Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Paris Magazine Shooting


Doro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not really. I am not talking about people I met. Why not argue about the actual point, instead of making up that someone said something.

 

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made.

 

So, care to back up this obvious statement of bullshit you made (quoted below). How can you defend this statement? What are you basing your view of the majority? And by majority of muslims, you mean only muslims in the middle east - which are less than 20% of the muslims world wide?  test

 

 

Are you so lazy that you just want to spout off ridiculous statements, but are not willing to back them up of offer any proof?

 

Actually Doro has a point.
 
It might not be true (then again it could be) , but the impression they do give is that the majority (in the UK)  do sympathise.  We can only give our opinions based on what we see and hear for ourselves.
 
Of course not all we read and see is correct, neither will all you see and hear be correct.
 
If I or you visit a mosque or a series of mosques throughout the world, there's a big chance most are going to be against extremism, or at lease they are going to imply that to you and me,. That does not really mean that are against it, neither does it mean they are supporting it.
 
I used to co-run the UK side of IT for a well known UK clothing company. The buyers would make many visits to their factories in the likes of India to check all was OK, no slave labour. Guess what, almost every single time everything was perfect as that is what the factories wanted to portray. Then we have the undercover news-night (or something similar) showing children in sweat shops making our clothes.
 
I base my comments on what I see in the UK. I base it on how over the past 20 years Islam in the UK seem to have got more extreme (not talking about radicals and people fighting for Syria etc). Years ago they seemed to integrate much more (or possibly it was because they were left to themselves and no one paid them any attention), we didn't see them demanding the right to cover their faces 20+ years ago, this is a recent thing.
 
There's been numerous so called honour killings where brothers. fathers etc have killed daughters because of their choice of a western lifestyle.
 
Or even world wide
 
Honor killings and honor violence are escalating here and abroad. The problem is that we can’t talk about the problem, as evidenced by the controversy that Hamas-CAIR whipped up over the documentary here in the States, “Honor Diaries.”
 
Over 91% of honor killings worldwide are Islamic.
 
According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, “In the name of preserving family ‘honor,’ women and girls are shot, stoned, burned, buried alive, strangled, smothered and knifed to death with horrifying regularity.” Between 5,000 and 20,000 so-called honor killings are committed each year, based on long-held beliefs that any female who commits — or is suspected of committing — an “immoral” act should be killed to “restore honor” to her family.
 
But of course that number is far higher.
 
Because so many honor killings are never reported — and because international organizations are discouraged from keeping statistics on such politically sensitive practices — no one knows how many honor killings occur each year.

 

Female castration is outlawed for obvious reasons, but is still often carried out in the UK, yet in 2013, it was estimated 20,000 girls living in the UK under 15 yrs of age were at risk (estimated by the government)  and that 60,000 were living with the consequences. 

 
Then there's forced marriages where the government had to change the law to try and stop it.
 
 
Last year, the (UK) government's Forced Marriage Unit dealt with 1,302 cases.
 
Some 82% of victims were female and 18% male while 15% were under the age of 15.
 
The cases involved 74 different countries with 43% relating to Pakistan, 11% to India and 10% to Bangladesh.
........................................
 
One woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the BBC she was duped into travelling to Pakistan to marry her first cousin. She escaped and her family have now disowned her.
 
"I was 17 years old. I was told we were going on a family holiday abroad. Two weeks into the holiday my family informed me that I wasn't going back to London and I was going to remain away to be forced into a marriage.
 
"I hadn't met him before. Didn't know him, didn't know his name or anything about him. I demanded that I come back and finish off my studies.
 
"I begged them and I begged them but they said no, I had to stay and be married off. Their view of it all was that they felt I was going to become far too Westernised and bring shame onto the family and therefore they felt, in their eyes, it was the best thing to do.
 
"The marriage was absolutely horrendous. All the types of abuse you can think of - sexual, verbal, physical. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy; it was quite vile.
 
"I wasn't allowed out at all, I was more or less a prisoner in their house. I was treated like a slave. I wasn't allowed to do anything, my ex-husband's mum used to say to me the only reason I was there was to cook and clean and be a slave for her son at night."
 
In another case, Alexander Khan said he was sent to get married by his step family who had received several thousands pounds and some land.
 
"When I was 13 they sent me to north-west Pakistan, and what they told me to do was sit beside this girl who was nine years old. Unbeknown to me, that was an arranged marriage and I didn't know what was happening.

 

I wonder how many  Muslims dead against extremism, would tell on their freinds if they new they were getting their daughter castrated, or sending her abroad to be married etc,

 
When this is the main side of the Muslim faith the average person in the street gets to hear about, then we see extremists, well I'm, sorry, but no matter how wrong that impression might be, that is the impression they currently give.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might not be true (then again it could be) , but the impression they do give is that the majority (in the UK)  do sympathise.  We can only give our opinions based on what we see and hear for ourselves.

I'm basing it more on a series of logical steps. The majority of Muslims wish to implement Sharia law. That's a given. Now Sharia law demands that Muslims wage 'jihad' against unbelievers who persecute them. Since mockery of the prophet is considered persecution by Muslims (hence, their very strong reaction to mocking their favourite paedophilic warlord), they are free to use violence as demanded by their religion and its laws (providing they give a 'warning' beforehand, which they did before the Paris shootings). Ergo, the majority of Muslims do actually sympathise with what the 'extremists' do, as they are following the exact law that they wish to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basing it more on a series of logical steps. The majority of Muslims wish to implement Sharia law. That's a given. Now Sharia law demands that Muslims wage 'jihad' against unbelievers who persecute them. Since mockery of the prophet is considered persecution by Muslims (hence, their very strong reaction to mocking their favourite paedophilic warlord), they are free to use violence as demanded by their religion and its laws (providing they give a 'warning' beforehand, which they did before the Paris shootings). Ergo, the majority of Muslims do actually sympathise with what the 'extremists' do, as they are following the exact law that they wish to implement.

How do you know the majority of Muslims want to enact Sharia Law, which majority in which country?

 

Tribulation has a good point. People in the UK are basing info on what they see in the UK, while people in the US are basing info on what we see in the US. It's apples and oranges, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know the majority of Muslims want to enact Sharia Law, which majority in which country?

I mean the majority worldwide. Basically, if you look into what countries have Sharia law (and their Islamic population size) and what countries have a high number of Muslims and no Sharia law (and what sort of statistics there are for the desire to implement Sharia law among those Muslims), it paints a pretty clear picture of the sort of demand that Muslims have for it.

It's their holy law, after all. Why wouldn't they want it?

Tribulation has a good point. People in the UK are basing info on what they see in the UK, while people in the US are basing info on what we see in the US. It's apples and oranges, apparently.

I base it on what we see worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm not going to a Muslim KFC and asking for Bacon...

Dude, I do it all the time. It's hilarious looking at them squirm. Sometimes they say they don't sell bacon and other times they get an eastern European colleague, but most of the time they deal with it. It's just bacon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are a few urban legends, the one about KFC serving mutated chickens, more than 2 legs, hence the name change from Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC, and then the whole Kentucky Fried Rats thing.......

 

Not the best fried chicken in the world by far, rather greasy and the chicken parts seem smaller than a full grown chicken, but I do like the seasonings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[snip]

 

When for example  we have more British born Muslims fighting in Syria than in the armed forces, alarm bells do ring, and your personal experience is not going to change that, sorry.

 

And your perception of why they are fighting will not change what many muslims the world over already believe, pratice and demostrate daily by how they lead their lives.

 

Retain your bias if you wish: it will not alter the reality of what is also out there in the greater world -- so yes I am quite happy to  "agree to disagree" on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem is (and always has been) that the peaceful muslims blatantly ignore the fact that there are radical muslims who murder "in the name god"

 

When something does happens you're assured to read one fo the following excuses: "Islam is a religion of peace" and "Those terrorists aren't real muslims" ... And our politicians are buying it and the media as well.

 

Already now, after the paris shootings people are rushing to defend this statement once again and I'm wondering: Why?

 

Here's a great article written by the wife of Theo van Gogh (who was stabed to death for making a movie about the treatmen of women in islam ...)

 

>>> Made it smaller so it would fit
 

After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.

This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.

The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.

There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran. But the Quran is hardly alone. In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept. The 20th-century jihad “bible,” and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani Gen. S.K. Malik. He argues that because God, Allah, himself authored every word of the Quran, the rules of war contained in the Quran are of a higher caliber than the rules developed by mere mortals.

In Malik’s analysis of Quranic strategy, the human soul—and not any physical battlefield—is the center of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet.” Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose.”

Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want.

In Islam, it is a grave sin to visually depict or in any way slander the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims are free to believe this, but why should such a prohibition be forced on nonbelievers? In the U.S., Mormons didn’t seek to impose the death penalty on those who wrote and produced “The Book of Mormon,” a satirical Broadway sendup of their faith. Islam, with 1,400 years of history and some 1.6 billion adherents, should be able to withstand a few cartoons by a French satirical magazine. But of course deadly responses to cartoons depicting Muhammad are nothing new in the age of jihad.

Moreover, despite what the Quran may teach, not all sins can be considered equal. The West must insist that Muslims, particularly members of the Muslim diaspora, answer this question: What is more offensive to a believer—the murder, torture, enslavement and acts of war and terrorism being committed today in the name of Muhammad, or the production of drawings and films and books designed to mock the extremists and their vision of what Muhammad represents?

To answer the late Gen. Malik, our soul in the West lies in our belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The freedom to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all—such freedoms are the soul of our civilization. And that is precisely where the Islamists have attacked us. Again.

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.

There can only be one answer to this hideous act of jihad against the staff of Charlie Hebdo. It is the obligation of the Western media and Western leaders, religious and lay, to protect the most basic rights of freedom of expression, whether in satire on any other form. The West must not appease, it must not be silenced. We must send a united message to the terrorists: Your violence cannot destroy our soul.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is the author of “Infidel” (2007). Her latest book, “Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation,” will be published in April by HarperCollins.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this from a muslim on my facebook.... some may not like the comment but he does have a point... 

 

"FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS NONSENSE" When you attack black people they call it "racism", when you attack jewish people they call it "antisemitism", when you attack women they call it "gender discrimination", when you attack homosexuality they call it "intolerance", when you attack your country they call it "terrorism", when you attack a religious sect they call it "hate speech", but when they attack at the dignity of our prophet MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him) they call it "Freedom of Expression". If the world is carrying such attitude towards islam and muslims then I'm sorry you are provoking more anger.

I'll call him out. He's full of it.

 

Freedom of expression is the right to challenge accepted or unaccepted viewpoints with a viewpoint of your own. You do not have to agree with it, but they have the right to do it. Granted, if you preach violence, then buddy you had better be prepared to do time for it (or die yourself), but if you talk about changing hearts and minds, then I'm all for it. Last time I checked, drawing a picture of anything was not a crime anywhere, except in the Muslim culture (let's leave obvious sex crime stuff like pedophilia out, separate issue and obviously the crime is not the drawing, but what the drawing depicts, sex with a minor, which is illegal, mkay?).

 

People draw all sorts of anti-religious stuff, some is stupid as hell, such as the very obvious Popsicle God depiction of Jesus, to the very thought provoking pictures of Jesus weeping when learning of the pedophilia among the Church, but so what? No one ever died from it, except maybe people who draw pictures of Mohammad, even if it shows him preaching peace while holding a sword. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

Hell, I think what these people want is the kind of law they had in their homeland, where going against the state religion comes with automatic penalties, ranging from lots of pain to death, sometimes lots of pain AND death. And this is for people who are NOT members of their faith! What they do to each other is crazy. At least they just kill us.

 

This kind of behavior isn't a problem only with Muslims, other faiths have their issues with dealing with people who question their faith. Up until the last couple of hundred years Catholics and Protestants also killed heretics (anyone that doesn't practice faith the way they state is correct). I think only the Muslims though and Communists in Tibet and in China kill people who don't follow the agreed state sponsored religion anymore. Hell, Pakistan proved how even if left alone these people can't even get along amongst themselves, going right for their guns when their is a power struggle.

 

POWER, that's the main problem. It's the real goal, religion is the tool use to get it. The people are just too stupid to see it, or willing accomplices.

 

AS FAR AS TOLERANCE GOES ---

 

Tolerance is defined as:

 

a :  sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
 

b :  the act of allowing something :  toleration

 

: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own

: the ability to accept, experience, or survive something harmful or unpleasant

 

Acceptance is defined thusly:

 

:  the act of accepting :  the fact of being accepted :  approval
 
Approval is defined like this:
 

: the belief that something or someone is good or acceptable : a good opinion of someone or something

: permission to do something : acceptance of an idea, action, plan, etc.

 

Nowhere does it state in defining tolerance that you must approve, nowhere. In fact it even goes so far as to pointedly state that you can tolerate and still find something disagreeable and unpleasant, like smoking. So all the people complaining and ranting like idiots about 'phobic' thoughts are themselves intolerant. I'll leave it at that, as people who are stuck in that kind of a mental cage where they require others to agree with them (like Muslims expecting us to agree to follow their rules) are crazies and should be ignored unless they become dangerous to others. They belong to the same group of people as terrorists as far as their belief structure goes. Don't question them, or out comes the hysteria. It's laughable, and somewhat pitiable, that someone who likes to bugger men needs me or anyone to give him permission. If he needs it, then he must believe on some level that's he's in the wrong. And that's not my problem, that's his. As I've stated earlier in another post, society doesn't have to give approval, that's not their job, and it you can't come to grips with that on your own, seek professional help. I firmly believe that in some way people that behave like this (seeking approval or trying to force behavior) are mentally broken.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say those Islamists were pretty stupid, but the fact they were Islamists in the first place sort of shows that anyway. They go and shoot up a place drawing cartoons and that only a few thousand people really know about or read. And after they get themselves killed, the same place starts drawing even more pictures of Mohammed and now millions of people know about it. The exact opposite of their goal has been achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say those Islamists were pretty stupid, but the fact they were Islamists in the first place sort of shows that anyway. They go and shoot up a place drawing cartoons and that only a few thousand people really know about or read. And after they get themselves killed, the same place starts drawing even more pictures of Mohammed and now millions of people know about it. The exact opposite of their goal has been achieved.

 

Yep.

They didn't learn from North Korea at all ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that these radicals are picking and choosing which parts of their religion they want to obey, interpreting it how they want it to be and using it out of context, denying the authority of the Caliphate, which is why many Imams will tell you that these people are not true Muslims.

I agree that a majority of Muslims aren't taking a stand against them, but that does not mean that they condone it.

I work three days a week in the heart of Luton, which is pretty much Muslim central in the UK and I have contact on a daily basis with scores of Muslims, so far I have not come across a single Muslim that is not angry and upset about these attacks, most of the Muslims I've spoken to about this are actually too scared to openly protest against these crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already 14 pages of what and how and why religious fanaticism is stupid, but no questioning if religion has anything to do with this story.

When something like this happen my first question is who is behind it - some 'terrorists' or certain secret services. The answer to which is: it doesn't matter, since the latter work for the former :)

Islam has very little to do with this act, regardless of the public opinions of Muslim people whether they like or condemn some journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam has very little to do with this act, regardless of the public opinions of Muslim people whether they like or condemn some journal.

 

... Islam is exactly why this attack took place. They attacked people who drew pictures of their prophet. Their prophet (and his 'sanctity') is a major part of Islam. And they screamed that they'd 'avenged Mohammed'. It's the whole reason they were attacked in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple truth (n my opinion) is it boils down to something all religions suffer from.

 

1) The congregation not wanting to rock the boat, the congregations not wanting to upset their leaders, usually out of fear of being cast out etc.

 

2) The leaders using control techniques of various measures to make the congregation not dare publicly question things.

 

Catholics worship the Pope more than they worship God (from what I can see), I know a fair few Irish people and they all say that the priests rule, the people are scared stiff of upsetting them. 

 

Christians (in the UK) suffer from a real power and control problem, Dare to question the leadership about anything and usually you get the line

 

"are you with us or against us"

 

and they then quote for example Hebrews 13:17  at you

 

 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you

 

I have witnessed first hand, extreme cruelty in the Christian church to those at a time they need the church most. I have heard church member after church member complain behind their backs.  These same members when I say "why don't you tell them" say words along the lines of "Because I don't want to be yet another person forced to leave for dare questioning them"

 

I did question them, as a result, not only was my membership terminated, but also my wife's who had said nothing and is the most caring and loving individual you could ever meet.  I was then referred to as Satan in the next meeting (I have a recording of it) and many people told me they were horrified, but no one had the guts to say so to the leadership (and many jokes were made to my wife by my friends at the church along the lines of "what's it like to be married to Satan".

 

on a side note:

------------------------

Lots of letters went to and from me, my church and the churches head office (not correct term, but you know what I mean) , one of the things I stressed in EVERY letter was that my wife deserves an apology for being expelled just for being married to me, and I received loads of responses, not one addressed or even mentioned this.

 

My son and daughter are both atheists now, their main reason, what they witnessed in the church while growing up, how much the church hurt their mum etc and to be honest, I'm not surprised they are, the whole thing sickens me and I doubt I'll ever go to a so called Christian church in the UK again

-------------------------

 

and when church members complained to me about my treatment and I say "why don't you tell them",  they say "look what happened to your wife, and she didn't even say anything "

 

Yes I'm still very very angry 5 years later :).  

 

Worse still is when people finally have enough and go to another Church, the other church don't want them to become members unless they have made peace with their previous church, so although most left that church hating it, those same people lie to the leaders of both churches, saying things like "I feel God wants me to move to this other Church," etc  then the original church starts believing all is OK when it isn't.

 

I could literally write 100 pages on my experiences at one single church near me alone.But sadly my experience isn't limited to that one church or that one denomination (New Frontiers) 

 

But my point is, this is a Christian church full of people that can leave when they want, choose to turn up to etc and they ALL chose to complain behind the leaders backs but do NOTHING. Most have non Christian friends as well as Christians ones, it's not a part of their whole community like I get the impression the Muslim faith is. 

 

If Christians give in this easily due to the clever ways their leaders twist words, how much more likely is it in a community of Muslims where the faith is most of their community and a big part of their culture, that it's going to be far worse to question their leaders?

 

And when  you have a religion where an entire gender has virtually no say, this is an even bigger problem as if every single Muslim woman in the UK wanted to speak out against their leadership, I expect every single one would be scared to do so.

 

When you live in fear of your leaders, regardless of your beliefs, it never ends well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the reason you believe they attacked a small, satirical magazine producer in Paris?

For the same reason the whole semi-myth for the 'world terrorism' exists - to keep tension. A shootout here, a little explosion there, this is how it goes. As a (somewhat  cynical) friend of mine would put it - In times of crisis it's beneficial to have legs and arms flying around (said on another occasion about some bomb). In that sense, why not attacking it? It's a target as good as any other. And even better - it makes it look like it's all about religion.

 

This is not to say that the pawns with the AKs weren't genuinely believing in what they were doing, shouting, etc. Chances are they didn't even know who really organized the party. In their heads it could have been 'about religion', fair enough.

 

The aliens are unlikely cause, as they probably have much better things to do. For example, organizing a society based on common sense and not on consumerist economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...