs who can now feel their anger is something thats being channelled for a cause.

Islamic terrorism isn't any different, marginalised people who are happy to be told that their anger is important. The 'cause' just happens to be the one that they can most easily identify with but they're not pious people, their actions are not the ultimate expression of faith. The islamic rhetoric is part of the terror campaign - part of the fear they want to spread is that their actions carry the weight and mandate of the whole arab world behind them, that any muslim could just turn terrorist in an instant if they just pray enough or take a line in a book a bit more literally. We compound that by taking the claimed motives of terrorists at face value and also taking a view that anyone of faith is some sort of programmable drone when in fact the only people who seem to take religious dogma at face value are atheists.

The point of terror campaigns like this is to achieve a state of 'totalism' amongst a cult. A group of people can be alloyed by their shared marginalisation, the more threatened they feel the tighter their bonds and sense of duty and purpose. The acts of terrorists are chosen so that they'll have the most disproportionate response possible because the more the group is threatened the more unity they feel. If the acts of two or three guys with guns and a few shouted slogans means calls for 1.6 billion people to fundamentally change their lives and culture then their campaign appears quite well judged.

I agree that marginalisation or perceived marginalisation is part of the issue but I don't think you can take religion out of it.

And now the Hamburg Morgenpost has been fire-bombed for printing Charlie Hebdo cartoons as support for those massacred.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/german-newspaper-muhammad-cartoons-firebombed-hamburger-morgenpost ]Sauce[/url]

It's an interesting point though. If you did take religion out of the equation, we'd still have lunatics. In the absence of "Islam" they may well just have found a different cause to justify their behaviour. Guess we'll never really know.

@maccruisken

I posted this about 10 pages ago.

Very funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be. Or do you think that you know better. If he claimed he was subjected to abuse as a child would you dismiss that and infer that it must be some religious indoctrination at work? I suspect not so why do you do the reverse?

In the absence of "Islam" they may well just have found a different cause to justify their behaviour

Likely however if they claimed they were doing it as a result of the teachings of Brer Rabbit we would rightly dismiss it, if the text they claim to follow clearly dictates their actions why are we so quick to dismiss that as a significant factor?

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

It's an interesting point though. If you did take religion out of the equation, we'd still have lunatics. In the absence of "Islam" they may well just have found a different cause to justify their behaviour. Guess we'll never really know.

[URL= http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/2EB1EFB3-C9CE-4EE3-8ADF-457885274016_zps154nuclc.jp g" target="_blank">http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/2EB1EFB3-C9CE-4EE3-8ADF-457885274016_zps154nuclc.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

[URL= http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/1F0F9E36-8880-4120-9B40-7B73CAA340AD_zps7vueh10i.jp g" target="_blank">http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/1F0F9E36-8880-4120-9B40-7B73CAA340AD_zps7vueh10i.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

[URL= http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/5DA89F43-520A-448C-A473-C23CAF564CA0_zpssszwoufb.jp g" target="_blank">http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/5DA89F43-520A-448C-A473-C23CAF564CA0_zpssszwoufb.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
[URL= http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/59A14C3C-CC37-441D-95C0-21B629A23CFE_zpsmi4a2ica.jp g" target="_blank">http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/khani123123/59A14C3C-CC37-441D-95C0-21B629A23CFE_zpsmi4a2ica.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
You don't need religion to hold extremist views...

Its well worth catching up with that debate thats just been on [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tl965 ]Pienaars Politics[/url]. There was a wide range of views, but there was one thing that everyone seemed pretty much in agreement on.

That Faith Schools are increasingly responsible for a total separation of religions at school age. And that this separation of communities, and the total failure of integration, is increasing the alienation of Muslim youth, and providing a happy hunting ground for those promoting a radical Islamic agenda. And that the Free Schools programme is making this situation worse

It's an interesting point though. If you did take religion out of the equation, we'd still have lunatics. In the absence of "Islam" they may well just have found a different cause to justify their behaviour. Guess we'll never really know.

I suppose you can look at instances like Columbine, Hungerford or Dumblane - all people who were able to act in the same way as the gunmen in paris but without any religious or cultural zeal although still with plenty of conviction. I suppose the difference is those people believed themselves to be totally alone, there wasn't a cultural or political peg they could hang their anger on

Very funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be. Or do you think that you know better. If he claimed he was subjected to abuse as a child would you dismiss that and infer that it must be some religious indoctrination at work? I suspect not so why do you do the reverse?

You'd need to look at the factors that the perpetrators have in common. They all say they're muslim, but their actions as 2 out of 1.6 billion can't be seen as typical of people who say they are muslim. They don't [i]say[/i] that they are typically male, typically young, typically sexually repressed, typically over educated and under employed. But they typically are.

You don't need religion to hold extremist views...

I'm not suggesting you do. It is however one reason for holding extremist views.

They all say they're muslim, but their actions as 2 out of 1.6 billion can't be seen as typical of people who say they are muslim

I dont think either number is accurate. >2 but <1.6bn however my point is that you (and others) claim they know best. I am surprised that you are trying to align Hungerford and similar isolated horrors with the threat of Islam.

It's an interesting point though. If you did take religion out of the equation, we'd still have lunatics. In the absence of "Islam" they may well just have found a different cause to justify their behaviour.

I made a point way back on pages 6/7 about the way disenfranchised types are becoming these extreme followers and Jambalaya pointed out that many weren't not of Muslim faith before joining, sometimes not even culturally linked. In my opinion a lot of them are just searching for this disorder wherever they look; it's what they live for right now.

I can't help but think of the film quote...

[i]"What are you rebelling against?"

"Whaddaya got?"[/i]

I like it when folk use neutral and objective language and call us [ white non mulsim I assume] killing folk "isolated horrors" to minimise them and then scream about the threat of Islam when it happens abroad.

Very subtle and spin doctors everywhere are pleased with your language manipulation skills

APPLAUDS the misleading soundbite

Cougar - Moderator

It's an interesting point though. If you did take religion out of the equation, we'd still have lunatics. In the absence of "Islam" they may well just have found a different cause to justify their behaviour. Guess we'll never really know.

All religions go through cycles of liberal/fundamental thought and the consequences thereof.
Human nature, innit?

Islam has been tearing itself to pieces over the last century or so, leaving it particularly vulnerable to subversion.

So yes, Islam is hugely important - it's the conduit allowing people to control and manipulate.

The trick is to realise that it could just as well be, and often has been, other religions that have been used in exactly the same way.

Mistaking the means of control for the actions of terrorists seems a little naive.

The trick is to realise that it could just as well be, and often has been, other religions that have been used in exactly the same way.

Accurate but not very useful. Hand wringing all very well but doesn't contribute to a solution.

I was responding to Cougars question - I don't have the answers.

But I don't believe that demonising people because they believe in one of the myriad religions, belief systems or economic theories that are open to abuse contributes to a solution.

try and google Mulsims condem French attack...literally no hits not one

😆

When are the moderate white western democrats going to come out and denounce the attacks on mosques and Muslims we've seen in France in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks?

Your silence implies tacit support.

As a white British male atheist I'd like to publicly condemn the attacks on mosques &c as per the previous post.

As a white British male atheist I'd also like to apologise for Rupert Murdoch. I'd also like to publicly apologise for Piers Morgan; he has no connection to the attacks that I'm aware of, he's just a prick.

I dont think either number is accurate. >2 but <1.6bn however my point is that you (and others) claim they know best. I am surprised that you are trying to align Hungerford and similar isolated horrors with the threat of Islam.

Let's just zoom in on part of that paragraph.

the threat of Islam.

What threat is this? The threat posed by a religion in itself or the threat of it being used by unscrupulous types to justify all sorts of outrages?

There are plenty of examples of Christian fundamentalists perpetrating all sorts of heinous crimes such as the Lebanese Phalange massacres of 1982, or the activities of a similar group during the Spanish civil war.

You really have to separate belief from action here.

You only ever step over the line because of your actions or perhaps the incitement of others to do the 'doing'.

There is no 'threat' inherent to any belief until it leads to actions.

I think the main problem is that education and a relatively liberal society allows the likes of most on here to think rationally about such things. I'm not sure that is true in many places in the world.

[img] ?oh=129b09622dd0a925d1b97bf1a64cca7c&oe=55297192&__gda__=1429618303_8fa763cb4891626522faa5d15b8b18de[/img]

Maybe not, but when I spelled it correctly I got 6450 hits

Hand wringing all very well but doesn't contribute to a solution.

try and google Mulsims condem French attack...literally no hits not one

But plenty in French; the Imans are on TV, on the radio and in the [url= http://www.europe1.fr/societe/musulmans-de-france-entre-peur-et-condamnation-2340445 ]French press[/url]

We played a spot-the-Muslim-dress-in-the crowd game yesterday. There weren't any. The Muslims present were few in number and dressed the same as everyone else. After the call by Muslim leaders to participate in today's march there are a few are in the crowds. A risky choice though; faced with being condemned by some of their own community for participating and their presence not being appreciated by some of the crowd it's an easier decision to stay at home. I admire those that are out there and prepared to deliver a not-in-my-name message to journalists.

I can't recall anyone posting a link to [url= http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-masterclass-on-how-to-deal-with-people-who-blame-muslims-for-paris-attack-102995 ]this short discussion[/url] on local radio but the presenter, James O'Brien, dismantles the apology argument very easily.

I've deliberately stayed out of this thread but have started to wonder whether Richard from Maidenhead frequents these parts...

I can't recall anyone posting a link to this short discussion on local radio but the presenter, James O'Brien, dismantles the apology argument very easily.

That's absolutely fantastic, thanks for sharing.

So why do so many think that these people are representative of Muslims

Cos they just 'claim' to be? Or is it cos they shout 'Allahu Akbar' when they kill people? Or I dunno it might be cos some have been known to state that they're willing to die a martyr in the name of Islam.
Other than that, I've no idea. & before you start, I know they don't represent Islam really, they just say they do.

Interesting piece here,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30766218

Why doesn't this make the headlines?

[img] [/img]

U.S. Gov shuts off Water to Detroit (and Flint I believe)

U.S. Government shutdown for over a month due to finances late 2013

Keeps spending billions arming Israel

Hmm

[url= http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443#.VLE0CumzXIV ]How close to the truth is this?[/url]

Nowhere near it is just a right wing wet dream lampooning of "hand wringers" and the "liberal elite /PC do gooders .

Our results indicate that neither economic and political judgments, nor low levels of formal education appear to influence support for terrorism, raising doubt about the link between socio-economic conditions and the perceived legitimacy of terrorists acts.[23] [b]Two particular results are worth stressing here: (i) the fact that particular values (attitudes on women’s rights – i.e. wearing the veil and working outside the home) and (ii) religious divisions (i.e. identifying as a Shi’a Muslim) did influence support for terrorism.[/b]

The implications of these results can be interpreted in a number of ways. One would be to conclude – as many political leaders and media commentators do – [b]that the results show there is something inherently conservative and fundamentalist about Islam that generates support for violent jihad and antipathy towards Western secular values.[/b] It follows then that one solution lies in policy responses that promote a “moderate” form of Islam that encourages tolerance and a more liberal interpretation of the Quran. This is problematic, because it should not be up to governments to dictate what form of Islam Muslim people should follow – they should be free to decide for themselves. This does not mean that normative values derived from belief systems among Muslims should not be contended with or challenged when aiming to combat terrorism – the question is how can this be done in a way that does not isolate Muslim communities. This is important to consider because there is an intense debate among Muslims and Islamic scholars as to how elements of the Quran should be interpreted, for instance around the meaning of jihad [24]. Hence while there may be uniformity in the saliency of certain Islamic beliefs (e.g. jihad as a moral and spiritual battle) it does not mean that this will be expressed in similar ways i.e. used to legitimise violence.

http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/264/html

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

They've only gone and established an [url= http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/watch---fox-news-commentator-8422693 ]islamic state in Birmingham!!! [/url]

😆

What's your point mefty - that racism is less socially acceptable in Britain? Something to be pleased about eh.

mefty - Member
How close to the truth is this?

Whole plate of chips in that article!

Some, but it's exaggerated to make a point. I think there is a pretty strong case that some of CH more punchy material would have caused significant debate in this country and elsewhere and would have been deemed racist. This is based on precedent not personal opinion.

Dimbebly made this point on QT - would not be allowed under BBC guidelines for example (currently under review apparently)

Even in France, it raised more than a few eyebrows but at least there you can fly the national flag without it being perceived in a negative fashion.

wow, that spiked link is right up there with the most amount of garbage ive read from a link in this thread, or the threads actual contents.

i regret every second.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for Piers Morgan

All i really want is to be able to live peacefully with everyone.

Some more required reading, especially for binners.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/charie-hebdo-danger-polarised-debate-paris-attacks

I don't see any data in that one so I'm ignoring it Grum.

I'll listen to you when you produce data instead of baseless opinion, data would appear to disagree with your authors claim that...

Those who claim that Islam is “inherently”violent are more hateful, but no less nonsensical, than those who claim it is “inherently” peaceful. The insistence that these hateful acts are refuted by ancient texts makes as much sense as insisting they are supported by them. Islam, like any religion, isn’t “inherently” anything but what people make of it. A small but significant minority have decided to make it violent.

This is based on precedent not personal opinion

you can fly the national flag without it being perceived in a negative fashion.

To be clear I am not gloating it is terrible that the racist got the flag and this perception exist. It should be reclaimed.

I don't see any data in that one so I'm ignoring it Grum

WILL PEOPLE PLEASE SAY WHEN THEY EDIT THEIR POSTS THAT WAS ALL YOU SAID ORIGINALLY TOM

I don't see any data in that one so I'm ignoring it Tom

I mean it's not the raw data.

As stated, this article employs data from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2010. Although this dataset represents a very general survey of respondents in 22 countries across the globe (n=24,790), this analysis draws specifically on the data from 7 countries that are classified in the Pew dataset as Muslim dominated, namely: Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Nigeria, ****stan, and Turkey; together they comprised 8,003 respondents. More specifically, the analysis uses the data of respondents who are Muslim in these Muslim countries. The final dataset used for the analyses comprised of 6,998 respondents.

[img] [/img]

Interesting article Grum, thanks for posting - after our lunchtime debate I will forward on to younger son. The final para was the essence of what we were discussing.

Don't mention flags in NI (that's Northern Ireland JY...I struggle to keep up with the abbreviations myself sometimes).

How does what you've posted contradict anything in the article I posted Tom? 😕

How does what you've posted contradict anything in the article I posted Tom?

It would seem that there is some evidence that Islam inherently encourages violent Jihad, which seems to conflict with your authors opinion.

But hey, when has anyone ever listened to evidence. 😆

Well post it then or STFU.

Go back and find it.

I can't be arsed clicking the right-mouse button and finding paste again.

Given that the Muslim faith has different interpretations of jihad, your conclusion might need some revising?

Did you not post that article on the other thread Tom?

Tom_W1987 - Member
It would seem that there is some evidence that Islam inherently encourages violent Jihad, which seems to conflict with your authors opinion.

It also conflicts with what you posted earlier.

Tom_W1987 - Member
This is important to consider because there is an intense debate among Muslims and Islamic scholars as to how elements of the Quran should be interpreted, for instance around the meaning of jihad [24]. Hence while there may be uniformity in the saliency of certain Islamic beliefs (e.g. jihad as a moral and spiritual battle) it does not mean that this will be expressed in similar ways i.e. used to legitimise violence.

Yeah but I decided it would be more entertaining to post it in this one.

That's the same article Lifer, might be an idea to read it properly, instead of picking a few sentences out of context.

What article? All you've posted is something about how there was a survey, but not what the results were. 😕

Are you just trolling again? :sigh: