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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's absolutely fantastic, thanks for sharing.

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

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

Interesting piece here,

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

Why doesn't this make the headlines?

[img] [/img]

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

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

Keeps spending billions arming Israel

Hmm

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

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

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

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

😆

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

mefty - Member
How close to the truth is this?

Whole plate of chips in that article!

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

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

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

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

i regret every second.

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

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

Some more required reading, especially for binners.

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

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

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

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

This is based on precedent not personal opinion

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

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

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

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

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

I mean it's not the raw data.

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

[img] [/img]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well post it then or STFU.

Go back and find it.

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

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

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

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

It also conflicts with what you posted earlier.

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

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

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

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

Are you just trolling again? :sigh:

How about googling "Greater Jihad"? What does that refer to?

http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2

As a start.

Oh ok I've found it now - it's full of unsubstantiated opinion.

I'd always understood Jihad to mean "struggle" - of course the word "struggle" may be interpreted in different ways too. "Struggle" as a word had a certain meaning in Ireland for centuries depending on the context of the conversation/article/book. How can a religion be blamed for its myriad of followers' myriads of interpretations?

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

A lot of people on here seem to be denying a link between religion/Islam and encouragement of terrorism - including the author of grums article. The data in that article quite clearly shows this is not the case. For example, levels of religious observance is associated with terrorism - to a far greater degree than for example a US military presence.

Now who are we to tell Muslims, who the right Muslims are and who are the bad wrong-uns that we don't want?

I went to Trafalgar Square this evening, sang the Marseilles which I don't do too often, it's a war song but quite appropriate to stand against tyranny.

Spent some time catching up on the thread.

In terms of condemnation I've seen a few variants, a number of British spokespeople / preachers who've made quite inflammatory statements including one on bail for prior incitement. Even demonstrations supporting the terrorists in Palestine, Afghanistan and Lebanon. However in Holland the mayor of Rotterdamn who is a Muslim echoed what Cougar posted earlier, "if you don't like it leave" the picture in France has been quite different too. On BFMTV (the channel the terrorist in the supermarket called) an Imam made a few interesting points, firstly he said the lack of a central controlling authority in Islam meant there was little or no control of the interpretation of the
Quran allowing it to be twisted by "self appointed" Imam and also that there was an issue with parents indoctrinating their kids as at one school when asked to observe a minutes silence the kids (just 10 years old) asked why as the cartoonists had insulted the Phrophet. France's senior Imam also pointed out that the biggest victims of Islamist extremism where other Muslims, highlighting the irrationality of their behaviour.

A lot of people on here seem to be denying a link between religion/Islam and encouragement of terrorism - including the author of grums article.

I don't think many people have claimed there is no link, and the author of the article specifically said that it's not correct to say they are completely unrelated. You're straw-manning yet again.

denying a link between religion/Islam and encouragement of terrorism - including the author of grums article. The data in that article quite clearly shows this is not the case.

Ok two points

1. the article clearly does not show that Islam encourages terrorism even your own cut and past shows that they say the more "extreme a muslim you are they more likely you are to support terrorism - that like saying the more patriotic you are the more likely you are to support/justify your country in a war. neither "encourage" war or terrorism and its not casual is it

2. It is a poor study COuld you tell us why they used another survey and not original research. Can you explain why they cherry picked from certain countries from within that research?

FFS he edited again and did not say and the new bit

levels of religious observance is associated with terrorism

not sure what is worse your trolling or your data intepretation

Does anyone think the Hebdo attack was a false flag?

[img] [/img]

I thought the link I posted was interesting because it is satire which is being lauded as a great thing, but also illustrates the fair point that different societies in the West have different traditions. Charlie Hebedo does not sit as well with our traditions. Accordingly societal norms can limit to an extent free speech and it makes this point. French satire is renowned for being particularly hard hitting, likewise their libel laws are much looser, yet privacy is more respected. All that can be concluded is we are all a bunch of contradictions.

Vice News have the complete video from the supermarket terrorist. It also claims he was responsible for a car bomb, French TV mentioned this as events unfolded as it exploded near a Synagogue. Press have now also picked up on the fact the shooting of a policeman took place near a Jewish School which was likely the intended target. A jogger shot and wounded by him has yet to be identified, another incident which got lost in the overall coverage

[url= https://news.vice.com/article/video-claims-to-show-gunman-in-paris-terror-attack-pledging-allegiance-to-the-islamic-state ]Vice News[/url]

It is a poor study COuld you tell us why they used another survey and not original research. Can you explain why they cherry picked from certain countries from within that research?

Public Health researchers do this all the time. You don't need to use your own datasets in academics.

the article clearly does not show that Islam encourages terrorism even your own cut and past shows that they say the more "extreme a muslim you are they more likely you are to support terrorism - that like saying the more patriotic you are the more likely you are to support/justify your country in a war. neither "encourage" war or terrorism and its not casual is it

Not really, religious observance doesn't need to mean extremism.

I don't think many people have claimed there is no link, and the author of the article specifically said that it's not correct to say they are completely unrelated. You're straw-manning yet again.

He clearly states that Islam doesn't inherently cause violence, nor does it inherently promote peace, I think that paper proves him wrong - the higher the religious observance the more likely you are to support terrorism. Now all we need is comparison study versus other theological beliefs (also, I need to see more papers coming to the same conclusion) in order to drive the point home. The author of Grums article manages to come to this wonderfully neutral conclusion that Islam doesn't affect the politics of the muslim world and neither does it inherently encourage peaceful or violent behaviour, which I think is a bollocksie postmodernist hand-wringing conclusion. It either does, or it doesn't and that question can be answered by psychologists.

If those psychologists came up with an answer that you didn't like, would you listen to them?

Nice to know the Leaders were marching with the people:

[img] [/img]

Oh, errr, hang on:

[img] :large[/img]

Camera tricks eh...

Does anyone think the Hebdo attack was a false flag?

No. The fact you're reposting from DavidIcke.com says a lot. In any case, the clip is just some woman saying she supposedly heard that someone said something. Until the unnamed journo comes forward, I'd not be inclined to believe it.

What is the UK/EU reaction on the lack of a US representative in Paris?

IMO, Vice President Biden should have been there, no question. If President Obama had gone, the message would have been magnified 10x. That may or may not have been appropriate. For instance, he could have been seen as trying to overshadow the French, which the VP would not. The Secretary of State (John Kerry) was in India, and isn't a head of state anyway.

Eric Holder, The Attorney General? From what I saw he was in Paris for s meeting, but wasn't in the march. But the AG is the head of US law enforcement and really has no role in representing the US government to other countries.

The Obama administration really dropped the ball on this one, IMO. 😡

What is the UK/EU reaction on the lack of a US representative in Paris?

No one noticed.

To be honest, most people I know seem to think that there was more than a whiff of "jumping on the bandwagon" by the leaders who did turn up for the photo opportunity.