Europe's 9/11

[pibbur who]

What bothers me, is that while all Muslims are NOT terrorists, it appears that ALL terrorists are Muslims!! This may not be totally accurate, but it's usually the appearance that counts!!

No it's not accurate. There are several small-scale ultra-right wing attacks, and there are regional conflicts where terrorism is part of it. And we had Anders Behring Breivik, responsible for the most brutal attack in several years (in the western world).

IRA was responsible for several bombings of civilian targets, which is terrorism in my book, although I to some degree support their cause.

I would also consider at least some of the actions of KKK as terrrorism, as one of their goals, AFAIK was to cause fear among the african american civilians. However, I lack details so I may very well be wrong.

I too think a comparison with 9/11 is not completely relevant. The railway bombings in Madrid in 2004 which 191 killed and 1800 wounded is a better candidate.

piobbur who for a while wil use "JE SUIS CHARLIE" as his avatar caption.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I don't see them as terrorists; at least not in the way it's currently being defined!!

Adding the characteristic has to be a muslim to be a terrorist helps a lot.

And where are all those massive demonstrations by peace-loving muslims all over the world, standing against such an affront??

Why should they take responsibility for such an event?
In the US, a kid was downed for pointing a toy gun at bystanders. Where were the demonstrations? Where was the thread?

Peace loving people , whether muslim(if they exist) or not, would be well adviced to avoid going to these demonstrations as these demonstrations are not about peace.

It will take six months, one year, two years maybe before there is another event, similar in content but this time, with a different target.
People are going to be taken with their shorts down once again as none of the demonstrations that will be organized then (if any is organized) wont reach anything near the current level.

Once again, the statement that selective indignation sends everytime: that stuff that is unbearable when done by some is welcomed when performed by others.

 

[Pladio]

I completely agree that this is not Europe's 9/11. The Spain and London bombings were of much greater significance in my opinion.

There have been many shootings like these in the past years, with - as Pibbur mentioned - Anders Breivik being the worst.

In Belgium a guy ran into a Jewish museum and killed people with an automatic weapon as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Museum_of_Belgium_shooting

That's much closer to Charlie Hebdo than 9/11 or even Breivik.

There were some shootings at schools as well :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings



Saying all that, it's still a tragic event and should be condemned harshly by anyone who thinks freedom is important in their lives.

Most Muslims cannot in their own countries condemn these shootings without being arrested due to the blasphemy laws in their countries.

It is important to note that Muslims did condemn the action in France with the Imam of of Paris, condemned what had happened.
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/wo...ndemn-attack-call-it-declaration-war-20150107

 

[zakhal]

According to swedish aftonbladet returning syrian isis-fighters are ready and capable to strike Sweden. In the last two years swedish police has stopped 2-3 terror strikes.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/poliisi_entiset_isis-taistelijat_valmiina_iskemaan_ruotsiin/7661353

In Finland we are preparing to provide professional help-services for the returning isis-fighters. They might need help after everything they have experienced.
http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/kotimaa/isis rauhanturvaajat-26184

 

[Adverant]

Moreover, christians and jews were living peacefully in the past with muslims and under islamic ruling.

Islam teaches not to kill the other people of the 'book' (Christians and Jews) if they are not a threat to Islam's supremacy. That's the only reason they were permitted to live, if they are subjugated and pay the 'poor tax' otherwise they are to be put to the sword.

I have been told that there is a strong belief in islam is that there is no complusion in religion.

It is a religious tenet of Islam, i.e. a virtue to lie to the infidel about the purpose, motives of Islam. Hence religion of peace…

 

[sea]

.

 

[SpoonFULL]

It is a religious tenet of Islam, i.e. a virtue to lie to the infidel about the purpose, motives of Islam. Hence religion of peace…

I don't think that this is true, otherwise there would have been no promise of heaven and hell as consequences of ones actions in any religion, particularly since one's beliefs are unknown. So this is a tenet of any religion by logic ('people' not recognising this is another matter that has nothing to do with religion).

Even though terrorism acts were made in the name of religion here, it is made by individuals and their own ill interpretation of that religion, not because of the religion itself.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Saying all that, it's still a tragic event and should be condemned harshly by anyone who thinks freedom is important in their lives.

How is freedom involved?

It is important to note that Muslims did condemn the action in France with the Imam of of Paris, condemned what had happened.
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/wo...ndemn-attack-call-it-declaration-war-20150107

Nothing of value should be retained from those declarations: the muslims in France are pressured into taking that stance. Some think that way, others do not.

When people are required to take responsibility for stuff , they are two kinds of people: people who can question that demand, and people who are urged not to question that demand.
Muslims belong to the second category.

 

[Adverant]

I don't think that this is true, otherwise there would have been no promise of heaven and hell as consequences of ones actions in any religion,

Perhaps not all religions see truth-telling as categorically good or evil, but circumstantial. The Koran teaches it is circumstantial. It is in fact an obligation to lie in certain circumstances, and tell the truth in others. The categorical imperative is to advance Islam, not to tell the truth. Muhammad lied several times as a means to conquer his enemies and assassinate adversaries.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

 

[Pladio]

How is freedom involved?

Nothing of value should be retained from those declarations: the muslims in France are pressured into taking that stance. Some think that way, others do not.

When people are required to take responsibility for stuff , they are two kinds of people: people who can question that demand, and people who are urged not to question that demand.
Muslims belong to the second category.

Freedom as one (alleged) purpose of those people who murdered the people as Charlie Hebdo is that they do not believe in freedom to draw what you want and general freedom of speech.

I don't understand your second paragraph.

 

[Thaurin]

Hate them as human beings for what they have done to others; don't hate the religion, ideas or people they claim to represent.

I hate the religion(s), but not the people—except in the case of terrorists like these, of course.

Luckily, in a free world you can still hate something without being persecuted for it. Or can you?

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Freedom as one (alleged) purpose of those people who murdered the people as Charlie Hebdo is that they do not believe in freedom to draw what you want and general freedom of speech.

I don't understand your second paragraph.

Freedom of speech? It would mean that the murderers were from the government.
It appears that they were not (until astounding revelation that wont come)



As to the other part

Muslims are required to take responsibility for something they are only loosely connected to. They share the same faith as the murderers, that is pretty thin.

When some other people are required to do the same for a similar situation, among those people, there are some who virulently reject any kind of responsibility etc They get out scot free.

It goes as two categories of people: people who can question the urge for taking responsibility and people who do not.
The first category does not have to submit, the second is asked to submit.

 

[Pladio]

Freedom of speech? It would mean that the murderers were from the government.
It appears that they were not (until astounding revelation that wont come)



As to the other part

Muslims are required to take responsibility for something they are only loosely connected to. They share the same faith as the murderers, that is pretty thin.

When some other people are required to do the same for a similar situation, among those people, there are some who virulently reject any kind of responsibility etc They get out scot free.

It goes as two categories of people: people who can question the urge for taking responsibility and people who do not.
The first category does not have to submit, the second is asked to submit.

There's no reason for them to be for the government ...

With regards to your second point, it still does make sense, since people who are of similar backgrounds or beliefs usually support one another.

In this case, general assumption would be that since they murdered people in the name of Islam, other Muslims should say they were wrong and they do not believe the same thing.

When some Hindu nationalists were performing terrorist attacks it was right of people like Gandhi to denounce these.

It's the same principle in this case.

 

[xSamhainx]

all the non-muslim experts on Islam are a crack up! Watching you defend yourselves in a sharia court would be a comedy special for the ages.

Dont get me wrong, christians are annoying. Sure, there's examples we can all dig up of other people besides our happy go lucky muslim bretheren that commit atrocities. But sharia law…. really? Not a problem for progressive thinking individuals? Forces of Islam around the world raging conflict to what - establish new bastions of peace and progressive thought?

France is one big Eurabia experiment. I think it's fascinating. We get to see how modern progressive thought and Sharia Law co-exist in the same society on a large scale. Can the "Religion of Peace" co-exist? Just maybe France can "mellow out" it's growing population of fundamentalist Muslims?

Or maybe like i said - France, say hello to your own little homegrown intifada.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

There's no reason for them to be for the government

Could this be taken to 4 chan or Youtube?

 

[Pladio]

Could this be taken to 4 chan or Youtube?

What ?

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Here:
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1061294183&postcount=67
It explains it all.
For taking it to 4 chan or YT, it is somewhere else.

With regards to your second point, it still does make sense, since people who are of similar backgrounds or beliefs usually support one another.

Since when?

In this case, general assumption would be that since they murdered people in the name of Islam, other Muslims should say they were wrong and they do not believe the same thing.

In the name of freedom of speech, it might be supposed.

And what about a representative of a State that itself represent people through elections?
They should not be required to speak too?

It's the same principle in this case.

Gandhi was urged to tell what he said?

 

[Pladio]

I do not understand you Chien. I have no idea what your point is and how this relates to my original point. Maybe I'm dumb, but I see no point in this conversation.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Perhaps not all religions see truth-telling as categorically good or evil, but circumstantial. The Koran teaches it is circumstantial. It is in fact an obligation to lie in certain circumstances, and tell the truth in others. The categorical imperative is to advance Islam, not to tell the truth. Muhammad lied several times as a means to conquer his enemies and assassinate adversaries.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

You see this is the one of the big problems, and thank you for bringing it up. Taqiyya is a 'tradition' created by the shia and their priests (as shia believe in priesthood and that they are the only beings that 'speak to god' and able to interpret the quran) to justify hypocracy, lying and decieving. This is not in islam as far as I read, and in fact the quran calls it clear hypocracy and warned over many many verses against it, and mohammad never called for it nor promoted such actions.

Shia have their own interpretation of the quran as understood 'only' by their priests (bunch of illeterate thugs that spread nonesense for the purpose of getting 1/5th of people's income as tax).

So again, people are judging religions based on actions of individuals.

 

[SpoonFULL]

all the non-muslim experts on Islam are a crack up! Watching you defend yourselves in a sharia court would be a comedy special for the ages.

Dont get me wrong, christians are annoying. Sure, there's examples we can all dig up of other people besides our happy go lucky muslim bretheren that commit atrocities. But sharia law…. really? Not a problem for progressive thinking individuals? Forces of Islam around the world raging conflict to what - establish new bastions of peace and progressive thought?

France is one big Eurabia experiment. I think it's fascinating. We get to see how modern progressive thought and Sharia Law co-exist in the same society on a large scale. Can the "Religion of Peace" co-exist? Just maybe France can "mellow out" it's growing population of fundamentalist Muslims?

Or maybe like i said - France, say hello to your own little homegrown intifada.

I just hope that someone can do an experiment and survey muslims if they want sharia law, and I woud guarantee you that more than 95% don't want that.

It is a shame that the media seems to be focusing on the 0.01% trouble makers/terrorists as if they represent all muslims!