Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
All you've done it tell us what we can and can't talk about. You do realize that falls in line with what these people are doing, right?

Are you equating debate, “you should not say this because of this reason and that reason”, and censorship, “if you say that we are going to kill you”?

Am I trying to convince people? Sure, I am. Other people should do the same with me. We will discuss, debate, and maybe in the end one of us is going to convince the other. Or both of us are going to partly convince the other. Or anything in between. How is that in any way comparable to killing people? I have no clue.

No, I'm saying that censorship is wrong no matter the means meant to achieve it.

The people who killed those folks today, want people to stop talking about Radical Islam.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay. So, let us stop speaking about those guys motivations, then.

No. Lets talk about it. Lets get it out in the open, and get the whole fething world talking about it. We need to stop making excuses for these people, and cut them off from EVERYONE.

That is the only way we are going to win this, when these donkey-caves have no where else to run, no where else to hide.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.

Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.

Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.

I don't think I have singled you out, but if you feel personally attacked then that is on you..

I dont think I was singled out, I noticed a lot of threads were removed. Dont make personal assumptions, not if you want to also hog the delete button

 d-usa wrote:

I My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions..

Then you should read what you censor before panicking and pressing the delete button. Blanket statement about religion, or even Islam were not posted in those posts that I got to read that are no longer here, If they were red as such, its in your own head. There may be other posts that fit that category, but i didnt read those, and you ought to be able to discern between the two.

 d-usa wrote:

And if you think "stay on topic" is censorship then why did you join a forum where that is a requirement for the privilege of posting?

Modding is also a privilege.

Also it was on topic. You do know this thread is about the shooting of satirical magazine, and the magazine was linked to death threads from Islamic fanatics who didnt like the magazines cartoons.
If the why, the motive of a topical action is off topic, then you aren't leaving much to talk about.

Its also bad form to start deleting posts about the motive on an attack where people evidently died because they refused to allow death threats to void their freedom of speech. it's a very bad case of irony.

 HudsonD wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.

This. It's a harsh blow, and I'm actually remotely related to one of the killed caricaturists, but our nation and way of life aren't at stake. If you ask me though, I think we should contract the interrogations to the Mossad, I'm sure they'll welcome the practice.

Who needs the moral high ground, anyway?

PhantomViper wrote:
Europeans don't have the same notions of Nationalism that you guys have. Most French won't consider these to be acts of war committed against France and that will require some sort of unified national response and solidarity but rather as more normal crimes whose perpetrators need to be apprehended and brought to justice.

That is quite spot on. Well, not really normal crimes, though.

 Orlanth wrote:
France like most western countries practices equal opportunities, and does allow Frenchmen of middle eastern origin to serve, I will also assume that the clear majority of those who do so are loyal to France.

If you remember of that guy that went on a killing spree on a Jewish school, he had killed a bunch of French army members of North African origin. We do not have many people of middle eastern origin in France (we do have a bunch of people from Lebanon, which is nice because Lebanese cuisine is good and includes lots of vegetarian dishes), but we have many people of North African descent.

 CptJake wrote:
Sorry, I was under the impression Mali was in Africa.

My bad, I read too fast. I am not familiar enough with the methods used by Islamists in Mali, but I do not expect the use of tanks or artillery in Paris, for instance, while I think they were used in Mali. Not sure though. I might be wrong on the “used in Mali” front.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Tangible effects? Do you mean like in a direct obvious cause-consequence effect? None.

So what evidence to you have that 'The Life of Brian' and metal music made Christianity "better"?

The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.

Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.

So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A few posts actually talking about a current events, with the rest of the thread already being a gak-slinging contest about "religion is bad/Islam is evil" before we even got to page 2.

Just lock this thread if it can't stay on topic, it's the same thread we locked last week and the week before.

Perhaps you should relax from the censorship.

I don't think I have singled you out, but if you feel personally attacked then that is on you..

I dont think I was singled out, I noticed a lot of threads were removed. Dont make personal assumptions, not if you want to also hog the delete button

 d-usa wrote:

I My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions..

Then you should read what you censor before panicking and pressing the delete button. Blanket statement about relgion, or ev Islam were not posted in thoseposts that I got to see theat are no longer here, If they were red as such, its in your own head.

 d-usa wrote:

And if you think "stay on topic" is censorship then why did you join a forum where that is a requirement for the privilege of posting?

Modding is also a privilege.

You realize that I am not a MOD...right?

Also it was on topic. You do know this thread is about the shooting of satirical magazine, and the magazine was linked to death threads from Islamic fanatics who didnt like the magazines cartoons.
If the why, the motive of a topical action is off topic, then you aren't leaving much to talk about.

It's almost like I covered that in the reply you quoted even though you left that out...

I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons. If these guys are motivated by some religious cause and/or were hired by idiots who were motivated by some religious cause then by all means it is perfectly valid to talk about those things. My beef is with the blanket statements about religions and blanket statements about people who follow different religions.

 djones520 wrote:
The people who killed those folks today, want people to stop talking about Radical Islam.

And do you believe that I am telling anyone to stop talking about radical Islam?
With all I said on the Quran, and religions, and what they believe, and what are sensible comparisons to be made, and all that?
I am all for talking about radical Islam. I am just trying to convince people of my views on radical Islam.

 djones520 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay. So, let us stop speaking about those guys motivations, then.

Surely you noticed that this sentence was a sarcastic retort to people telling me to stop talking about religion?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what evidence to you have that 'The Life of Brian' and metal music made Christianity "better"?

I have none.

 d-usa wrote:
I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons.

That is the worse way to look at it. Stop that, stop dismissing them as idiotic, and try to understand why they took those causes, if you want to fight that phenomenon. I am pretty sure very intelligent people have been taking arms for what turned out to be very, very bad causes.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The people who killed those folks today, want people to stop talking about Radical Islam.

And do you believe that I am telling anyone to stop talking about radical Islam?
With all I said on the Quran, and religions, and what they believe, and what are sensible comparisons to be made, and all that?
I am all for talking about radical Islam. I am just trying to convince people of my views on radical Islam.

 djones520 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay. So, let us stop speaking about those guys motivations, then.

Surely you noticed that this sentence was a sarcastic retort to people telling me to stop talking about religion?

Honestly no, given your past attacks on people discussing similar topics, it did not at all come across to me as sarcasm. If it truly was, then I offer my apologies for the mistake.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I also have no problem with people talking about what motivated "these" guys to do "this" thing. Idiots take up idiotic causes for idiotic reasons.

That is the worse way to look at it. Stop that, stop dismissing them as idiotic, and try to understand why they took those causes, if you want to fight that phenomenon. I am pretty sure very intelligent people have been taking arms for what turned out to be very, very bad causes.

And here I am thinking that one could do both, silly me...

If you look closer at my attacks, you will see that what I am saying them is to discuss (and condemn) radical Islam in a different way, through a different viewpoint. Not to stop talking about it. Because I do believe the way they are framing the debate is hurtful to, well, a lot of people that are not radical Muslims, or even Muslims for that matter.

 Skinnereal wrote:
The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.

Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.

So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.

I'm always fascinated by the comparisons between the IRA and Islamic fundamentalists. While both used terror as a way of achieving their stated objectives their actual modus operandi and goals were/are completely different. The IRA have always been driven by political concerns rather than religious (some of the IRA's founders and earliest sponsors were Protestant), with the unification of Ireland and the removal of British rule from the island of Ireland. Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland. Radical Islamists by comparison are not so geographically limited, are not a unified body, there is often a very fractious relationship between groups, and one of their primary motivations is religion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As for comparisons between radical Islam and western society, those comparisons are valid, and should not be redacted out of ignorance.

No, they are not valid. You are comparing a religion and a society. It does not work like that. Compare two religions/belief systems, or two societies. Like for instance “societies from the Arabian peninsula” vs “societies from western European countries”, or “Radical Islam” versus “Humanism”. Those make sense.

The comparisons are valid because the radical Islamics make them valid. This isn't a contest between two cultural groups or two reilgious groups.

It is a contest of wills between a radical religious group, which demands that their holy law be enforced upon all, including the penalty of death for blasphemy.
This is directly contrary to a societal point of view, established in the traditions of western democracy that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press are important and are to be defended

The commonality is that both groups have doctrines that a sacrosanct, yet mutually exclusive, in these cases Sharia law vs the western tradition of free speech.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Namely it was a Western publishing organisation in the field of satirical politics which extremists have a noted history of wishing to silence by any means necessary.

Do you realize how much publishing organization in Muslim-majority countries are pressured and silenced? This “western” here is completely irrelevant, unless you do not care for anyone outside of the western world.

Yes things are bad in may parts of the world, and generally there is nothing we can do about it. After all we cant realistically armtwist Iran and Saudi Arabia and force upon their society a freedom of the press as seen in western society. Also the Islamic world does have a right to Islamic culture.
Western society is different, western Europe is NOT based on Islamic culture or Sharia law, and our societal values favour freedoms of expression absent in many places in the world. Some people don't like those values and want to take them away, of which radical Islam is just one faction.
Those who live in Europe and other western democratic zones have every reason to want to prolifigate and preserve their/our culture and freedoms, even if they are incompatible with Sharia law, and even if tose who prefer Sharia law, will attempt to enforce Sharia at gunpoint.

 d-usa wrote:
And here I am thinking that one could do both, silly me...

I do not think basing yourself on the assumption those people are stupid is going to help. But, well, that is great, we are launching the subject. Why do you believe they take up those causes, other than them being idiotic?

So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have none.

Absent evidence why would you make such a claim?

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

Examples?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.

Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.

So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.

I'm always fascinated by the comparisons between the IRA and Islamic fundamentalists. While both used terror as a way of achieving their stated objectives their actual modus operandi and goals were/are completely different. The IRA have always been driven by political concerns rather than religious (some of the IRA's founders and earliest sponsors were Protestant), with the unification of Ireland and the removal of British rule from the island of Ireland. Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland. Radical Islamists by comparison are not so geographically limited, are not a unified body, there is often a very fractious relationship between groups, and one of their primary motivations is religion.

Terrorism comes in many forms, and the reasons can be wildly different.
As the UK is, and other countries are, finding out, treating all terrorists the same does not work.
The IRA didn't want to be martyrs, but lots of the Islamic radicals do. That's a huge step, and makes their attacks so much harder to stop.

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

Examples?

social media is often the ultimate knee jerk reaction.

 Skinnereal wrote:
The IRA didn't want to be martyrs, but lots of the Islamic radicals do. That's a huge step, and makes their attacks so much harder to stop.

Which is exactly why I was highlights some salient differences between the two groups.

Just spent the last 5 min ranting and swearing at my computer screen. I cannot express in words my contempt for these people.

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

Examples?

I'll see if I can find some. Someone on /b/ posted some Tweets, with translations, which were basically saying this was a good thing.

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

Examples?

Do we need them.

If you bother to descend into Facebook or Twitter, you can roll a dice and think up any angle on this tragedy and find a moron spouting it.

Probably everything from calling for Koran burnings to whackjob theories that outsiders did this to frame French moslems.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

Examples?

I'll see if I can find some. Someone on /b/ posted some Tweets, with translations, which were basically saying this was a good thing.

Isn't finding something stupid/disgusting on Twitter like finding water in the ocean?

 Orlanth wrote:
The comparisons are valid because the radical Islamics make them valid.

The comparison is valid to you because you want to make it.

 Orlanth wrote:
It is a contest of wills between a radical religious group, which demands that their holy law be enforced upon all, including the penalty of death for blasphemy.
This is directly contrary to a societal point of view, established in the traditions of western democracy that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press are important and are to be defended

So this is a contest between the view that holy laws should be enforced upon all against the view that they should not. Believe me, Western democracy is not the only place where people disagree with the idea that holy laws should be enforced upon all.
And you ought to know that in France we do have some laws, that I agree with, that puts limits on freedom of speech. Like those forbidding calling to the murder of someone, or inviting to hate crimes. We even have laws that forbid to deny the Nazi atrocities, and those are a bit controversial. Our relation to freedom of speech is a bit different from the US version. Which also have, or had some exception in the past. Some South Korean friend of mine told me recently about how she feared some McCarthyism coming up in her country. My own grand-father, which certainly was not a communist by any rate, was denied entry to the US. I am pretty sure freedom of speech is not all that sacrosanct in every way in the US either.

 Orlanth wrote:
Yes things are bad in may parts of the world, and generally there is nothing we can do about it. After all we cant realistically armtwist Iran and Saudi Arabia and force upon their society a freedom of the press as seen in western society.

You are talking about the French and US government forcing the Iranian and Saudi government to change their laws. I am talking about people that care about secularism and the criticism of religion in France and the US and Iran and Saudi Arabia being united in an effort to convince the rest of the people that religious laws should not be enforced and that religions should be criticized. We are on totally different level.

 Orlanth wrote:
Also the Islamic world does have a right to Islamic culture.

No. That is completely false. Islamic culture does not mean anything. Have we lost our right to Christian culture now that one can declare publicly that God does not exist without fearing any kind of consequences? I agree that people should be allowed to, say, celebrate the end of the Ramadan. The way they do it in Albania seemed perfect: loud music, and drinking alcohol. That is Islamic culture, in the sense that this is some cultural celebration that comes from Islam. Sharia law? No, that is something bad that should not be implemented anywhere, and I will try to convince everyone I can about it. No “but they are different” bs will prevent me from doing so.

 Orlanth wrote:
Western society is different, western Europe is NOT based on Islamic culture or Sharia law, and our societal values favour freedoms of expression absent in many places in the world.

And you just told the people that want to bring those values into their country that is currently under Sharia law “No, you keep up with your Islamic culture”. Whoah. That seems a pretty bad thing to do to me.

 Ahtman wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
So many of the reactions on social media are proper disgusting.

Examples?

I'll see if I can find some. Someone on /b/ posted some Tweets, with translations, which were basically saying this was a good thing.

Isn't finding something stupid/disgusting on Twitter like finding water in the ocean?

Fair enough.

Aren't strict European gun laws supposed to completely prevent this type of stuff?

Oh right, something about criminals not respecting the laws...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland.

That is not what Punisher comics told me, but I am not sure I trust them as a valid source of information on… anything, really .

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Absent evidence why would you make such a claim?

Because I do not need direct evidence, just enough cues and thinking to make up my mind. Let us call that faith, please .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Aren't strict European gun laws supposed to completely prevent this type of stuff?

They are supposed to make them much harder to pull of and therefore less frequent. Are there less frequent? I do not know the numbers. But, like I suspect the huge majority of French people, would not buy a gun even without gun laws, so it would not make much of a difference, I believe.

Thank you for your most enlightening clarifications

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
The IRA just wanted a different leadership. The culture and society would similar, and the only changes would be the people at the top. A few laws would be shifted, but that's about it.

Islamic fundamentalists want a total change, with human rights being revoked, laws being ripped up and replaced, and so on.

So, without the population being replaced, there's little a fundamentalist can do to make their goals happen.

I'm always fascinated by the comparisons between the IRA and Islamic fundamentalists. While both used terror as a way of achieving their stated objectives their actual modus operandi and goals were/are completely different. The IRA have always been driven by political concerns rather than religious (some of the IRA's founders and earliest sponsors were Protestant), with the unification of Ireland and the removal of British rule from the island of Ireland. Every incarnation of the IRA has had this goal, and every incarnation has been geographically limited in their operations to the UK and Ireland. Radical Islamists by comparison are not so geographically limited, are not a unified body, there is often a very fractious relationship between groups, and one of their primary motivations is religion.

Weren't the two sides divided on the religious line of Protestant and Catholic? I know that religion wasn't a motivating factor in The Troubles, but I think I remember something along that line and it being a result of historical events. A weird "Protestant vs Catholic" thing even though it wasn't because they were Protestant or Catholics.

Edit: damn butterfingers on a mobile phone...