Charlie Hebdo shooting: Far-right Front National leader Marine Le Pen 'wants to offer France referendum on the death penalty'
The leader of France’s far-right Front National party Marine Le Pen has said she wants to offer the country a referendum on the death penalty, a day after the Charlie Hebdo offices were attacked.
Ms Le Pen told France2: “I want to offer France a referendum on the death penalty. Personally, I feel that this possibility should exist.
“I always said that I would offer French citizens the possibility to express themselves on the topic through a referendum.”
The death penalty was abolished in France in 1981.
The controversial leader claimed radical Islam was behind the attacks and said “denial and hypocrisy” are no longer an option, according to ITV.
“The absolute refusal of Islamic fundamentalism must be proclaimed high and loud by whomever. Life and liberty are among the most precious values.”
Ms Le-Pen’s Front National party harnessed anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiment in France to win control of 11 towns and more than 1,400 municipal seats nationwide in the local elections in April.
Tensions are now growing in France as police continue to hunt for two men in connection with the brutal attack. Twelve people were killed by gunmen who stormed the Paris headquarters of the satirical magazine.
Some fear Wednesday's attack could be used to feed anti-Islamic agitation after it was reported the gunmen shouted "Allahu akbar" before embarking on the massacre.
On Thursday, a makeshift explosive device was detonated outside a kebab restaurant close to a mosque in eastern France, although police have not drawn a direct link with the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Two shots were fired at a Muslim prayer hall at Port la Nouvells in Aude in southern France.
After a series of Islamaphobic posts on Twitter, #BlameTheMuslimGame began trending mocking the users responsible for those tweets.
On 10 September 1977, Hamida Djandoubi was guillotined, the last person executed in France.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If its true that the attackers in the second siege are connected tothe first, then its crazy that they didnt receive a knock on their door over the last two days. Would be an amazing screwup.
They seem to be the same that shot the policewoman yesterday not connected to the newspaper attack.
Also, no one died yet at the supermarket. Latest reports talk about 1 person badly injured.
I thought the suspects of yesterday were older then those of today, in media reports, but seems I was wrong.
Also:
reports that a police officer at the scene in Paris says two people are confirmed dead after a gunman (believed to be the killer of the police officer in Montrouge yesterday) entered a kosher supermarket in the Porte de Vincennes area of eastern Paris.
reports that a police officer at the scene in Paris says two people are confirmed dead after a gunman (believed to be the killer of the police officer in Montrouge yesterday) entered a kosher supermarket in the Porte de Vincennes area of eastern Paris.
News is spreading, the absence of the mention of more casualties is great, now just the second one without innocents and these black days will end on a beter note
Seems the brothers went out guns blazin, with all those security forces they must have been blown to bits
Edit: BBC mentions that the hostage of the brothers is safe
AFP reports several hostages freed at second site, hostage taker also killed, one captured
Huge respect to the French Police Force - a thouroughly professional operation there. Glad the b*****ds got what they deserved, but I'm not sure how it'll be taken vis a vis Matyrdom. A bit of a wasted opportunity for intel too I suspect. Nevertheless, well done France!
Warpig1815 wrote: Then I for one sincerely hope Reuters is wrong. BBC reports one officer was injured in the Warehouse assault against the Kouachi brothers.
Story is spreading, quoting police sources for the four dead
AFP notes four critically wounded, sounds bad overall
According to the news around here there are 4 dead hostage takers dead inside of that supermarket. Seems there is another hostage situation going on at a jeweller.
Well, I'm glad it's over. Kudos to the police for their dedication and professionalism, and of course, our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends.
But...
The real fight starts now. Many groups, both right wing and radical Islam will seek to capitalise on these events. They want societies divided, people at each other's throats, people hating each other. It suits their agenda. I hope people don't give into hate, it's not easy, emotions will be running high the next few days (I remember the USA after 9/11)
Seems it was just one guy at the supermarket whom killed the other 3/4, that's sadly 3/4 hostages dead.. Not to sure. They keep on telling different things all the time.
I hope those guys came out as swiss cheeze from all those bullets.
French media say there was one hostage that escaped earlier.
@Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm glad it's over. Kudos to the police for their dedication and professionalism, and of course, our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends.
But...
The real fight starts now. Many groups, both right wing and radical Islam will seek to capitalise on these events. They want societies divided, people at each other's throats, people hating each other. It suits their agenda. I hope people don't give into hate, it's not easy, emotions will be running high the next few days (I remember the USA after 9/11)
Let's not let hate win...
Absolutely 100% this. Half a dozen heavily armed thugs was what this was, looking to bring murder and chaos to the lives of as many people as possible. The security forces have clearly done all they can, now the rest of us need to stand up to the hate-mongers, that's our job.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm glad it's over. Kudos to the police for their dedication and professionalism, and of course, our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends.
But...
The real fight starts now. Many groups, both right wing and radical Islam will seek to capitalise on these events. They want societies divided, people at each other's throats, people hating each other. It suits their agenda. I hope people don't give into hate, it's not easy, emotions will be running high the next few days (I remember the USA after 9/11)
Let's not let hate win...
The real fight is to make life extremely difficult and uncomfortable for the craven lunatics who take advantage of these young men, put false promises of eternal life glory in their head, and corrupt them to kill in the name of ancient superstitions best left in the garbage pail of history's bad ideas. We shouldn't be afraid to ridicule horrible ideas. In fact, that's why these cartoonists were murdered.
BBC noted that the casualty figure was unclear. With contradicting reports from French and international media we have tot wait for an official statement, looks grim though.
Edit: seems reporting is moving away from wounded to dead
Hopefully the right will not gain to much from this, it would only make a bad situation worse
French media say that one hostage taker got away earlier. It's a little odd... with that many police around. Apparently the second hostage taker wasn't that woman they spread the picture of but a man instead.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm glad it's over. Kudos to the police for their dedication and professionalism, and of course, our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends.
But...
The real fight starts now. Many groups, both right wing and radical Islam will seek to capitalise on these events. They want societies divided, people at each other's throats, people hating each other. It suits their agenda. I hope people don't give into hate, it's not easy, emotions will be running high the next few days (I remember the USA after 9/11)
Let's not let hate win...
The real fight is to make life extremely difficult and uncomfortable for the craven lunatics who take advantage of these young men, put false promises of eternal life glory in their head, and corrupt them to kill in the name of ancient superstitions best left in the garbage pail of history's bad ideas. We shouldn't be afraid to ridicule horrible ideas. In fact, that's why these cartoonists were murdered.
I think it's too simplistic to blame religion for the all the world's ills. It's not that long ago that Communism was wreaking havoc across the globe - and countless people were prepared to die for that belief, but that's getting slightly OT.
Like I said, it's a society problem. Look at that army officer in the USA that killed those people at Fort Hood? How can you explain or understand that? There's no easy answers.
There may be no answer. Humans are individuals and what some want, others don't. We may never fully harmonise, but at no cost should we ever let people exploit our divisions or beliefs and turn it to pure Murder.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm glad it's over. Kudos to the police for their dedication and professionalism, and of course, our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends.
But...
The real fight starts now. Many groups, both right wing and radical Islam will seek to capitalise on these events. They want societies divided, people at each other's throats, people hating each other. It suits their agenda. I hope people don't give into hate, it's not easy, emotions will be running high the next few days (I remember the USA after 9/11)
Let's not let hate win...
Absolutely 100% this. Half a dozen heavily armed thugs was what this was, looking to bring murder and chaos to the lives of as many people as possible. The security forces have clearly done all they can, now the rest of us need to stand up to the hate-mongers, that's our job.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It took me years to figure out what that really meant...
Warpig1815 wrote: @Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...
The answer is to do what the Germans are doing: any mosque (or any other public worship place), that is found spreading messages inciting to violence is shut down and its Iman arrested on hate crime charges. Any European national that is known to have travelled to terrorist training sites such as Syria is arrested if they return to European soil under charges of terrorism.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Yes, BBC said one suspect remains at large. This isn't over yet.
From what I'm seeing the gunmen from the supermarket and warehouse are dead. So that would leave the girlfriend of the supermarket guy who helped kill the policewoman?
Warpig1815 wrote: @Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...
The answer is to do what the Germans are doing: any mosque (or any other public worship place), that is found spreading messages inciting to violence is shut down and its Iman arrested on hate crime charges. Any European national that is known to have travelled to terrorist training sites such as Syria is arrested if they return to European soil under charges of terrorism.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...
The answer is to do what the Germans are doing: any mosque (or any other public worship place), that is found spreading messages inciting to violence is shut down and its Iman arrested on hate crime charges. Any European national that is known to have travelled to terrorist training sites such as Syria is arrested if they return to European soil under charges of terrorism.
That actually sounds pretty reasonable.
But very hard to do... at least, here in the states. There's an extremely high bar to charge someone with incitement. As a practical purpose, it's almost non-existent.
The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm glad it's over. Kudos to the police for their dedication and professionalism, and of course, our thoughts are with the victims and their families and friends.
But...
The real fight starts now. Many groups, both right wing and radical Islam will seek to capitalise on these events. They want societies divided, people at each other's throats, people hating each other. It suits their agenda. I hope people don't give into hate, it's not easy, emotions will be running high the next few days (I remember the USA after 9/11)
Let's not let hate win...
The real fight is to make life extremely difficult and uncomfortable for the craven lunatics who take advantage of these young men, put false promises of eternal life glory in their head, and corrupt them to kill in the name of ancient superstitions best left in the garbage pail of history's bad ideas. We shouldn't be afraid to ridicule horrible ideas. In fact, that's why these cartoonists were murdered.
I think it's too simplistic to blame religion for the all the world's ills. It's not that long ago that Communism was wreaking havoc across the globe - and countless people were prepared to die for that belief, but that's getting slightly OT.
Like I said, it's a society problem. Look at that army officer in the USA that killed those people at Fort Hood? How can you explain or understand that? There's no easy answers.
Maybe my first post was visceral. I do understand that radicalization is not always caused by religion, and probably never ever caused solely by religion. But too often, religion is the vehicle through which it occurs. We can't fall into the idiocy of the "Coexist bumper-sticker crowd". Religion plays a part in much of modern terrorism...a big part. If it was all flowers and candy and love, noone would care. But its not. And I'm not just talkiung about extreme Islam here. Extreme forms of Christianity have led to domestic terrorism in the US.
IMO, exposing extremist imams, preachers, rabbis, etc, and shifting the zeitgeist so it is mortifying and embarrassing in the extreme to be associated with them is part of the process. These types are all too happy to lead protests, and so forth. Perhaps its time we start leading peaceful protests at their mosques, churches, temples, etc.
Certainly, giving hopeless people a sense of hope, beloging, and security is also a part.
This is indeed not over. One suspect still somewhere, though it is unknown of her role.
Three terrorists dead, but the casualties are still heavy. They got their targets. They killed 4 more hostages.
Yeah, clearly, they have won. This is not a victory at all for the french. Their forces managed to kill the murderers. So what? That's exactly what they expected. Great.
Absolutely not a critic against Raid and GIGN. They made their job as good as they could.
Meanwhile, hype against muslims is just beginning. The lycean suspect is totally innocent. His name seen in the press was the malicious tweet of an irresponsible "journalist" who put him with the others on the same level. Call to murders against him were seen on the social networks. Good thing the police did their job and dropped all charges against him, but...there's still the rumor.
But very hard to do... at least, here in the states. There's an extremely high bar to charge someone with incitement. As a practical purpose, it's almost non-existent.
The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.
On the US that might be true, over here the bar is not so high, like I said, the Germans already did it several times including this one:
The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.
It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT
Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...
It's not the Western societies problem, it's Islams problem with the West.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Yes, BBC said one suspect remains at large. This isn't over yet.
From what I'm seeing the gunmen from the supermarket and warehouse are dead. So that would leave the girlfriend of the supermarket guy who helped kill the policewoman?
I thought there were 4 terrorists. The brother and the couple. One from the couple escaped/is at large. There's only three dead terrorists right now right?
I thought there were 4 terrorists. The brother and the couple. One from the couple escaped/is at large. There's only three dead terrorists right now right?
That is what it seems. The 4th one is supposedly a women that was involved in the shooting of the Policewoman yesterday but apparently was not in the supermarket where her partner was killed.
And also, it seems like everyone has forgotten about the driver of the getaway car for the two brothers... Or did I miss anything?
Warpig1815 wrote: @Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.
Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...
It's not the Western societies problem, it's Islams problem with the West.
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.
It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT
Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.
SHining a spotlight on these nutters does not:
Prevent them from killing a dozen folks.
Prevent the leaders using madrassas and other platforms from recruiting a new crop of nutters to kill more folks.
Does not protect those exercising their free speech from being killed.
Not everyone is willing to die to exercise their rights, many in fact are not, and are willing to trade away those rights for 'protection'. Even that protection does not always protect because the nutters are still out there, and the numbers of them seems to be growing (look at the 20+nations with major islamist insurgent groups or even gov't enabling).
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
They don't. They spend their lives living in western nations but they are being taught Islamic values, not Western values.
That is why the places that do that type of teaching, that is completely anathema to western values, need to be shut down.
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
It is hard for me not to think that the "something goes wrong" part is that they are convinced by the empty promises of charismatic lunatics. If this kid (the one we know most about through the media) had never met a radical nutjob, he'd likely still be smoking pot, getting laid, and delivering pepperoni pizzas.
Same goes for Christianity. If an abortion clinic bomber wasn't raised in or converted to the dubious promises of Christianity, they'd likely have lived "normal lives"...the kind of lives that don't involve murdering innocent civilians.
The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.
It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT
Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.
SHining a spotlight on these nutters does not:
Prevent them from killing a dozen folks.
Prevent the leaders using madrassas and other platforms from recruiting a new crop of nutters to kill more folks.
Does not protect those exercising their free speech from being killed.
Not everyone is willing to die to exercise their rights, many in fact are not, and are willing to trade away those rights for 'protection'. Even that protection does not always protect because the nutters are still out there, and the numbers of them seems to be growing (look at the 20+nations with major islamist insurgent groups or even gov't enabling).
It is a much bigger issue than free speech.
I totally agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, there are tough questions ahead, and I'm not sure the West has the answers. As I mentioned a few posts ago, how do you explain that American officer who murdered those people at that Fort? By all accounts, he was American through and through, and then...
What makes people who are born in France/UK/USA and raised with that countries values, and then for them to act like they did? Tough questions ahead...
I totally agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, there are tough questions ahead, and I'm not sure the West has the answers. As I mentioned a few posts ago, how do you explain that American officer who murdered those people at that Fort? By all accounts, he was American through and through, and then...
What makes people who are born in France/UK/USA and raised with that countries values, and then for them to act like they did? Tough questions ahead...
I'm going to make a wild stab here (not so wild really)....he saw the atrocities at Abu Graib, Guantanimo, etc, as atrocities against himself, since he shares a mutual race or religion with those victims.
It is certainly incumbent on the West to cease and desist institutionalized torture. Our government's actions are probable more effective recruitment tools for terrorism than the imams themselves. We need to demand better from our institutions.
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
It is hard for me not to think that the "something goes wrong" part is that they are convinced by the empty promises of charismatic lunatics. If this kid (the one we know most about through the media) had never met a radical nutjob, he'd likely still be smoking pot, getting laid, and delivering pepperoni pizzas.
Same goes for Christianity. If an abortion clinic bomber wasn't raised in or converted to the dubious promises of Christianity, they'd likely have lived "normal lives"...the kind of lives that don't involve murdering innocent civilians.
Slightly OT here, but it's not that long ago when your nation had the Oklahoma bomber and the fear that militia groups would start a war against the federal government. Religion can't be blamed all the time.
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
They don't. They spend their lives living in western nations but they are being taught Islamic values, not Western values.
That is why the places that do that type of teaching, that is completely anathema to western values, need to be shut down.
I refer you to that case of the American officer who killed all those people.
The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.
It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT
Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.
SHining a spotlight on these nutters does not:
Prevent them from killing a dozen folks.
Prevent the leaders using madrassas and other platforms from recruiting a new crop of nutters to kill more folks.
Does not protect those exercising their free speech from being killed.
Not everyone is willing to die to exercise their rights, many in fact are not, and are willing to trade away those rights for 'protection'. Even that protection does not always protect because the nutters are still out there, and the numbers of them seems to be growing (look at the 20+nations with major islamist insurgent groups or even gov't enabling).
It is a much bigger issue than free speech.
I totally agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, there are tough questions ahead, and I'm not sure the West has the answers. As I mentioned a few posts ago, how do you explain that American officer who murdered those people at that Fort? By all accounts, he was American through and through, and then...
What makes people who are born in France/UK/USA and raised with that countries values, and then for them to act like they did? Tough questions ahead...
Hassan was not 'American through and through'. Not by any means. He would explain his actions (and has explained them) pretty adequately. He was on jihad against those who would kill Muslims. I don;t think he was lying about that. He showed signs of leaning towards that brand if Islam well before he went on his shooting spree.
What I don't get is why people move into a country and culture that they actively hate and insist that all the pre-existing customs change to their benefit.
If you are a muslim that highly disagrees with western culture, why the hell would you move to europe and expect them to change for you?
Same goes for Christans, Hindus, Buhddist, etc, why would you go to a place where you feel you are greatly at odds with the culture and people already living there and try to enforce your views on them?
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
It is hard for me not to think that the "something goes wrong" part is that they are convinced by the empty promises of charismatic lunatics. If this kid (the one we know most about through the media) had never met a radical nutjob, he'd likely still be smoking pot, getting laid, and delivering pepperoni pizzas.
Same goes for Christianity. If an abortion clinic bomber wasn't raised in or converted to the dubious promises of Christianity, they'd likely have lived "normal lives"...the kind of lives that don't involve murdering innocent civilians.
Slightly OT here, but it's not that long ago when your nation had the Oklahoma bomber and the fear that militia groups would start a war against the federal government. Religion can't be blamed all the time.
Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the extremist "Christian Identity" movement.
But I don't disagree with you entirely. I'm not purporting that religion is always the root cause, and I doubt it is ever the only cause, of terrorism.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.
Disenfranchisement from society. They fall for the cliched hyperbole of the West's so called "Crusade" on Islam. Drugs. Mental Health Issues. Reading the Koran and failing to ignore the wacky violent bits (which DO exist, and are used to inspire and encourage acts of violence) like the average, sane, peaceful Muslim or Christian.
Any or all of the above.
Ultimately, its Muslims themselves, the peaceful mainstream ones (who are of course in the majority of Muslims living in the West) who will have to hold the nut jobs in their communities in check. PhantomViper's suggestion (the German method) is crucial. Shut down all radical Mosques ASAP. If local Muslims don't want their Mosques shut down and banned, they need to help Police weed out the radicals and take an active role themselves in policing their own communities.
I refer you to that case of the American officer who killed all those people.
He was a muslim that had become increasingly radical and again, had ties with known Islamic radicals in Yemen. He had even been referenced for it in the US intelligence agencies. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Why did he do it? I don't know and frankly I don't care, I don't think that we need to understand the reasons behind all these cases, we only need to identify the common points and use them to excise these people from our societies.
I think we do need to take a look at what we deem 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we should have our rights to speak freely, but since when has it become acceptable to dispense with common courtesy. I'm talking in the sense that Charlie Hebdo published pictures of Mohammed that these extremists found offensive - fair enough, we want to offend them and belittle them. But we should show a degree of respect towards those Muslims who aren't extremists and simply worship peacefully with no radicalisation. Is it fair to offend them as well, or should we at least have a modicum of respect. I'm simply advocating that we should go all out to undermine, offend and deconstruct Terrorists but the images Charlie Hebdo published also offend peaceful Muslims - can we say this is alright?
If I can draw the analogy, when Emma Watson (Of Harry Potter fame) had crude allegations of sex tapes, there was public outrage against the perpetrators. However, this very same public now supports to offending of all Muslims with crude Mohammed images. Double standards in a sense. Degrade, humiliate, undermine and offend the terrorists in all manners (Post crude imagery of the IS leader by all means) , but courteous to the legitimate views of others is all I'm saying.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.
Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.
Warpig1815 wrote: I think we do need to take a look at what we deem 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we should have our rights to speak freely, but since when has it become acceptable to dispense with common courtesy. I'm talking in the sense that Charlie Hebdo published pictures of Mohammed that these extremists found offensive - fair enough, we want to offend them and belittle them. But we should show a degree of respect towards those Muslims who aren't extremists and simply worship peacefully with no radicalisation. Is it fair to offend them as well, or should we at least have a modicum of respect. I'm simply advocating that we should go all out to undermine, offend and deconstruct Terrorists but the images Charlie Hebdo published also offend peaceful Muslims - can we say this is alright?
If I can draw the analogy, when Emma Watson (Of Harry Potter fame) had crude allegations of sex tapes, there was public outrage against the perpetrators. However, this very same public now supports to offending of all Muslims with crude Mohammed images. Double standards in a sense. Degrade, humiliate, undermine and offend the terrorists in all manners (Post crude imagery of the IS leader by all means) , but courteous to the legitimate views of others is all I'm saying.
If we can't safely make fun of any Relgion, View Points, or your Government, they you don't have "freedom of speech/expression".
It's as simple as that.
Now, that doesn't give you "protection" from opposite viewpoints.
ALL ideas/speech is fair game. Just don't expect many to send you a Christmas Card.
Warpig1815 wrote: I think we do need to take a look at what we deem 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we should have our rights to speak freely, but since when has it become acceptable to dispense with common courtesy. I'm talking in the sense that Charlie Hebdo published pictures of Mohammed that these extremists found offensive - fair enough, we want to offend them and belittle them. But we should show a degree of respect towards those Muslims who aren't extremists and simply worship peacefully with no radicalisation. Is it fair to offend them as well, or should we at least have a modicum of respect. I'm simply advocating that we should go all out to undermine, offend and deconstruct Terrorists but the images Charlie Hebdo published also offend peaceful Muslims - can we say this is alright?
There was at least one Muslim working in Charlie Hebdo, he was a proof editor and he was killed by the terrorists, his name was Mustapha Ourrad.
So if you could please stop with that appeasement discourse it would be greatly appreciated because you are doing exactly what the muslim extremists wan't, you wan't us to put limits in our freedom of expression because we might offend someone, that is unacceptable.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.
Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.
Could be reaching I guess. But there is ample evidence of forced conversions and persecution of heathens. It happened, and its an example.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.
Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.
It also happened more than 500 years ago, so it is a bit of a strawman.
stanman wrote: What I don't get is why people move into a country and culture that they actively hate and insist that all the pre-existing customs change to their benefit.
If you are a muslim that highly disagrees with western culture, why the hell would you move to europe and expect them to change for you?
Same goes for Christans, Hindus, Buhddist, etc, why would you go to a place where you feel you are greatly at odds with the culture and people already living there and try to enforce your views on them?
I've said this exact same thing about Californians moving to Austin....
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.
Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.
It also happened more than 500 years ago, so it is a bit of a strawman.
Right. It happened before Christianity was effectively domesticated. Kind of like Islam today.
Anyways, I just saw the question, and though t of that as an example, that's all.
@whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...
EDIT: @PhantomViper - I highly doubt I'm an appeaser. In fact, I'm quite vehement in my desire to curb immigration in the UK. I'm simply advocating a bit of respect for others.
djones520 wrote: That is a dangerous path though, because then you are regulating thought, not action...
That is a slippery slope that no one should want to go down.
Speech is not thought.
If radical Muslims are preaching and inciting violence at their Mosques, its up to the rest of the congregation to turn them in and alert authorities before that person chooses to act on their beliefs, or persuade others to do so (Anjem Choudhary, who IIRC had connections with the Woolwich murderors of the Drummer Lee Rigby)
The alternative to a self policing community cooperating with authorities, would probably be (given our Governments' penchants for this sort of thing) mass surveillance.
Warpig1815 wrote: @whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...
I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".
I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.
Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.
As Voltaire famously said: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate: We should NOT be having discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisals over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,
Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
How about groups of Christian missionaries that go to Asia, Africa and South America? Granted they aren't doing it through militant extremism, but they have run into plenty of opposition for promoting western values and religion to the local populations. I'm not bagging on them for doing it as they feel that spreading the word is important, but they are going into other parts of the world and expecting that their belief system be upheld and respected in the same fashion as it is here.
My cousin's church does a lot of missionary work in China and other areas, Burma, Chile and there's always a threat of their members being arrested and imprisoned for defying the local governments. They expect to have the same legal rights and treatment as they do in the US, which is not the case in those countries. That naivety could just be because they are dumb upper class Americans who think that the world works the same everywhere as it does here. But they do go into other countries and expect that they can freely impose their western and religious ideals on locals even when they are at odds with the local customs and culture.
Medium of Death wrote: People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.
They are certainly not the same thing, however they are "siblings" from the same "parent". Perhaps you could argue that Christianity is the child of Judaism, while Islam is the grandchild, in that it incorporates both Judaic and Christian theology. And lets not forget that Zoroastrianism and Ancient Greek religion is mixed in to all of them as well.
One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.
Warpig1815 wrote: @whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...
I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".
I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.
Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.
As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having a discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisasl over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,
Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.
Yeah, sorry. I realise, I probably confuse my own opinion of humour (I like clever humour, not crude humour) with what should be published (Which I appreciate can be anything due to freedom of speech).
EDIT: Actually, I get it now. The Voltaire quote puts it into perspective. It's not so much that it's right to post the images of Mohammed, but you should always be allowed to say your bit - if only for others to change your mind. Really that's all I wanted. I wasn't trying to appease terrorists like PhantomViper suggests, I just wanted others to hear my point of view and correct me where I'm wrong. I get it now, thanks whembly.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
How about groups of Christian missionaries that go to Asia, Africa and South America? Granted they aren't doing it through militant extremism, but they have run into plenty of opposition for promoting western values and religion to the local populations. I'm not bagging on them for doing it as they feel that spreading the word is important, but they are going into other parts of the world and expecting that their belief system be upheld and respected in the same fashion as it is here.
My cousin's church does a lot of missionary work in China and other areas, Burma, Chile and there's always a threat of their members being arrested and imprisoned for defying the local governments. They expect to have the same legal rights and treatment as they do in the US, which is not the case in those countries. That naivety could just be because they are dumb upper class Americans who think that the world works the same everywhere as it does here. But they do go into other countries and expect that they can freely impose their western and religious ideals on locals even when they are at odds with the local customs and culture.
I never met a missionary who expected no opposition or that he could freely impose western culture on people. Or that he would be magically protected because he's a US citizen. Not to say they won't claim any US rights that country may honor, but they're certainly not naively thinking they'll always be protected like its a magic force field around them.
They're preaching the gospel, and willing to suffer the consequences of persecution when it happens.
Medium of Death wrote: People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.
They are certainly not the same thing, however they are "siblings" from the same "parent".
One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.
Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.
Medium of Death wrote: People, probably Atheists, still comparing Christianity and Islam as if they were the same thing.
They are certainly not the same thing, however they are "siblings" from the same "parent".
One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.
Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.
Western values are certainly influenced by Christianity. As well as Greco-Roman religion and thought, and everything else that came before it by which it was influenced. When I say "Western values", I am talking about the post-Enlightenment West. The Enlightenment was probably the biggest domesticating force on Christianity.
I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".
I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.
Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.
As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisals over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,
Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.
I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.
I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.
Killing people and demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.
You might as well claim that MTG and 40k are the same thing just because they're both games.
You are aware that Christina "Evangelists" have bombed abortion clinics and government buildings, right? Not saying this strain of Christianity is mainstream, or anything, but its there.
And good lord, Christians are seeking special legal treatment all the friggin time (Christian prayer in schools, creationism in schools, etc.).
Warpig1815 wrote: @whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...
I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".
I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.
Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.
As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having a discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisasl over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,
Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.
Yeah, sorry. I realise, I probably confuse my own opinion of humour (I like clever humour, not crude humour) with what should be published (Which I appreciate can be anything due to freedom of speech). My point was not "respect for the other side" where the 'other side' is terrorism, but just respect towards those who share the religion, just not the more radical views. In any case, sorry for my point of view, to be honest I'm not fully on either side of the freedom of speech argument. I just like to ask though (If PhantomViper doesn't bite my head off and accuse me of being a terrorist appeaser):
Why is it not all right to dispense with 'any and all forms of respect' (Which you say is moving the goalpost), but it is alright to dispense with respect to fellow people who believe in a religion that has been unfortunately hijacked by others - that's the bit I haven't got my head around...
Because you not free from speech.
See the distinction?
In the the case of Islamic extremism... there's a subtext. Here's what I mean...
I've never understood the logic that believes savagely murdering innocents in the name of a religious figure brings honor to said religious figure. Omnipotent figures fear no one. Omnipotent figures fear no cartoon. Omnipotent figures fear no free speech.... etc...
This isn't so much about some cartoons or 'free speech' as much as it is about the forced, whole-hearted acceptance of Islamist principles.
EDIT: Actually, I get it now. The Voltaire quote puts it into perspective. It's not so much that it's right to post the images of Mohammed, but you should always be allowed to say your bit - if only for others to change your mind. Really that's all I wanted. I wasn't trying to appease terrorists like PhantomViper suggests, I just wanted others to hear my point of view and correct me where I'm wrong. I get it now, thanks whembly.
I'm not saying that we should dispense with "any and all forms of respect". That's called "moving the goal post".
I have a right to be an donkey-cave, as long as it doesn't fall under the extremely high threshold of libel/slander laws.
Just as you have the right to call my gak out, in front of everyone else.
As Voltaire famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Here's the key distinction that I'm trying to articulate:
We should NOT be having discussions about "respect for the other side" if there's any physical reprisals over what I said, or in this case over fething cartoons,
Plain and simple, it's an assault to our way life.
streamdragon wrote: I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.
I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.
If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.
Killing people and demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.
You might as well claim that MTG and 40k are the same thing just because they're both games.
You are aware that Christina "Evangelists" have bombed abortion clinics and government buildings, right? Not saying this strain of Christianity is mainstream, or anything, but its there.
Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?
Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.
You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.
Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.
It also happened more than 500 years ago, so it is a bit of a strawman.
It also continued well into the 20th century, so it's not some distant relic of the past. In the 1910s-30s the US government forced Native Americans into Christian run schools in very much the same manner that the Spanish empire forced both North and South American tribes into Catholic conversion. Pretty much convert or die. In the case of the 20th century reservation schools it's wasn't so much of convert or we burn you alive, it was convert or we cut off your food, blankets, and medicine so you starve to death in the cold of winter, but it has the same overall message.
I also hate to be that guy but what happened in WWII can be said to be caused by fanatical group with extreme religious & cultural convictions attempting to move in against another group and impose their ideals and culture. The IRA since the 60's, Bosnia in the 90's. Western civilization has no grounds to climb up on that high horse and say we've moved beyond fighting and killing each other over religious and cultural beliefs.
And for the record I'm Christian so I'm not saying that OMG faith is a blight on the world, but as with any religion it's name been used to justify all sorts of terrible events and we can't just ignore that history.
Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.
I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.
Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?
streamdragon wrote: I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.
I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.
If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.
I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.
Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.
I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.
Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?
Are you saying that it's impossible to be an Atheist and be pro-life?
Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.
I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.
Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?
Are you saying that it's impossible to be an Atheist and be pro-life?
Actually no, I'm not. I sort of have pro-life tendencies, although I wouldn't dream of inposing that choice on anyone else. I've never ever heard of an atheist abortion clinic bomber though.
Actually no, I'm not. I sort of have pro-life tendencies, although I wouldn't dream of inposing that choice on anyone else. I've never ever heard of an atheist abortion clinic bomber though.
streamdragon wrote: I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.
I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.
If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.
I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.
Is that the continuation of the wedding cake story?
I do think its wrong to discriminate on employment for any reason. But I think I should have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If I have a business I should be allowed to pick and choose which customers I serve.
I do admit that some special privilege is often asked by Christians, and in many cases its crossing a line. But they're all so minor in comparison to the outrageous demands of Muslims in european countries, and the actions of Jihadists. The comparison is intellectually lazy and speaks to an agenda.
His Master's Voice wrote: I guess the outlawing of Islam in Europe is worth a facepalm, but stricter immigration policies? What's wrong with that? Multiple countries across the globe have strict visa regulations in place right now.
My english is not good enough to explain thoroughly how things work in France, but most of these young guys are definitely french. Stricter immigration policies would keep some crazy imams out of France, that would help, but wouldn't really solve the core of the problem.
I'm both french and tunisian. Most of the french young people who may have tunisian ancestors are definitely not welcome in Tunisia, because they're socially inept. Same thing applies to most french-african young folks.
Long story short: after WW2, France had to build lots of housings. We got our ass kicked pretty quickly and our country wasn't as devastated as some others were, but there was still a lot of things to rebuild. The french state (we're a socialist country, we love our nanny-state) built what was called grands ensembles, or cités outside of the largest cities. Then we put all the blue collars here and locked everything. We're still in the Cold War, and the French Communist Pary was quite powerful, so the then-gaullist state chose to lock the system and monitor everything. Due to the casualties and the need for workers (and also because many of these guys fought for De Gaulle), many people from the colonies were also brought in these cités. And they stayed here. These cités quickly decayed and are now ghettos. You don't see them when you travel to The Most Beautiful City Of The Universe (except if you take the RER B from the Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport), but Paris is actually surrounded by these cités that are now ghettos. Those ghettos are pretty much like the ones you can find in most advanced countries, there's not slums, but you'll still find sub-par schools, public transportation, cops... sub-par-pretty-much-everything.
French people who live in those places are second class citizens, they live outside of our cities, use their own slang, have their own fashion trends, when they go downtown, they are forced to submit to frequent identity controls (especially if they're from african lineage), and have progressively slipped out from the "civilized society standards"... they're supposed to be french, but they're almost never treated as such. They're treated like gak.
Some of them may have tried to do someting about it. They went to university, get nice diploms, instead of choosing to rob old ladies and steal cars. These guys now keep a low profile: they may have bragged about how their hard work was going to make them succeed in life, they're just as jobless as all the others, because if an employer may choose a Jean-Claude born in a crappy city over one born in a wealthy suburb, no employer will ever, ever choose a Mohammed over a Jean-Claude. Basically, if you see a tanned/black guy in a suit, chances are he's a football player. Or a security guard from the next mall. If not, expect to hear a lot of "oh", "ah", "wonderful", the "french integration", stuff like that. Truth is, that dark-skinned guy in a suit is a Django: one in ten thousands.
Nicolas Sarkozy's father immigrated from Hungary. Nobody cared about that. Two of his ministers were of african lineage. Everybody bragged about that, about how France was a wonderful country, for letting black/arab people become ministers. Those were our Djangos.
So, now, we may have a problem. Because some of these outcasts chose to become religious: when everything sucks, God's pretty much your last chance to do something about it. Some of these guys have north-african parents who are muslim, making Islam an "obvious" choice. Some of these people don't have any african ancestors, come from christian families and choose Islam "just because". All of these guys know close to nothing about Islam, and just like most noobs do, they tend to be very implied in their new hobby. They go way too often in their closest hobby center. They follow way to closely the neckbeards. And the red shirts. Especially the red shirts. Here comes the crazy saudi/qatari/whatever preacher who has an hidden agenda. Yup, islamic terrorism is actually backed, fueled and funded by some of our "allies". These imported preachers just brainwash them and promise lots of very, very nice things for all the holy warriors. Things we all enjoy. Things they can't have in France: love, respect, admiration... even sex. I'd rather bang forty pornstars (without ISD, please...) than 40 virgins in the afterlife, but to each one his own.
Some of these guys are so fethed up they willingly choose to travel to the ugliest warzones of the world, begin as latrine-cleaners, then be used as a cannon fodder and finally become the "holy warriors" of their new crazy belief. Some come back and exact revenge on the country that once treated them like crap.
If you knew the state of desperation of a not-so-insignificant fraction of the french youth, you wouldn't really be that surprised to witness what we've witnessed a couple of days ago.
I also think there's not much european countries can do about that now. Too little, too late. We now have to make a choice between liberty and safety.
streamdragon wrote: I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.
I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.
If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.
I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.
Is that the continuation of the wedding cake story?
I do think its wrong to discriminate on employment for any reason. But I think I should have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If I have a business I should be allowed to pick and choose which customers I serve.
I do admit that some special privilege is often asked by Christians, and in many cases its crossing a line. But they're all so minor in comparison to the outrageous demands of Muslims in european countries, and the actions of Jihadists. The comparison is intellectually lazy and speaks to an agenda.
I believe the wedding cake is what spurred the whole thing, yes.
And as to your last paragraph, I even made concessions in my original post that the magnitude of each incident was nowhere close. I only responded since your "demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get". Christian Evangelists demand special treatment all the time. From "we're going to cancel all Holiday displays because omg those other religions want in", to "10 commandments on government property totally doesn't break the first amendment guyz!", to "we should totally be able to tell gays to frell off, because our book says so".
@Stanman: I started noticing "Christianist" pop up several years ago. I think its an attempt to differentiate "mainstream Christians" from the nutjobs.
The media did the same thing with "Islamist" after 9-11 (I think). A way to talk about extremist Muslims, without using the word Muslim. Both are kind of silly IMO.
streamdragon wrote: I'd say Christianity in the US has shown that it wants special treatment at least in so far as being able to openly discriminate.
I mean, it's a far cry from shooting people, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend Islam is the only religion in the world that wants special treatment.
If you are referring to the Hobby Lobby case, thats not a case of the Christian wanting to discriminate, its wanting to stop discrimination against Christians. Forcing someone to pay for something that is antithetical to their belief is wrong.
I'm not. I'm referring to places that want to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.
Is that the continuation of the wedding cake story?
I do think its wrong to discriminate on employment for any reason. But I think I should have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If I have a business I should be allowed to pick and choose which customers I serve.
I do admit that some special privilege is often asked by Christians, and in many cases its crossing a line. But they're all so minor in comparison to the outrageous demands of Muslims in european countries, and the actions of Jihadists. The comparison is intellectually lazy and speaks to an agenda.
I believe the wedding cake is what spurred the whole thing, yes.
And as to your last paragraph, I even made concessions in my original post that the magnitude of each incident was nowhere close. I only responded since your "demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get". Christian Evangelists demand special treatment all the time. From "we're going to cancel all Holiday displays because omg those other religions want in", to "10 commandments on government property totally doesn't break the first amendment guyz!", to "we should totally be able to tell gays to frell off, because our book says so".
Lets be reasonable about holiday displays. Nobody else shares our holiday, demanding equal representation on our holiday is just confrontation and intimidation. We don't demand displays in other people's holiday celebrations. If Atheists want their own holiday they're welcome to it, just leave our holidays the alone.
Yes, but as you admit they're such an incredible minority they should be ignored as irrelevant. Also for the record IIRC nobody was actually hurt in those bombings, that were actually religiously motivated. A nutjob, who happens to be a Christian, who bombs something doesn't mean the bombing was a result of religion. You might as well claim that a guy who robs a bank did it because he also plays GTA.
I concede its a minority, however I do indeed know of one case where a doctor was indeed murdered.
Just out of curiosity, if you think abortion clinic bombers are not inspired by religion, what do you think they were inspired by?
Are you saying that it's impossible to be an Atheist and be pro-life?
Actually no, I'm not. I sort of have pro-life tendencies, although I wouldn't dream of inposing that choice on anyone else. I've never ever heard of an atheist abortion clinic bomber though.
Good point.
I can only remember of a sniper who shot an abortionist in Florida... and he was a religious nutter.
Killing people and demanding that they receive special legal treatment is about as different from Christian Evangelism as you could get.
You might as well claim that MTG and 40k are the same thing just because they're both games.
You are aware that Christina "Evangelists" have bombed abortion clinics and government buildings, right? Not saying this strain of Christianity is mainstream, or anything, but its there.
And good lord, Christians are seeking special legal treatment all the friggin time (Christian prayer in schools, creationism in schools, etc.).
Shall we tally up the numbers of Christian vs Islamic terror attacks in the past 12 months?
Before all this went down. Anyone in France LEO/Military thought if they went through a "Train the Trainers" and since been back have trained individuals? Second group seemed trained as well. How far the training cascaded
down.
Edit
Careful for Red has an Eagle Eye
New World and Missionary work 500 years ago is not in play today
@ Litcheur: that was very interesting, seeing as I and probably most Americans have very little knowledge about what life is like in France.
I've often wondered if radical Islam is sort of like "rock-and-roll" for disaffected youth. Something against the mainstream that gives them a sense of belonging and identity they're not finding in their society.
@Shadow Captain: You are assuming I am saying Christian extremist events occur at the same frequency as Muslim extremist events, when I have specifically stated that modern Christianity has been domesticated, and that violent Christian extremism is outside of mainstream Christianity (at least in the West...Africa seems to be a different story altogether)
The police moved into the factory, with impact rounds. If they kill, they kill, but perhaps they wont. With proper trauma care its easy to survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if you targets isn't finished off on the ground.
Hostage safe, thats the main thing, two terrorists down, with sucking chest wounds.
Officially dead.
Trauma team is on site, first they attend to the hostage and any care needed for the assault team, but that is unlikely, as they chose the timing of when to assault the factory.
Then they see if they can patch up one or more of the scum for interrogation, and if the Elysee palace decides, a trial.
The police moved into the factory, with impact rounds. If they kill, they kill, but perhaps they wont. With proper trauma care its easy to survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if you targets isn't finished off on the ground.
Hostage safe, thats the main thing, two terrorists down, with sucking chest wounds.
Officially dead.
Trauma team is on site, first they attend to the hostage and any care needed for the assault team, but that is unlikely, as they chose the timing of when to assault the factory.
Then they see if they can patch up one or more of the scum for interrogation, and if the Elysee palace decides, a trial.
Go easy on the anaesthetic.
[/Wishful thinking]
How far an interrogation are they willing to go is the question. If they catch one alive.
I think the state has extended its hand over far too many things. The state should not be a tool to drive our moral values, what we say & what we think. It certainly shouldn't be able to force anybody to do more than tolerate anybody else. At that point you're on the path to totalitarianism. The growing tyranny of the left where everybody can do what they want and say what they want but you better not criticise it or think beyond the realms of thought laid down by the state because that's not allowed.
Medium of Death wrote: I think the state has extended its hand over far too many things. The state should not be a tool to drive our moral values, what we say & what we think. It certainly shouldn't be able to force anybody to do more than tolerate anybody else. At that point you're on the path to totalitarianism. The growing tyranny of the left where everybody can do what they want and say what they want but you better not criticise it or think beyond the realms of thought laid down by the state because that's not allowed.
Considering one of the tenants of Free Speech IS to criticize the state, I'm not sure you even understand what you're railing against.
Medium of Death wrote: I think the state has extended its hand over far too many things. The state should not be a tool to drive our moral values, what we say & what we think. It certainly shouldn't be able to force anybody to do more than tolerate anybody else. At that point you're on the path to totalitarianism. The growing tyranny of the left where everybody can do what they want and say what they want but you better not criticise it or think beyond the realms of thought laid down by the state because that's not allowed.
Considering one of the tenants of Free Speech IS to criticize the state, I'm not sure you even understand what you're railing against.
How do you practice free speech when the State takes away your ability to speak?
Well, as much as "Islamist" is, I guess. I mean, they both seem to be used to describe the same mindset.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
Even Westboro Baptists don't support them.
It's just individual fethwits with guns and there are plenty of those about in America.
Westboro Baptists require a response, but there is a valid denial of reponsibility from Christianity in general for the abortion clinic murderers.
In a way the cartoon is unfair, the Militant Islamists can be seen as a subfaction, the militant Christians image should have been replaced by a WBC supporter. Otherwise the atheist in the third image replaced by the lone wolf atheist nut who kills religious people. Sure no atheist group accepts them, but they do exist.
jasper76 wrote: Is anyone else surprised that a girl/woman is allegedly involved in this? Is this something new?
No.
Plenty of female terrorists, even of the Islamic variety. Hell, in Iraq the bad guys would rape or otherwise abuse females and then use their shame to turn them into suicide bombers.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
Orlanth wrote: Otherwise the atheist in the third image replaced by the lone wolf atheist nut who kills religious people. Sure no atheist group accepts them, but they do exist.
jasper76 wrote: Is anyone else surprised that a girl/woman is allegedly involved in this? Is this something new?
No.
Plenty of female terrorists, even of the Islamic variety. Hell, in Iraq the bad guys would rape or otherwise abuse females and then use their shame to turn them into suicide bombers.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The police moved into the factory, with impact rounds. If they kill, they kill, but perhaps they wont. With proper trauma care its easy to survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if you targets isn't finished off on the ground.
Hostage safe, thats the main thing, two terrorists down, with sucking chest wounds.
Officially dead.
Trauma team is on site, first they attend to the hostage and any care needed for the assault team, but that is unlikely, as they chose the timing of when to assault the factory.
Then they see if they can patch up one or more of the scum for interrogation, and if the Elysee palace decides, a trial.
Go easy on the anaesthetic.
[/Wishful thinking]
How far an interrogation are they willing to go is the question. If they catch one alive.
I am generally up with the whole human rights thing, but if you catch an officially dead terrorist shooter, as opposed to sympathiser, I have zero problems with holding him for questioning for as long as it takes.
jasper76 wrote: Is anyone else surprised that a girl/woman is allegedly involved in this? Is this something new?
No.
Plenty of female terrorists, even of the Islamic variety. Hell, in Iraq the bad guys would rape or otherwise abuse females and then use their shame to turn them into suicide bombers.
That threw everyone for a loop when they did that. No one expects a female suicide bomber till it happens. Then the kid in Afghanistan was another mental screw over.
Still though. Anyone over there hearing if their rounding up their (the brothers) entire social network?
jasper76 wrote: Is anyone else surprised that a girl/woman is allegedly involved in this? Is this something new?
No.
Plenty of female terrorists, even of the Islamic variety. Hell, in Iraq the bad guys would rape or otherwise abuse females and then use their shame to turn them into suicide bombers.
Don't forget they also like to use children to be sent out as living bombs.
Some of women might do it by choice because of religious and political beliefs, others are forced into helping by threats against their families. The terrorist have absolutely no shame in selecting who they opt to murder in order to reach their goals. They beat their chests about their bravery and courage in which they pursue their faith but will hide behind women and children whenever it suits them.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
Can you post links to a few of those videos?
Army of God, for one:
Spoiler:
Please note, I am not saying this stuff is mainstream.
The KKK is a self-proclaimed Christian group and have done a lot of fairly disgusting things over the years. in the 20s, they were thought to have been as large as 5% of the US population.
I mean, sure, no one else is cool with them, but I don't know if that really means anything, at the end of the day.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
Can you post links to a few of those videos?
Army of God, for one:
Spoiler:
Please note, I am not saying this stuff is mainstream.
I don;t have time to watch over an hour of video. At what time stamp do they show the pastor at the pulpit preaching for folks to kill? I'm sure it is there, just want to be able to skip to it.
daedalus wrote: The KKK is a self-proclaimed Christian group and have done a lot of fairly disgusting things over the years. in the 20s, they were thought to have been as large as 5% of the US population.
I mean, sure, no one else is cool with them, but I don't know if that really means anything, at the end of the day.
Since the 20's have they shrunk or grown? What is their level of funding like in the last decade and how many ops have the pulled off/how many folks have they killed in the last decade? In the last decade, have they done anything as 'successful' as what we just saw in France?
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
Can you post links to a few of those videos?
Army of God, for one:
Spoiler:
Please note, I am not saying this stuff is mainstream.
Disappointed really, the local churches should have been the first to get on their feet and help shut these freaks down. I wonder if they were (not seen the full video).
One of my biggest beefs with Islamic fundamentalism is how it can hide in moderate Islamic communities, who have a moral duty to expose these people to law enforcement.
Not happy at all to have to retract the comment that there is no such thing as a jihadist equivalent Christian(esque) denomination. But it looks like redneck territory, should I really be so surprised.
I was gonna say those guns look like M1s, but that's as far as my knowledge goes. Whether or not they are still up to date and regular use is past my reach.
CptJake wrote: At what time stamp do they show the pastor at the pulpit preaching for folks to kill?
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking for. Actually, neither of those videos do include people on pulpits preaching to organized congregations to go out and kill, but this film is what I was thinking of when I said such. So I was wrong about that, and apologize for it.
Anyway, Army of God is an extremist Christian org that does condone violence.
If you ever have time to watch the film, it is a good documentary.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
CptJake wrote: Since the 20's have they shrunk or grown? What is their level of funding like in the last decade and how many ops have the pulled off/how many folks have they killed in the last decade? In the last decade, have they done anything as 'successful' as what we just saw in France?
According to wikipedia, thankfully many less people, and nothing really that comes to mind of major significance beyond a few shootings and lynchings here and there in the last 20 years or so.
Perhaps Militant Islam will also see the same thing happen 70 years into the future.
I know next to nothing about firearms, these just struck me as appearing somewhat outdated, like WW2 carbines and rifles.
M-14 they use the same ammo as a modern M-4 or M-16 and will still kill somebody plenty dead. The only reason they are somewhat "dated" is a smaller magazine capacity and a wooden stock which is heavier than one made from ballistic nylon or carbon fiber. You don't need a scary black weapon look for it to be a highly effective military rifle. Airborne/paratrooper version has a pistol grip with a folding stock, others have a standard hunting rifle stock. You can also fit it with a much larger magazine if desired.
If it's good enough for the A-Team well it's good enough for anybody
Jihadin wrote: Still though. Anyone over there hearing if their rounding up their (the brothers) entire social network?
Yesterday at least seven people were arrested in connection with the two brothers, might have been more but the media has (understandably) been almost completely focussed on both sieges.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
IRA and other terror groups involved in the Troubles were never really about religion. There is a supposed Catholic and Protestant thing, but the real root is racial sectarianism.
AFAIK the IRA didn't kill anyone for being Protestant, they did kill people for being part of the Unionist faction, or English. There are extremist clerics on both sides but again its a racial divide. The denominational differences dont come into it, though they did in history, and the historical consequences are what are remembered.
IRA and other terror groups involved in the Troubles were never really about religion. There is a supposed Catholic and Protestant thing, but the real root is racial sectarianism.
AFAIK the IRA didn't kill anyone for being Protestant, they did kill people for being part of the Unionist faction, or English. There are extremist clerics on both sides but again its a racial divide. The denominational differences dont come into it, though they did in history, and the historical consequences are what are remembered.
Oh yeah, unification was officially their main aim. But they definitely had religion mixed up in it.
And then there were cases of people being killed just for being protestant, such as the Kingsmill massacre in which IRA members shot a load of protestant Ulster workmen, leaving the catholic unharmed. IRA leaders denied they ordered it but it was nevertheless carried out by members of their organisation.
Some of women might do it by choice because of religious and political beliefs, others are forced into helping by threats against their families. The terrorist have absolutely no shame in selecting who they opt to murder in order to reach their goals. They beat their chests about their bravery and courage in which they pursue their faith but will hide behind women and children whenever it suits them.
And, in this case, probably felt they were courageous by shooting unarmed and unsuspecting civilians.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
I know next to nothing about firearms, these just struck me as appearing somewhat outdated, like WW2 carbines and rifles.
I swear those look lilke some tweaked version of a Ruger Mini14. I really like the second to last where he is walking with the barrel levelled right at the cop next to him.
Matthew wrote: The worst thing is that SD, a political party in Sweden, are blaiming muslims for this.
Well, it wasn't committed by Pastafarians now, was it?
Saying that this is Islam's fault is like saying a single murder by a fanatical Christian is Christianitys fault.
If these types of attacks were rare and isolated instances, you'd have a point. But they're very very common, and only appear to be increasing in frequency.
Matthew wrote: The worst thing is that SD, a political party in Sweden, are blaiming muslims for this.
Well, it wasn't committed by Pastafarians now, was it?
Saying that this is Islam's fault is like saying a single murder by a fanatical Christian is Christianitys fault.
If these types of attacks were rare and isolated instances, you'd have a point. But they're very very common, and only appear to be increasing in frequency.
Every time something like this happens, the "No True Muslim" Fallacy (See: No True Scotsman) is trotted out.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck... and prays like a duck...
I don;t have time to watch over an hour of video. At what time stamp do they show the pastor at the pulpit preaching for folks to kill? I'm sure it is there, just want to be able to skip to it.
Most of it is painfully tongue and cheek, because they know they're on video, but 55:05 has a reverend saying to the camera something along the lines of that if if a fetus is a baby, then an abortionist is a mass murderer, and their position is to stop them, even if it means killing them. He's not literally in front of a pulpit though. Still plenty of people making me super uncomfortable in the video though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: He then goes on to talk about supporting the murder of Supreme Court justices and the use of chemical and biological weapons.
He appears to be a reverend that supports the murder of any number of human beings necessary to prevent the murder of any number of human beings.
I don;t have time to watch over an hour of video. At what time stamp do they show the pastor at the pulpit preaching for folks to kill? I'm sure it is there, just want to be able to skip to it.
Most of it is painfully tongue and cheek, because they know they're on video, but 55:05 has a reverend saying to the camera something along the lines of that if if a fetus is a baby, then an abortionist is a mass murderer, and their position is to stop them, even if it means killing them. He's not literally in front of a pulpit though. Still plenty of people making me super uncomfortable in the video though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: He then goes on to talk about supporting the murder of Supreme Court justices and the use of chemical and biological weapons.
He appears to be a reverend that supports the murder of any number of human beings necessary to prevent the murder of any number of human beings.
It's also probable that what hrs willing to say on film is a toned down version of what he's willing to say off camera in front of his congregation.
I mean, supporting domestic chemical or biological attacks is no small thing to admit...and one can only hope the government is watching this preacher and his congregation very very very carefully (assuming he's still alive)
Matthew wrote: The worst thing is that SD, a political party in Sweden, are blaiming muslims for this.
Well, it wasn't committed by Pastafarians now, was it?
Saying that this is Islam's fault is like saying a single murder by a fanatical Christian is Christianitys fault.
No, you are wrong.
Islam preaches death as a punishment for those that commit idolatrous acts like drawing images of their prophet.
This was definitively Islam's fault.
What this wasn't was the fault of all Muslims like the extreme right parties are trying to imply, especially because several Muslims were killed in the attack and because at least one Muslim died because he believed in our values of freedom of speech.
One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:
One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.
I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.
It's also probable that what hrs willing to say on film is a toned down version of what he's willing to say off camera in front of his congregation.
I mean, supporting domestic chemical or biological attacks is no small thing to admit...and one can only hope the government is watching this preacher and his congregation very very very carefully (assuming he's still alive)
Most certainly. They actually played back a recorded phone interview with one of the guys from a government agent. They KNEW through the entirety of this that they were being investigated and watched, and I'm almost certain they were watching themselves very carefully. There were also some very jarring cuts in the video, but that might have just been sloppy splicing getting it into youtube.
In all fairness the sort of 'Christian' who murders people at abortion clinics is a lone nutcase.
There is no camp to train at, no underground priest abroad mounting a crusade on abortionists, no dodgy denomination.
I don't buy this. Hell, I've seen clips on youtube of preachers telling congregations stuff like "if the law won't bring justice to these baby murderers, maybe its about time we tyake things into our own hands".
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
Gadaffi funded the IRA didn't he?
Yup. And supplied them.
The IRA needed Libyan supplied weaponry, especially access to quality explosives, and training camp opportunities; but didn't really need Libyan funding, though it helped.
They got plenty from those arch-terrorist financiers of the 80's.
How ironic how the USA now likes going after those nations who harbour citizens who fund terrorism with such gusto.
Compel wrote: One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:
One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.
I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.
It's also quite possible, perhaps likely, that extremist Muslims view Westernized Muslims as traitors of the worst degree.
You'll have to take my word for it, but a Muslim girl I went to high school with was disowned by her own father , who divorced his wife and moved back to Egypt, for the horrible crime of dating an American...and he was just a business man.
Compel wrote: One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
IS sees all western muslims as infidels who must be coerced or even better, disposed of. Something about placing the law of men above the law of god...
jasper76 wrote: I've often wondered if radical Islam is sort of like "rock-and-roll" for disaffected youth. Something against the mainstream that gives them a sense of belonging and identity they're not finding in their society.
You nailed it.
Some people like to listen to rock 'n roll way too loud or dress in funny clothes. I chose to play bass. That's just one step further. If I had no education and was taught by donkey-caves, I guess I could make the entire block rumble at 2 am.
Some other people do the same with religion. Islam is definitely edgy in some aeras. Some people chose to take it more seriously, and usually brag about it because they're even ediger and somehow "truer". Some of them then encounter preachers who basically brainwash them to fit their political agendas.
That urban aera is pretty large, and you'll find everything, from über-über-rich-cities to small towns of <2k inhabitants, forests, fields, marvels of classical architecture... and ghettos. Those cités were built wherever one could be built, there's no urban logic behind that. You can find very nice (and rich) cities next to very crappy places.
Let's take an exemple: Versailles, beautiful, beautiful city, with the famous Château de Versailles, palace of the Kings of France. 5 miles to the south, you'll find a couple of cute rural cities built on what was once the large Forêt de Rambouillet. Royal hunting grounds. There's a castle too (we've got castles everywhere ). French presidents love to spend their holidays in that one.
Five miles, remember? The city of Trappes lies in between. Don't ever try wander off the main road: you may end in very unpleasant places. How unpleasant? Cops are reluctant to go there. Firefighters too. Too many ambushes. Yup, these people will harm firefighters if given the opportunity. While some of these firefighters do this job for a living, many others are volunteers who do that almost for free because they want to help the community. Both work in mixed teams, and both can fall into an ambush... See, that kind of unpleasant.
I don't know how things work in other countries, but fortunately, french people tend to be quite territorial. Even if they're next to a very rich city full of easy preys tourists, thugs will still stay in their ghetto and try to rob each other. I won't complain about that.
Compel wrote: One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:
One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim.
I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.
I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.
It's also quite possible, perhaps likely, that extremist Muslims view Westernized Muslims as traitors of the worst degree.
In fairness it is possible the gunmen didn't have time to notice, and didnt care anyway.
They did have a twisted 'honour', in that they had a target list. Killed cops and soldiers if seen, earmarked specific people at Charlie Hebdo for murder but released others, and todaty when they took hostages freed what they considered a 'civilian' according to some press reports.
From what I can tell from this the uniform was the target, not the beliefs of the man in the uniform. The policeman represented French authority, and so was murdered even after he was incapacitated.
jasper76 wrote: And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
The IRA was not a right-wing group. The IRA was actually set up with a distinct socialist leaning. And, again, the IRA was motivated by nationalist and political goals - not religious.
Compel wrote: One of the things that has only been mentioned in a couple of news sources and only took the headline of one (The Daily Star of all papers) was:
One of the two policemen killed on the first day was a Muslim. I also read a report that said one of the people killed in the newspaper office was as well.
I tend to like to avoid the political threads but it seems to me that if the media were to highlight this more, that perhaps they can help show that these guys were attacking Islam as well, that perhaps, some kids mentioned in Litcheur's fascinating post may choose against starting down that path.
I mentioned that several times in this thread already.
But you are right, as usual the news media are dropping the ball on this. They should put a much greater emphasis on the Muslim cop that was executed outside the newspaper and on the Muslim newspaper editor that died. That would go a long way to diffuse these declarations from these far-right parties.
jasper76 wrote: I've often wondered if radical Islam is sort of like "rock-and-roll" for disaffected youth. Something against the mainstream that gives them a sense of belonging and identity they're not finding in their society.
You nailed it.
Some people like to listen to rock 'n roll way too loud or dress in funny clothes. I chose to play bass. That's just one step further. If I had no education and was taught by donkey-caves, I guess I could make the entire block rumble at 2 am.
Some other people do the same with religion. Islam is definitely edgy in some aeras. Some people chose to take it more seriously, and usually brag about it because they're even ediger and somehow "truer". Some of them then encounter preachers who basically brainwash them to fit their political agendas.
Cherif Kouachi was amongst other things a rapper, and had zero problems trying to style himself as Americanised.
There is a subtitled version of the above video somewhere, I found yesterday. Like the Boston bombing scum these people had already been in front of the camera from time to time.
The Tsarnaev brothers were into western music.
Also some of the wanted jihadists joining ISIS from the UK had snippets of videos of their rap on TV
For all their hatred of western culture these jihadists dont mind partaking of it themselves, and as where the culture is sourced from the US ultimately its rather ironic that they will kill to remove our culture from Islam, but they are quite content to join in street style, rap and basically behave like they live in Harlem.
It would make sense if they were into western music then got into religion and grew beards and wore robes, a bit like Cat Stevens. But these people seem happy to interchange between western youth and people who hate everything the west stands for.
Important note: If you read the above as a condemnation of rap as causing violence etc, re-read it until it isnt.
@Orlanth: I guess the thrust of my point was that innocent Muslim cops and Charlie workers who were killed as bystanders may not be much of a detterent to terrorists, and there deaths might actually be celebrated by terrorists and sympathizers.
There are several phrases used by white racists for other white people who have friendly associations with black people, and of course the black community sometimes throws around phrases like "Uncle Tom".(at least it used to be semi-common), and I suspect the same might be true for Muslim terrorists in regards to other Muslims who have assimilated into western culture.
jasper76 wrote: @Orlanth: I guess the thrust dog my point was that innocent Muslim cops and Charlie workers who were killed as bystanders may not be much of a detterent to terrorists, and there deaths might actually be celebrated by terrorists and sympathizers.
Concurred, it wont take much mental legwork for a dodgy imam supporting the actions of Wednesday to rewrite a dead Moslem policeman doing his lawful duty as a apostate traitor and an enemy of Islam.
I wonder which Allah would favour.
From what I can tell from this the uniform was the target, not the beliefs of the man in the uniform. The policeman represented French authority, and so was murdered even after he was incapacitated.
The point I'm trying to get at (another reason why I stay out of politics threads, is I'm not good at saying what I really mean), is that it doesn't necessarily really matter what the killers thought. If you have, say, a young guy, lost in life, in the sort of rubbishey situation described. I think, I'm guessing at least. It's, I don't want to say easy, but not an impossible thought, to think of the 'other' - The better off, the more materially successful, those who share very different beliefs from you into become The Enemy.
But, if someone were to be in a susceptible situation to this forerunners to train of thought but were reminded, say, that, 'The Enemy' isn't actually 'The Enemy' that the bloke who goes to the same mosque as you went your whole childhood. That shares the same beliefs that you grew up with (even though you're starting to stray away from them), that still hold the same beliefs as mum and dad. That they were killed by the same people you were drifting towards. It just might make them think that maybe it's best to go back before it's too late.
I really hope I'm not wrong in this, but, another way of putting it is. I really would like to think that, after all this, the mosque that the killed Police Officer went to, is not going to have any radicalisation problems.
It's not really the 'current' Jihadi's I'm thinking of, but any future ones.
I really hope I'm not wrong in this, but, another way of putting it is. I really would like to think that, after all this, the mosque that the killed Police Officer went to, is not going to have any radicalisation problems.
It's not really the 'current' Jihadi's I'm thinking of, but any future ones.
Assuming he was a law abiding Moslem, and it will be firmly in the French government's interest to paint that picture of him, then the message to his local mosque (if he had one) and to mainstream French moslems will be a positive one.
Something along the lines of - this is what a real French moslem stands for.
It will be a good idea to get that message out, to curb fears of Far Right reprisals and to highlight what would be preferably considered mainstream Moslem attitudes in France.
As to how to spin it:
You could also make the point that as he was there as part of police protection for Charlie Hedbo, he didn't refuse that duty. Many moslems (in the UK at least) have been more than vocal about not performinfg duties they are apid to do because of their conflict of faith. It hits the press every now and then.
However Ahmed Merabet, a police officer assigned as civic protection for the Charlie Hedbo offices performed his duty without complaint, and died at his post as a result.
How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?
Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?
You could also make the point that as he was there as part of police protection for Charlie Hedbo, he didn't refuse that duty. Many moslems (in the UK at least) have been more than vocal about not performinfg duties they are apid to do because of their conflict of faith. It hits the press every now and then.
However Ahmed Merabet, a police officer assigned as civic protection for the Charlie Hedbo offices performed his duty without complaint, and died at his post as a result.
I was thinking this. Is it a case of French culture being different to ours in the UK? mainly with regards to how Moslems identify themselves as part of the UK?
Lets be reasonable about holiday displays. Nobody else shares our holiday, demanding equal representation on our holiday is just confrontation and intimidation. We don't demand displays in other people's holiday celebrations. If Atheists want their own holiday they're welcome to it, just leave our holidays the alone.
So you agree that Christian groups do, in fact, want special snowflake status after all.
Mr. Burning wrote: How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?
Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?
It would help immensely if all leaders and imams quit sending a portion of zakat collected to organizations that use it to fund jihad, and all moderate muslims refused to pay zakat until the imams issued a ruling that made the use of zakat for jihad a sin instead of an authorized use of the funds. as it currently stands.
You can't fund major insurgencies and training camps and movements in 20+ countries and growing without a source of income. And yes, there are other sources of income, but billions of dollars are flowing to support these organizations.
Lets be reasonable about holiday displays. Nobody else shares our holiday, demanding equal representation on our holiday is just confrontation and intimidation. We don't demand displays in other people's holiday celebrations. If Atheists want their own holiday they're welcome to it, just leave our holidays the alone.
So you agree that Christian groups do, in fact, want special snowflake status after all.
Asking that atheist bigots don't mess with our religious holiday is hardly demanding special snowflake status.
Every public holiday of the year is an atheist holiday. :p
As an atheist I have no interest in messing with your holidays. In fact I quite enjoy (my family's) Christmas for the family time and get togethers, the fattening Christmas and boxing day meals, the sharing of presents. Oh, and the chocolate at Easter is nice. But then again I'm a closet atheist in a Christian family so I'm not entirely sure what an explicitly atheist Christmas is like.
Have a highly placed recognizable Imam issue a Fatwa to stop these type of attacks. Now that be something.
If a Imam can issue a Fatwa prohibiting Muslim from going to space/Mars then its not really far fetch
@Shadow Captain: Atheist Christmas is just like Christmas for everybody else, just minus the religious aspects. Me and my wife put up a tree, have a big meal, exchange gifts, and we take the time to relax and enjoy eachothers company at home.
By the way, I know several other atheists who feel the need to dissemble their beliefs because they're afraid of upsetting their family (assuming that's what you mean by 'closeted atheist'.). I really hope one day something as trivial as a view of the cosmos will no longer drive a wedge between families. I was in your situation for quite a lon*g time until a certain overbearing member of my family passed on. It was rough to regularly hear him basically say I was a piece of pig-spunk for years and years, without him even knowing he was insulting me. One of my life regrets was I never had the balls to shut him the f up and call him out for the bigot he was. I hope you're not dealing with anything quite so bad as I had to.
Actually, I suppose atheist Christmas is really anything you want it to be! If you decide to observe it at all.
I really hope I'm not wrong in this, but, another way of putting it is. I really would like to think that, after all this, the mosque that the killed Police Officer went to, is not going to have any radicalisation problems.
It's not really the 'current' Jihadi's I'm thinking of, but any future ones.
Assuming he was a law abiding Moslem, and it will be firmly in the French government's interest to paint that picture of him, then the message to his local mosque (if he had one) and to mainstream French moslems will be a positive one.
Something along the lines of - this is what a real French moslem stands for.
It will be a good idea to get that message out, to curb fears of Far Right reprisals and to highlight what would be preferably considered mainstream Moslem attitudes in France.
As to how to spin it:
You could also make the point that as he was there as part of police protection for Charlie Hedbo, he didn't refuse that duty. Many moslems (in the UK at least) have been more than vocal about not performinfg duties they are apid to do because of their conflict of faith. It hits the press every now and then.
However Ahmed Merabet, a police officer assigned as civic protection for the Charlie Hedbo offices performed his duty without complaint, and died at his post as a result.
The radicals will be able to paint him as a good man who got caught up in the wrong crowd and paid for it with his life. People hear what they want, and think what they want. His mosque will likely continue on as it was (whatever that may be).
Wonder how far France is going to go on "cracking down" extremists, those that left to fight for ISIS, possible deportation, and all that craziness mayhem this is going to create Are LEO going to go in the "NO GO" areas now?
That's one of the logical flaws I've always had a bit of an issue with.
I sorta get that with the Qu'ran at least, the language tends to be very difficult and easy to interpret in many different ways, sometimes the interpretations being the opposite.
And, I can kinda conceptually understand how some of the old testament passages can have the same thing. But generally, I've found, the teachings of Christ part of the bible, tends to be generally agreed on and quite easy to follow. With one of the main ones being, "judge not less ye be judged." How do people like that rationalise this concept? I'm guessing the answer is: "They don't even bother to try and just blithely ignore it."
The radicals will be able to paint him as a good man who got caught up in the wrong crowd and paid for it with his life. People hear what they want, and think what they want. His mosque will likely continue on as it was (whatever that may be).
It's not the (current) radicals I was more talking about. - I'm pretty sure there's pretty darn little that'd convince them otherwise. I was more thinking of any future ones.
Compel wrote: With one of the main ones being, "judge not less ye be judged." How do people like that rationalise this concept? I'm guessing the answer is: "They don't even bother to try and just blithely ignore it."
Well, for one, mainstream Christianity already accepts that everyone will be judged, so this is kind of a redundant threat. Also, I imagine if you believe you know the will of God, you feel you are indeed an adequate judge, and if you believe you have Gods favor, you might not be afraid of being judge.
After all, it doesn't say, "Condemn not or you shall be condemned."
Well, for one, mainstream Christianity already accepts that everyone will be judged, so this is kind of a redundant threat. Also, I imagine if you believe you know the will of God, you feel you are indeed an adequate judge, and if you believe you have Gods favor, you might not be afraid of being judge.
Oh they know gods will until some asks why he made parasites which make african children go blind. Then god moves in mysterious ways and his plan is ineffable etc.
Pretty sure claiming to be as adequate a judge as god would count as blasphemy, any way.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how far France is going to go on "cracking down" extremists, those that left to fight for ISIS, possible deportation, and all that craziness mayhem this is going to create Are LEO going to go in the "NO GO" areas now?
The problem with home-grown extremists is, where do you deport them to? As they usually are only a citizen of a European state and no other, which country will accept them? That is the difficulty currently facing policy makers, as it has to be proven that they participated in illegal activities, which is quite difficult to prove in a court of law and even if it is proven you cant just deport them.
That urban aera is pretty large, and you'll find everything, from über-über-rich-cities to small towns of <2k inhabitants, forests, fields, marvels of classical architecture... and ghettos. Those cités were built wherever one could be built, there's no urban logic behind that. You can find very nice (and rich) cities next to very crappy places.
Let's take an exemple: Versailles, beautiful, beautiful city, with the famous Château de Versailles, palace of the Kings of France. 5 miles to the south, you'll find a couple of cute rural cities built on what was once the large Forêt de Rambouillet. Royal hunting grounds. There's a castle too (we've got castles everywhere ). French presidents love to spend their holidays in that one.
Five miles, remember? The city of Trappes lies in between. Don't ever try wander off the main road: you may end in very unpleasant places. How unpleasant? Cops are reluctant to go there. Firefighters too. Too many ambushes. Yup, these people will harm firefighters if given the opportunity. While some of these firefighters do this job for a living, many others are volunteers who do that almost for free because they want to help the community. Both work in mixed teams, and both can fall into an ambush... See, that kind of unpleasant.
I don't know how things work in other countries, but fortunately, french people tend to be quite territorial. Even if they're next to a very rich city full of easy preys tourists, thugs will still stay in their ghetto and try to rob each other. I won't complain about that.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how far France is going to go on "cracking down" extremists, those that left to fight for ISIS, possible deportation, and all that craziness mayhem this is going to create Are LEO going to go in the "NO GO" areas now?
The problem with home-grown extremists is, where do you deport them to? As they usually are only a citizen of a European state and no other, which country will accept them? That is the difficulty currently facing policy makers, as it has to be proven that they participated in illegal activities, which is quite difficult to prove in a court of law and even if it is proven you cant just deport them.
That urban aera is pretty large, and you'll find everything, from über-über-rich-cities to small towns of <2k inhabitants, forests, fields, marvels of classical architecture... and ghettos. Those cités were built wherever one could be built, there's no urban logic behind that. You can find very nice (and rich) cities next to very crappy places.
Let's take an exemple: Versailles, beautiful, beautiful city, with the famous Château de Versailles, palace of the Kings of France. 5 miles to the south, you'll find a couple of cute rural cities built on what was once the large Forêt de Rambouillet. Royal hunting grounds. There's a castle too (we've got castles everywhere ). French presidents love to spend their holidays in that one.
Five miles, remember? The city of Trappes lies in between. Don't ever try wander off the main road: you may end in very unpleasant places. How unpleasant? Cops are reluctant to go there. Firefighters too. Too many ambushes. Yup, these people will harm firefighters if given the opportunity. While some of these firefighters do this job for a living, many others are volunteers who do that almost for free because they want to help the community. Both work in mixed teams, and both can fall into an ambush... See, that kind of unpleasant.
I don't know how things work in other countries, but fortunately, french people tend to be quite territorial. Even if they're next to a very rich city full of easy preys tourists, thugs will still stay in their ghetto and try to rob each other. I won't complain about that.
Thanks.... was it always this bad?
Because I stayed in Paris for over two weeks about 11 years ago and visited Versailles / surrounding country sides. Had a fething blast in those towns.
Because I stayed in Paris for over two weeks about 11 years ago and visited Versailles / surrounding country sides. Had a fething blast in those towns.
Not always, but tensions increased since 11 years ago with several major riots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Villiers-le-Bel_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_French_riots Some of them were major news topics in Europe at the time. Unrest flares up from time to time, of course French users would be in a better position to explain, but socio-economic factors are similar to those in other countries. The rise of right wing, nationalist and anti-immigration parties that also included anti-islam rhetoric that sprung up in European countries did not help either.
Mr. Burning wrote: How far can Imams and community leaders go in condemning these attacks and others where perpetrators take an existing precept of the Islamic faith (attacking the prophet demands a harsh response etc). As reason for murder?
Is it possible to condemn the perpetrators and not the verses which they take as their shield?
Because it's easy to condone anything if you take a quote or a verse out of context. Take the ever popular
'Religion is the Opiate of the masses'.
Taken on the face, and robbed of context, it would appear a harsh condemnation of faith. In reality though, Marx wasn't saying that. In context, he's talking about how people turn to faith for the illusion of happiness when lacking it's substance.
jasper76 wrote: One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.
Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.
Ah. Ah. Ah.
Here in France, one of the big step in the development of the idea of human rights was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was a direct result of the heavily anticlerical French revolution, inspired by the values of the Enlightenment philosophers. For hundreds of years when religion reigned unchallenged in France, we had a terrible system with no notion of human rights whatsoever. Then came in the largely theist philosophers of the Enlightenment, the very anticlerical revolution, and BANG! human rights. And the more Christianity was beaten into submission (yeah, not domesticated really, I do believe the appropriate expression is beaten into submission), the more the idea of human rights was allowed to flourish.
Because I stayed in Paris for over two weeks about 11 years ago and visited Versailles / surrounding country sides. Had a fething blast in those towns.
You did not visit the gakky place he mentioned. Trust me. You had no reason to go there. There was no nice place to visit (and I mean none! Not a restaurant, not a bar, nothing at all!), and no-one to meet there.
Other way around. Those values come from Christianity. They certainly didn't burst out of nowhere.
Those values came from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Before that, Christianity acted then pretty much like radical Muslims now. Witch burnings, sectarian war, and all the other fun you see in the middle east now were common in Europe then.
jasper76 wrote:
And I have little doubt that fringe right-wing militia groups, who do train, have Christianity mixed up into the equation.
The IRA used to go to training camps in Libya, if I remember correctly.
Uhm, you might check your facts there.Thats media propagated inversion.
dreadclaw wrote:The IRA was not a right-wing group. The IRA was actually set up with a distinct socialist leaning. And, again, the IRA was motivated by nationalist and political goals - not religious.
Agreed DC. Up to a point (a very minor one) but the whole is still salient.
Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, King Richard, Saladin, Bush, Obama, De Gaulle, Thatcher, well Hell. None of those individuals drove the Brothers along with that 2nd pair to go all out Jihad (Jihad by their perception). Granted there is a portion of the Islamic Faith that are used (I pointed that earlier) which rings to what they believe in. Believe in strong enough to take action. Biggest issue now since three got smoked (hoping they take the last one alive just for intell) is to crack down and establish some HUMINT apparatus into the community. Someone supplied the weapons and ammo, someone supplied the vehicle, someone finance the damn thing.
Jihadin wrote: Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, King Richard, Saladin, Bush, Obama, De Gaulle, Thatcher, well Hell. None of those individuals drove the Brothers along with that 2nd pair to go all out Jihad (Jihad by their perception). Granted there is a portion of the Islamic Faith that are used (I pointed that earlier) which rings to what they believe in. Believe in strong enough to take action. Biggest issue now since three got smoked (hoping they take the last one alive just for intell) is to crack down and establish some HUMINT apparatus into the community. Someone supplied the weapons and ammo, someone supplied the vehicle, someone finance the damn thing.
Very nice bit of spin on the death of policeman Ahmed Merabet.
Possibly random, possibly staged, entirely necessary:
"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so," wrote the Twitter user Dyab Abou Jahjah.
jasper76 wrote: One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.
I am reminded of this image:
Spoiler:
You might think Christianity has been tamed, but as a non-religious person, I find all extremism looks very similar. Christianity might not be acting-up as much Islam right now, but it still has plenty of crazy and non-too-bright followers, ready to die kill for what they believe (which is pretty much anything they see on Fox news).
Orlanth wrote: "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so," wrote the Twitter user Dyab Abou Jahjah.
"I am not Charlie, I am Matt the regular guy. Comedians, public figures, people online, people in real life and all sorts of other groups ridicule my faith and culture all the damned time, and I've never once declared that I'm going to avenge anyone for it."
You might think Christianity has been tamed, but as a non-religious person, I find all extremism looks very similar. Christianity might not be acting-up as much Islam right now, but it still has plenty of crazy and non-too-bright followers, ready to die kill for what they believe (which is pretty much anything they see on Fox news).
Question: The woman on the left, what group is she part of?
I think it's the self satisfied look on her face, and obvious lack of intelligence in her writing. Here is what she said about the picture:
What makes me sad is to know there are so many people who can’t see the difference between a woman in America, standing in front of the flag that represents our freedom – on Independence Day – holding the First and Second Amendments rights in her hands … and this woman who would honestly kill every single person in this country if given the chance.
She says, as a million people die in Iraq because "our" freedom was allegedly threatened. Does the other girl not think that her flag and weapon represent freedom for her people? It isn't hypocrisy, it's actually much stupider than that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Question: The woman on the left, what group is she part of?
EDIT: apparently she is Reem Saleh Al-Riyashi, a member of Hamas. She killed herself in an attack on an Israeli check point. Ironic that Holly should mention Independence day while referencing a woman who actually gave her life for Palestinian independence.
jasper76 wrote: One big difference is that modern Christianity has been largely domesticated by Western values, while modern Islam is largely in a more retrograde, fundamentalist state.
I am reminded of this image:
Spoiler:
You might think Christianity has been tamed, but as a non-religious person, I find all extremism looks very similar. Christianity might not be acting-up as much Islam right now, but it still has plenty of crazy and non-too-bright followers, ready to die kill for what they believe (which is pretty much anything they see on Fox news).
A very unfair comparison.
To see why try some others.
There is a heavy build man outside the door in both pictures, in one picture he is a burglar, in the other he is the bouncer.
Two people wearing face concealing masks, one is a bank robber, one is a Formula one driver.
Two guys carrying guns on a sandy plain in Afghanistan wearing combat fatiques. One is doing a combat tour in 'Ganners, the other is in the same vicinity and has signed up to kill the filthy western kuffah
Two women holding guns and standing in front of flags. One believes in the US of A, Jeeesus Halleluyah!, and the right to bear arms, America..feth Yeah! The other believes that if they take out enough people in a mad attack they will get 72 virgins and a first class ticket to Mohammed's side. Allah Akhbar, feth everyone!
Orlanth wrote: Two guys carrying guns on a sandy plain in Afghanistan wearing combat fatiques. One is doing a combat tour in 'Ganners, the other is in the same vicinity and has signed up to kill the filthy western kuffah
Err... The difference there is mostly your own bias. What you call "doing a tour" some people might call "invading".
Two women holding guns and standing in front of flags. One believes in the US of A, Jeeesus Halleluyah!, and the right to bear arms, America..feth Yeah! The other believes that if they take out enough people in a mad attack they will get 72 virgins and a first class ticket to Mohammed's side. Allah Akhbar, feth everyone!
Again this is mostly your bias. The most crucial difference between the girls is that one of them lived in a country that was occupied by foreign invaders. Aside from that, they are both standing patriotically in front of their people's flag. They are both holding their sociogeographically determined 'holy book' (which they both believe in "madly"). They are both posing with weapons, and they both talk a lot about freedom and independence. One subtle difference is that the Palestinian girl's people genuinely are under attack, where as America mostly just pretends to be under attack for clandestine geopolitical reasons.
Orlanth wrote: Two guys carrying guns on a sandy plain in Afghanistan wearing combat fatiques. One is doing a combat tour in 'Ganners, the other is in the same vicinity and has signed up to kill the filthy western kuffah
Err... The difference there is mostly your own bias. What you call "doing a tour" some people might call "invading".
Two women holding guns and standing in front of flags. One believes in the US of A, Jeeesus Halleluyah!, and the right to bear arms, America..feth Yeah! The other believes that if they take out enough people in a mad attack they will get 72 virgins and a first class ticket to Mohammed's side. Allah Akhbar, feth everyone!
Again this is mostly your bias. The most crucial difference between the girls is that one of them lived in a country that was occupied by foreign invaders. Aside from that, they are both standing patriotically in front of their people's flag. They are both holding their sociogeographically determined 'holy book' (which they both believe in "madly"). They are both posing with weapons, and they both talk a lot about freedom and independence. One subtle difference is that the Palestinian girl's people genuinely are under attack, where as America mostly just pretends to be under attack for clandestine geopolitical reasons.
Thank you for that, it helps prove that you have missed the point of your own linked image and it's unfair message.
The essential difference is not between how people pose and how they dress or what they carry, its between what is going on in their heads.
While you might not like American conservative and its Bible bashing, NRA members and the way a lot of them are extra extra in your face with the stars and stripes then you are in common company with a lot of people. It's a laughable stereotype that is lived out as an ongoing parody for the world to ridicule.
But.....
they are not suicide bombers.
So long as you don't try to prise their guns from their cold hands, or shoot their dawgs, they will likely leave you more or less alone. Possibly after a diatribe about how America is the bestest nation on earth.
And if you really need the difference between a soldier doing a tour and a jihadist answering the call explained further to you then I serious recommend you remain in embarrassed silence. While the difference between the two is as you indeed say 'in my own bias' it is a concensus bias referred to as western civilisation, which is not perfect, but it broadly works and is a hell of a lot better than the alternative presented.
Smacks wrote: EDIT: apparently she is Reem Saleh Al-Riyashi, a member of Hamas. She killed herself in an attack on an Israeli check point. Ironic that Holly should mention Independence day while referencing a woman who actually gave her life for Palestinian independence.
And that my friends is the difference in the pictures.
One is celebrating death in an attempt to kill others, one is not.
Orlanth wrote: Thank you for that, it helps prove that you have missed the point of your own linked image and it's unfair message. The essential difference is not between how people pose and how they dress or what they carry, its between what is going on in their heads.
Yeah I mentioned a lot more than just posing, read: patriotic, religion "mad", freedom, independence, that is all "idea" and not "clothing" related. So no it doesn't help you at all.
While you might not like American conservative and its Bible bashing, NRA members and the way a lot of them are extra extra in your face with the stars and stripes then you are in common company with a lot of people. It's a laughable stereotype that is lived out as an ongoing parody for the world to ridicule. But..... they are not suicide bombers.
They are also not an occupied people, they are sitting pretty 3000 miles away from where all their wars are taking place. Try kicking them out their homes and off their land, see if they wouldn't fight back however they could.
And if you really need the difference between a soldier doing a tour and a jihadist answering the call explained further to you then I serious recommend you remain in embarrassed silence. While the difference between the two is as you indeed say 'in my own bias' it is a concensus bias referred to as western civilisation, which is not perfect, but it broadly works and is a hell of a lot better than the alternative presented.
Well done, you've just taken a whole paragraph to restate that you are bias towards the culture that you are also from. This is like bias for dummies. The people we are fighting in places like Afghanistan are not from our culture, they don't see things the way you do, they would be bias the other way. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I don't need the difference explained to me. I already understand bias and am quite capable of grasping the motivations on both sides. You seem to just see "our boys" and "those evil savages" which is natural I guess, but also asinine.
Smacks wrote: They are also not an occupied people, they are sitting pretty 3000 miles away from where all their wars are taking place. Try kicking them out their homes and off their land, see if they wouldn't fight back however they could.
I very seriously doubt I would encourage my wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest for the cause.
Of course, I also encourage my daughter to get an education and my wife has a couple master degrees.
Try living in poverty, under constant threat of further eviction, for several generations, and come back to me.
The Middle East in general was on a track towards gradually liberalising and allowing women to have a greater role (one of the first Palestinian commandos who hijacked a plane was female) before the creation of Israel. The complete failure of the more secular rulers in the region to destroy Israel lead to the drift towards extremism, which continued after the US invasion of Iraq.
Suicide bombing, especially forced suicide bombing, is abhorrent. Doing what was done to the Palestinians and is still being done to the Palestinians is also abhorrent.
CptJake wrote: I very seriously doubt I would encourage my wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest for the cause.
Of course, I also encourage my daughter to get an education and my wife has a couple master degrees.
Not all cultures are equal.
Well don't go feeling too superior just yet. Many Palestinians were also appalled by her suicide, and Hamas actually lost a lot of public support following her attack. Extremists are not indicative of their cultures as a whole. It is a minority that make a lot of noise and do bad stuff, such as murdering abortion clinic staff because they are "pro-life".
CptJake wrote: I very seriously doubt I would encourage my wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest for the cause.
Of course, I also encourage my daughter to get an education and my wife has a couple master degrees.
Not all cultures are equal.
Well don't go feeling to superior just yet. Many Palestinians were also appalled by her suicide, and Hamas actually lost a lot of public support following her attack. Extremists are indicative of their cultures as a whole. It is a minority that make a lot of noise and do bad stuff, such as murdering abortion clinic staff because they are "pro-life".
Hamas lost so much support they ceased to be able to operate. Or not.
Compare numbers of dead abortion clinic staffs and numbers killed in the Mumbai attack or in the last year by Boko Haram.
Clearly all these acts by fanatics are so awful that the handful of bad apples is turned on and forced to change by the vast majority.
Or not.
One only needs to know a bit about insurgencies and guerrilla war to know that there is no way there can be 20+ countries with violent Islamic movements without major support networks in place, and at least some large level of acceptance among the populations. It just is not possible. When there are comparable levels of violence and support for abortion clinic bombings and murders, let me know.
CptJake wrote: I very seriously doubt I would encourage my wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest for the cause.
Of course, I also encourage my daughter to get an education and my wife has a couple master degrees.
Not all cultures are equal.
Well don't go feeling to superior just yet. Many Palestinians were also appalled by her suicide, and Hamas actually lost a lot of public support following her attack. Extremists are indicative of their cultures as a whole. It is a minority that make a lot of noise and do bad stuff, such as murdering abortion clinic staff because they are "pro-life".
Hamas lost so much support they ceased to be able to operate. Or not.
Compare numbers of dead abortion clinic staffs and numbers killed in the Mumbai attack or in the last year by Boko Haram.
Clearly all these acts by fanatics are so awful that the handful of bad apples is turned on and forced to change by the vast majority.
Or not.
One only needs to know a bit about insurgencies and guerrilla war to know that there is no way there can be 20+ countries with violent Islamic movements without major support networks in place, and at least some large level of acceptance among the populations. It just is not possible. When there are comparable levels of violence and support for abortion clinic bombings and murders, let me know.
Hey! Who are you to get in the way of him comparing apples and oranges.
Orlanth wrote: And if you really need the difference between a soldier doing a tour and a jihadist answering the call explained further to you then I serious recommend you remain in embarrassed silence. While the difference between the two is as you indeed say 'in my own bias' it is a concensus bias referred to as western civilisation, which is not perfect, but it broadly works and is a hell of a lot better than the alternative presented.
Well done, you've just taken a whole paragraph to restate that you are bias towards the culture that you are also from. This is like bias for dummies. The people we are fighting in places like Afghanistan are not from our culture, they don't see things the way you do, they would be bias the other way. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I don't need the difference explained to me. I already understand bias and am quite capable of grasping the motivations on both sides. You seem to just see "our boys" and "those evil savages" which is natural I guess, but also asinine.
I will stop you there. What I just reiterated was my awareness of my membership of the human race.
EVERYONE has a cultural bias, it comes from parenting, it comes from nationality, sexuality, gender, religious preference too - including any organised religion or atheism, place and level of education, place of work, social class, choice of lifestyle, entertainment preferences, level of attunement to modern information media, choice of partners and whether or not you own a pet or live in a rural or urban community.
And there are many other factors too, those are just a few of the major ones.
All contribute to our psyche, or awareness and our paradigm, and are the bedrock of our possible opinions on to which we add our own thoughts.
Yes I am culturally biased, you are culturally biased too. So is every single person on Dakka, the whole internet, the whole human race.
The first step to achieving any form of cultural enlightenment is to accept this as a flat fact and keep it in mind and measure yourself constantly against ones own bias.
Those who fail to grasp this simple truth are doomed to wallow in ignorance forever.
First stage of how to work on your cultural bias is to look at other perspectives. As a topical example I have very recently shown a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian cause on another thread, but not the methodology. There is no contrdiction in my sympathy for Abbas there and my condemnation of Islamic militancy here. But that isnt enough, It helps in this study to try to look at the problems as if we were Jews also, and thus see to some extent why so many Jews are afraid. I am far from alone in this, but there is a great girth between those who can see multiple perspective and those who can see but one, and it stems from self awareness, and a willingness to grasp the world problems in four dimensions rather than two. It's all the difference you need, and it starts with ourselves.
If you take away nothing else from this thread learn this:
It is the utter depth of delusion to consider oneself free from bias.
But there is no shame in admitting that the human mind has an imperfect foundation.
CptJake wrote: I very seriously doubt I would encourage my wife or daughter to strap on a suicide vest for the cause.
Of course, I also encourage my daughter to get an education and my wife has a couple master degrees.
Not all cultures are equal.
Well don't go feeling to superior just yet. Many Palestinians were also appalled by her suicide, and Hamas actually lost a lot of public support following her attack. Extremists are indicative of their cultures as a whole. It is a minority that make a lot of noise and do bad stuff, such as murdering abortion clinic staff because they are "pro-life".
Hamas lost so much support they ceased to be able to operate. Or not.
Compare numbers of dead abortion clinic staffs and numbers killed in the Mumbai attack or in the last year by Boko Haram.
Clearly all these acts by fanatics are so awful that the handful of bad apples is turned on and forced to change by the vast majority.
Or not.
One only needs to know a bit about insurgencies and guerrilla war to know that there is no way there can be 20+ countries with violent Islamic movements without major support networks in place, and at least some large level of acceptance among the populations. It just is not possible. When there are comparable levels of violence and support for abortion clinic bombings and murders, let me know.
Hey! Who are you to get in the way of him comparing apples and oranges.
I know the the Insurgents are a Multi International Force
Da Boss wrote: Try living in poverty, under constant threat of further eviction, for several generations, and come back to me.
The Middle East in general was on a track towards gradually liberalising and allowing women to have a greater role (one of the first Palestinian commandos who hijacked a plane was female) before the creation of Israel. The complete failure of the more secular rulers in the region to destroy Israel lead to the drift towards extremism, which continued after the US invasion of Iraq.
Suicide bombing, especially forced suicide bombing, is abhorrent. Doing what was done to the Palestinians and is still being done to the Palestinians is also abhorrent.
So you're blaming Israel for the fact that Muslims treat women like gak?
Wow, now I've heard it all.
That "move toward extremism" had very little to do with Israel, and a lot more to do with the corruption of secular Arab leaders, who were trying to rule over populations with which they were religiously incompatible (Saddam was a Sunni and Iraq is 2/3 Shia, Assad is a Shiite and Syria is 2/3 Sunni).
Because I stayed in Paris for over two weeks about 11 years ago and visited Versailles / surrounding country sides.
19th and 20th arrondissement are not unsafe, but I wouldn't go there if I were a tourist.
However, you can experience there what's remaining of the Paris populaire. It can be a very interesting experience, but not exactly the most romantic one: people usually don't associate Paris with poverty. It's pretty much like the Catacombs: it can be a unique experience, but it's not the kind of thing you want to do on your own... Moreover tourists usually don't travel to Paris with their loved one to put a headlamp on and say "hey, honey, let's visit the sew... I mean, catacombs, hope you don't mind the rat...errr... skulls".
Versailles and the surrounding are very, very fine places.
There's one place you want to avoid, but we're only talking about a couple blocks. You may well go to the city of Trappes and never notice what I'm talking about. Unless you're very unlucky (or have to live/work there), you won't end up in this kind of place.
There are indeed a couple dozens places that really, really suck, but each one of them, while usually quite densely populated, is only a few blocks wide, and all they're scattered across a 4500+ square miles urban aera. You may never notice them, but they still exist.
You may remember the 2005 riots. They may look widespread, but it's actually only a couple blocks here and there. Since these people seldom move from their "territory", you may live very close to these place and never notice anything unusual (unless you turn the TV on). Yup, people can be that stupid and burn down their own blocks, their own schools, their own cars...
One is celebrating death in an attempt to kill others, one is not.
I might point out that martyrdom is hardly unique to Muslims. Or do you think that dying in the name patriotism and freedom for one's brethren to be only a virtue when it's an American in the box?
Or is it perhaps that the US Public Education system has decayed so far that they no longer tell of brave Nathan Hale who faced his death with but one regret?
Islam martyrdom is quite often defined less by the cause for which you're dying (as it is often the nebulous concept of faith) and more by the manner of one's death - how many 'enemies' can you take as you go.
Hale died so that others could live free.
Contrast that with a suicide bomber who often dies so that others may die with him.
I just reviewed footage of the SWAT dynamic entrance/hostage rescue at the supermarket in France. I really, really hope that wasn't GIGN, because the initial entry was fething embarrassing on an international scale.
Protip: If your point man makes entry you FOLLOW HIM THROUGH THE fething DOOR. CQB is all about dynamic, high speed violence, the hostages do not have the time for you to peek around the door and pussy foot about, you need to be through the entry, clear of the vortex of fire and engaging targets as quickly as humanly possible, because the faster you are the better chance everyone who isn't a bad guy has of living.
I hope the French officer who made entry and got left with his ass in the wind is handing out some serious lumps to the rest of his stack in the squad bay.
So... is it too soon to swap Ebola on my Dakka bingo with Islamic news?
This whole thing is a tragedy. The religion of Islam needs to be toned down, it's like 14th century christians. Worst part is, people lost their lives during this mess. It has been said before but, violence won't stop until people learn to respect each other. Glad there is a thread discussing this, I just got back in country so this might help me catch up with what all happened.
No. Hell on that. I refuse to respect you and your bronze age bullgak. As a human being, I am obligated to show tolerance for your religion, meaning, I don't intend to prevent you from practicing it. I am not obligated to respect it, any more than I'm obligated to respect a politician, a uniform, or Barney the dinosaur. Respect is not automatically dispensed upon an idea or an institution because a threshold number of persons above X believe or approve of it. Millions of people approve of Rush Limbaugh, do you show respect for that donkey cave? Probably not, I don't. Deists are idiots, but showing deference to them is beyond idiotic, it's harmful to humanity as a whole. If we are ever going to mature as a species, it's time to knock that gak off.
One is celebrating death in an attempt to kill others, one is not.
I might point out that martyrdom is hardly unique to Muslims. Or do you think that dying in the name patriotism and freedom for one's brethren to be only a virtue when it's an American in the box?
Or is it perhaps that the US Public Education system has decayed so far that they no longer tell of brave Nathan Hale who faced his death with but one regret?
Did Hale commit suicide? I don't remember that. I don't remember too many cases of the founders using suicide tactics to be honest, let alone forcing others to commit suicide. In Iraq, there were cases where the bad guys raped or otherwise soiled females, then used that shame to get them to put on a suicide vest. They did similar to mentally challenged kids. I would bet none of our founders would find that something to praise.
If you cannot see the difference, that is too bad. Our education system clearly failed you.
Lots of white muslim ethnicities in Russia too. The Chechens are the best known because of their bloody terrorist attacks, but the others are very well integrated in Russian society.
I would also like to add that a lot of Arabs, especially in Syria and the surrounding area have very white skin. Just look at Bashar al-Assad and his family for an example
Any ethnicity/nationality/minority/majority/citizen/civilian/royalty/elected official can follow the Islamic faith. What idiot open this can of worms?
The 13 year old equating skin color to religion.
Going to go with "Matthew" being he is the only 13 year old I know. I know Iron Captain a bit older.
Anyone can follow any religion to meet that individual Spiritual Need. Its whatever religion he/she feels that gives them most guidance/structure to their life. That is just touching the tip of the iceberg that sank the Titanic. Any further then this might derail into a religion bash
NuggzTheNinja wrote: In a related note, Anonymous stated that it will be mining and posting Islamic Terrorists' personal information in response to the CH attacks.
It would be a real...real shame if something bad happened to those terrorists.
Yes it would be bad if something happened to these "terrorists" because Anonymous is not an intelligence agency, and the guys in the masks have zero accountability, and wont care if they reveal the ID of a moslem guy in street x of city y on the grounds that he looked at someone funny. And this rings the dinner bell for any loon to hunt them down. Even if by random happenstance they get the right guys, and equally if/when the name the wrong guys, it weont do any good. Even if we ignore the ourt and out race war it would likely trigger when people start getting lynched because their names are on an internet hit list, your still have problems. Those who act on the info are not exactly going to be looking for reasonable force or proof of guilt. They also wont check the ID of any guy with a beard and robes in the vicinity of where the "terrorist" lives. Mob justice will naturally extend from the named culprit, who is of course automatically guilty, to anyone who tries to get real justice involved (they are trying to stop justice apparently) and his neighbours (because they must have known something) to the guy who trims his beard (because he must also be in on it) and lets not forget his brother in laws second cousin third removed, (because to do a thorough job you need to get them all). Outsourcing justice to a random internet mob is an idea I thought even you would have problem with Nuggz.
Vigilante action is bad enough to solve known problems, it gets truly dodgy when it tries to source said problems, you might as well run a postcode lottery of local people with middle eastern sounding names and publish them as this weeks hit list of bad guys.
There is a historical term for this phenomenon, it's called a 'witch hunt'.
... or rivals and people grudges are held against..
That happened a lot in Afghanistan. A number of people were fingered as Al Quaeda operatives because they were business rivals of those who fingered them. Several times the Allied forces closed in on queue. If you can fool a military this way, what will it do to a mob.
Anonymous's idea - unless hammered very rapidly - will result in martial law, civil war or genocide. Pick at least one.
Contrast that with a suicide bomber who often dies so that others may die with him.
Granted, it depends on the bomber, which is why I was discussing Palestine and that woman in the photo rather than AQ. There's an unfortunate trend around here to lump people together based on tactics rather than motive. A 'political' terrorist can be reasoned with and negotiated with, (which is the only historically successful way to deal with them permanently, btw). A 'revenge' or 'ideology' terrorist cannot, but is the only type CptJake seems familiar with.
No, Hale volunteered for a suicide mission that everyone else turned down because it was for questionable gain.
CptJake wrote: I don't remember too many cases of the founders using suicide tactics to be honest, let alone forcing others to commit suicide.
At the time it was called a 'forlorn hope' and your job was to soak up bullets for the next wave of troops when assaulting a fortified position and try to establish a foothold. The tactic is also from whence we get the term 'Cannon Fodder', as they would be made up of less valuable troops and fed directly into the guns of the fort, so that they were reloading when the second wave came up. Washington ordered them frequently during the fighting at Yorktown, though he did not have to force anyone, there were plenty of volunteers to be martyred.
Modern suicide tactics wouldn't have been very effective at the time.
The US, in the past, has glorified men who (supposedly) committed suicide to kill large numbers of enemy combatants.
The story at the time was that Colin Kelly rammed his damaged B-17 into the battleship Haruna (or any one of several other Japanese ships). It wasn't true, Kelly's plane exploded in midair after he ordered everyone else to jump. But that didn't stop the US propaganda machine from making him a martyr. The story was quietly swept under the rug when Japan started using kamikaze's against the US.
I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.
That was common in European armies. However, and this is IIRC, the Continental Army did not follow that practice. The English and French in particular rewarded forlorn hope survivors. Contrast that with the US troops used at Vicksburg by Sherman as a forlorn hope. While almost thirty years later, they received 80 CMHs (among 150 men), the most ever for a single action, only one person (Pvt. David Day) got promoted (sort of, they made him an orderly) and no one got a raise.
Hordini wrote: I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.
That was common in European armies. However, and this is IIRC, the Continental Army did not follow that practice.
That may be, but I still doubt that they would have joined a forlorn hope simply out of a desire to be martyrs.
I've certainly always had the impression that warriors/soldiers voluntarily sacrificing themselves for the sake of a cause or to play a role in a bigger battle has always been universally romanticized. Certainly those that give up their lives rather than surrendering, being captured or allowing the enemy to advance their objective seem to be consistently held up as heroes.
That said the idea of becoming a sort of living weapon, with the goal of attacking through self-destruction as the first and primary means of engagement does seem a fair bit less common. Not so uncommon as to be particular unique to any particular group(s) but far from universal either. I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.
Chongara wrote:I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.
See propaganda poster in earlier post.
Encourage it? No. Glorify it, yes.
Hordini wrote:
That may be, but I still doubt that they would have joined a forlorn hope simply out of a desire to be martyrs.
Patriotism can make people every bit as fanatical as religion.
Grey Templar wrote: Forlorn Hope were traditionally prisoners IIRC. They were used as cannon fodder, and any who survived won full pardons.
Varied with the Army in question (Russia was very fond of that method, but tended to leave out the 'pardon' part). The English and French (and, by extension, the US) tended to glorify the men who carried them out. English Forlorn hope survivors, even if not promoted, received special badges to denote that they had done so.
Chongara wrote:I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.
See propaganda poster in earlier post.
That is not a case of what I'm talking about. In the poster in question, it's not telling the story of someone's goal was to destroy themselves as a means of attack from the outset. It's telling the story of someone who chose to do so when left with no other options. In that case he did not go out as living with weapon with self-destruction as the first and primary means of engagement.
A suicide bomber does go out with self-destruction intended as the first and primary means of engagement. That's why it at least feels different to me than some of the examples you're putting forward. The the suicides bomber's death is both means and end.
If she crossed into Syria on the 2nd February from Turkey and has been tracked as still there, she wasn't in Paris for the shooting and isn't on the run from the kosher market attack.
If she crossed into Syria on the 2nd February from Turkey and has been tracked as still there, she wasn't in Paris for the shooting and isn't on the run from the kosher market attack.
I've total lack of anything to say...type....imagine...gaf.....
She may not apparently have even been in the country at the time. Lot of conflicting accounts on this so far.
Chongara wrote: A suicide bomber does go out with self-destruction intended as the first and primary means of engagement. That's why it at least feels different to me than some of the examples you're putting forward. The the suicides bomber's death is both means and end.
How is a forlorn hopes express purpose for being there any different? You're being sent to die, and the best you can reasonably hope for is to achieve your objective before doing so. In either case, if you live, it's a minor miracle.
Suicide bombers are generally on the wrong side of an asymmetric war. They don't kill themselves because they want to, but because it furthers the objectives of their side and they don't have better options. The japanese didn't start their kamikaze attacks until they realized they were losing. Forlorn hope is pretty much the same thing.
There are a lot of questions that need asking about ID'ing the attackers.
1. How many at the Charlie Hebdo attack, was it three or four.
2. Who was the 'third' gunman, the brother in law fingered, Hamyd Mourad who handed himself in to police, was at college in Charleville-Mézières at the time of the attacks (200km away from Paris) and numerous witnesses have alibis for him.
he has not been charged, but police have made no statementws saying he was cleared.
3. Where did the third gunman split from the Kouachi brothers?
4,. Did the Kouachi brothers and the third gunman split after Cherif Kouachi realised he left his ID card in the first getaway car. In order to make a clean getaway, (Allowing for the method of swift attack and escape via multiple vehicles I believe the Kouachi brothers were intended to hit and fade away. It would therefore make sense that the third gunman was not someone immediately identifiable as an accomplice of the Kouachi brothers and could himself fade away, or at least make a go of it.)
5. Was Amedy Coulibaly, the kosher grocery shooter the third attacker? How was he connected and in communication with the Kouachi brothers during the events?
6. Who was the woman with him? If it wasn't Hayat Boumeddiene, who is allegedly in Syria during the entire event. Or is evidence of her being in Syria false? Could the sighting of a woman with Amedy Coulibaly be accidental i.e. a Moslem woman encountered approached spoke to him during the attacks and went on her way unharmed could be misinterpreted as an accomplice by eyewitnesses.
It looks to me that we have five separate persons suspected of involvement in two sets of attacks, and two are still at large.
5. Was Amedy Coulibaly, the kosher grocery shooter the third attacker? How was he connected and in communication with the Kouchi brothers during the events?
It looks to me that we have five separate persons suspected of involvement in two sets of attacks, and two are still at large.
The connection may only have been the plan to hold terrorist attacks in concert to increase the impact of the situation. I'm hoping things go smoothly for the french, as this may not be over just yet.
Cherif Kouachi's brother-in-law, named as Mourad Hamyd, reportedly handed himself in to police but was released without charge and denounced the violence on Sunday. "
This attack is horrific - a horrible crime", he told AFP news agency.
Da Boss wrote: Try living in poverty, under constant threat of further eviction, for several generations, and come back to me.
The Middle East in general was on a track towards gradually liberalising and allowing women to have a greater role (one of the first Palestinian commandos who hijacked a plane was female) before the creation of Israel. The complete failure of the more secular rulers in the region to destroy Israel lead to the drift towards extremism, which continued after the US invasion of Iraq.
Suicide bombing, especially forced suicide bombing, is abhorrent. Doing what was done to the Palestinians and is still being done to the Palestinians is also abhorrent.
So you're blaming Israel for the fact that Muslims treat women like gak?
Wow, now I've heard it all.
That "move toward extremism" had very little to do with Israel, and a lot more to do with the corruption of secular Arab leaders, who were trying to rule over populations with which they were religiously incompatible (Saddam was a Sunni and Iraq is 2/3 Shia, Assad is a Shiite and Syria is 2/3 Sunni).
Yes its Israel's fault Boko Haram is killing thousands in Nigeria, Er what???
Da Boss wrote: Try living in poverty, under constant threat of further eviction, for several generations, and come back to me.
The Middle East in general was on a track towards gradually liberalising and allowing women to have a greater role (one of the first Palestinian commandos who hijacked a plane was female) before the creation of Israel. The complete failure of the more secular rulers in the region to destroy Israel lead to the drift towards extremism, which continued after the US invasion of Iraq.
Suicide bombing, especially forced suicide bombing, is abhorrent. Doing what was done to the Palestinians and is still being done to the Palestinians is also abhorrent.
So you're blaming Israel for the fact that Muslims treat women like gak?
Wow, now I've heard it all.
That "move toward extremism" had very little to do with Israel, and a lot more to do with the corruption of secular Arab leaders, who were trying to rule over populations with which they were religiously incompatible (Saddam was a Sunni and Iraq is 2/3 Shia, Assad is a Shiite and Syria is 2/3 Sunni).
Yes its Israel's fault Boko Haram is killing thousands in Nigeria, Er what???
Yes its Israel's fault Boko Haram is killing thousands in Nigeria, Er what???
I can blame Israel for a lot, but that's really not on the list. If you want to talk crimes against humanity, and are not in parts of Europe where accusing Israel of doing said is itself a crime, regardless of it's truth, then we can talk.
Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama not to attend?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama to attend?
News Corp at it's finest, eh?
Kerry is at a summit in India right now. Obama was preoccupied with Washington, DC, but did make a personal stop at the French Embassy. The US Ambassador to France did attend. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is also currently in France did not, as he was at an Anti-terrorism Summit discussing the issue of prosecuting terrorists with his French counterpart at the time.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama not to attend?
Pfft, as horrible as this is, its not even close to 9/11.
You can't compare an attack on a satirical newspaper and ensuing manhunt, which only left 20 people dead including the attackers, with an attack that completely destroys 2 iconic buildings, damaged our central military command structure, attempted to damage/destroy the White House, and left over 5000 dead.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc.
I cannot bring myself to care. It is not like we were questioning ourselves about whether the USA support us or not. We know it does.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama not to attend?
Pfft, as horrible as this is, its not even close to 9/11.
You can't compare an attack on a satirical newspaper and ensuing manhunt, which only left 20 people dead including the attackers, with an attack that completely destroys 2 iconic buildings, damaged our central military command structure, attempted to damage/destroy the White House, and left over 5000 dead.
So much this. I cringed so hard when people were saying this was a 9/11 equivalent. An event that completely rocked America and the West to its core and set us on a long war path. .
Very poor form indeed, if they didn't send the most senior representative available.
I've seen on twittah that the Ambassador was there... not sure if that's confirmed.
According to CNN the ambassador was there, but, let's face it, for something like this, an ambassador just doesn't cut it. You need someone with name recognition; I'm sure the average person can't even think of the name of any one US ambassador (I know I can't). Minimum, this calls for a cabinet member (or one of the Congressional leaders). Holder was in Paris, he should have been there.
Very poor form indeed, if they didn't send the most senior representative available.
I've seen on twittah that the Ambassador was there... not sure if that's confirmed.
According to CNN the ambassador was there, but, let's face it, for something like this, an ambassador just doesn't cut it. You need someone with name recognition; I'm sure the average person can't even think of the name of any one US ambassador (I know I can't). Minimum, this calls for a cabinet member (or one of the Congressional leaders). Holder was in Paris, he should have been there.
Well, it's not as if this administration doesn't have a long and storied history of gaffes with our allies.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama to attend?
News Corp at it's finest, eh?
Kerry is at a summit in India right now. Obama was preoccupied with Washington, DC, but did make a personal stop at the French Embassy. The US Ambassador to France did attend. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is also currently in France did not, as he was at an Anti-terrorism Summit discussing the issue of prosecuting terrorists with his French counterpart at the time.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc.
I cannot bring myself to care. It is not like we were questioning ourselves about whether the USA support us or not. We know it does.
Yut. Sniping back and forth aside I was always happy to see the Legion rolling out with my buddies. That's why I think it was important we have public figures there, such as the Ambassador, I also think Eric Holder made the right call, considering he was at an Anti-Terrorism Summit talking out how to better drop the hammer on gakheads like this in the future.
Looks like a German Newspaper building has been firebombed/vandalized in Germany, just a few days after it reprinted Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Going to tap my wellspring of investigative knowledge gleaned from my Criminal Justice course from Community College and say it was some wayward, extremist Catholics unhappy with Charlie Hebdo's mocking of Christianity and the Pope. The Gunpowder Plot 2: The Gunpowdering.
A German newspaper in the northern city of Hamburg that republished cartoons from the French weekly Charlie Hebdo was firebombed overnight Sunday. Police have detained two people suspected in the attack which involved “rocks and then a burning object” that were thrown through a window into the archives of the Hamburger Morgenpost at around 2 a.m., reports Deutsche Welle. The men, who are 35 and 39 years old, were arrested after they were seen behaving suspiciously in the area. The fire damaged some files, but no one was hurt, the Hamburger Morgenpost reported.
Although police say the motive of the attack is still under investigation, it comes only days after the newspaper reprinted some of the most controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons on Thursday under the headline “this much freedom must be possible.” Other newspapers in Germany that published the cartoons will be getting police protection, reports the Associated Press. Many media outlets across Europe republished some of the most controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a show of solidarity.
Edit: If it turns out to be Catholics, I, as a practicing Catholic denounce this cowardly act. We all know the Inquisitors are supposed to handle this stuff.
Edit2: Aw snap, Sigvatr posted about this first and I skimmed over it. :(
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama not to attend?
Pfft, as horrible as this is, its not even close to 9/11.
You can't compare an attack on a satirical newspaper and ensuing manhunt, which only left 20 people dead including the attackers, with an attack that completely destroys 2 iconic buildings, damaged our central military command structure, attempted to damage/destroy the White House, and left over 5000 dead.
Thats the interesting thing about terror attacks, they're not solely designed to inflict casualties and collateral damage. Not saying 9/11 wasn't bad, just that there's psychology involved and a 'lesser' target can do more damage if it's the 'right' target in this context. Will need time to see how this plays out amongst the civilian population.
.
alone.
