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

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

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

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

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

This is an interesting contrast:

Wiganer, I think that comment needs further explanation.

It's all or nothing I'm afraid JY

Utterly pointless ultimatum-speak.

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

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

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

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

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

Have you lent Hora your log in or something ?

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

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

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

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

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

All humans should condemn such heinous acts!!

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

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

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

What's a Baggie?

West Bromwich Albion supporter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got a lot to answer for Bravissimo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@maccruisken

I posted this about 10 pages ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[i]"What are you rebelling against?"

"Whaddaya got?"[/i]

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

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

APPLAUDS the misleading soundbite

Cougar - Moderator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

😆

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

Your silence implies tacit support.

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

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

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

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

the threat of Islam.

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

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

You really have to separate belief from action here.

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

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

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

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