# Shooting in France



## pylyo (Jan 7, 2015)

Bloody hell 

BBC News - Gun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11

They could expect something like that, sadly... it's almost sure it was some fuked up jihadists but will see how it turns out..


----------



## SerOner (Jan 7, 2015)

11 deads, 4/5 between life and death, 20 hurt.. It's officialy a terrorist attack since françois hollande said it a few minutes ago. They use shotgun, rocketlauncher and assault riffle. It seams like a video will be shown where we see a cop being executed by a man, saying "allah is avenged, we killed charlie hebdo". It's the news I'm watching in live in France.. May the victims rest in peace!


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

for people outside of France : Charlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper, they often make caricatures of islamic extremists. According to witnesses, the three "terrorists" (as our political elite has labeled them) claimed to perpetrate this attack in the name of Al-Quaeda. There's a whole log detailing the events on a french website.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech... two simple values. Completely dishonored today. And for what ? We already have enough racism against muslims over here. This attack will certainly not help. Nobody will help their cause now. If they had a problem with caricatures, they could just have sued Charlie Hebdo. Why always violence...

They murdered human rights, cartoonists and policemen today. F_u_ck.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 7, 2015)

I agree with you. The three terrorists are still in the nature for now, and I'm afraid by thinking that they will do another attack soon. I hope I'm wrong, there's enough barbary for now


----------



## ToS (Jan 7, 2015)

In a very sad sense this reminds me of this scene: stoned for saying jehovah (life of brian)

These neandertals live by rules that were made up a few thousand years ago...that´s sad, tragic and not acceptable. My condolences to all who lost friends or familiy because of such idiots!


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

what bugs me the most isn't that they have ancient beliefs. belief is a freedom, you can believe whatever you want... as long as you don't hurt other people. I hve muslim friends and none of them supports this kind of thing. Terrorism, regardless why, is just a shame. It's a shame because it doesn't support anyone's cause, or anyone's beliefs. it just feeds the need for destruction of these people.


----------



## hairychris (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech... two simple values. Completely dishonored today. And for what ? We already have enough racism against muslims over here. This attack will certainly not help. Nobody will help their cause now. If they had a problem with caricatures, they could just have sued Charlie Hebdo. Why always violence...



Extremists only have one setting, even if it turns out to ultimately be self-destructive... And their apologists don't understand that their freedom to say their piece also gives others freedom to disagree. Their universe doesn't work that way.

A sad day.


----------



## setsuna7 (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm Muslim,I don't condone this, those ....ers are giving Islam/Muslims round the world tough times, with their distorted beliefs... My condolences to the families of the victims..


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

Its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

I am interested to hear from Europeans views on this as they are in the trenches. Muslims immigrate to France and Germany, and while a small % are extremist (I have heard 2-5%), 2% of 20 million is ALOT of terrorists living within your borders.

I suspect there will be a rise of Neo-Nazis and efforts to purge their countries of illegal immigrants. I don't see any other rational response to these kinds of attacks as the muslim replacement rate is higher than the native populations. The frequency and severity of attacks will increase if something is not done. WWIII in another 15 years?

At least the Mexicans illegally imigrating to the USA are generally peaceful and come from a Catholic-based culture.


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

I'd love to see your sources for 2-5%. That seems absurdly high to me given how little really happens.

There already *has* been a rise of far right and neo-Nazi movements in Europe. Look at the last election cycle. This is at least as much a result of the horrible Eurozone economy as the actual immigration patterns, though.

But I'm more curious about you calling that the "rational" response. Are you condoning this?


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> But I'm more curious about you calling that the "rational" response. Are you condoning this?



I believe that native populations have the right to choose who lives within their borders and can take whatever steps are necessary to protect their laws.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> I'd love to see your sources for 2-5%. That seems absurdly high to me given how little really happens.



New Poll of Muslim Countries Finds Large Support for Terrorists

As you can see, a larger % of the population are accepting of their tactics, which breeds terrorists, even if they are not all strapping bombs to their chests.


----------



## ToS (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I believe that native populations have the right to choose who lives within their borders and can take whatever steps are necessary to protect their laws.



Do you also grant this right to the native americans that were driven from their lands by European settlers?

The best (read: only) way to prevent such kind of fanatism is to provide good education and an open society that relies on tolerance and ethics. Europe can and should provide this for all who wish to live here. Personally, I welcome all immigrants to Germany, regardless of their believe or origin.


----------



## Edika (Jan 7, 2015)

The problem with Muslims and the Arabic community in France is not that simple. I lived in France for five years and have seen the mentality of a portion of French people towards them. 
From what French people have told me, when Algeria and Marocco where under their reign they brought a lot of cheap labor expecting them to go back when they were no longer needed (very simplistically). They were isolated in ghettos which exist to this day and you'll find older people not being able to speak French there.
The situation follows more or less a similar course as African American ghettos in the US, where there are mainly hard working individuals trying to make a living and there's a small portion of younger, angrier people that are in gangs and try to take a short cut in getting rich. It's strange though as they get more opportunities than African Americans in the US.
There is racism towards them and that small portion reacts violently to it. An even smaller portion would be good "material" for extremist groups trying to infiltrate Western countries.

I know that there were more effort from the French organizations to integrate the Arabic communities more to the French culture but it has started too late.

Concerning the attacks I can't stress enough what pieces of shit these buttholes are.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
> 
> I am interested to hear from Europeans views on this as they are in the trenches. Muslims immigrate to France and Germany, and while a small % are extremist (I have heard 2-5%), 2% of 20 million is ALOT of terrorists living within your borders.
> 
> ...



I'm trying to find a nice way to express myself so please take what I say carefully.

People mostly from Turkey and North Africa go away from their countries, which I can only understand. Maybe they have a "european dream" if you'll accept the analogy. BUT when they come here, they expect US to conform to THEM instead of the opposite, which is where it starts smelling. Not only do they come here and require social help (aka taxpayer's money) or take the jobs, but they also expect us to change our laws to conform to them (the whole burka thing for example, that was a huge mess a few years ago). They want teachers for their languages and halal menus in the schools, they want us to open halal shops specifically for them, they often organize street demonstrations for all sorts of stuff, and so on... When a country offers you money and protection, this is NOT a suitable behaviour at all. And this is where the racism starts. Of course people here understand where these people come from, usually dictatorships or military/religiously extremist regimes with few human rights (especially for women), but at some point they really go too far and beyond what the average person will tolerate. People here have had enough of these people who are proud and loud about the fact that they refuse to respect our values and just spit their own in our face.

I'm not racist, I have plenty of muslim friends. There are always good people and bad people. What matters is what the majority in France thinks, and since 2002 there's been a rise in the nationalist party's popularity. Stuff is getting bad. We're hearing things in the news that sound like the 1930's all over again, extreme-right politicians being always more loud and more daring with the racist talk, and they get more and more followers. I'm not one for racism and violence, I wish people would seek a more peaceful and constructive way of dealing with the situation. It's all a huge mess and I fear that the elections in 2017 will result in the vote of a racist violent president.

tl,dr it's bad. I don't think this will result in a World War 3 anytime soon but I'm not ruling out violent riots. We have already had some, nothing TOO bad but it's escalating. The problem in France is that we don't have enough police forces, and most of them are lazy (well, they get paid jack shit for the job, plus corruption, plus dumb administration... doesn't help). Things really have to get out of control before any police intervention happens. So there's a lot of verbal and "small" violence, a lot of pushing-around. You never know when it's going to degenerate next.

EDIT : when I say "our" and count myself in... I don't do anything against those people and I don't discriminate them in anyway, but the most extreme of them won't make a difference between a racist white french and a non-racist one. So sometimes I can get in trouble with them.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 7, 2015)

^I don't know the statistics for Europe, but in the "Muslim" countries, votes for extreme conservative Muslims over the last 60 years has hovered around 15%. When asked on specific issues such "Do you support the killing of apostates" or "Do you support the imposition of Shari'a law' the numbers are more like 60%. 

Keep in mind that support for these policies is not the same as stepping up to the plate for them. In the US a huge number of people think that abortion is murder, but very few people are willing to firebomb an abortion clinic. 

Honestly 2-5% is a surprisingly low number if true, and would in my opinion be a sign that secular society is helping to fight Islamic dogma.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

It's time for the world to throw political correctness aside. It's time to stop these Muslim monsters. My heart aches for the peaceful Muslims who will be stereotyped and hurt more than they already are, but my heart aches profoundly more for the victims and the ones who loved them. What these Muslim extremist animals have done warrants extreme measures from the sane world to stop it from happening again. Sadly, what peaceful Muslims will now have to suffer through is 100% the fault of their extremist brethren. No other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers. Just Islam.


----------



## stevexc (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> No other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers. Just Islam.



Except, you know, for Christians. And pretty well all the rest of them.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

Shimme said:


> ^I don't know the statistics for Europe, but in the "Muslim" countries, votes for extreme conservative Muslims over the last 60 years has hovered around 15%. When asked on specific issues such "Do you support the killing of apostates" or "Do you support the imposition of Shari'a law' the numbers are more like 60%.
> 
> Keep in mind that support for these policies is not the same as stepping up to the plate for them. In the US a huge number of people think that abortion is murder, but very few people are willing to firebomb an abortion clinic.
> 
> Honestly 2-5% is a surprisingly low number if true, and would in my opinion be a sign that secular society is helping to fight Islamic dogma.




I don't give statistics any importance. you can't verify them and as you can see, it only takes 3 people to start a massacre and a shitstorm like that. But if we are talking statistics :

In France, the presidential elections happen in two steps. in the first round, we vote for a candidate (there's one candidate per party, so usually 5 big ones and a lot of smaller people with hope). the two candidates with the most votes advance to the second round. then, we vote again, for one of those two (who might not be the candidate you voted for in the first round) and the one with the majority becomes the new president.

In 2002, the president of the nationalist (read : extremely racist with speeches that remind you of world war 2 stuff) party's candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen reached the second round by getting 25% of the votes in the first round (aka he got the most votes overall in first round). Then people realized that "oh shit we don't want this guy" and all the people who didn't go to vote in the first round went to vote for the other candidate (who was Jacques Chirac going for a second mandate) just to avoid Le Pen. In 2007 and 2012, the nationalist party didn't reach the second round BUT the new chief of the party (and daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen) Marine Le Pen got a LOT of support in the entire country. Also, at the last european elections, in France the nationalist party got the majority. 2017 will be a very weird election for sure. Things aren't dramatic yet, but not looking good either.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 7, 2015)

stevexc said:


> Except, you know, for Christians. And pretty well all the rest of them.



Very true, but Christians lust for blood has slowed significantly over time. It seems in many Muslim countries, that lust hasn't slowed like it should have at this point.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

stevexc said:


> Except, you know, for Christians. And pretty well all the rest of them.



You're kidding, right? Or are you one of those PC elitists who mention "oh noes the CRUSADES!!!!" whenever anyone addresses this topic?


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> It's time for the world to throw political correctness aside. It's time to stop these Muslim monsters. My heart aches for the peaceful Muslims who will be stereotyped and hurt more than they already are, but my heart aches profoundly more for the victims and the ones who loved them. What these Muslim extremist animals have done warrants extreme measures from the sane world to stop it from happening again. Sadly, what peaceful Muslims will now have to suffer through is 100% the fault of their extremist brethren. No other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers. Just Islam.



Just to put things back in their place : in the middle ages, Christians pretty much decimated any group that wasn't Christian all across Europe. The economy and social climate in the islamic countries nowadays is pretty much equivalent to the middle ages in europe. What's happening in those countries is exactly the same as what WE did, except it's delayed by a few centuries. They're not monsters, they're civilian victims to religiously extremist guerilla dictatorships where people knock on your door, ask if you love Allah while fitting an AK47 in your mouth, and wreck your house and kill your family if you do anything they don't like. To escape from this, they leave everything they don't need behind and flee to Europe, full of hope of finding a better life here. but from the european side, what we see is people bringing poverty, who are going to take jobs and social money etc. What I mentioned before, "those people" wanting US to adapt to THEM, that's the next generation that grows up in France, speaks French, feels patriotic and doesn't show the country that saved them in the first place any respect anymore.

It's a difficult situation for everyone. It's a bad thing to start stigmatizing or searching for culprits, nobody's guilty apart from the violent islamist extremists who started the whole stuff over there in the middle east where we western people can't do anything. But once people flee here, what do you want to do ? "nope, sorry, go back to the country where you and your family will get shot for having tried to escape" ? Nah. We have to do better than that.


----------



## stevexc (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> You're kidding, right? I hope so anyways.



One hundred percent not. I was really hoping you were, in fact, as that kind of intolerance and hatred isn't going to do anything positive.

The fact is that this is not a fault of the religion itself. This is the fault of extremists who twist the religion into a justification.

EDIT: To address your personal jab at me: Yes. I am going to bring up historical precedent that directly disproves your hateful ranting. Call me whatever you want to, we all know how much support that will lend to your argument.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> But once people flee here, what do you want to do ? "nope, sorry, go back to the country where you and your family will get shot for having tried to escape" ? Nah. We have to do better than that.



Two wrongs don't make a "right".

People living there illegally need to be deported. If the country decides that it wants them, it will give them legal status. That decision is something that has to be reached legally by the society.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

stevexc said:


> One hundred percent not. I was really hoping you were, in fact, as that kind of intolerance and hatred isn't going to do anything positive.
> 
> The fact is that this is not a fault of the religion itself. This is the fault of extremists who twist the religion into a justification.
> 
> EDIT: To address your personal jab at me: Yes. I am going to bring up historical precedent that directly disproves your hateful ranting. Call me whatever you want to, we all know how much support that will lend to your argument.



My "hateful ranting"? I wasn't being hateful nor did i completely generalize an entire population. Sounds as though you're not tolerating any ideas/opinions that don't align with your own. 

And while history can teach important lessons, this isn't the stone age anymore, no need to protect the extremists actions by comparing them to terrible things others did eons ago.


----------



## ToS (Jan 7, 2015)

stevexc said:


> The fact is that this is not a fault of the religion itself. This is the fault of extremists who twist the religion into a justification.




Well, in some way it is the religion&#8217;s fault: all religions are by design irrational, which makes it very easy to (ab-)use them as justification for irrational behavior (=terrorism). 

But I agree, it doesn´t matter which religion you´re looking at. In this regard they are all the same and none is &#8220;better&#8221;.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> You're kidding, right? Or are you one of those PC elitists who mention "oh noes the CRUSADES!!!!" whenever anyone addresses this topic?



One of the largest supporters of the Israeli settlers are US Evangelicals who sincerely hope that by reforging Israel they can bring upon the apocalypse. Insane religious beliefs that have a great chance of starting horrific wars aren't relegated to just a single religion.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

Shimme said:


> One of the largest supporters of the Israeli settlers are US Evangelicals who sincerely hope that by reforging Israel they can bring upon the apocalypse. Insane religious beliefs that have a great chance of starting horrific wars aren't relegated to just a single religion.



Well of course. There are individuals from all religions that want domination. Comparing that to what we have been witnessing for years now in the middle east is not even close to apples-to-apples.


----------



## ToS (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> ...others did eons ago.



Eons ago? Wanna talk about your beloved "Christians" and how they behaved in North America and Africa until recently?


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

ToS said:


> Eons ago? Wanna talk about your beloved "Christians" and how they behaved in North America and Africa until recently?



Why are you trying to change the course of the conversation? We're talking about current events, not King Leopold II from Belgium. Stay within the scope of conversation, if you can muster the focus to do so.


----------



## stevexc (Jan 7, 2015)

ToS said:


> Well, in some way it is the religion&#8217;s fault: all religions are by design irrational, which makes it very easy to (ab-)use them as justification for irrational behavior (=terrorism).
> 
> But I agree, it doesn´t matter which religion you´re looking at. In this regard they are all the same and none is &#8220;better&#8221;.



I see what you're getting at, but I can't fully agree. I'll agree that the concept of religion is a flawed on, but blame for an act rests solely on the individual who carried out the act. It's not religion's fault for being twisted, it's the person who did the twisting's fault.



Chrisjd said:


> My "hateful ranting"? I wasn't being hateful nor did i completely generalize an entire population.



You did, actually.



Chrisjd said:


> No other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers. Just Islam.



I will retract the "hateful" comment, reading back on your comment you do express a sentiment I share - that the terrorist acts are carried out by extremists, and innocent peaceful Muslims get wrongfully treated due to it.




Chrisjd said:


> Sounds as though you're not tolerating any ideas/opinions that don't align with your own.



I quite specifically do not tolerate blaming the actions of an individual on a group, particularly in scenarios like this. Other than that I'm not sure what you're referring to.





Chrisjd said:


> And while history can teach important lessons, this isn't the stone age anymore, no need to protect the extremists actions by comparing them to terrible things others did eons ago.



If you're going to present an overarching statement as fact like you did , then prepare to defend it. If you wanted to exclude historical events, then maybe you should have specified that. Your statement - that "no other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers" - is historically untrue.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 7, 2015)

I offer my respect to these victims and all the victims of religious wars.

I'm annoyed.
Very annoyed that someone wants to take my freedom.
That someone acts to put fear in my everyday's life like it's not hard enough already.
Fear for my relatives, for my friends, for the innocent people that work their asses every day to feed their families.
It doesn't help that I'm an atheist and, with all the respect, all the holy books are like Lord Of The Rings for me, just written ages ago.
So, for me it's really like people killing in the name of Gandalf or Sauron.

Though...I still respect people who wants to believe in something, to cling on hopes for a better life or better afterlife, or to give a meaning to their life, meaning that I honestly say I don't find for my own life.

BUT, I think that water is important, and oil is good, but if you force a mix between oil and water you don't get anything that is even remotely useful.

No matter how people try to co-operate on both sides to make things work, things won't work, because some factions on both sides, the violent ones will always work on the opposite way.
Cultural legacies and traditions are important, and are a treasure of every Country and every population, they are my history and I really don't feel to sacrifice them, especially on the soil it gave me birth.
And no one should sacrifice them.

This thing won't come to an end, neither peacefully, nor violently, even because there's someone that grows money in their pockets with this shit.

Though, honestly, I don't know how long I'll condone the Western Governments for being spineless.
I don't think severe immigration check will help much, but I start to at least expect them.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> Why are you trying to change the course of the conversation? We're talking about current events, not King Leopold II from Belgium. Stay within the scope of conversation, if you can muster the focus to do so.


Alrighty:


----------



## Shimme (Jan 7, 2015)

stevexc said:


> The fact is that this is not a fault of the religion itself. This is the fault of extremists who twist the religion into a justification.



I'm sorry but that is simply not true. These extremist muslims have one of the most reasonable interpretations of Islam's cannon, and it's apologists of all religions who have to twist the religion so that it is reasonable to modern sensibilities.

Most of the things that you'll have seen or heard of militant Muslims doing have been*proscribed as things that you should, or must do,* somewhere in the Qur'an or Hadith.

It's the work of apologists to try and prove that the word of your inerrant, eternal God got garbled after a long game of telephone. _Apologists_ are the ones that are trying to figure out why this happy-smiley god is so brutal and callous.


----------



## chopeth (Jan 7, 2015)

Worthless religion, still causing bloodshed even centuries after they were born. Practicing a religion should be STRICTLY a personal and private option, especially when we have science, which can reject most religious premises empirically. Damn these killing brutes. My condolences to the deceased.


----------



## død (Jan 7, 2015)

chopeth said:


> *Worthless religion, still causing bloodshed even centuries after they were born*. Practicing a religion should be STRICTLY a personal and private option, especially when we have science, which can reject most religious premises empirically. Damn these killing brutes. My condolences to the deceased.



As opposed to Christianity centuries after it was "born"? I absolutely agree with the rest of your post, though.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Two wrongs don't make a "right".
> 
> People living there illegally need to be deported. If the country decides that it wants them, it will give them legal status. That decision is something that has to be reached legally by the society.



they don't live here illegally, since we allowed them in in the first place. it's problematic of course but I think it's better to let refugees in. just because you choose to ignore the bad things that happen next door doesn't mean they don't happen. it does hurt the economy to let these people in, but we CAN support them. people just don't want to.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

Shimme said:


> I'm sorry but that is simply not true. These extremist muslims have one of the most reasonable interpretations of Islam's cannon, and it's apologists of all religions who have to twist the religion so that it is reasonable to modern sensibilities.
> 
> Most of the things that you'll have seen or heard of militant Muslims doing have been*proscribed as things that you should, or must do,* somewhere in the Qur'an or Hadith.
> 
> It's the work of apologists to try and prove that the word of your inerrant, eternal God got garbled after a long game of telephone. _Apologists_ are the ones that are trying to figure out why this happy-smiley god is so brutal and callous.




This begs to question interpretation of religious texts.

I'll make an example up. Let's say, as a reasonable adult, you believe killing is bad. But you also follow a religion. Let's say, a priest or whoever speaks for that religion convinces you that, to honor your religion, you must kill a certain group of people. You have the choice : either you believe in your morals and start questioning this interpretation of your religion (or you stop believing altogether), OR you choose not to question the interpretation you were given and start killing people.

Religious texts contradict each other all the time. "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible followed by TONS of killing in the name of Christianity across history is a prime example. People *should* question the interpretation of religious texts they're given by other people. In the case of terrorists, you have an organization that seeks people who are stupid/uneducated/gullible enough to actually believe that if they do a suicide bombing, they will go to heaven and get 72 virgins. These people don't question anything, they blindly follow the first demagogue they come across.


----------



## karjim (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm a French historian, a true God believer, my mum is a Christian and my dad is a Muslim . Islam is 15 centuries. It's not a good edge for a religion. Christianity at the 15th century in Europe: Inquisition, Burn Alive, Censure, Corruption, Extremism.
I'm not an expert of antiquity but I bet that 1500 years before Christ, the Jew Authority (Babylon and Sodom) were not white, otherwise they didn't torture and kill thousands of people during 1000 years.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Two wrongs don't make a "right".
> 
> People living there illegally need to be deported. If the country decides that it wants them, it will give them legal status. That decision is something that has to be reached legally by the society.



It's already been reached by the capitalist side of the society. If they couldn't get jobs, they wouldn't come.

We in the US like to turn a blind eye to the actual enablers of illegal immigration. Fortunately for us, violence resulting from it is limited.

That said, this attack wasn't illegal immigrants from Muslim countries in the traditional sense - this was well-planned, and well-executed. If they were in France illegally, it was most likely solely for this purpose.

This attack wasn't about religion, it's about people who use religion for a cover for their political agenda.


----------



## chopeth (Jan 7, 2015)

død;4263677 said:


> As opposed to Christianity centuries after it was "born"? I absolutely agree with the rest of your post, though.



I meant any religion, I don't care for any and I wish we could all learn from the past, turn the page and keep it only intimate. Civil and human rights should be the only public religion.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 7, 2015)

If you think what this attack was, with all the due respect it was the "9/11 of the freedom of speech".
And anyway, we're getting close to one attack per month, which is worrying.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> It's already been reached by the capitalist side of the society. If they couldn't get jobs, they wouldn't come.
> 
> We in the US like to turn a blind eye to the actual enablers of illegal immigration. Fortunately for us, violence resulting from it is limited.
> 
> ...



That's actually yet another problem. 

A bunch of terrorists shoot people dead and claim it's because of their religion. What happens to these three guys is barely relevant (I hope they end up in jail). What's relevant is that French people will blame the local muslim minority for what happened. They will blame law-abiding citizens who come from elsewhere for "breeding terrorists" and they'll accuse their religion. Things will only get worse.

You know what really pisses me off ? Back in the 1930s, you had the Nazis in Germany just spreading hate speech against the jews. Some of those things, I read them in my history books in school. "Look how bad and racist they were back then". Well, replace Adolf Hitler by the french nationalist party and replace the jews by the muslim minority in france and it sounds DAMN similar. "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" well shit, we might just be right in the middle of that. 

I sincerely hope this terrorist attack was a unique thing, that there's no planned follow-up and that people will be able to calm down and rationalize about everything that happened.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> This begs to question interpretation of religious texts.
> 
> I'll make an example up. Let's say, as a reasonable adult, you believe killing is bad. But you also follow a religion. Let's say, a priest or whoever speaks for that religion convinces you that, to honor your religion, you must kill a certain group of people. You have the choice : either you believe in your morals and start questioning this interpretation of your religion (or you stop believing altogether), OR you choose not to question the interpretation you were given and start killing people.



You seem to be on the edge of asking the Euthyphro question (Is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it's good?). Up until a few years ago, I would have said it's good because god commands it (Divine Command Theory).

I've supported anti-gay policies in the past (to my shame) solely because I was religious. It bothered the hell out of me, but I believed that since I was only a human I should trust in God's plan. It might seem wrong to me, I thought, but I know that God is making a better world and I should have the humility to understand that I don't know everything.

That's how I thought. That's how billions of other people think. Most of them aren't even as troubled as I was. It is possible for people to be convinced that murdering others is God's will, and his will is the ultimate good.

Beliefs have consequences. The trouble is that most liberal apologists don't know what it's like to believe _hard_, and they assume that people _can't_ believe like that.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> You know what really pisses me off ? Back in the 1930s, you had the Nazis in Germany just spreading hate speech against the jews. Some of those things, I read them in my history books in school. "Look how bad and racist they were back then". Well, replace Adolf Hitler by the french nationalist party and replace the jews by the muslim minority in france and it sounds DAMN similar. "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" well shit, we might just be right in the middle of that.



Yeah, except there were not Jewish extremists who were sawing people's heads-off, raping, and blowing shit up right and left.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> That's actually yet another problem.
> 
> A bunch of terrorists shoot people dead and claim it's because of their religion. What happens to these three guys is barely relevant (I hope they end up in jail). What's relevant is that French people will blame the local muslim minority for what happened. They will blame law-abiding citizens who come from elsewhere for "breeding terrorists" and they'll accuse their religion. Things will only get worse.



Nag, yours are beautiful and right words, but the Western Society's willing to forgive (because we feel rightly guilty for the past) is our Achilles' heel.
We'll forget, we'll forgive but the bad apples won't stop.

I wait for a huge pubblic manifestation tomorrow in Paris from the moderate Muslims to condemn that act.
But I think I'll be disappointed, because even in the moderate side of the Muslims, there's still people preferring their Muslims brother than French or other Countries' people.
And you know what...it's normal...it's...HUMAN.


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I believe that native populations have the right to choose who lives within their borders and can take whatever steps are necessary to protect their laws.



So you approve of the possibility of ethnic cleansing via mass murder (against a population that, by and large, is legally living there). I'm glad we're clear on that now.

Chrisjd: Because every Palestinian is a terrorist occupier too, right?

Also, for those accusing the Middle East of being all of the source of their own problems and bloodshed, they should really go look at some maps of what Western powers did in the mid 20th century to the borders.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

if we rationalize for a second (before this thread goes on another tangent  )

the only people to blame are the three terrorists. and they aren't to blame because of their origins. There are tons of nice people in the countries where they come from. they aren't to blame for their religion, which has tons of peaceful followers. They are to blame for their extremism.

I don't know how you fight extremism. it's a way of thinking you come across all the time. extremist christians who hate on gays, quoting some parts of the bible to justify their actions and forgetting other parts of the bible which would condemn their actions. extremist feminists, extremist muslims, extremist whatever the hell you want. once someone takes an ideology and applies it beyond any rational point, you get extremism, and it's always bad.


----------



## SD83 (Jan 7, 2015)

I'd want to say much more but, right now... this is just ....ed up. I hope they can keep up their work.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> if we rationalize for a second (before this thread goes on another tangent  )
> 
> the only people to blame are the three terrorists. and they aren't to blame because of their origins. There are tons of nice people in the countries where they come from. they aren't to blame for their religion, which has tons of peaceful followers. They are to blame for their extremism.
> 
> I don't know how you fight extremism. it's a way of thinking you come across all the time. extremist christians who hate on gays, quoting some parts of the bible to justify their actions and forgetting other parts of the bible which would condemn their actions. extremist feminists, extremist muslims, extremist whatever the hell you want. once someone takes an ideology and applies it beyond any rational point, you get extremism, and it's always bad.




You're beginning to make sense, although this is fairly obvious logic. 

I agree with what you said here. I do, however, think it's unnecessary and borderline insulting that all these asshats come in here and point the finger at past transgressions of other religions as a way to derail the conversation and defend the Muslim extremist murders that just occurred in Paris as nothing different then things other religions do.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> Also, for those accusing the Middle East of being all of the source of their own problems and bloodshed, they should really go look at some maps of what Western powers did in the mid 20th century to the borders.



And it's right.
How long we can go to dig for our ancestors' mistakes (not only the religious ones) though?
Millenniums, and we can find plenty.
Towards Africans, Muslims, Jews, any other Country.
And what we can do? Apologize? Refund? Do you think it would ever be enough?
And if it isn't enough, should we accept our demise?


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

@Chrisjd: It's unnecessary and borderline insulting for asshats to come in here and point the finger at Islam being the only religion with violence done in its name, as if Islam is the actual cause of these attacks.

ed: Omega, it's about being aware and not just going "look, they can't even keep their own shit together!" without understanding that we played a fundamental role in _why_ they don't have their shit together. It's not dictating a course of action from there.

Further: Demise? What?

We're far more likely to have catastrophic social upheaval from the effects of climate change on our food supply.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> You're beginning to make sense, although this is fairly obvious logic.
> 
> I agree with what you said here. I do, however, think it's unnecessary and borderline insulting that all these asshats come in here and point the finger at past transgressions of other religions as a way to derail the conversation and defend the Muslim extremist murders that just occurred in Paris as nothing different then things other religions do.




I don't like the way you talk to me and the way you express your ideas, and a quick look at your reputation log told me I'm not the only one. If you want to prove a point, it's generally a bad idea to insult the people you talk to. So far, the only thing I have grasped from you is that you hate muslims and anyone who doesn't want to eradicate them.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

OmegaSlayer said:


> And it's right.
> How long we can go to dig for our ancestors' mistakes (not only the religious ones) though?
> Millenniums, and we can find plenty.
> Towards Africans, Muslims, Jews, any other Country.
> ...




You're kinda sounding a bit too baroque 

Without overdramatizing... things do get better over time. "Our ancestors" burnt people accused of being witches. We don't do that anymore. It just takes a looooong time to change people's minds. Maybe in quite a number of generations, religious extremism will be considered as silly as accusing someone to be a witch is today.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> It's unnecessary and borderline insulting for asshats to come in here and point the finger at Islam being the only religion with violence done in its name, as if Islam is the actual cause of these attacks.



You think you're cute and clever, funny... From other posts of yours that I've seen, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you're probably a younger guy who's sat in too many left leaning lectures and courses, be it high school or college.

No one(at least not myself) is saying that Islam is the sole religion in which violence exists. NOT ONE PERSON in this thread has said or implied this, so please shut your ....ing mouth already. 

It does not take a genius to recognize patterns of terror that have been plaguing the WORLD as of recent, in the name of Islam. You can cry all you want that they don't represent Islam. That's your opinion, which doesn't really mean much.

Whether or not Christians don't like gays etc(as one of you posters said) has no meaning, significance or place in this conversation and doesn't draw any parallels. 

I am out of this thread.


----------



## Chrisjd (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> I don't like the way you talk to me and the way you express your ideas, and a quick look at your reputation log told me I'm not the only one. If you want to prove a point, it's generally a bad idea to insult the people you talk to. So far, the only thing I have grasped from you is that you hate muslims and anyone who doesn't want to eradicate them.



I generated bad reputation last year for slamming some of Ibanez's new models in an ibanez thread. I couldn't care less about my reputation other than the deals i do selling and buying here, all of which have been fantastic.

If you think I HATE Muslims and/or want to eradicate them, you have proved you jump to conclusions far too quick and without appropriate data/facts. There is absolutely no way to deduce this about me, and in fact my first post in this thread I expressed grief and empathy for non extremist muslims.


----------



## chopeth (Jan 7, 2015)




----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> I am out of this thread.







chopeth said:


> le comic



I love this comic, haha. Many of my FB friends shared it. Sums it all up !


----------



## mongey (Jan 7, 2015)

me and the wife were actually in Paris a few years ago on a 2 yeek stay when it blew up with the Charlie Hebdo guys and there was a firebombing or something and then a huge protest just near where our apartment was . was pretty scary


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

Chrisjd said:


> You think you're cute and clever, funny... From other posts of yours that I've seen, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you're probably a younger guy who's sat in too many left leaning lectures and courses, be it high school or college.



Irrelevant. Ad-hom pt.1



> No one(at least not myself) is saying that Islam is the sole religion in which violence exists. NOT ONE PERSON in this thread has said or implied this, so please shut your ....ing mouth already.



Though, A: you brush off every other example that people have brought up about any other religion doing this
B: You most certainly have implied that Islam, the entire religion and all of its followers, are the problem:



Chrisjd said:


> It's time for the world to throw political correctness aside. It's time to stop these Muslim monsters. My heart aches for the peaceful Muslims who will be stereotyped and hurt more than they already are, but my heart aches profoundly more for the victims and the ones who loved them. What these Muslim extremist animals have done warrants extreme measures from the sane world to stop it from happening again. Sadly, what peaceful Muslims will now have to suffer through is 100% the fault of their extremist brethren. No other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers. Just Islam.





Chrisjd said:


> Well of course. There are individuals from all religions that want domination. Comparing that to what we have been witnessing for years now in the middle east is not even close to apples-to-apples.





> It does not take a genius to recognize patterns of terror that have been plaguing the WORLD as of recent, in the name of Islam. You can cry all you want that they don't represent Islam. That's your opinion, which doesn't really mean much.



C: A region in which a large majority of the Western world has armed forces currently fighting in or involved in significant fighting in the last decade, no less. Gee, wonder what the connection might be?

The Mexican government is in open warfare with the cartels, as is the Colombian (I think). Venezuela is violently putting down protests with large and indiscriminate loss of life. Russia *fvcking invaded Ukraine*. Africa is still in the throes of horrible tribal violence.

Obviously Islam is the big bad.

D: Ad-hom pt. 3



> Whether or not Christians don't like gays etc(as one of you posters said) has no meaning, significance or place in this conversation and doesn't draw any parallels.



But you're trying to claim you didn't say (imply) Islam is the only religion with these problems. Pick one.

And don't let the door hit you on the way out, since you can't talk points without throwing generalizations and ad-hominems.


----------



## tedtan (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> Omega, it's about being aware and not just going "look, they can't even keep their own shit together!" without understanding that we played a fundamental role in _why_ they don't have their shit together. It's not dictating a course of action from there.



While we certainly played a role in that, keep in mind that the Middle Eastern countries have been at war with one another, and numerous outside groups (Alexander the Great, the Roman empire, et. al.) for thousands of years and traditionally, the winner of the war gets to make the rules. So the premise isn't new to the region, just our specific implementation of the concept.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 7, 2015)

Gotta love when "christians" come in and start bashing Islam as being a hateful religion. It makes for some great laughs. 
(Edit: I literally do this every time I see it...




)

As was said, the only people responsible for this attack was the three people that carried it out, and the organization that supplied them. They used the farce of religion to carry out a political attack.
But yeah, let's condemn an entire religion wholesale because some asshats couldn't take a joke.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Gotta love when "christians" come in and start bashing Islam as being a hateful religion. It makes for some great laughs.
> 
> As was said, the only people responsible for this attack was the three people that carried it out, and the organization that supplied them. They used the farce of religion to carry out a political attack.
> But yeah, let's condemn an entire religion wholesale because some asshats couldn't take a joke.




this is the tl;dr version of almost my entire contribution to this thread


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jan 7, 2015)

Sexist thing happens: "not all men!". Cops kill innocent people: "not all cops!". Racism happens: "not all white people!". Terrorist attack: "Islam is a violent religion! If so called _peaceful_ Muslims aren't like that, why aren't they condemning the actions en masse?"

Reponses on Facebook in a nutshell.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> This attack wasn't about religion, it's about people who use religion for a cover for their political agenda.



Based on this study, Muslims are accepting of their more extreme brethren, thus the religion as a whole serves as an incubator for terrorism. Which is why this becomes a question of immigration policy and the duty that western governments have to protect their citizens.

New Poll of Muslim Countries Finds Large Support for Terrorists

Its difficult to separate the religion from the politics, they seem to go hand in hand. Personally I belive the real underlying "reason" for terrorism is the feeling that they have "lost" in comparison to western prosperity, call it a collosal, societal lack of self esteem. IOW, if Islamic nations had large navies and nuclear arsenals they would not be resorting to terrorism. And with that prosperity, neither would they be so trigger happy.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> You're kinda sounding a bit too baroque
> 
> Without overdramatizing... things do get better over time. "Our ancestors" burnt people accused of being witches. We don't do that anymore. It just takes a looooong time to change people's minds. Maybe in quite a number of generations, religious extremism will be considered as silly as accusing someone to be a witch is today.



Yup, I might be 
Though the point is not what me and you consider baroque here.

Maybe you can say I'm dragging this, but about the witches...their "sons" are nowhere around to call us guilty.
Shoah is a day every year, do you think sooner or later we'll delete it from the calendar?

People DO in fact have reason to hold grudges against us, but at the same time it's stupid to hold grudges to sons for the sins of their fathers.

You know...every dead man in Paris today deserves the equal amount of respect, but I can't help but think to the guy that was killed by the terrorists' car when they ran away.

A life that was taken anyway, even if he wasn't a "targeted enemy".
A man that could have been atheist and unable even to doodle his face.
A victim that won't get the media exposure of dead journalists, but a man that was just leading his everyday's life.


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Based on this study, Muslims are accepting of their more extreme brethren, thus the religion as a whole serves as an incubator for terrorism. Which is why this becomes a question of immigration policy and the duty that western governments have to protect their citizens.
> 
> New Poll of Muslim Countries Finds Large Support for Terrorists



We've been over that before.

Republicans largely supported the use of torture despite it having been studied multiple times and shown to provide nothing usable. Republicans are obviously a breeding ground of sociopathic sadists.



> Its difficult to separate the religion from the politics, they seem to go hand in hand. Personally I belive the real underlying "reason" for terrorism is the feeling that they have "lost" in comparison to western prosperity, call it a collosal, societal lack of self esteem. IOW, if Islamic nations had large navies and nuclear arsenals they would not be resorting to terrorism. And with that prosperity, neither would they be so trigger happy.



With most reactionary groups, it's usually not military power, dick waving (exactly), jealousy, etc. Not at its core. It's usually either social upheaval by some external event that causes that group to feel like it's losing its dominant position in society (see the older conservative white Christian Republican in the US), or it's severe economic situations that allow feeding on latent xenophobic/racist tendencies and gives people an "other" person to separate themselves from and/or blame.

See also Germany in the 30s.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> We've been over that before.
> 
> Republicans largely supported the use of torture despite it having been studied multiple times and shown to provide nothing usable. Republicans are obviously a breeding ground of sociopathic sadists.



I linked a Pew study that showed in Muslim nations, between 25 and 75% of citizens supported terrorism. 

Is it your personal opinion that Republicans support torture?


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I linked a Pew study that showed in Muslim nations, between 25 and 75% of citizens supported terrorism.
> 
> Is it your personal opinion that Republicans support torture?



Oh no. Have another Pew study:

Americans have mixed views on use of torture in fighting terrorism | Pew Research Center



> In our 2011 survey, a substantial majority of Republicans (71%) said torture could be at least sometimes justified, compared with 51% of independents and 45% of Democrats.



Only sometimes justified still supports the act of torture.

ed: the referenced 2013 study with about the same findings:

http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Balancing Act/AP-NORC 2013_Civil Liberties Poll_Report.pdf


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I linked a Pew study that showed in Muslim nations, between 25 and 75% of citizens supported terrorism.



I haven't seen that study but, do you really think that in a military and religiously extremist dictatorship, citizens will tell their true opinion ? No, they will say what they're allowed to say, and since their governments use terrorism to show their presence in the western world, these citizens will say that they support terrorism although they probably support jack shit in their country.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> Oh no. Have another Pew study:
> 
> Americans have mixed views on use of torture in fighting terrorism | Pew Research Center
> 
> ...



I'll be honest, I support torture of captured terrorists.

I saw a recent news story where leaders of the CIA said they got credible intelligence that helped save american lives. There was an opposing liberal view, but of course they were not involved in the interrogation and were not privy to the intel gained, so it was speculation on their part.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> I haven't seen that study but, do you really think that in a military and religiously extremist dictatorship, citizens will tell their true opinion ? No, they will say what they're allowed to say, and since their governments use terrorism to show their presence in the western world, these citizens will say that they support terrorism although they probably support jack shit in their country.



The study was conducted independtly by Pew which is respected organization. I'm sure they (at least tried) to control for that. But regardless it is still a large percentage. Its not as if their government asked them.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

And I'll pre-emptively write my response to your counter:

Despite what you believe is right or justified, whatever you speculate may have been done, there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 911. I approve of this.


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> I'll be honest, I support torture of captured terrorists.
> 
> I saw a recent news story where leaders of the CIA said they got credible intelligence that helped save american lives. There was an opposing liberal view, but of course they were not involved in the interrogation and were not privy to the intel gained, so it was speculation on their part.



Or we have real evidence, not the CIA justifying itself:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html

And contradicting itself:



> The report said the agency had evidently forgotten its own conclusion, sent to Congress in 1989, that *&#8220;inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.&#8221;* The Democratic Senate staff members who studied the post-Sept. 11 program came up with an identical assessment: that waterboarding, wall-slamming, nudity, cold and other ill treatment produced little information of value in preventing terrorism.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/w...ia-infighting-over-interrogation-program.html

ed: No, that's obviously not going to be my counter, because that says nothing about what contributed to stopping anything further. The Senate report does though...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> And I'll pre-emptively write my response to your counter:
> 
> Despite what you believe is right or justified, whatever you speculate may have been done, there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 911. I approve of this.


Say what?
Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States

Terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shimme (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> And I'll pre-emptively write my response to your counter:
> 
> Despite what you believe is right or justified, whatever you speculate may have been done, there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 911. I approve of this.



Why is Dzhokar Tsarnaev in jail again?


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

Shimme said:


> Why is Dzhokar Tsarnaev in jail again?



Oops. Shit. Forgot about him.


----------



## pylyo (Jan 7, 2015)

looks like they identified the scumbags

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pour...ient-arrétés/822487151144311?sk=photos_stream


----------



## asher (Jan 7, 2015)

pylyo said:


> looks like they idnetified the scumbags
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pour...ient-arrétés/822487151144311?sk=photos_stream



ed: nvm, clicked before you added text


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

thread status : derailed.

EDIT : maybe not


----------



## pylyo (Jan 7, 2015)

and it's down... sry.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

it's not down. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pour...ourad-soient-arrêtés/1560567750850758?fref=ts


----------



## redstone (Jan 7, 2015)

OmegaSlayer said:


> I wait for a huge pubblic manifestation tomorrow in Paris from the moderate Muslims to condemn that act.
> But I think I'll be disappointed, because even in the moderate side of the Muslims, there's still people preferring their Muslims brother than French or other Countries' people.
> And you know what...it's normal...it's...HUMAN.



This. Religious fanaticism is never solved by the moderates.


----------



## SD83 (Jan 7, 2015)

Sadly, I fear this will further fuel the anti-muslim movement that is gaining strength in parts of Germany (primarily in those parts where muslims make up less than 1% of the population, with huge demonstrations against this movement in parts where they actually exist) as well as other european countries. To blame the majority of peaceful muslims for that is like blaming all men for rape. Yes, they are (probably) muslim. Yes, they do tell you what somebody told them, that they do this for Allah and that it is justified in the Quran. I bet they didn't look up those parts. And yes I do think there is a significant problem in many islamic countries/cultures. Or several. But there were and are in Christianity. A christian Norwegian shot dozens of christian norwegian kids to fight Islam. Criminals are criminals, assholes are assholes, and must be treated as such. For people to believe that others are inferior to them due to religion is bad enough, but it must not be acceptable for anyone anywhere to tolerate somebody being willing to kill because of that. If your god wants you to kill somebody because that somebody believes in the wrong god, he is an incompetent asshole. And one should not support incompetent assholes. 
Slightly related, but if I were muslim in this country, I'd feel a bit discriminated all the time. Day off? Sunday. Holidays? Christian. It would be the same if I were jewish, or if I were a christian in Saudi Arabia I guess, but that doesn't make it any better. 
Last but not least... fear and hate must not win this war.


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

I just scrolled though my muslim contacts on facebook. their reactions were literally all the same. "WTF, this isn't what islam wants, you didn't avenge the prophet you insulted him and the entire muslim world, etc"

I kind of appreciate the irony. like they claimed an islamic cause to have the french muslims behind them, and the french muslims all together just turned their backs on these people.


----------



## redstone (Jan 7, 2015)

SD83 said:


> Slightly related, but if I were muslim in this country, I'd feel a bit discriminated all the time. Day off? Sunday. Holidays? Christian. It would be the same if I were jewish, or if I were a christian in Saudi Arabia I guess, but that doesn't make it any better.



If the muslims voted for the PdG, we would already have restored the republican calendar.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm still reading through this topic, which I came to start if it wasn't already happening, but wanted to say...

I've repped Shimme (on possibly his 666th post, ironically) for admitting that he went against gays because of religion, and that now he regrets it. It can be hard to admit one was wrong, and even harder to admit that one's faith was misplaced. 

Good rep to you, friend. 



Shimme said:


> You seem to be on the edge of asking the Euthyphro question (Is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it's good?). Up until a few years ago, I would have said it's good because god commands it (Divine Command Theory).
> 
> I've supported anti-gay policies in the past (to my shame) solely because I was religious. It bothered the hell out of me, but I believed that since I was only a human I should trust in God's plan. It might seem wrong to me, I thought, but I know that God is making a better world and I should have the humility to understand that I don't know everything.
> 
> ...


----------



## McKay (Jan 7, 2015)

Honestly he gets props for quoting Plato.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2015)

I laughed out loud when someone labeled talking about the viewpoints behind this horrible killing, caused by hate against those who are don't believe the same thing as the killers, as hateful. On a scale of hatefulness, I'd say that killing someone else is at the top. 

Given that the killers felt that the victims were engaged in hateful speech, I'm going to go on the side of freedom of speech, opinion and expression for the win. 

What side do you fall on?



Chrisjd said:


> No other faith in the world seeks to destroy those who are not believers. Just Islam.





Chrisjd said:


> You're kidding, right? Or are you one of those PC elitists who mention "oh noes the CRUSADES!!!!" whenever anyone addresses this topic?


Chrisjd, it would be nice to have your input on the topic of American evangelical Christians who worked so hard to have homosexuals killed in Uganda.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2015)

Okay, last thought on this for the moment.

There comes a point where adherents to a religion come up against a wall when they are trying to explain how their religion is peaceful and misunderstood. 

I remember when Cat Stevens converted to Islam, and then, in the wake of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the converted Stevens stated that indeed Rushdie should be put to death, because that is what Islam teaches. 

That fails the outsider test. Those inside think, well, that's reasonable!

Those outside think, what the fvck! What a barbarous religion, and what a bloodthirsty god those people worship!

Once again, religious extremists kill people, and embrace that core belief of religious extremists, suppression of views which don't conform with their religion. In this case, they committed murder. In other cases, they work hard to suppress civil rights and science (like the majority of such cases in the US currently).

*Religious fundamentalism is dangerous. *


----------



## Nag (Jan 7, 2015)

SD83 said:


> Slightly related, but if I were muslim in this country, I'd feel a bit discriminated all the time. Day off? Sunday. Holidays? Christian. It would be the same if I were jewish, or if I were a christian in Saudi Arabia I guess, but that doesn't make it any better.



excuuuuuuuuse me but that's not how it works. that's exactly what I meant when I said that you have to respect the traditions in a country that offers you protection, jobs and shelter. If I went to live in a country where beards are illegal, I'd shave my beard. if I had a wife/girlfriend and went to live in an islamic country, I'd expect her to be veiled when she leaves the house. it's a matter of the most basic respect to just follow the rules of the country that welcomes you. if you have anything against the rules, vote to change them but accept that the majority will win the vote even if the majority is against you. they come to a christian country, they have to follow christian rules. and the other way around would be the same.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 7, 2015)

Nagash said:


> excuuuuuuuuse me but that's not how it works. that's exactly what I meant when I said that you have to respect the traditions in a country that offers you protection, jobs and shelter. If I went to live in a country where beards are illegal, I'd shave my beard. if I had a wife/girlfriend and went to live in an islamic country, I'd expect her to be veiled when she leaves the house. it's a matter of the most basic respect to just follow the rules of the country that welcomes you. if you have anything against the rules, vote to change them but accept that the majority will win the vote even if the majority is against you. they come to a christian country, they have to follow christian rules. and the other way around would be the same.



Yes, but thats the difference between Christians and Muslims. Christians living in Muslim world would assimilate, Muslims living in Christian world are defiant. It probably doesn't help that no Christian in their right mind would want to live in a Muslim country.


----------



## ToS (Jan 7, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Yes, but thats the difference between Christians and Muslims. Christians living in Muslim world would assimilate, Muslims living in Christian world are defiant. It probably doesn't help that no Christian in their right mind would want to live in a Muslim country.



You really need to work on your education....ever heard about Egypt for starters?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 7, 2015)

Plenty of Christians want to live in Muslim countries, because it's where they were born, and it's where their families have been practicing Christianity for just as long as Islam has been in the area. Sadly, they can't always do that. When I was studying Arabic at the Defense Language Institute, at least half of my instructors were Iraqi, and every one of the Iraqi instructors was Christian. Their families left Iraq because eventually it just became unsafe for them to live there. I know they all wished it would become safe enough for them to return one day, though, because it's their homeland and they truly loved it. It's a shame, really.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2015)

I know quite a few people who have come to the US because they weren't safe due to the Muslim population of their home country. 

It's sad when anyone wants to give a group a pass when that group is being disgusting and hateful, whether it's apologists for violent Muslims, mysoginists making rape threats, Christians justifying bigotry against homosexuals, or whatever other hateful group is being defended.

And, before anyone makes the mistake in this topic, it's worth remembering that bigotry is a form of intolerance, but intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry.


----------



## spectrrrrrre (Jan 8, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I laughed out loud when someone labeled talking about the viewpoints behind this horrible killing, caused by hate against those who are don't believe the same thing as the killers, as hateful. On a scale of hatefulness, I'd say that killing someone else is at the top.
> 
> Given that the killers felt that the victims were engaged in hateful speech, I'm going to go on the side of freedom of speech, opinion and expression for the win.
> 
> ...



Israel's treatment of Palestine is also worth mentioning, with respect to the silly statement that no other faith seeks to kill non-believers.

Not to mention the Christian abortion clinic bombers, Army of God, Jewish Defense League, KKK, etc.

Every group of people has it's crazies. It's plain ignorant to act like Islam is the only group of people in the world with violent extremists.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Jan 8, 2015)

I have no words. 

_(at the act of terrorism, nothing against this thread -- this is what makes free countries great, that we can talk about this without someone trying to kill or have the other arrested)_


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 8, 2015)

I don't think I could have said it better.


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 8, 2015)

Well, pretty sad abotu all this stuff today.

First, this attack can't bu justified for whatever reason.
Second, Charlie Hebdo is a publication I really dislike and they get free advertising.

Understand that Charlie Hebdo is a political publication. All of the writers/satirists there are hardcore atheist/anarchists who use vulgarity and shaming as communication methods.
I can understand not liking religion and wanting to express it. I will not however condone misrepresenting faithfuls with cartoons showing them defecating, or representing them as pedophiles and such. 
Charlie Hebdo isn't "press", it's an anarchist political publication. Which, of course, has the right to publish what they want.

But all the "freedom of the press" stuff is misguided here. The killings have sadly made all of a sudden, insulting, provocating and misrepresenting religion with scatologic comparisons a right.

Charlie Hebdo journalists were, as a whole, good guys. Their death is a tragic event. Their death however doesn't make their newspaper good or "right". They were the atheist equivalent of the most extreme (nonviolent) religious groups.

I'm an atheist. I don't feel like I have to rub pedophile priests in your face when I want to discuss the faults of religion.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Another gunfire in Paris this morning. 2 cops hurt by a man with an assault riffle and a bulletproof jacket. One of the cops, a woman, is seriously shot. The city where I live, Colmar, 500km/300Miles from Paris is in panic, bomb alert in the train station. Some muslim (a very little number of them) call caucasian french "camembert", a french cheese, and whistle over the Marseillaise, french hymne. I'm starting to fear for my family now


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

The female cop just died..


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 8, 2015)

The above post is the exact exemple of how the racist assholes are trying to use this to further their aims and target arabs. :/


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

SerOner said:


> Another gunfire in Paris this morning. 2 cops hurt by a man with an assault riffle and a bulletproof jacket. One of the cops, a woman, is seriously shot. The city where I live, Colmar, 500km/300Miles from Paris is in panic, bomb alert in the train station. Some muslim (a very little number of them) call caucasian french "camembert", a french cheese, and whistle over the Marseillaise, french hymne. I'm starting to fear for my family now



Stop your psychose dude.... 

Those killers wanted to shot those guys at Charlie Ebdo. Not everybody in a 300km circle around paris. They did their killings yesterday, a few days before there was still the marché de Noël at les Champs Élysée with hundreds and hundreds of people on both side of the avenue. So if they wanted to do blind killings of random people, it would have been a "better" place and moment. 

Fear for your family if someone is a cop or a Charlie ebdo cartooner. Otherwise you can take a big breath, because police controls, closed streets, systematic body palping are everywhere since this morning.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Yeah I hope it's gonna be fixed soon.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Why am i a racist asshole man? Can you explain me because I don't really get it. By the way, no need to insult me!


----------



## Zado (Jan 8, 2015)

Unfortunately these are the times we are living in.I feel SO bad for the whole France now,for the families of those punished for doing nothing that should have been paid with life.The situation is tragic.

Here in Italy,things are quite desperate already...there's no work,and immigrants keep on arriving here,hoping for no-idea-what,and the consequences are obvious..you can easily get mugged walkind around in town in the middle of the day,and justice just doesn't seem to care enough.This brings hatred towards Romanians,whole of them,even the honest ones,cause people is desperate...it really seems like being in a Sergio Leone movie. 

Now,everyone can enter our country,so it's very likely that terrorists are here already,and you have to live day by day,cause you have no idea if tomorrow there will be occupation or even life for you.

Now that this tragedy has happened in France,it may possibly happened everywhere.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

SerOner said:


> Yeah I hope it's gonna be fixed soon.



Those two guys are the only things going to be fixed. That "national unity" thing won't last more than a month at best. Our fvcking politics are already trying to recuperate the event....

But dont worry for your Life. Yesterday morning, when we (French people) woke up, it was a normal day. This morning, we woke up in a police state...


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Yeah, if they got caught. They are a lot of muslims getting attack since yesterday, an eye for an eye is not a solution. But you know, I feel bad for this attack, so I'm a racist asshole.


----------



## The Q (Jan 8, 2015)

I'm pissed off to a level I haven't reached before, with what happened in France.

Religion deserves NO protection from criticism, ridicule or discussion. It deserves NO censorship in its favour and it certainly does NOT deserve any right in and of itself. But most of all, it has absolutely NO right towards terroristic responses, regardless of any consequences.

Consider all the above points but by substituting religion with something else. Provided you are a rational person, would you accept a musician shooting a reviewer in the head because of let's say, an unfavourable review of his LP? Obviously not, again, unless you are irrational.
If you don't like satire, you have the right to respond with satire yourself, otherwise shut the .... up; it's not "my" fault you've given up and prefer to believe in thousand year old concepts that illiterate shepherds wrote about. Prove your beliefs or keep them to yourself (and feel bad at the same time of your stupidity).


I personally don't care about your stupid faith. If it's faith, it's empty by definition, unless you can prove it, since *you have the burden of proof*. If you get offended because I've insulted your unproven empty faith, the problem is yours, not mine. You deserve NO protection because your arbitrary beliefs were offended.


Oh, and in case that's not obvious I don't advocate revenge attacks against muslims (usually by right-wingers). That's probably the worst way to react to this issue and will only validate what the idiots stood for.


----------



## McKay (Jan 8, 2015)

Andromalia said:


> The above post is the exact exemple of how the racist assholes are trying to use this to further their aims and target arabs. :/



Did I miss something here?


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

SerOner said:


> Some muslim (a very little number of them) call caucasian french "camembert", a french cheese, and whistle over the Marseillaise, french hymne. I'm starting to fear for my family now



That smells dude.... This is why he called you a racist asshole. Its amalgam and irrevelent for what happened yesterday. 

How do you know the shooter at Montrouge is a Muslim?? 

Camenbert is old as shit... Its the answer to "beurre" (butter in French, for the color of their skin....) What's so wrong with it? If French asshole dont want to be called "camenbert", they should stop calling Arabs with names first, dont you think?

Also, saying "God is great" in arab does NOT make one a Muslim. It would be too easy..... Those killers are nothing close to muslim.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> That smells dude.... This is why he called you a racist asshole. Its amalgam and irrevelent for what happened yesterday.
> 
> How do you know the shooter at Montrouge is a Muslim??
> 
> ...



Using racial slurs of any sort to combat the use of racial slurs is not the way to go it just digs the hole deeper. Doesn't make it right that the person hurled slurs first, but it doesn't help anyone to fight racism with racism.

I won't comment much on if they're Muslim or not, but it seems highly likely that they are given the fact that "Allahu Akbar," the term I believe you're referencing for "god is great" is generally an Islamic phrase. 

Maybe not always, but is there really a reason someone who isn't some form of extremist Muslim would say it in this circumstance? 

I really need to get caught up on what the .... is actually going on, as I haven't read much/heard much, but this situation really just seems ....ed up from what I've gathered.


----------



## asher (Jan 8, 2015)

Other than not being Muslim but trying to implicate them, no.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Actually I've never said that the killer from Montrouge was muslim, all we know about him is that he was wearing black clothes and got a bald head, nothing more.
And about the "camembert/beur" thing, I never called a arab by this term. My step family is tunisian, I lived near tunis for nearly a year and my step sister is french/tunisian. So being called racist for stupid sh*t like this really pissed me of. 
Anyway, as I say, an eye for an eye is not the solution, but I think there's gonna be a lot of violence in the next days, sadly.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

Your step family is tunisian. So what?
Donald Sterling is a well known racist with a lot of hate for black people. And guess what, his "girlfriend" was a black woman!! This is the "comble" of racists. 

You talk about the shootings at Montrouge and all of the sudden you talk about "muslims who call caucasien French "camenbert" and whistle la marseillaise". What´s the link between those two things??? I think this is what Andromalia wanted to express. Do not target every Arab just because of those two nuthead or a few dumbass in a football stadium...

Also, if I decide one day to kill somebody and find something to escape police, easy!! I just have to yell "Allah hakbar" and everybody is gonna believe the killer is a djihadist and focus on arabic or bearded people...

Also, I do not support racial slur. Nor "beurre" nor "camenbert" or whatever.... It was just a explanation to your whinning.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 8, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Based on this study, Muslims are accepting of their more extreme brethren, thus the religion as a whole serves as an incubator for terrorism. Which is why this becomes a question of immigration policy and the duty that western governments have to protect their citizens.
> 
> New Poll of Muslim Countries Finds Large Support for Terrorists
> 
> Its difficult to separate the religion from the politics, they seem to go hand in hand. Personally I belive the real underlying "reason" for terrorism is the feeling that they have "lost" in comparison to western prosperity, call it a collosal, societal lack of self esteem. IOW, if Islamic nations had large navies and nuclear arsenals they would not be resorting to terrorism. And with that prosperity, neither would they be so trigger happy.



Wow, is that article ever skewed from what the underlying Pew poll results say. Then again, given the source, that's not a total surprise.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> That smells dude.... This is why he called you a racist asshole. Its amalgam and irrevelent for what happened yesterday.
> 
> How do you know the shooter at Montrouge is a Muslim??
> ...
> ...



Really? A magazine that has been firebombed before, has been threatened before my the fvcking leader of ISIS and just had a bunch of reporters murdered by men reportedly shouting Allahu Akhbar after breaking Islams biggest taboo and we can't assume that this was a religiously motivated attack? Pull your head out of your ass.

Oh, and I think these terrorists would disagree with you saying they're not Muslims.

Also, I like how you say we can't know whether these guys are Muslims or not and then act as if they aren't "True" Muslims.

This kind of vehement denial of reality is preventing us from actually dealing with these issues.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

The first question people should ask is "who benefits from the crime?". Certainly not Muslims!!!


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 8, 2015)

Zado said:


> Unfortunately these are the times we are living in.I feel SO bad for the whole France now,for the families of those punished for doing nothing that should have been paid with life.The situation is tragic.
> 
> Here in Italy,things are quite desperate already...there's no work,and immigrants keep on arriving here,hoping for no-idea-what,and the consequences are obvious..you can easily get mugged walkind around in town in the middle of the day,and justice just doesn't seem to care enough.This brings hatred towards Romanians,whole of them,even the honest ones,cause people is desperate...it really seems like being in a Sergio Leone movie.
> 
> ...



What Zado says.
I live and work in Rome, VERY close to Vatican City.
It's from 9/11 that I prohibited my girlfriend to take the Subway to come to work since she should get off at the Vatican (Ottaviano) station and we're costantly living under alarm, not a shouted one, but a constant vigil state of alert.
That's not good.
We know we're full of extremists/terrorists, but I come to the point where, sorry, I don't give a flying fvck, I'm tired of the apologetics and stuff.
Today in TV, even the more liberal wings of the Parliament were quite upset against immigration and stuff.
I'm tired of feeding with my taxes people that don't want to respect my Country, not to mention stealings, killings, rapings, etc...

We lost when we dropped our pants and allow foreigners to decide what we must have in our classrooms and such.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

Shimme said:


> Really? A magazine that has been firebombed before, has been threatened before my the fvcking leader of ISIS and just had a bunch of reporters murdered by men reportedly shouting Allahu Akhbar after breaking Islams biggest taboo and we can't assume that this was a religiously motivated attack? Pull your head out of your ass.
> 
> Oh, and I think these terrorists would disagree with you saying they're not Muslims.
> 
> ...



What is the reality? What your heard on Tv/radio?? 
Lol... Pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> The first question people should ask is "who benefits from the crime?". Certainly not Muslims!!!



Hmm...ok.
So why Muslim themselves do NOT stand against terrorism.
The do fvcking HAVE to give a signal.
We can forget and forgive, but only people that stand against loudly and clearly from these acts.

For me every Muslim that is silent in front of these acts is approving and condescending.
There's a line now, honest good Muslims (that I know are a lot) have to state where they are, starting from VIPs like people of sport, spectacle and so on.


----------



## fps (Jan 8, 2015)

Previous most recent mass murder in Europe I can recall was by the white man Anders Breivik. Just putting that out there.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 8, 2015)

fps said:


> Previous most recent mass murder in Europe I can recall was by the white man Anders Breivik. Just putting that out there.



How does that have any correlation to something that is an *ongoing* religion (and a highly popular religion) influenced mentality to attack and kill? 9/11 had 3000 dead because of islamic extremism. There was also the train bombing in London. One lone whacko killing 77 is a completely different scenario than the extremism events that are still ongoing in the world.


Rev.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

OmegaSlayer said:


> Hmm...ok.
> So why Muslim themselves do NOT stand against terrorism.
> The do fvcking HAVE to give a signal.
> We can forget and forgive, but only people that stand against loudly and clearly from these acts.
> ...



In France there is millions of muslims. Majority of them are second or third génération and spend their lives being called bad names for things they never did. They are tired of geting stigmatized. I can understand they want everybody to leave them alone and just live their peacefull lives as they allways did. They are muslims but they do not feel conected with those events. To them, this is not Islam so they do no want to be involved in that shit. I can fully understand that. They also are victims of all that mess.


----------



## død (Jan 8, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> How does that have any correlation to something that is an *ongoing* religion (and a highly popular religion) influenced mentality to attack and kill? 9/11 had 3000 dead because of islamic extremism. There was also the train bombing in London. One lone whacko killing 77 is a completely different scenario than the extremism events that are still ongoing in the world.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Well, the fact that he was working under the guise of Christian extremism makes it kind of relevant.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Well I get it, I'm racist. Everything is cristal clear in my mind now. Our country is secure, no need to worry, nothing will ever happen to me because I'm white. Muslim are the real victims, not the 13 dead people for now. And saying that some arab/muslim are against the "caucasian" french people is off course really racist.
Getting really tired of this kind of stuff: "Hey, I saw an arab that was.." "Shut up, that's racist!" "But he was.." "No, he got the right, he is in his country like you!" Always like that nowadays, a neverending discussion where everyone is wrong.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 8, 2015)

død;4264640 said:


> Well, the fact that he was working under the guise of Christian extremism makes it kind of relevant.



No, it makes it ZERO relevant since he was a *lone* whacko. He has no followers and his disillusioned twisted version of a religion is not a regular one practiced by millions of people. If you guys can't see the irrelevance to the continuing islamic extremist attacks I don't know what else to tell you.

That said, he's also wrong about Anders Breivik being the last mass murder. There were also these attacks in France in 2012 by a muslim extremist: Toulouse and Montauban shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure there were others I'm either forgetting or just don't know about.


Rev.


----------



## død (Jan 8, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> No, it makes it ZERO relevant since he was a *lone* whacko. He has no followers and his disillusioned twisted version of a religion is not a regular one practiced by millions of people. If you guys can't see the irrelevance to the continuing islamic extremist attacks I don't know what else to tell you.
> 
> That said, he's also wrong about Anders Breivik being the last mass murder. There were also these attacks in France in 2012 by a muslim extremist: Toulouse and Montauban shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Religious extremism is religious extremism, dude. Anders Behring Breivik sadly has a disturbing amount of apologists and supporters to this date. He's the only person to have ever commited an act of terror in Norway. He identifies as a right wing, Islamophobic Christian. Muslims and Islam isn't what I fear, it's intolerance.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

SerOner said:


> Well I get it, I'm racist. Everything is cristal clear in my mind now. Our country is secure, no need to worry, nothing will ever happen to me because I'm white. Muslim are the real victims, not the 13 dead people for now. And saying that some arab/muslim are against the "caucasian" french people is off course really racist.
> Getting really tired of this kind of stuff: "Hey, I saw an arab that was.." "Shut up, that's racist!" "But he was.." "No, he got the right, he is in his country like you!" Always like that nowadays, a neverending discussion where everyone is wrong.



Hey! Can't you make the différence between a few millions people that called themselves muslims and never did something wrong and a pair of crazyheads also calling themselves muslims but want to kill everybody who dont agree with them??
IMO, those few millions are true muslims and the pair of crazyheads are completely lost in a twisted interpretation of the Coran. I just can not call those two killers "Muslims". What they did is completely against Islam. 
But I can understand that stupid people put everybody in the same bag, the ugly bag of course....


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 8, 2015)

død;4264657 said:


> Religious extremism is religious extremism, dude.



The guy is clinically insane! Psychiatrists found him to be criminally insane. Sure you could probably also claim all the extremists are insane to perpetrate their acts right? But psychiatrically speaking they might not be insane - umm plenty of people kill without being insane.

One psychiatrically insane man with his own twisted version of a religion residing only in his mind, no followers, acting alone

vs.

Thousands or more of extremist muslims with a widely followed and highly popular religion, with many followers, acting often with others (like this attack, or the London Subway bombing, or 9/11)

But again you miss the clear and obvious differences.


Rev.


----------



## død (Jan 8, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> The guy is clinically insane! Psychiatrists found him to be criminally insane. Sure you could probably also claim all the extremists are insane to perpetrate their acts right? But psychiatrically speaking they might not be insane - umm plenty of people kill without being insane.
> 
> One psychiatrically insane man with his own twisted version of a religion residing only in his mind, no followers, acting alone
> 
> ...


There's no reason for you to talk to me in such a condescending way, we simply disagree about this.

You're wrong about Breivik having no followers, btw. He's had plenty of apologists and supporters.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> In France there is millions of muslims. Majority of them are second or third génération and spend their lives being called bad names for things they never did. They are tired of geting stigmatized. I can understand they want everybody to leave them alone and just live their peacefull lives as they allways did. They are muslims but they do not feel conected with those events. To them, this is not Islam so they do no want to be involved in that shit. I can fully understand that. They also are victims of all that mess.



Indeed but now I tell ya one thing.
Do you know in South Italy there is mafia.
And there's racism even between Northern Italians and Southern Italians with N. Italians calling every S.Italian a mafioso.
Now, when something mafia related happens, the people come down in the squares and stand against mafia.
They're the victims, I don't disagree, so they're the ones that must be more vocal.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

Damn my little girl, 10, was being called killer and "dirty Arab who kill people" at school today. Her mother is Algerian. My daughter looks Arabic (and she's beautiful) and what??

Do she have to justify herself or make apologies? 

She did not understand. She's crying and dont want to go to school anymore. Fvck close minded people and irresponsible parents. FVCK THEM ALL


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 8, 2015)

død;4264686 said:


> There's no reason for you to talk to me in such a condescending way, we simply disagree about this.



If you think that's condescending you need to grow a bit thicker skin. If I were being condescending I'd have been much more dickish in my response. I've outlined numerous clear and obvious differences and yet you fail to see how it makes the Anders attack irrelevant to the long history of Islamic Extremist attacks. There's a significant difference between a one off nutbag attack and what has become a *global* phenomenon. I'm sorry if I offended you, I wasn't meaning to and I haven't attacked your character or anything of that nature. I merely pointed out that you're still missing the point. Perhaps being in Oslo that attack has influenced your view in this discussion, but I just don't see everyone in the "western" world having to be fearful of repeated Breivik's attacks occuring all around whereas the situation is different with Islamic Extremism.



død;4264686 said:


> You're wrong about Breivik having no followers, btw. He's had plenty of apologists and supporters.



And Charles Manson has his followers too. Again, big difference. There will *always* been sympathizers and followers. 


Rev.


----------



## død (Jan 8, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> If you think that's condescending you need to grow a bit thicker skin. If I were being condescending I'd have been much more dickish in my response. I've outlined numerous clear and obvious differences and yet you fail to see how it makes the Anders attack irrelevant to the long history of Islamic Extremist attacks. There's a significant difference between a one off nutbag attack and what has become a *global* phenomenon. I'm sorry if I offended you, I wasn't meaning to and I haven't attacked your character or anything of that nature. I merely pointed out that you're still missing the point. *Perhaps being in Oslo that attack has influenced your view in this discussion*, but I just don't see everyone in the "western" world having to be fearful of repeated Breivik's attacks occuring all around whereas the situation is different with Islamic Extremism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It very well could have. Both my girlfriend and myself had people we knew who didn't come back from that island, and both of us heard, and felt, the blast as the bombs went off. 

Historically, though, attacks from non-muslims have been way more common than muslim terror attacks here in Europe. I believe the statistics are about the same over in the US.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 8, 2015)

When wolves hide among the sheep, you can shed tears for the sheep because they have to be disrupted in order to rid the wolves. Its an unfortunate situation, but its something that has to be delt with.

I dont think there is an elegant solution. IMO, if you have to ruffle the fur of the sheep to rid the wolves, being a sheep is far better than being whatever it is that the wolves prey on. The wolves' prey are the true victims, and to simpathize with the sheep before the prey is kind of out of whack.

In this case, I dont hear about many groups murdering muslims just because they are muslim. If they have to deal with a little guff to rid the extremeists, then tuff titties i guess. There isnt any other way to deal with it besides just being complacent and watching non muslims being murdered at the hands of extreme muslims SPECIFICALLY JUST BECAUSE THEY ARNT MUSLIM!

I think alot of young people are raised with great optimisim and realize later in life that despite being taught you can do anything and that everything is sunshine and rainbows, the reality of the world is that there isnt often an elegant solution for problems. The real world is sticky and messy and hard to navigate. So while the idealism of the utopian world we all want is great, reality collides with that.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Sorry to hear about your daughter man, if there is a point we can at least all agree on it's that the kids have nothing to do about all this stuff, they can't ever understand what's going on.


----------



## FretsOnFyre (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> Damn my little girl, 10, was being called killer and "dirty Arab who kill people" at school today. Her mother is Algerian. My daughter looks Arabic (and she's beautiful) and what??
> 
> Do she have to justify herself or make apologies?
> 
> She did not understand. She's crying and dont want to go to school anymore. Fvck close minded people and irresponsible parents. FVCK THEM ALL



That's just sick...I'm so sorry to hear that. Tolerance shouldn't be this hard in FVCKING 2015


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> Damn my little girl, 10, was being called killer and "dirty Arab who kill people" at school today. Her mother is Algerian. My daughter looks Arabic (and she's beautiful) and what??
> 
> Do she have to justify herself or make apologies?
> 
> She did not understand. She's crying and dont want to go to school anymore. Fvck close minded people and irresponsible parents. FVCK THEM ALL



I'm really sorry for your girl, man, though kids, who are innocent, suffers for the actions and not actions of the adults.

Everyone should remember that not acting is "NOT ACTING", and it's a deliberate choice to leave things as they are.


----------



## asher (Jan 8, 2015)

OmegaSlayer said:


> They're the victims, I don't disagree, so they're the ones that must be more vocal.



Ehhh. If I'm getting you, it's like saying the onus is on the American black community to decry any crime that a black person does in some effort to justify themselves as a #NotAll to racist shitheads... as if those racist shitheads are suddenly going to actually listen this time, when they never have before. Like the racist shithead's MO is "I'm going to be a racist shithead until you prove otherwise." That's not how it works.

ed: If what you mean to say is "The rest of the Muslim community has more influence on these extremists than the outsiders" that's a pretty different statement. And I'm not sure it's actually true.


----------



## protest (Jan 8, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Gotta love when "christians" come in and start bashing Islam as being a hateful religion. It makes for some great laughs.
> (Edit: I literally do this every time I see it...
> 
> 
> ...



You are right, and this has always annoyed me. People will always take the simplistic and easy path of blaming the religion, when it has very little to do with it. People are crazy, power hungry, greedy, racist, blood thirsty sons of bitches and they always have been. They don't need religion to do the things they do, it's just their excuse. If there was no religion in the world people like Bin Laden would find something else to latch onto and use as their justification, but seeing as a religious "belief" sounds a lot more "noble" than pretty much any other excuse you're going to come up with, and will likely be an easier draw to your cause, that's what they run with.


----------



## FretsOnFyre (Jan 8, 2015)

protest said:


> You are right, and this has always annoyed me. People will always take the simplistic and easy path of blaming the religion, when it has very little to do with it. People are crazy, power hungry, greedy, racist, blood thirsty sons of bitches and they always have been. They don't need religion to do the things they do, it's just their excuse. If there was no religion in the world people like Bin Laden would find something else to latch onto and use as their justification, but seeing as a religious "belief" sounds a lot more "noble" than pretty much any other excuse you're going to come up with, and will likely be an easier draw to your cause, that's what they run with.



I remember seeing a clip from either CNN or Fox where there was actually a serious debate on whether Islam is "fundamentally violent"...it's sick that people believe that.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

SerOner said:


> Sorry to hear about your daughter man, if there is a point we can at least all agree on it's that the kids have nothing to do about all this stuff, they can't ever understand what's going on.



What?
Shit like that happened because of people like you that can't make différence between two people that look the same but think different.
"Two Arabs killed people, so Arabs are killers!!! Fear the Arab! All of them!"

Omegaslayer: acting or not? What kind of act do you want me or my daughter to do? I have nothing to do with those fvckers! I dont have to justify myself for anything and I dont want to be part of that shit from close or far! I'm not involved in those killings! I just want to live my fvckin life without anybody annoying me because I look like someone who did wrong! If somebody think I'm this or that because I look the way I look, it's HIS problem! I dont have to justify myself for HIS bullshit! What kind of shit is this seriously?!?

Me going to manifestation? It would be like I feel guilty. NO WAY!

I'm out of here....


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

Because of me? Yeah sure. Put your hate on someone else, I don't hate the arab myself, but I think it's easier for you to think the contrary. But you know what? I don't care anymore, I try to explain myself, saying that I'm not racist, I'm defending both muslim and the dead since yesterday but because of me your daughter get insult. So intelligent man, very clever. You're acting like every dumb*ass.
Again, sorry for your daughter even if it's my fault.


----------



## 77zark77 (Jan 8, 2015)




----------



## Overtone (Jan 8, 2015)

About the incident itself, it's been a day and I still don't even know what to say about it. It's barbaric and I have a huge admiration for the integrity of the CH writers/artists for sticking with their beliefs, even if I don't really understand or agree with their almost suicidal levels of provocation and defiance. In fact I think that while the free speech side of it is great, it's callous to not be more cognizant of the possibility that the victims of the retaliation might be some unrelated bystanders in the vicinity of whoever goes nuts.

And yes, there's always Muslims in the West who get caught in the middle with these type of events. They're just minding their own business, and against the attacks, yet on one hand they have the angry residents of the country they live in to worry about, and on the other they have extremist Muslims who hate them and consider them to be enemies because they've accepted life in a Western country. 

From what I read yesterday, the policeman who was gunned down in cold blood on the sidewalk was an Arab French, and possibly Muslim, so he seems to be a good example of someone receiving that scorn. His name was Ahmed Merabet. They already had him maimed and they just walked up and took him out.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 8, 2015)

And by the way, you can go to a manifestation without feeling guilty, a lot of manif' are made to calm down everything that's going on. Just watch TV, You will see french, arab, muslim, jew, catho, standing against terrorism, and they are not fighting.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> What?
> Shit like that happened because of people like you that can't make différence between two people that look the same but think different.
> "Two Arabs killed people, so Arabs are killers!!! Fear the Arab! All of them!"
> 
> ...



Nah, you must manifestate your pride to be an honest and respectful citizen.
There's nothing about guilt.
You and the honest Muslims are victims as well.

And please, let's try to keep it civil at least here.
As I understand your rage, I feel it is out of place compared to the mourn some families are suffering.

*bro hugs*


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

I must manifestate to be an honnest and respectfull citizen? So if I don't I'm not an honnest and respectfull citizen. 

Are you serious or is this the best joke of the day? 

Like I said earlier I'm not responsible for someone else bullshit so I need to stay away of this thread and those reasoning That I think are completely crazy...


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 8, 2015)

Yes, usually it's honest people that manifestate when their rights are stomped upon.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 8, 2015)

That's awful that someone treated your daughter that way. Totally inexcusable.

That doesn't mean that the teachings of Islam, and the way that Islam is implemented throughout the world, can't be criticized. All religions have flaws. The flaws between the religions though are different. I'll give some examples -

- While all of the Abrahamic religions endorse violence to a disturbing degree, the teachings of Islam and it's current implementation goes significantly beyond the others.

- While all of the Abrahamic religions endorse an eagerness for the end of the world and total annihilation, Christianity and it's current implementation goes significantly beyond the others.

- While all of the Abrahamic religions endorse a level of narcissism that's stunning, the blatant racial egotism of Judaism goes beyond all of the others.

Literally all that people want is to acknowledge is that Islam is currently more violent in the same way that Judaism is racist and Christianity embraces armageddon. Yes, there are bigots, and they deserve to be smacked upside the head. Yes, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who just want to live peacefully, and they don't deserve *any* of the shit that they're given by these stupid cvnts.

The problem is that there are also hundreds of millions who have expressed that they aren't particularly interested in living peacefully, and there tens of thousands who are willing to act on that sentiment. All I, and many others want, is to be able to actually discuss these facts in the hope that these religions can be less destructive than they currently are.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 8, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> Damn my little girl, 10, was being called killer and "dirty Arab who kill people" at school today. Her mother is Algerian. My daughter looks Arabic (and she's beautiful) and what??
> 
> Do she have to justify herself or make apologies?
> 
> She did not understand. She's crying and dont want to go to school anymore. Fvck close minded people and irresponsible parents. FVCK THEM ALL





Well congrats Islam-haters, your shitty attitudes is what helped fuel the bullying of a 10 year old girl whose only crime was existing. Feel better about yourselves and your mob mentality now? 

You wanna know why there are extremists? Because they were originally kids that had horrible shit like this happen to them, then took on basically the same attitude you had to them, but in reverse. They see westerners as bullies and just overall judgmental assholes and eventually get pissed off enough to where they feel acts like this are justified. I don't condone the violence, but I can definitely see where this "us vs them" circle jerk is gonna lead to more and more bloodshed.

My advice to both sides of the argument...
You wanna stop the violence? Stop being a dick to people whose values and cultures differ from yours. It's not that hard.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 8, 2015)

77zark77 said:


>



#JeSuisCharlie mais je suis aussi les musulmans qui seront harcelés à cause de cette idiotie. Les terroristes ont gagné si nous alimentons les feux de la haine pour eux. 

Je suis également Ahmed. Ahmed était un policier Parisien, un musulman, qui a été tué par ces terroristes. Il a défendu le journal qui a attaqué sa religion. Il était un héros.

=======

I'm Charlie, but I'm also the Muslims who will be harassed thanks to this idiocy. The terrorists have won if we stoke the fires of hate for them.

Equally, I'm Ahmed. He was a Parisian police officer, a Muslim, who was killed by these terrorists. He defended the newspaper who had attacked his religion. He was a hero.

=======

Continuing in English because _putain de merde_ am I annoyed, and I swear better in English.

These terrorists, whoever sent them, whoever inspired them, have won. It's not that they hate satire, or that they hate cartoons, or that they even care particularly much about the Prophet Mo-cocking-hammed being depicted on a c_u_ntfarting magazine page. They care about being f_u_cking _hated_. They care about re-sh_i_tting-_cruitment_. Dickbags. 

They attack something so foundational in post-18th-Century Western civilisation - free speech, freedom of the press - not in order to shut it down, but to provoke a response. "ISLAMIC TERRORISTS HATE FREE SPEECH," sounds the klaxon, reads the headline. Therefore, Muslims who had previously not given two dicks about the whole terrorist sh_i_tebaggery get harassed. They get their mosques attacked. They get their children threatened at school. And thus the fires of hate are fuelled. Muslims become the enemy. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Terrorist recruitment bloody wins. And the world is a worse place, not just because a satirical magazine written in French has its staff shot to pieces, but because we wound our-f_u_cking-_selves_ by lashing out at neutral parties, turning them into enemies.

Nigel Farage and Marine Le-c_o_ckblistering-Pen aren't helping. It's almost like the terrorists and the right-wingers are in a plot to force a constant war on us. That's too chilling to even imagine, and I don't think Farage and Le Pen would want to take the conference call to put that plan together, given that they hate anything not from within their own medieval nation-state boundaries.

#JeSuisÉnervé


----------



## SD83 (Jan 8, 2015)

OmegaSlayer said:


> So why Muslim themselves do NOT stand against terrorism.
> The do fvcking HAVE to give a signal.
> We can forget and forgive, but only people that stand against loudly and clearly from these acts.



I have no idea about other countries (I do know though that there has been a long statement by many important egyptan & arabic imams etc. that I tried to find but failed stating why and how ISIS violates the Islam, egypts president recently called for a 'religious revolution' speaking at one of the most important islamic universitys Blog: Egypt's President Al Sisi calls for 'religious revolution' in Islam, I'm sure there is more), but to quote the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (which is one of the four or five biggest muslim organisations in Germany): "This act is a betrayal to the islamic faith." "Today they did not avenge our prophet, but betrayed our faith and dragged muslim values into the deepest mud." (I hope I got the translation correct from this: "[...]Diese Tat ist ein Verrat am islamischen Glauben [...] Heute wurde nicht unser Prophet gerächt, sondern unser Glaube verraten und unsere muslimischen Werte in den tiefsten Dreck gezogen.")
Stuff like that happens. Good news just normally not make it to the headlines.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2015)

Again, the theme: Scary fundamentalists are scary.

When the planes hit the towers, my kid's mother called me (we weren't together at that point) to state that the kid had stated it was probably al Qaeda, and she felt that was due to my having trained him to be prejudiced against Muslims. I told her that al Qaeda was the group responsible for a previous bombing attempt, and that was a fact. 

As it turned out, al Qaeda *was* responsible for the terror attacks which destroyed both buildings and resulted in numerous intentional deaths. 

Is someone seriously now stating that it's completely illogical and unwarranted to believe that the current killings are not the work of religious terrorists? Has there been another kind of motive in this sort of killing recently? 

----

For those who are arguing that Islam isn't capable of justifying and requiring this kind of violence... can you explain away the parts of the Koran which are on board with this? 

To give a counterexample of a religion which is free of a bloodthirsty deity, I'm looking at the Ba'hai. There is no need for apologetics when a faith doesn't have a justification for killing. 

When a faith can turn even the writer/singer of a song like "Peace Train" into someone who is down with the killing in the name of his faith, you're fvcked in arguing otherwise... at least if you stick to facts and not an appeal to victimhood on the part of the followers of the bloodthirsty faith. 

----

On the bright side... here's a white Christian who has campaigned for a Constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, and who feels that others should be respectful of religion. In this case, he feels that those who use their freedom of speech were asking to be killed. After all, if these cartoonists hadn't drawn first, those bloodthirsty followers wouldn't have had to kill them, right?

Scary religious extremists are scary.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 8, 2015)

SD83 said:


> I have no idea about other countries (I do know though that there has been a long statement by many important egyptan & arabic imams etc. that I tried to find but failed stating why and how ISIS violates the Islam, egypts president recently called for a 'religious revolution' speaking at one of the most important islamic universitys Blog: Egypt's President Al Sisi calls for 'religious revolution' in Islam, I'm sure there is more), but to quote the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (which is one of the four or five biggest muslim organisations in Germany): "This act is a betrayal to the islamic faith." "Today they did not avenge our prophet, but betrayed our faith and dragged muslim values into the deepest mud." (I hope I got the translation correct from this: "[...]Diese Tat ist ein Verrat am islamischen Glauben [...] Heute wurde nicht unser Prophet gerächt, sondern unser Glaube verraten und unsere muslimischen Werte in den tiefsten Dreck gezogen.")
> Stuff like that happens. Good news just normally not make it to the headlines.



Conseil Français du Culte Musulman (biggest Muslim organisation in France) released a statement earlier today.



> L'ensemble des organisations musulmanes de France (FGMP, RMF, UOIF, CCMTF, FFAICA, Mosquée Saint Denis de llle de la Réunion, CIMG France) réuni ce jour à la Grande Mosquée de Paris à linitiative du Président du Conseil Français du Culte Musulman, répondant à lappel solennel du Président de la République à lunité nationale et à la responsabilité des organisations religieuses :
> 
> 1- invite les citoyens musulmans de France à observer ce jour à midi une minute de silence avec lensemble de la Nation en mémoire des victimes du terrorisme qui a frappé avec une violence exceptionnelle le journal Charlie Hebdo ;
> 
> ...



In English (my translation)



> The gathering of Muslim organisations of France (List of groups) met this day at the Grand Mosque of Paris at the invitation of the President of the CFCM to respond to the President of the Republic's call for national unity and responsibility of religious organisations:
> 
> 1 We invite Muslim citizens of France to observe one minute's silence today wit the rest of the nation in memory of the victims of the terrorism which struck the magazine Charlie Hebdo with such exceptional violence.
> 
> ...



Got picked up by a few newspapers' liveblogs, but it's a bit rubbish that they're giving more time to right-wing ultranationalist crazytwats saying "burn the Qur'an!" than they are to the Muslim moral majority saying "this is bad and we think these terrorists are dickheads too."


----------



## ToS (Jan 8, 2015)

Shimme said:


> That doesn't mean that the teachings of Islam, and the way that Islam is implemented throughout the world, can't be criticized. All religions have flaws. The flaws between the religions though are different. I'll give some examples -
> 
> - While all of the Abrahamic religions endorse violence to a disturbing degree, the teachings of Islam and it's current implementation goes significantly beyond the others.
> 
> ...



I see what you´re getting at. 
But you know there´s one very obvious solution to all of this, right? 

Just stop religious indoctrination of children (which is a real crime)... 

The world would be such a better place without adults believing all this irrational fairy tales.


----------



## Necris (Jan 8, 2015)

It's sad to see those who don't believe in the freedoms of the land in which they reside choosing to murder those who do.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 8, 2015)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Very true, but Christians lust for blood has slowed significantly over time. It seems in many Muslim countries, that lust hasn't slowed like it should have at this point.



Keep in mind that Christianity has something like 400 years on Islam. What was Christianity up to 400 years ago?


----------



## SD83 (Jan 8, 2015)

pink freud said:


> Keep in mind that Christianity has something like 400 years on Islam. What was Christianity up to 400 years ago?



"I bring you the religion of peace and love! Just do as I say or I will cut your head off." Coincidence?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2015)

pink freud said:


> Keep in mind that Christianity has something like 400 years on Islam. What was Christianity up to 400 years ago?



Given the work of American Christian evangelicals in getting the death penalty laws passed in Uganda, I think you can safely ask, "Who has Christianity tried to kill lately?"

By which I mean you can ask, and get a definite non-zero population marked for death. 

Yay, Jebus!


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 8, 2015)

Shimme said:


> That's awful that someone treated your daughter that way. Totally inexcusable.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the teachings of Islam, and the way that Islam is implemented throughout the world, can't be criticized. All religions have flaws. The flaws between the religions though are different. I'll give some examples -
> 
> ...



Wait a minute..... My daughter and her mother are Arabic. But we are not muslims!! Once again this is not about religion. Its politics and fvcked up, brain washed people. 

It was said already but think about it again: the cop who was executed in the street like a dog was named Hamed. 
Those two killers killed Hamed to avenge Mohamed! 
You can twist your brain for hours around it and talk about every prophète you want, at the end of the day, this is not Islam. Its two manipulated dumbass who believed what a whacko told them was Islam. But it's not. 

And also.... Wait.... Wait.... Hundreds of millions who have expressed that they aren't particularly interested in living peacefully?? WTF?? Where does this come from???? Are you kiding yourself? Do you really believe (or even think about) what you wrote? LMFAO


----------



## Shimme (Jan 8, 2015)

^"This can't be true because I don't like this idea!"

Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam - The Washington Post

You could also read the thread.

Also a good read.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 8, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Given the work of American Christian evangelicals in getting the death penalty laws passed in Uganda, I think you can safely ask, "Who has Christianity tried to kill lately?"
> 
> By which I mean you can ask, and get a definite non-zero population marked for death.
> 
> Yay, Jebus!




Boom! Headshot!







Now watch as a bunch of christians come in and say "well that was just a bunch of extremists that don't represent the whole of Christianity!"

Which of course I'll have to once again do this:


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

Shimme said:


> ^"This can't be true because I don't like this idea!"
> 
> Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam - The Washington Post
> 
> ...




You are serious when you throw me an american studies to support that shit. 
Allright then! Believe who you want. I personaly think that millions of hundreds warmongers would have burn the planet since décade if that was true. On the other end, christians and jews talk about living peacefully while bombing everyone who dont want to live like them. 

A kalashnikov against a pencil. 
Airplanes bombers against rock throwers.
What is the worst? Who are the warmongers? Western civilisation learn them how to deal with those who dont agree with them.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 9, 2015)

While stats are kind of hard to support, especially when people fear for their life, what else can we use to make any value judgement on a large scale? The stat may very well be skewed beyond belief, but why do you believe that your personal opinion holds that much more weight? I don't mean that in an offensive way as I don't actually think any of this really pertains to the situation at hand.

People really need to quit this us vs. them mindset. All it does is breed hatred, distrust and unfair stereotyping. Terrorism is such a lose-lose situation. Either you do nothing and they got away with it or you act proactively and both inaccurately group millions of people into a single group as well as create a situation where people are being severely mistreated. Whether it be through prejudice, death, war all of these things only lead to more people siding with the extremists in the long run. I'm personally at a loss at how to go about handling these sort of situations. What I do know is that most of the western world has done an awful job at it though.

I'd also like to conclude that religion being at the heart of the problem or not is a moot point as religion simply isn't going anywhere. Saying religion is at fault does nothing to solve the situation and as such isn't really constructive conversation. It's hard to fight an enemy that doesn't play by any rules.


----------



## Kidneythief (Jan 9, 2015)

So...joining in...

End-game is in process. They took hostage(s) in a large industrial area outside of Paris. Heavy presence of police and army, journalist are asked to not to film the forces as they are moving around the territory.

Recent declaration from the terrorists: "They want to die as martyrs"


Watch FRANCE 24 live at Livestation.com


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

I hope they don't give them the satisfaction of letting them die as martyrs. Catch them alive, prosecute them, and put them away in a dark place for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Nag (Jan 9, 2015)

ToS said:


> Just stop religious indoctrination of children (which is a real crime)...
> 
> The world would be such a better place without adults believing all this irrational fairy tales.




*SO. MUCH. THIS.*


----------



## asfeir (Jan 9, 2015)

As a christian living in the muslim world, I always try to have as much as possible moderate opinion when events like that result in people starting to generalise a lot and blaming a whole group in the process. But I have a friend who posted this today:

"on the charlie hebdo attack:
it is true that this act of terrorism doesn't speak the language of all the Islam and Arab world.
but the fact that most, if not all Arab political and religious leaders went silent about it is not comforting.
heck, the other fact that some people in some regions of the world actually celebrated the attack is alarming.
silence is a way of saying yes. staying silent is passively adopting the true nature of murdering people. and that is what we should be contemplating on right now."

I want to add to that that even some of the people, and I'm talking about educated people mostly, can't condemn the attacks and they just divert the conversation by talking about palestine etc..


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

asfeir said:


> the fact that most, if not all Arab political and religious leaders went silent about it is not comforting.



That is just blatently false!!!!! Every muslim autority in France condamned the events. The most important university in Egypt and numerous other did the same. Iran too. IRAN!!!

You can't be more deaf than the one who dont want to ear.....


----------



## ElRay (Jan 9, 2015)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Very true, but Christians lust for blood has slowed significantly over time. It seems in many Muslim countries, that lust hasn't slowed like it should have at this point.



Right. Except for the LGBT killed by christians in the U.S., the U.K., the rest of Europe, ex-Soviet Asia, South America, Australia and across the predominately Christian countries that exist in Africa.

And except for the murder of medical providers through bombing and direct assault.

And except for the christian-led massacres in Northern Africa that semi-recently flared-up.

And except for the decades-long this-flavor-of-christian on that-flavor-of-christian violence in Ireland that still flares-up from time-to-time.

And this says nothing about the christian retoric advocating violence, or those that say the folks at Charlie Hebo got what they deserved.

Christianity as a whole has mellowed a bit in the actual violence, but it's far from gone, and christians are very quick to claim any christian terrorist wasn't a TruChristian(R) and any peaceful muslim isn't a TruMuslim(R).


----------



## Shimme (Jan 9, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I'd also like to conclude that religion being at the heart of the problem or not is a moot point as religion simply isn't going anywhere. Saying religion is at fault does nothing to solve the situation and as such isn't really constructive conversation. It's hard to fight an enemy that doesn't play by any rules.




Yes, but religion has proven itself to be incredibly malleable. Aside from monotheism, there is spiritism, animism, ancestor worship, totemism, and even modern resurgences of Nature Goddess/Earth Mother worship. The hope is to change the nature of these religions.



> You are serious when you throw me an american studies to support that shit.
> Allright then! Believe who you want. I personaly think that millions of hundreds warmongers would have burn the planet since décade if that was true. On the other end, christians and jews talk about living peacefully while bombing everyone who dont want to live like them.



Alright, you're not willing to believe polls and statistics from highly respected research centers. I've got two objections to that-

How would you propose to understand the beliefs and values of vast numbers of people if we're not going to trust established, trustworthy polling organizations?

Why do you believe that your personal opinions in a time where you are obviously emotionally distressed are more accurate and more detailed than Pew Research.

Additionally, how do you reconcile your belief that the default response is for Western nations to bomb and wage war against others with your mocking of the peaceful protesters?


----------



## ElRay (Jan 9, 2015)

pink freud said:


> Keep in mind that Christianity has something like 400 years on Islam. What was Christianity up to 400 years ago?



On which calendar? 

Depending on which "islamic" calendar you use, it's either 1436 (lunar Hiriji) or 1393 (solar Hiriji). And if you're using the lunar Hiriji (purely religious, predominately Saudi-influnced areas), the calendar loses 11 or 12 days every Gregorian year, so by about 20400, they'll be a head of the Gregorian calendar. Solar Hiriji calendared (predominately Iranian-influnced) countries will always be 622/621 (depending on the time or the year, since New Years day is the first day of Spring) behind.


----------



## ElRay (Jan 9, 2015)

And now the TruChristian(R) blaming the victims starts:
After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists &#8216;provoked&#8217; slaughter - The Washington Post
https://opuspublicum.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/a-comment-on-charlie-hebdo/
Catholic Hate for Charlie Hebdo Doesn&#8217;t Stop With Bill Donohue
David Brooks - I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
MUSLIMS ARE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY - Catholic League
Catholic League&#8217;s Bill Donohue Blames Charlie Hebdo Cartoonists for Provoking Terrorists
Bill Donohue on the Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Revisited
 Tony Barber - "The gunmen in Paris attacked more than a Muslim-baiting magazine" - FT.com (behind paywall)


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

ElRay said:


> And now the TruChristian(R) blaming the victims starts:
> After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists provoked slaughter - The Washington Post
> https://opuspublicum.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/a-comment-on-charlie-hebdo/
> Catholic Hate for Charlie Hebdo Doesnt Stop With Bill Donohue
> ...



F_u_ck those people. F_u_ck apologists. France is a secular nation, and in a secular nation, ALL religions should be able to face criticism and caricatures without issue.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 9, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Well congrats Islam-haters, your shitty attitudes is what helped fuel the bullying of a 10 year old girl whose only crime was existing. Feel better about yourselves and your mob mentality now?
> 
> You wanna know why there are extremists? Because they were originally kids that had horrible shit like this happen to them, then took on basically the same attitude you had to them, but in reverse. They see westerners as bullies and just overall judgmental assholes and eventually get pissed off enough to where they feel acts like this are justified. I don't condone the violence, but I can definitely see where this "us vs them" circle jerk is gonna lead to more and more bloodshed.
> 
> ...



Wait, what? Last I checked, they were far from the only group to get bullied. I agree it's wrong to be prejudiced, but .... that noise. I don't see other groups who are discriminated against having anywhere near this reaction, particularly on such a regular occurrence.

This quote comes to mind:

"The men who committed the atrocities of September 11 were certainly not 'cowards,' as they repeatedly described in western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith - perfect faith, as it turns out - and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be."

Being tolerant of the religion won't stop extremists. They're murdering their own people in far larger numbers than they are murdering European folks, and for similar reasons.

I in no way condone bullying a 10 year old girl into crying herself to sleep (satan knows I know what that feels like,) but trying to say "of course they're going to kill people, they're treated poorly" is silly and unreasonable when you consider the vast amount of discriminated groups who don't murder people, and the fact that they do it to themselves far more frequently than the handful of cases outside the area.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

død;4265786 said:


> F_u_ck those people. F_u_ck apologists. France is a secular nation, and in a secular nation, ALL religions should be able to face criticism and caricatures without issue.



Except that in France, you can NOT critic and caricature ALL religions..... You can say everything you want about Islam, its free speech. But make a little critic or a joke about Jews and you are burnt in public place. 

Charlie Ebdo was controversial in France for decades. And its a 20k exemplar magazine. A little magazine. With financial difficulties for years. They wanted to surf on the buzz made by the danish journal (?) with the first caricatures, maybe for a selling boost? .... And they did! And did it again when they saw how well it worked! It was a great debate about it two years ago in France. And believe me, at this time there was not 66 millions of Charlie in France...
Siné, a former Charlie Ebdo cartooner, was fired for antisemit drawing. 
Now there is people saying "we are all Charlie" now that people got shot. But I'm not Charlie... I'm not for killings and I dont excuse anything but I'm not and never was a supporter of that shit.
Its too easy to talk shit about everybody to sell some paper while hiding behind free speech.


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

Apparently they're both dead now.


----------



## ElRay (Jan 9, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> ... Its too easy to talk shit about everybody to sell some paper while hiding behind free speech.



Then you don't understand Free Speech.

Also seems like there's a bit of selective memory here. Charlie Hebdo also lampooned Christians and Christians were the first batch of victim blamers. Now we've got folks that should know better victim blaming:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islamophobia/
In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism « The Hooded Utilitarian
In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism « The Hooded Utilitarian
In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism « The Hooded Utilitarian
HuffPost Live
Unpopular Opinion: Satire Should Punch Up. Charlie Hebdo Did Not. | Miss Kitty Stryker
At least some understand the meaning of "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it":
Charlie Hebdo Massacre Reactions: 'I'm All for Free Speech and Murder is Wrong, But...' - Hit & Run : Reason.com
More Voices, This Time From Liberals, Suggest That Charlie Hebdo More or Less Brought the Massacre On Itself

Now I'm among the first to call-out the "Freedom of Speech means you can't call my ignorant, bigoted, reality-defying nonsense 'ignorant, bigoted, reality-defying nonsense'" whiners, but that's far, far, far from excusing physical violence/murder over ideas. There is no freedom from offense and being offended is no excuse for violence, threats, etc. especially when your offense has not basis in reality.

I've said this before:People deserve respect, ideas don't​


----------



## vansinn (Jan 9, 2015)

Pepe Escobar's interesting thoughts on the topic: Asia Times Online :: Who profits from killing Charlie?


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Then you don't understand Free Speech.
> 
> Also seems like there's a bit of selective memory here. Charlie Hebdo also lampooned Christians and Christians were the first batch of victim blamers



You saw the last sentence of my post but did you saw the first part of the post? Is that free speech?

And there is no selective memory. I know well that they lampooned everybody. The thing is they were at the top of there celebrity and they had all the exposure they never dream of with those caricatures. So they did it again and pushed it as far as they could. Usualy they followed the actuality and lampooned it. Then when the actuality was poor, islam was a favorite target. Why? Because it sells! It was the buzz every time they did it. 

(You learn me a new word. Lampooned. I used it a lot here because it was easier for me. Thank you.)


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

død;4265887 said:


> Apparently they're both dead now.



Yes they are. That makes 2 at damartin-en-goele (the two brothers), and 5 at Vincennes, at a door of Paris. (The Montrouge killer from yesterday, maybe an accomplice, and 3 hostages)
Another bad day in France.... And its not the last. The killers are dead but the shitstorm between French people just begun.... Its ugly on social média over here right now. My homeland is sick.

Edit: sorry for double post.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> Wow, is that article ever skewed from what the underlying Pew poll results say. Then again, given the source, that's not a total surprise.



The headline is different, but the underlying data is the same. The PEW (liberal) study shows a slight decline in acceptance of terrorism, but the data shows there is still overwhelming support in Muslim countries for terrorism.

Spin it however you want, but there is still between 25-75% acceptance of terrorism.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

død;4264657 said:


> Religious extremism is religious extremism, dude. Anders Behring Breivik sadly has a disturbing amount of apologists and supporters to this date. He's the only person to have ever commited an act of terror in Norway. He identifies as a right wing, Islamophobic Christian. Muslims and Islam isn't what I fear, it's intolerance.



The difference is that Christianity does not preach war (jihad) against non-believers. Anders violence was not rooted in Christianity.

Read this wiki article about Jihad to understand that the roots of extremism come from The Quran. 
Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am sure that more progressive Muslims recognize that Jihad against the west is not appropriate in this day and age, but that does not deny that "Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims." The flaw of Islam seems to be that it cannot "live and let live" without a progressive interpretation.


----------



## Nag (Jan 9, 2015)

So there have been two hostage takings today. one by the cop-killer from the other day, one by the two brothers who shot the cartoonists. first one is cleared : the dude is dead, as well as 4 hostages. I think some cops are injured but none dead.


----------



## 77zark77 (Jan 9, 2015)

the only people dead were when that black man entered the shop
Noone died during the assault and during the assault"S"

and YES! the terrorists are dead - in the 2 situations


----------



## ElRay (Jan 9, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> You saw the last sentence of my post but did you saw the first part of the post? Is that free speech? ...



Free Speech is not immunity to critique, comment or criticism.

You can say you're for "Free Speech" all you want, but as soon as you say that non-criminal speech should be suppressed or someone deserver, earned or should otherwise expect to be assaulted, battered, murdered, threatened, etc. because BELIEVERS of some mythological, anti-reality nonsense might be offended, you're not a proponent of Free Speech, you're only providing lip-service to the concept when it's convenient. That's why I trimmed out the rest of your post, because it didn't really matter.

I'll say it again: Critique, comment or criticism doesn't include murder. Saying "They had it coming to them." in one form or another is saying that murder is a justified form of critique, comment or criticism, and/or that "They" don't have the right to free speech because some adherent of mythology or other anti-reality nonsense might find offensive.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

vansinn said:


> Pepe Escobar's interesting thoughts on the topic: Asia Times Online :: Who profits from killing Charlie?



Thank you for that. This is what a lot of French people think but we just never hear it on Tv/radio. 
Our army brings freedom and peace right? Just look at Lybia.
Who profits from the paris events? Muslims? Seriously.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Free Speech is not immunity to critique, comment or criticism.
> 
> You can say you're for "Free Speech" all you want, but as soon as you say that non-criminal speech should be suppressed or someone deserver, earned or should otherwise expect to be assaulted, battered, murdered, threatened, etc. because BELIEVERS of some mythological, anti-reality nonsense might be offended, you're not a proponent of Free Speech, you're only providing lip-service to the concept when it's convenient. That's why I trimmed out the rest of your post, because it didn't really matter.
> 
> I'll say it again: Critique, comment or criticism doesn't include murder. Saying "They had it coming to them." in one form or another is saying that murder is a justified form of critique, comment or criticism, and/or that "They" don't have the right to free speech because some adherent of mythology or other anti-reality nonsense might find offensive.



You completely miss my point then. And you are putting words in my mouth I never said they deserved to die or be threatened, battered or wathever you want me to say because of those drawing or anything they wrote on their magazine. 
And you can trim everything you want from my post if it serve your lip service of right minded citizen. You are just refusing to see my point to look good with your morality.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 9, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> Who profits from the paris events?



Since you ask: 
*
Islam profits, according to its internal bloodthirsty rules as followed by the killers, by killing off blasphemers.*

You're making the mistake of attributing the goals of most of civilization to religious terror killers. Islam doesn't have the same goals. 

If your idea of profit is to kill those who insult the prophet, then every killing for blasphemy is a win. 

I thought this was common knowledge at this point. I'm surprised that you were unaware of the religious motivations for the killings (blasphemy), but am glad I could bring you up to speed on this.

*I'm pretty shocked that the blasphemy aspect of this story not make it into the news in your country. In what country are you located, that they didn't bother to include that part?*


----------



## SerOner (Jan 9, 2015)

BouZhik, is that it? Anybody who don't think like you is wrong?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 9, 2015)

BouhZik said:


> Except that in France, you can NOT critic and caricature ALL religions..... You can say everything you want about Islam, its free speech. But make a little critic or a joke about Jews and you are burnt in public place.



I'm wondering... could you provide a source for a story, parallel to the Charlie Hebdo blasphemy killings, where those criticizing the Jews responsible for religious violence were burnt in a public place?

Or was that hyperbole?

I'm curious about this assertion. In my lifetime, I've heard some people seriously say, "You can't talk about the goldarn Pollacks without people getting in your face!" and "Now you can't tell a woman to get back into the kitchen!" Is the kind of criticism of Jews which is condemned? If it's antisemitism, misogyny and other forms of bigotry condemned by society, that would be a good thing in my opinion.

Examples would be nice to see what you're talking about.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 9, 2015)

I seem to recall earlier in the thread someone claiming that Muslims are implicitly condoning the attacks by remaining silent. Allow me to share this...
Hezbollah Leader Says Islamic Extremists Have Hurt Islam More Than Cartoonists | ThinkProgress


If even Hezbollah says that extremists are doing more harm than the caricatures, then that should give you a clue that the people that carried out these attacks are lone wolves that use the guise of Islam to carry out politically-based terrorism. To be clear, I'm not muslim myself (meh, I very loosely consider myself christian, and even that seems to be waning towards agnosticism) but I don't condone attacking a whole religion based on the actions of a few. If I see muslims spewing anti-semetic vitrol, I'll be the first one to speak out against it. By that same token, I have no particular interest in the demonstration of blatant discrimination against people from the middle east or those that practice Islam.

Let people believe what they want so long as they aren't hurting anyone. Blame the people that committed the murders for said murders; not a bunch of random people who've done nothing wrong to anyone.


----------



## asher (Jan 9, 2015)

Arab newspaper responses:

Arab newspapers around the world react to Charlie Hebdo attack - Imgur


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

I think he means that free speech is not institutionally protected in France, and in fact, you can be fined or imprisoned for offensive speech. Take John Galliano, who was convicted of "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" for anti-Semitic insults at a bar.


----------



## Necris (Jan 9, 2015)

People know the consequences: Opposing view

Opinion from a (radical) Muslim Cleric. Scary.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

Can't forget to shame the guy...
Here are another set of images Anjem Choudary wants removed from the Internet. - Imgur


I have to say, the before pictures look more "radical" by my standards, or at least like he's _trying_ to be rad...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 9, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I think he means that free speech is not institutionally protected in France, and in fact, you can be fined or imprisoned for offensive speech. Take John Galliano, who was convicted of "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" for anti-Semitic insults at a bar.



Interesting.

So, you can talk about how misguided Judaism is, but you can't call someone a cheapskate kyke?

In other words, you can't engage in bigoted epithets against individuals, even if they're evil fags or towelheads.

However, you can say that Judaism is completely wrong, or that (wrongly_ the Ba'hai faith is one of violence, or that Catholicism was wrong to cover for pedophiles for so long. 

*With that said... does that mean BouhZik is angry that you can't call someone a kyke or a Hebe or other antisemitic phrases based in pure and simple bigotry, even though you can criticize the religion? 

Because that basis for his outrage would make BouhZik sound a little fvcked up, and would add a context to the rest of his posts on this topic. *


----------



## TRaoul (Jan 9, 2015)

Hello everyone, I'm French, and I would like to give my opinion on this matter. 
This massacre occurred 15 minutes from where I live. It was a big shock, because of the way a part of the public opinion has focused on an element of this event to make it an act of terrorism of Islamist activists against the French country.

To me, the fundamental distinction we need to make is that those people were just murderers : we cannot give them the legitimacy of any kind of religious movement. Religion is out the question. 

Then, yes. Charlie Hebdo was one of the two French newspaper with no advertising. It was one with radical satirical orientation and content. Thus, the offices of Charlie Hebdo have been targeted and threatened several times. In a sense this dramatic event was supposed to happen, but I hate that it created such an amalgam with Arab, Muslim and Islamist people.

It's shortcut a that's too easy to take. And that's precisely what's critical in this case : we, now more than ever, need to create a national unity (detached from any political movement). 

That being said, I think the debate ends on an official report : journalists were killed by firearms. 
I pay respect to their families and beloved ones.

Thank you, and please contradict me if you don't agree with what I said here.
Raoul

https://soundcloud.com/korealit/my-digital-war


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> I seem to recall earlier in the thread someone claiming that Muslims are implicitly condoning the attacks by remaining silent. Allow me to share this...
> Hezbollah Leader Says Islamic Extremists Have Hurt Islam More Than Cartoonists | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> ...




What the cleric says to the media and what he believes in his heart may be different. He certainly can't speak for the majority of "his" people.

Its important for Islamic leaders to say this so that they are not shunned and rejected by the West. Call it damage control.


----------



## The Q (Jan 9, 2015)

> So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine _Charlie Hebdo_ to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?




I have a different question. Why didn't your father use a condom and allowed your wretched existence, you despicable POS?

EDIT: And to that person that got offended, if you accept quotes like the above allowing for censhorship and political correctness to infect every aspect of free expression, then you are no better than the guy uttering that quote.

Since when did "warnings" about violent reactions for non-violent "provocations (nothing of the sort, but anyway) became acceptable? What kind of person can accept scum like the one quoted? Probably one who has traits to share.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 9, 2015)

You post that as if Charlie Hebdo's comics represent the epitomy of making an informed and mature statement about a religion's pitfalls while ignoring the juvenile stuff that they've published that is straight up offensive to the believers of the religion without simultaneously being something that could lead to productive discourse on the matter.

(explorer)


----------



## Nag (Jan 9, 2015)

I agree with TRaoul

The problem is the WORD "terrorism". what is terrorism ? it's violence made to spread fear. these guys in France didn't want to spread fear, they organized targeted murders. a terrorist doesn't care WHO he kills, it only matters why (their cause) and how (in the most fear-inducing manner, of course). those guys did the opposite, what mattered to them was only who they killed.

I think at this point, pretty much everyone has condemned their actions. even the muslim countries that were first accused of "breeding terrorists". The only people who helped these killers probably were an extremist islamist organization, with terrorist groups, killers, everything you need to conduct a holy war. Maybe it's Al Quaeda, maybe not, we don't know. We can't stop these organizations anyway. Not alone. It will require a collective effort and support from the countries where these organizations may be based.

For now, all I want is that we find a way to protect ourselves from more violence.


----------



## asher (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> What the cleric says to the media and what he believes in his heart may be different. He certainly can't speak for the majority of "his" people.
> 
> Its important for Islamic leaders to say this so that they are not shunned and rejected by the West. Call it damage control.



So you're ruling out the possibility of him being sincere, basically?


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Since you ask:
> *
> Islam profits, according to its internal bloodthirsty rules as followed by the killers, by killing off blasphemers.*
> 
> ...



YOU are making the mistake, the stupidest of all mistakes, of AMALGAM. by putting Hundreds of millions of muslims in the same bag of a minority of religious fanatic dumbass. Also, what you wrote is very offensive and insulting for the vast majority of Muslims who are light years away of what you are saying they are... it's just plain ignorant, like you never talk with a Muslim in your life or just talking to a bad one. Maybe you should stop listening all the bullshit media says in the country you are located.

I don't know if you're the one who post those polls that says that 25-75% of muslims support terrorism insisting on the fact that it comes from respectable poll makers, but what those poll are worth when they are done in places with dictators or place where people can't say what they want if they want to avoid problems?? 
my opinion is biased because I'm "obviously emotionnaly distressed"?? and the US (where those poll makers comes from, I believe) are not?? it's been more than 10 years and they are still bombing the shit out of Muslim places! And you ask me to see those poll as unbiased and accurate? When they need some justification to makes the opinion agree that the bombings and civilian killings are right? L.O.L.

about the blasphemy part, (the way you worded it was very offensive to me, as an insult to the French people intelligence. hence my wording since the beggining of this post) why they didn't bother to include that part? 
first of all, it was included.... Also because in the country I'm located, we do not consider it a blasphem to caricature anything. we are secular (not like the U.S. where the "good god" is everywhere....). We, French, all understood they did it because of that. this is a dumb motivation for killing people and everybody agree on that part so why bother blablating about it for hours? it's bullshit and we have enough bullshit said on our media allready... 
everybody KNOW (at least in the country I'm located, France) that this is not what Islam want people to do, and we know it comes from manipulators who uses those dumbass to do those things. 
Can you get that or you are just convinced that every Muslim in the world want to kill someone for a joke about Islam? If that was the case I would be dead numerous times, and France would be fire and blood since decade!! because we have millions of Muslims, and HELL YEAH we joke a lot about everything...

"If your idea of profit is to kill those who insult the prophet........" 
JUST STOP! not only I never said that, but that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. It's not religious, IT'S POLITIC! What those killers have to say about that part has no value. they were brainwashed dumbass. what is the value of things that a brainwashed dumbass says??

SerOner: stay in your hole and keep fearing the Arabs, they whistle la Marseillaise... did you see? it was two Arabs and a black guy!! So every Arabs and Blacks are killers!! Stay in your hole, you are safe there!!


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 9, 2015)

asher said:


> So you're ruling out the possibility of him being sincere, basically?



Sounds like it. I imagine the reason wouldn't have anything to do with their skin color would it?


----------



## asher (Jan 9, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Sounds like it. I imagine the reason wouldn't have anything to do with their skin color would it?



No, never!





































































It's their religion, silly.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 9, 2015)

LMAO. "Two arab and a black guy"? Just go on every kind of social website, and you will see hundreds, maybe thousands of arabian/muslim people from france and all around the world wanting the shotgun and the terrorism to go on, don't tell me you haven't heard of it. So I said I fear for my family: racism. You fear for your daughter: my fault because some french like me fear for throwback on their family. Real muslims must feel so ashamed of these kind of behavior, while they are trying to fix everything. And I'm not going to "stay in my hole", dumbass like you shouldn't be allowed to give advice, stay in your "I'm pissed about everything but won't do anything to fix it" position, you're helping yourself!


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Sounds like it. I imagine the reason wouldn't have anything to do with their skin color would it?



Skin color only comes into play if we need to profile people in security operations. Honestly, I'm less inclined to be suspicious/fearful of a preppy white guy.


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> The difference is that Christianity does not preach war (jihad) against non-believers. Anders violence was not rooted in Christianity.



Are your serious right now? One of his main motivations was his wish to try and preserve our "christian cultural heritage". How in the name of everything that's holy is that NOT rooted in Christianity. The guy was a whacked out, ultra conservative, right wing christian douche bag who used his (amongst other things) religious views as an excuse for what he did. End of discussion.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

død;4266293 said:


> Are your serious right now? One of his main motivations was his wish to try and preserve our "christian cultural heritage". How in the name of everything that's holy is that NOT rooted in Christianity. The guy was a whacked out, ultra conservative, right wing christian douche bag who used his (amongst other things) religious views as an excuse for what he did. End of discussion.



The Quran preaches Jihad, the Bible does not. Anders interpretation was his own.


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 9, 2015)

SerOner said:


> You fear for your daughter



where do I wrote that?

Not only I do not fear, but my girl neither... She did not want to go to school because she know she's gonna fight with those kids. She's part Algerian you know.... I know you know what I mean... Algerian.... ARAB!!!! FEAR!!!!


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> The Quran preaches Jihad, the Bible does not. Anders interpretation was his own.



Though the bible has a lot of rules for who to kill and why. Fortunately, most folks these days don't follow the texts to closely. I need to look into what that guy did again, but I seem to recall that the bible would have condoned it. Don't quote me on that because I legit can't remember the details of what that guy did right now.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Though the bible has a lot of rules for who to kill and why. Fortunately, most folks these days don't follow the texts to closely. I need to look into what that guy did again, but I seem to recall that the bible would have condoned it. Don't quote me on that because I legit can't remember the details of what that guy did right now.



Research it some more and post a link. I have never heard of the Bible preaching violence of any sort.


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> The Quran preaches Jihad, the Bible does not. Anders interpretation was his own.



The Bible doesn't preach Jihad? WOW! Mind blowing, totally new information!

Please tell me more about how Anders Behring Breivik wasn't a Christian terrorist.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 9, 2015)

@ GoldDragon

Are you being serious? 

The Old testament is one of the evilest books ever written. The new testaments has its moments too. The bible as a whole is unbelievably fvcking violent. Seriously, read up on what god commanded the jews to do to the Amalachites.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

Jesus is often called the Prince of Peace. There is violence in the Bible, but Christians are not commanded to commit violence in the name of God.

Maybe I got a watered down (Presbyterian) version of Christianity?

The Old testament is more of a history lesson, the New Testament is the teaching of Jesus and is considered the core of Christianity.


----------



## SerOner (Jan 9, 2015)

BouhZik, you're just an asshole. kiss


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Research it some more and post a link. I have never heard of the Bible preaching violence of any sort.



AHEM.


> Deuteronomy 20:16-18New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] themthe Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusitesas the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20:16-18


edit: Ah, yes. The old "The old Testament isn't Christianity"-argument. It's part of the Bible. You asked for violent references in the Bible. But for argument's sake, please tell me how The Book of Revelation isn't violent?


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

død;4266356 said:


> AHEM.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20:16-18
> 
> ...



Deuteronomy is Old Testament and of Jewish origin, attributed to Moses.

Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus (Prince of Peace) and the New Testament. As I said, the Old Testament is more of a history lesson, not any indication of how Christians are instructed to live. It is more a Jewish book. I think this distinction is what separates Jews from Christians.

Book of Deuteronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"In place of the elaborate code of laws (mitzvah) set out in Deuteronomy, Paul the Apostle, drawing on Deuteronomy 30:11&#8211;14, claimed that the keeping of the Mosaic covenant was superseded by faith in Jesus and the gospel (the New Covenant).[32]"_


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 9, 2015)

død;4266293 said:


> Are your serious right now? One of his main motivations was his wish to try and preserve our "christian cultural heritage". How in the name of everything that's holy is that NOT rooted in Christianity. The guy was a whacked out, ultra conservative, right wing christian douche bag who used his (amongst other things) religious views as an excuse for what he did. End of discussion.




*cough* The Crusades *cough*

Apparently it doesn't have to be preached...


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Deuteronomy is Old Testament and of Jewish origin, attributed to Moses.
> 
> Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament. As I said, the Old Testament is more of a history lesson, not any indication of how Christians are instructed to live. It is more a Jewish book.
> 
> Book of Deuteronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's all fine and dandy. The old Testament is still part of the Bible.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 9, 2015)

Here's what Jesus had to say about the old testament...



> &#8220;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17&#8211;18)


----------



## ToS (Jan 9, 2015)

Just found this:






Says pretty much all. 

And now please stop this juvenile and hypocritical &#8222;my religion is better than yours" crap.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 9, 2015)

^Why? If we do it another 10000000 times maybe it'll actually go somewhere.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

You guys must have missed Sunday school.


----------



## død (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You guys must have missed Sunday school.



Absolutely. Very glad I did.


----------



## GoldDragon (Jan 9, 2015)

BTW, the Crusades were initiated by Muslims. 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070413165647AAO6DTM


----------



## asher (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You guys must have missed Sunday school.



And now we have this cool thing called looking at the evidence and critical thinking and stuff.


----------



## Shimme (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You guys must have missed Sunday school.



Ironically, atheists are much more likely to have read the bible than christians.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 9, 2015)

asher said:


> And now we have this cool thing called looking at the evidence and critical thinking and stuff.



I went to Sunday school but I feel like I zoned out a lot. The only thing I really remember was being there. ADD has its uses.

But... This thread sucks now. And that's more upsetting than whether or not we have the right religion in our lives or religion at all for that matter. You could spend more time serving the god of your understanding if you spent less time up the asses of those who disagree.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 9, 2015)

Just remember, we can all disagree on a buncha shit, but we are all still buddie friends!


----------



## DancingCloseToU (Jan 9, 2015)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Just remember, we can all disagree on a buncha shit, but we are all still buddie friends!


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 9, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Skin color only comes into play if we need to profile people in security operations. Honestly, I'm less inclined to be suspicious/fearful of a preppy white guy.



Even though white people in the US (keeping in mind that I'm a whitey myself) statistically are shown to be more likely to be arrested for violent crime than any other race?
Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This is why profiling doesn't work. It's a witch hunt that targets the wrong group of people. Wanna slow down crime? Start profiling white people and there's over half the violence in the US solved.

Or you know, you could just stop with any kind of racial profiling and tear up your KKK membership card. That helps too.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Research it some more and post a link. I have never heard of the Bible preaching violence of any sort.



There is a direct command to kill a blasphemer when encountered, whole of the congregation must participate. (Leviticus 24:10-23)

Luckily most of the people here don't follow the inconvenient parts of holy texts, but it only takes one. Really it's all about politics.


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 10, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Even though white people in the US (keeping in mind that I'm a whitey myself) statistically are shown to be more likely to be arrested for violent crime than any other race?
> Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...



I'm going to get flambéed for this 

but......

When people quit caring about skin color, religion, etc and simply hold someone accountable for known wrong doing, then we'll make some progress.

Fact. What this rag was doing with the cartoons is beyond reproach. It's despicable. 

Another fact: No matter how angry it makes you, it's not acceptable to murder them. 

Seems simple to me. But history shows (even revisionists ) that it keeps happening.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 10, 2015)

Edit: Never mind. Better not to comment on others comment's in this thread.


----------



## Necris (Jan 10, 2015)

1b4n3z said:


> There is a direct command to kill a blasphemer when encountered, whole of the congregation must participate. (Leviticus 24:10-23)
> 
> Luckily most of the people here don't follow the inconvenient parts of holy texts, but it only takes one. Really it's all about politics.



A large portion of the calls to kill non-believers, worshipers of other gods (even entire towns if only one person in said town worships another god), blasphemers, false prophets, witches etc. are old testament and many Christians feel the old testament doesn't apply to Christians (except for that bit about homosexuality of course) and they're therefore absolved of having to answer for those commands.

However, Romans 1-24:32 (which is New Testament in case you're wondering) acknowledges clearly that Gods punishment for Infidels and Homosexuals is, indeed, death.

Good thing that one didn't catch on.


----------



## texshred777 (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Research it some more and post a link. I have never heard of the Bible preaching violence of any sort.



Murder in the Bible

Rape in the Bible

Ritual Human Sacrifice

Slavery in the Bible

Never.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 10, 2015)

So, acknowledging that both the Bible and the Koran state that their bloodthirsty deities want blasphemers and others killed, it's pretty terrible that at least one faith's believers have been pretty public about their intentions to do so, and then to follow through.

It's even worse that some theocracies throw their support behind that kind of crazy too, isn't it? I remember someone on this site being upset about a few news stories where, in two different majority-Muslim countries, either a public official or a Muslim religious leader/scholar had advocated making women sex slaves and rape victims based on Islam. 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...pe-non-sunni-women-syria-not-april-fools.html

If it's in the holy book and ignored, no current harm and no current foul. 

When it is being seriously talked about or even acted on, no one needs that kind of batsh1t crazy.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Jan 10, 2015)

Explorer said:


> So, acknowledging that both the Bible and the Koran state that their bloodthirsty deities want blasphemers and others killed, it's pretty terrible that at least one faith's believers have been pretty public about their intentions to do so, and then to follow through.
> 
> It's even worse that some theocracies throw their support behind that kind of crazy too, isn't it? I remember someone on this site being upset about a few news stories where, in two different majority-Muslim countries, either a public official or a Muslim religious leader/scholar had advocated making women sex slaves and rape victims based on Islam.
> 
> ...



Which came first, do you think, cruel theocracy or cruel (supposedly) religious rules?


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 10, 2015)

So yeah, this happened...
REVENGE: French Attack Mosques And Blow Up A Muslim Kebab Shop | Wounded American Warrior


Who's the bloodthirsty savages now? Congrats, violence begets more violence and then when everyone is dead and rotting, maybe at some point someone will realize that violence didn't solve shit.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 10, 2015)

Pro Tip:

Even if Christianity is just as violent as Islam, that doesn't meant we should stop giving Islam shit for it, it means _we should be giving Christianity shit for it_ _too_. Bringing Christianity up in these conversations is the same as people bringing up the legality of alcohol in conversations about legalizing marijuana: Sure, you could interpret that as meaning that because alcohol is legal, weed should be too, but you could just as easily come to the conclusion that because weed is illegal, alcohol should be too.

Focus on the topic at hand, people. Christianity's violence or lack thereof has no real bearing on this.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 10, 2015)

...Though I feel compelled to add that by "give Islam shit for it" I don't mean "attack Muslims and/or their property." That's the very embodiment of counterproductive.


----------



## Nag (Jan 10, 2015)

Thanks Jess, I wasn't aware of this yet.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What happens right now in France is NOT related to religion in ANY way. We're not talking about muslims or christians. We're talking about hateful, ignorant, violent people. And of course there are some of those on both sides. Charlie Hebdo was attacked by cold-blooded killers who hit behind islam (when they're really just extremists who even got rejected by the entire muslim community). The retaliation didn't come from France as a whole, but from violent idiots who decided to fight back when the rest of France wanted to keep it peaceful.

We're talking about a handful of people. Three "terrorists" on one side, and a bunch "citizens" on the other side. They're not representative of the 70 million people who live in France by ANY means and they're not representative of any religion.

Just stop hating, guys. This thread got insanely derailed. YES religion has served as a pretext to spread hate, fear and violence for centuries. ALL religions have blood on their hands and it's extremely silly of you all to try to compare who's the worst. This isn't the cold war, we don't decide to kill 2000 people over there because they killed 1000 people here. What happens in France is that a community tries to stand united while some troublemakers on the inside try to make us tremble as a whole.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 10, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Edit: Never mind. Better not to comment on others comment's in this thread.



Why?


----------



## BouhZik (Jan 10, 2015)

translation:

"Killings in Egypt: Coran is a piece of shit, it doesn't stop bullets"


and today I found this:





there is a lot of people who talked about freedom of speech when the first one came out. Now they are very angry about the second


----------



## Necris (Jan 10, 2015)

Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris | Informed Comment
(I guess al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attack.)
Interesting article about a potential underlying motive for these kinds of attacks, one I'm inclined to agree with.

Tangentially related, another terrorist attack that was occuring around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo murders with an estimated,but unconfirmed, 2,000 victims: 'Burned to the ground': Boko Haram razes at least 16 Nigerian villages | Al Jazeera America


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> Deuteronomy is Old Testament and of Jewish origin, attributed to Moses.
> 
> Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus (Prince of Peace) and the New Testament. As I said, the Old Testament is more of a history lesson, not any indication of how Christians are instructed to live. It is more a Jewish book. I think this distinction is what separates Jews from Christians.
> 
> ...



If the old testament isn't to be followed by Christians, then why was it quoted to me so many times when I wanted to get married in my state? I had to get married in another state because at the time same sex marriage wasn't performed here. Whenever the topic came up, old testament quotes were hurled at me. 

No, it's just becoming increasingly more irrelevant. Time's are changing. We no longer bash disobedient children's heads in, we allow women to teach, we don't keep slaves. The bible was written by barbarians who wanted to control through fear. These days, some good has come from it, but it's never okay to pretend like the bad isn't there. 

In relevance to the quote in my post a couple pages back, the people who kill in the name of their god's are the ones doing it right, and that's ....ing terrifying.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 10, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Even though white people in the US (keeping in mind that I'm a whitey myself) statistically are shown to be more likely to be arrested for violent crime than any other race?
> Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is why profiling doesn't work. It's a witch hunt that targets the wrong group of people. Wanna slow down crime? Start profiling white people and there's over half the violence in the US solved.
> ...


Please cite the exact statistic from that article you're talking about. I'm not seeing it. (PLEASE don't tell me you're referring to the 1st table under "characteristics of offenders.")


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 10, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> Please cite the exact statistic from that article you're talking about. I'm not seeing it. (PLEASE don't tell me you're referring to the 1st table under "characteristics of offenders.")



"For violent crime by race in 2011, 59.4% of those arrested were white, 38.3% were black, and 2.2% were of other races.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ucr2011table43-25"

Which is just under that table you don't like for some reason, amongst a breakdown of percentages for men vs. women for similar crimes. All of which is sourced, though I haven't checked the sources personally you can feel free.


----------



## ToS (Jan 10, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> "For violent crime by race in 2011, 59.4% of those arrested were white, 38.3% were black, and 2.2% were of other races."
> .



And what is the proportion of white, black and other among the total population? Those figures are meaningless without this information.


----------



## tedtan (Jan 10, 2015)

Necris said:


> Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris | Informed Comment
> (I guess al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attack.)
> Interesting article about a potential underlying motive for these kinds of attacks, one I'm inclined to agree with.
> 
> Tangentially related, another terrorist attack that was occuring around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo murders with an estimated,but unconfirmed, 2,000 victims: 'Burned to the ground': Boko Haram razes at least 16 Nigerian villages | Al Jazeera America



That's in line with what I've been thinking, too. (I think Shimme was the first to post this angle a couple of pages back).

This wasn't the type of attack carried out by the typical religious extremist (suicide bombing). This was a well planned and professionally executed operation, so there is likely a motive beyond mere religious belief. And the only upside I can think of for the group carrying this out is to cause the alienation of the Muslim population in France by turning the non-Muslim population against them for political and recruiting purposes. Otherwise, what upside is there and what could be the motivation?


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 10, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> "For violent crime by race in 2011, 59.4% of those arrested were white, 38.3% were black, and 2.2% were of other races.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ucr2011table43-25"
> 
> Which is just under that table you don't like for some reason, amongst a breakdown of percentages for men vs. women for similar crimes. All of which is sourced, though I haven't checked the sources personally you can feel free.


What I "don't like" is when people who know jack shit about basic statistics mouth off with an attitude like they just proved a point. 59.4% of arrests for violent crime being white is simply because there are a lot more whites. It's a meaningless proportion. The question is, who's more likely to commit violent crimes? I.e., who has a higher RATE of violent crime? (Of course arrests are a proxy for actual number of crimes committed, but it'll suffice.) You divide the number of arrests for each race by the total population for each. So for example:

Crime in the United States 2012 - Table 43 - Arrests by race

Blacks arrested for violent crimes: 155,088
Whites arrested for violent crimes: 236,394

Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012

2012 black population: 41,204,793
2012 white population: 244,495,567

2012 black violent crime rate: 0.38%
2012 white violent crime rate: 0.10%

So black people are nearly 4x more likely to be arrested for violent crime. Now, this does NOT automatically mean that blacks commit more violent crimes because they're black. You'd have to look at other factors like poverty, access to education, etc.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 10, 2015)

How the hell is any of this related to a shooting in France.


----------



## vansinn (Jan 10, 2015)

GoldDragon said:


> You guys must have missed Sunday school.



I did attend. We saw 16mm pirate films, no religious remarks in those. I did piss my pants in exitement, though.
One dude chopped me about 20 times in my neck with a karate chop he'd seen in a film.
Very educational, this Sunday School stuff..


Anyways.. has anyone perhaps caught the concept that events might be implemented in order to create big waves in the more-or-less complicit press, and as such, for creating wanted opinions?

Vis-a-vis "There will never be peace until people stop looking to the skies for a god that doesn't exist".
IMHO, all religions are created in order to control people's way of thinking..

I only have Metal Gods - and I can change them as I see fit.
Just like some Africans simply picks another stone as a god if the current one doesn't work 
Peace, mon amigos, Peace


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 10, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> What I "don't like" is when people who know jack shit about basic statistics mouth off with an attitude like they just proved a point. 59.4% of arrests for violent crime being white is simply because there are a lot more whites. It's a meaningless proportion. The question is, who's more likely to commit violent crimes? I.e., who has a higher RATE of violent crime? (Of course arrests are a proxy for actual number of crimes committed, but it'll suffice.) You divide the number of arrests for each race by the total population for each. So for example:
> 
> Crime in the United States 2012 - Table 43 - Arrests by race
> 
> ...



Wasn't trying to be confrontational. Just stating that the statistics weren't wrong. Regardless of the reason why, whites are statistically more likely to be the cause of the violent crime if in fact it does happen.

as said though, there are more factors than race at play. For instance, proportion of violent crimes committed by the poor vs wealthy. 

This is a tad off topic though.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 10, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Why?



Because there is so much here that I would like to respond to that it's a bit overwhelming, and I don't want to have a multi-quote response a whole page long.

I see so much on both sides of this discussion that I agree and disagree with.

This whole situation is so unfortunate for all involved. Except for the murderous religious zealots that couldn't handle a cartoon without resorting to murder in the name of their God.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 10, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Wasn't trying to be confrontational.


Wasn't talking about you.



Chokey Chicken said:


> Just stating that the statistics weren't wrong.


It's not that the statistic is wrong; it's the wrong statistic. It's even the wrong subject. The question (as far as profiling in this context goes) isn't who's more likely to commit any old violent crime. It's who's more likely to commit a coordinated act of terrorism. Apparently, French security officials knew at least 1 of them. I think "profiling" the guy would've been preferable to combing data for clues over a 3-year "dark period" after the fact.


----------



## asher (Jan 11, 2015)

Dude, you're the one who sidelined the discussion into white crime statistics in the first place.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 11, 2015)

asher said:


> Dude, you're the one who sidelined the discussion into white crime statistics in the first place.





tacotiklah said:


> Even though white people in the US (keeping in mind that I'm a whitey myself) statistically are shown to be more likely to be arrested for violent crime than any other race?
> Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## asher (Jan 11, 2015)

Don't be dense. One post, a sidetrack does not cause. Challenging it in isolation to the rest of the context two or three times does though.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 11, 2015)

I wasn't the only one who replied. There was already a discussion about profiling when he chimed in with that. And my last post of *gasp* 3 related to it brought it back around, so your retarded, asinine bleat was altogether unnecessary.

Ironic how you're now derailing the thread solely to ride my nuts. You finished now? (That's a rhetorical question. I.e., stfu or say something relevant or gtfo.)

As I was saying...

The question (as far as profiling in this context goes) isn't who's more likely to commit any old violent crime. It's who's more likely to commit a coordinated act of terrorism. Apparently, French security officials knew at least 1 of them. I think "profiling" the guy would've been preferable to combing data for clues over a 3-year "dark period" after the fact.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 11, 2015)

tedtan said:


> That's in line with what I've been thinking, too. (I think Shimme was the first to post this angle a couple of pages back).
> 
> This wasn't the type of attack carried out by the typical religious extremist (suicide bombing). *This was a well planned and professionally executed operation, so there is likely a motive beyond mere religious belief.* And the only upside I can think of for the group carrying this out is to cause the alienation of the Muslim population in France by turning the non-Muslim population against them for political and recruiting purposes. Otherwise, what upside is there and what could be the motivation?



I find it interesting when people claim that a murderer or terrorist is not motivated by what said murderer or terrorist states is the motivation.

In this case, *you're saying that the murderers, who were trained by a militant Islamist group which also was instrumental in the attacks on 9/11, do not have the motivations which al Qaeda is known for and which al Qaeda has even avowed publicly. 

Counter-evidence please, because that's like someone saying that the Pope isn't Catholic. *

----

The goal is not to win a popularity contest, or to be the "nice" religion. 

(The gentle Ba'hai have a lock on that one.)

It's to kill those who have blasphemed against the Prophet and Islam. 

To say that you refuse to accept that the stated goal of the killers is in fact their stated goal is just silly. 

It's even sillier to deny that their particular book states that this is what had to be done. 

It would be like saying that a devout Christian isn't motivated by faith when working in a soup kitchen, but is just doing it to look great in public.


----------



## Necris (Jan 11, 2015)

My personal belief is that these men were absolutely motivated by Islam and that this is what they feel they are commanded to do by their beliefs, but I also believe that extremists like them are aware that causing a greater divide between "the west" and all Muslims is beneficial to their cause.


----------



## SD83 (Jan 11, 2015)

Explorer said:


> In this case, *you're saying that the murderers, who were trained by a militant Islamist group which also was instrumental in the attacks on 9/11, do not have the motivations which al Qaeda is known for and which al Qaeda has even avowed publicly.
> 
> Counter-evidence please, because that's like someone saying that the Pope isn't Catholic. *



It might not necessarily be true in this case, but: Since they're both dead, we will never know if they planned all this on their own or if someone came up with the plan or a basic idea and convinced them that that would be what Allah wanted them to do, so I think it's very well possible that both is right. The terrorists/murderers believed they were doing it for Islam, while those who planned it planned it because of... well, you could come up with a number of reasons. If I convince some stupid person that drinking a bottle of antifreeze will cure him of his migraine, he might believe he drinks it to cure his migraine, while in fact he does it because I hate him and want him dead. Even if they totally believe they are doing it for Islam (and even if the Quran directly said "if someone draws a caricature of my prophet, shoot him"), that doesn't necessarily mean that there were no other intentions. Religion has been used as a tool to gain power over people, as a tool for oppression etc. as long as it existed.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 12, 2015)

I think a couple of you (asher and sevenstringj, especially) are skirting the line for some nice naps by continuing to snipe at each other.

So I think you better cool off. Got it?


----------



## asher (Jan 12, 2015)

Yeah. I should know better. Apologies all.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 12, 2015)

@SD83 - I'm not sure what part you're stating that we can't know, with the killers dead, but there are numerous news sources reporting that these killers in the Charlie Hebdo attack were trained by al Qaeda, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack.

Charlie Hebdo: Al-Qaeda in Yemen claims it ordered attack in line with Osama bin Laden's 'warnings' - Europe - World - The Independent

Al Qaeda is a known Islamist terror group, so it can be stated with confidence that the killings were in fact motivated for those reasons.


----------



## tedtan (Jan 12, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I find it interesting when people claim that a murderer or terrorist is not motivated by what said murderer or terrorist states is the motivation.
> 
> In this case, *you're saying that the murderers, who were trained by a militant Islamist group which also was instrumental in the attacks on 9/11, do not have the motivations which al Qaeda is known for and which al Qaeda has even avowed publicly.
> 
> Counter-evidence please, because that's like someone saying that the Pope isn't Catholic.*



What the hell are you talking about, man? 

Religion is a fundamental reason organizations such as Al Qaeda exist in the first place. But carrying out an attack because God told them to do so is typically a small scale suicide bombing or similar. Something like this is a military action planned and carried out by people who know what they are doing and I strongly suspect that there is more here than just their religious beliefs. They were attempting to radicalize the local Muslim population for Al Qaeda's gain for recruitment and political purposes. I'm sure they were Muslims if they were associated with Al Qaeda. But the world is not the simple black and white, either/or place you present it to be. There is a lot of gray area, too.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future.




Explorer said:


> The goal is not to win a popularity contest, or to be the "nice" religion.
> 
> (The gentle Ba'hai have a lock on that one.)
> 
> ...



If this is directed to me, I never claimed any of the above. You're just trying to associate these ideas with me by presenting them in context with a quote from me (which you misunderstood, intentionally or unintentionally, yet again).

If it is just more of your ranting, then carry on.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jan 12, 2015)

On something else: Why did the world ignore Boko Haram's Baga attacks? | World news | The Guardian


----------

