Just heard news the three attackers have been arrested.
Pretty brutal stuff, with a cop executed on the street, and 12 killed during an editorial meeting of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
There's been a lot of coverage of the cartoons this magazine publishes. They're in pretty poor taste. But as the French president said, "the Republic has been attacked." Freedom of speech is an underpinning of French institutions and values.
Quite a different thing from the lone gunman in Sydney in the Lindt Cafe. These guys were militarily trained.
Y'know, I've often had the thought of, after one of these endless muslim killings and bombings, of bombing a mosque and leaving a note saying "How do YOU like it?"
I hope everyone realizes I'm saying that with dark humor, and would never actually bomb anyone, for any reason. But it does make the point of both the level of anger these senseless killings raise in me (and millions of others), and that muslim jihadists do this crap because there's not enough pushback. If we attacked muslims with the same merciless vigor with which they murder us, other muslims would eagerly turn them in to avoid further backlash.
Moderate Muslim commentator on Australian news this morning deploring the attack and saying these people are on the fringe of the fringe.
We had a thing here after the Lindt cafe attack. If you were Muslim and felt intimidated riding public transport because of the risk of being assaulted by non-Muslims, there was a Twitter hashtag, #illridewithyou so non-Muslims would protect Muslims from those sorts of reprisals. Seems to have worked as there was no backlash reported in the media.
And that is because Western values of tolerance are better than that.
Having said that, The Economist asks when Islam will have it's Martin Luther Reformation moment.
Moderate Muslim commentator on Australian news this morning deploring the attack and saying these people are on the fringe of the fringe.
Like clockwork.
It's just as Matt Stone and Trey Parker said: as long as a nation claims there's cultural division in a war, it can still go to war, but seem like the picture of tolerance and concern. That's Islamic culture to a tee. While the commentator is shaking my hand, I am suitably distracted so that the alleged "fringe" can cut it off.
Quote:
We had a thing here after the Lindt cafe attack. If you were Muslim and felt intimidated riding public transport because of the risk of being assaulted by non-Muslims, there was a Twitter hashtag, #illridewithyou so non-Muslims would protect Muslims from those sorts of reprisals. Seems to have worked as there was no backlash reported in the media.
Dave. How is that you, the lawyer, are unable to detect the speciousness here?
Quote:
And that is because Western values of tolerance are better than that.
And this is the kind of arrogance that is killing us off as a culture. It's a real life Red Wedding and we're Robb Stark.
Quote:
Having said that, The Economist asks when Islam will have it's Martin Luther Reformation moment.
Jesus. H. Fucking. Christ.
I hope you're just trying to be funny and not actually simpatico with that. Otherwise, I'll have to call you IggyPro junior.
In Pro's defense, it's very possible he wasn't aware how backhanded and stupid he was being. Iggy, on the other hand was shooting for Biggest Douche in the Galaxy award.
I'm not particularly certain why the left chooses to view faith-based religious movements as a study in cyclical behavioral phenomena, as though each one has to go through a period of violence and cruelty before adopting civility......Actually, I know exactly why. It's because they were fed disinformation about the Catholic Church and the Crusades and they've chosen to run with it for the better part of the past 800 years and subsequently lump all faiths together indiscriminately.
Whether or not the left chooses to acknowledge it most of the time, modern Western Culture was founded on Christian values--however diluted it may have become, the influence is still undeniably present. And as I told both Iggy and Pro, the only points in history when the people were offered reprieve from Legalistic and/or Theocratic oppression is when the free will-based Christian philosophy had a foothold.
Consider for a moment that all of the Muslims who are speaking against these "fringe" elements are based in Western culture. They have had to assimilate in a Christian influenced venue prior to taking these (erroneous) positions. Keeping this in mind, it's apparent that the allegedly Muslim detractors aren't criticizing these "fringes" from a position of Muslim Protestantism, but rather Christian morality veiled as Islamic civility.
Moderate Muslim commentator on Australian news this morning deploring the attack and saying these people are on the fringe of the fringe.
We had a thing here after the Lindt cafe attack. If you were Muslim and felt intimidated riding public transport because of the risk of being assaulted by non-Muslims, there was a Twitter hashtag, #illridewithyou so non-Muslims would protect Muslims from those sorts of reprisals. Seems to have worked as there was no backlash reported in the media.
And that is because Western values of tolerance are better than that.
Having said that, The Economist asks when Islam will have it's Martin Luther Reformation moment.
The Muslim "fringe of the fringe" is one hell of a big and prolific club, worldwide!
For all the PC crap of how this is just a tiny non-representative group, in all the years since 9-11-2001, I have NEVER seen any muslim apologize for 9-11, and certainly none of the muslims I know personally or professionally. They often say "You can't judge a whole religion by a few..." And even get indignant at the suggestion of widespread Islamic violence.
But they never say it is wrong, or that it embarrasses them as a muslim to have this done in the name of their religion.
You just need to do a little googling or go back and look at some of the examples I've posted previously that you keep forgetting. They're not all in on it and wasting time and energy hating people that wish you no ill accomplishes what exactly? Nor is this a right vs left thing when you look at are elected officials positions. Bush was the one who framed Islam as a religion of peece and beyond the crazy talk radio nonsense your current GOP leadership is just as "pc" as the dems. Lets focus on the ones that actually did this.
I'd agree that W. Bush and other Republicans also downplayed the threat of Islamic terror. And they were equally criticized by Republican conservatives for their softpedal on terrorism.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats on terrorism is that while Bush also downplayed Islamic terror in his public comments, W. Bush still took a hard military stance against terror, hit back HARD immediately at Afghanistan, and also acted decisively against Iraq in March 2003 (with Democrat Senate approval 6 months in advance by the way), acted decisively in forming the Department of Homeland Security, acted decisively with the Patriot Act (the latter two I'm not fully on board with), approved enhanced interrogation, and locked up Al Qaida and Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Whereas Democrats tried to de-fund U.S. military forces on the battlefield, negotiate with Iran and other enemies, while alienating countries that are our allies, use drone strikes to kill, but take no Al Qaida prisoners that can give us information. Democrats free the most dangerous prisoners from Guantanamo in lousy deals, that allows them to return to the battlefield and kill more U.S. soldiers and civilians. Republicans would keep them locked up until the war ends. Democrats prematurely exited Iraq and lost all the hard-gained victories, enabling ISIS to take half of Iraq in just a matter of weeks. And 8 months later, has still done nothing about ISIS. AND NOW OBAMA IS READY TO PREMATURELY PULL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN AND LET THE SAME THING HAPPEN THERE!
Democrats made public our prisoner interrogation playbook, so now Al Qaida prisoners laugh with defiance when they used to snap and provide information, with no torture given or required. And actually try to prosecute CIA agents for simply doing their jobs!
On every conceivable level, Democrats have proven themselves weaker on Islamic terrorism, and on national defense as a whole.
It should be pointed out, Jaburg, that the New York Times and Washington Post wouldn't publish those cartoons in 2006 that parodied Islam. Hypocritically, they censored themselves and wouldn't publish them, even just to give their audience an informed perspective of what the controversy and cartoons were. Even as they bemoaned repressed freedom of speech.
Great insight from a terrorism expert on the situation in Europe. They actually have "no-go" zones in France that are run by Sharia law, and French law enforcement has no jurisdiction and cannot interfere!
He cites that as many as 1 in 6 in parts of France and wider Europe support ISIS! That Europe is "lost" to radical islam. That it could be taken back, if European officials had the will, but they don't so it will only get worse, in both the Mid East and in Europe. And that same denial of the facts and reluctance to take basic steps to contain Islamic radicalism is also present in Obama's policy toward muslim immigration and radicalism.
Western civilization and it's values isn't founded on Christian concepts, you nitwits. It's founded on the pluralism and rejection of spiritualism that started with the Reformation and the Renaissance and culminated with Darwin and cosmology.
Despite Christianity, Western civilization has prevailed.
Now I remember why I don't come to this board. I always come away feeling like I have stepped in incorporeal dog shit and spend the next hour trying to wipe it off my psyche.
Pluralism is an aspect of a tolerant morality. Not the morality itself. And the only way that a functional society, based on said morality, will take root is if the culture freely embraces it. I'm not particularly sure why you think you can divorce the mindset of the people from the central authority and its applied governance (i.e. the "official" decisions that accept or reject a given mindset) when they all compose the same culture.
The only really notably cultural disconnect you can pull out of a hat is the French Revolt and its ensuing bloodbath. But even then, the vast vast VAST majority of French were Catholic just the same as the Royal Family, and it was Hugenot upper classes that socially engineered the peasants into a festival of anti-religious violence. In which case, the subsequent establishment of secularist laws and the Authoritarian-sourced Napoleonic Wars that followed hindered France's cultural development rather than improved it.
Why exactly do people with a dislike for theism tend to think that society can achieve social equanimity without an applied Manichean philosophy? There is no basis for a set of ethics and morals if you do not strictly define "right" and "wrong". It's always mystified me how one can come to the conclusion that cooperation (as opposed to consolidation) is somehow the natural order of things despite having an array of wildly different, utterly incompatible moralities trying--and failing--to intermix. The idea that Christendom's Manichean structure made no real contributions to modern commerce and society beyond an introduction of dogmatic mysticism is childish at best and ignorantly prejudicial at worst.
The concept of free will is totally unique to Judeo-Christianity, and is the only real source of tolerance and pluralism in the West--which is exactly why I took issue with the way you tried to make it somehow indistinct from Islam.
Despite my antipathy for Luther, Calvin, et al. The Protestant Reformation was not a rejection of spiritualism. Their primary issue was the precedence behind Papal authority with respect to heavenly edicts. They still believed in a free will, providence, and divine arbitration. Darwin's contributions, for that matter, consisted of adding another story to the long condemned structure known as "Marxism" and only served to aid Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler in validating their respective, and religiously secular, campaigns for dominance.
Quote:
Now I remember why I don't come to this board. I always come away feeling like I have stepped in incorporeal dog shit and spend the next hour trying to wipe it off my psyche.
Is this frustration motivated by my (admittedly) persnickety tone or simply because you disagree with what I'm saying?
If it's the former, I already pointed out why your post felt more than a little backhanded, so I wouldn't say it's unprovoked. If it's the latter, might I suggest applying some thicker skin? I think you take for granted the idea that there are certain things with which everyone's going to agree on solely humanitarian grounds.
On that note: I fail to see what your link proves about Islam itself. What kind of intellectual point is being made with regards to the philosophy of Islam by emphasizing the opinions of people within it rather than the philosophy itself?
Indeed, our once local philosophy collegiate, Animalman, tried to go the "it's all a matter of interpretation" route and express that anyone can intuit what they like from the Q'uran, Bible, etc. and aptly deconstruct it into constituent parts without any concern for its message as a whole. But his dislike and disregard for Ontological Empiricism is his own imperfection. And I don't recommend that you adopt it.
Western civilization and it's values isn't founded on Christian concepts, you nitwits. It's founded on the pluralism and rejection of spiritualism that started with the Reformation and the Renaissance and culminated with Darwin and cosmology...Now I remember why I don't come to this board. I always come away feeling like I have stepped in incorporeal dog shit and spend the next hour trying to wipe it off my psyche.
Dave, I think we've had this discussion before. In any event...
Western Civilization is based on the "do no harm" ethos (also described as "don't hurt people and don't steal their stuff"). That ethos may be based on secular humanism. It might be based on a belief in God. Or it might be based on belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster. Either way, its all good. However you want to get to it...rationalization or spiritualism...no one cares.
Christianity is currently more or less simpatico with the above. Not always, but the majority of adherents follow it. Same with Judiaism. Same with Buddhism. Etc.
Currently, however, Islam isn't like that. It is extremely backwards.
Religion, at its core, is nothing more than a philosophy or a code of conduct. It might be based on a belief in a supernatural being but its still a code of conduct/philosophy.
We must also consider the fact that a philosophy is intangible and, as such, can only be defined by how a majority of its adherants allow it to be practiced.
Free thought and expression is contingent on the ability to examine and attack various philosophies. Liberators should be cheered. Shacklers should be jeered. Whether or not feelings are hurt is irrelevant as we delve into the marketplace of ideas.
Right now, there is a cognizable case to be made that Islam, as a philosophy, is flawed, based on how it is interpreted by a majority (or a vocal minority) of its adherents. Accordingly, people can, and should, question that philosophy...just as they should question other belief systems.
Reasonable people might reach differing conclusions. However, that does not mean that any such conclusion should be automatically dismissed as bigotry.
Western civilization and it's values isn't founded on Christian concepts, you nitwits. It's founded on the pluralism and rejection of spiritualism that started with the Reformation and the Renaissance and culminated with Darwin and cosmology.
Despite Christianity, Western civilization has prevailed.
Now I remember why I don't come to this board. I always come away feeling like I have stepped in incorporeal dog shit and spend the next hour trying to wipe it off my psyche.
It doesn't matter how much most Muslims protest the terrorism. The same crowd always says the same thing about not seeing it. They don't want to. Why?
It should be pointed out, Jaburg, that the New York Times and Washington Post wouldn't publish those cartoons in 2006 that parodied Islam. Hypocritically, they censored themselves and wouldn't publish them, even just to give their audience an informed perspective of what the controversy and cartoons were. Even as they bemoaned repressed freedom of speech.
Take back what you said about the Beatles or a fucking Jihad on you!
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
It should be pointed out, Jaburg, that the New York Times and Washington Post wouldn't publish those cartoons in 2006 that parodied Islam. Hypocritically, they censored themselves and wouldn't publish them, even just to give their audience an informed perspective of what the controversy and cartoons were. Even as they bemoaned repressed freedom of speech.
No major US news outlets published them.
While I think that was cowardly of the U.S. media, it was out of fear of violence from muslims. As I recall, most of them linked in their articles to sites that did show all the cartoons, that I and others linked and posted here on the RKMB boards.
Originally Posted By: Ultimate Jaburg53
I don't think this is all muslims.
It's like any group of like minded insane people with weapons.
They could be inspired by the Quaran, the Bible, or the Beatles but they are the same thing.
I think we're usually in agreement, Jaburg, but on this issue, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that most of Islamic practitioners don't endorse Islamic jihad and violence.
In the previous Islam, a religion of peace topic, I cited a 2003 Washington Post article that said hundreds of thousands of muslim students either left U.S. colleges or didn't come here, in solidarity with the Al Qaida terrorists. And that between 30% and 50% of the people in muslim countries began boycotting U.S. products after 9-11-2001, even after their leaders asked them not to, and said it will not hurt the U.S. economy, and will only hurt their own economies.
Further, an article I posted from the Anti-Defamation League cited the spike in anti-Semitism in EVERY WESTERN NATION that muslims immigrate to, whether Europe, Canada, the U.S., or Australia. The assault of Jews in the streets, Jewish grave desecration, vandalism and burning of synagogues. Also a spike in gang rapes of women, and in "honor killings" of women. I've personally known two American women who married muslim men, and divorced them in less than 5 years because they were beaten.
So I think the case is definitely made for the vast support among muslims for islamic violent jihad.
As has been pointed out on these boards for years, when a "Christian" bombs an abortion clinic, almost 100% of Christians, far from supporting it, roll their eyes with embarrassment and disown the action as not representative of Christian beliefs and teachings. Likewise the extremely rare incidents like the Guyana tragedy of Rev. Jim Jones, or David Koresch's Branch Davidian cult. They are disowned, not celebrated.
Contrast that with what happened after 9-11-2001, with tens of thousands of Palestinians (and those are just the ones who were filmed!) cheering and dancing in the streets like they'd won the World Cup. And that is consistent with the way they celebrate in the streets any time Israeli civilians are killed as well. Likewise the boycotts in every muslim nation of U.S. products, and leaving/not-attending U.S. schools that I cited above, in solidarity with Al Qaida.
In fairness, a large minority in Iran among the younger generation want to abolish the Islamic government there and establish a more pro-Western culture, and even risked their lives in a "Green Revolution" toward that end a few years ago (many of whom were slaughtered and imprisoned.) And in TIME magazine (in an issue with a cover story, circa 2003-2004, asking "Is Saudi Arabia our friend?") they cited that even in Saudi Arabia, in the heart of Islam, 50% of the population despises Sharia law and would like to see it abolished.
Yes, a large percentage oppose Islamic violence. But quantifiably, a vast percentage, if not a majority, in even the most educated muslim cultures, passively or directly support muslim violence, and are pushing for Sharia Law in Europe and the U.S., and establishing "no-go" free zones independent from Western democracy.
Western civilization and it's values isn't founded on Christian concepts, you nitwits. It's founded on the pluralism and rejection of spiritualism that started with the Reformation and the Renaissance and culminated with Darwin and cosmology.
Despite Christianity, Western civilization has prevailed.
Now I remember why I don't come to this board. I always come away feeling like I have stepped in incorporeal dog shit and spend the next hour trying to wipe it off my psyche.
G-man and Pariah both already responded to this, but I feel a need to respond further.
I'm just stunned by the arrogance and sweeping assumptions of your above remarks, and your declaration of moral superiority without any facts on your side, while dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "dog shit" that you have to spend an hour scraping off your shoe, or psyche, or whatever.
You make an idiot of yourself, without any help from us, when you post absurdity like that.
Christianity is the basis for Western Culture. Pat Buchanan went into that in Death Of The West and several of his other books. Christianity answered the social problems that emerged with the collapse of the Roman Empire, and bred the trust that allowed a merchant system and capitalism to emerge, and (as Pariah and G-men mentioned) uniquely gave us the concept of "free will", where someone can not be a Christian and yet not be killed. A concept that is diametrically opposed to what's going on in Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, and really ANY country where muslims dominate, or even have a significant and inherently violent minority.
As I've cited before, Christianity gave us the first orphanages, when Roman women would abandon infants in the snow so they didn't have to care for them. Christian families would adopt and raise them, and then created orphanages, when there were just too many to raise them all. Christianity gave us the Red Cross. Christianity and the Bible spread literacy worldwide, and most of the greatest universities in the world, such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, began as Bible learning centers. Much of the classic art and architecture of Europe, such as Michaelangelo's work, was a product of Christians.
And Western Democracy, as created by the United States. The concepts of free will and basic human rights are uniquely Christian. The contract government between a people and its leaders reflects the Old Testament and New Testament contract between God and Man.
Dinesh D'Souza points out, in his book What's So Great About America, that China created gunpowder, the compass, and wind-sailing ships with a ballast rudder for long-distance sailing, and had them for hundreds of years before Europeans learned of them through trade with China. Yet it was Europeans, because of something unique in Western culture, that used these inventions to explore and colonize virtually the entire world by the early 20th century. That unique mindset is arguably Christianity.
Columbus initially began his explorations, paid for by the monarch of Spain, to find a trade route to the West Indies, and planned to use the profits of that trade to fund final victory of Spain against their Moor invaders. But much of the exploration that resulted, to the four corners of the world, was missionaries, with the desire to share the gospel (or "good news") to improve the lives of other cultures worldwide. It was the product of a Europe that deeply believed in the value of their culture, and wanted to share it with the world.
As D'Souza further details in What's So Great About America, European colonization expunged a lot of the bad cultural practices that were keeping non-European cultures down. Such as, in his native India, burning the widowed wives alive on a funeral pyre after the death of their husbands. Abolishing cannibalism and human sacrifice. Taking natives away from a hunter-gatherer culture where they were barely surviving, and teaching them farming, education, health-care, and the workings of a modern industrial economy. In his native India (in a chapter titled "Two Cheers for Colonialism") D'Souza argues that for all the bad things that occurred under 150 years of British colonization, and the resentment of Britain that endures in India, colonization was a net gain for India, and its Parliament, court system, universities, stock market, military hierarchy, and even their business clothing still reflects that of the British. If these things were bad for India, they would have been abolished the moment colonization ended in 1947. But quite the contrary, because they are good for India they remain, and have made India the emerging superpower that they are today.
Further, if Christianity is bad for the world, why is it that Christianity is actually far more prevalent and strong among the former European colonies (Brazil, latin America, the Phillipines, Africa, South Korea...) than it is in Europe itself? The strength of Christianity outside of Europe was partly the pressure within the Catholic church that resulted in selecting a Pope from Argentina. Again, if Christianity were bad for liberated former colonials, these liberated countries would have abandoned it.
Finally, your notion that Western Culture has moved beyond Christianity to a more "enlightened" culture of secularism of "Darwin and cosmology". In the examples of Nazism, Soviet/Chinese communism and their by-product, secularism has arguably killed and held back far more people than Christianity. Nazism was social Darwinism in full practice. How'd that work out?
Communism, according to one site I posted here 2 or 3 years back, an online museum of godless Communism's atrocities, lists the personal horror stories of people from nations worldwide who lost their countries and their murdered families to communism, and as a whole on its front page cites numbers in excess of 150 million worldwide attributable to communism.
And the next generation of re-packaged socialist/humanist/atheism, cultural Marxism, the religion of Barack Obama, Dilma in Brazi, Hugo Cavez and his successors, of the Arab Spring, and of race-centric identity-politics culture-rifting revolutions worldwide, is positioning itself in the next few decades to tear apart both the West and the developing world into manufactured ethnocentric chaos and revolution. Communism and its destructive byproduct, by any other name.
You like to spout crap with nothing to back it up, and have a hissy-fit when anyone here confronts you with the facts. I remember, over 10 years ago, when you would participate in debates and we would have a dialogue, where both perspectives were voiced. Now you just want an echo-chamber of people who agree with your dug-in political views, and don't want to be challenged with any facts that contradict your views. And when you ARE challenged with dissenting conservative views, label anyone who disagrees with you as a hater, refuse to even listen to opposing views, compare us (pretentiously) to shit on your psyche, and just want to take your ball and go home.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Let me say also, Australia-Dave, that I would prefer to have you here, and don't wish to chase you away. At your best (which is often), you're fun to have around and a good debater. And I miss the dialogues we used to have here, back in the day, on a variety of issues.
It was in the Canada Allows Same-Sex Marriage topic that I first recall you resorting to name calling anyone who disagrees with you as a hater, that the pleasant dialogues ended. It would be nice if we could get past that, again just lay out both sides, and agree to disagree on the finer points.
Western civilization and it's values isn't founded on Christian concepts, you nitwits. It's founded on the pluralism and rejection of spiritualism that started with the Reformation and the Renaissance and culminated with Darwin and cosmology.
Despite Christianity, Western civilization has prevailed.
Now I remember why I don't come to this board. I always come away feeling like I have stepped in incorporeal dog shit and spend the next hour trying to wipe it off my psyche.
It doesn't matter how much most Muslims protest the terrorism. The same crowd always says the same thing about not seeing it. They don't want to. Why?
Here in South Florida, in an extremely multicultural region, I come into contact with at least hundreds of muslims, if not thousands.
I have NEVER spoken to one who expressed embarrassment with radical islam. They vaguely say that this isn't representative of all islam, but when pressed, they have anti-American views, and side with pan-islamic interests over those of the U.S. and broader West. When pressed, they despise Israel and support Palestinian attacks of every kind.
I've seen several on the liberal side in these RKMB discussions post a muslim-liberal columnist here and there who protests islamic violence, and who waxes philosophic about what Islamic faith truly means. But that doesn't change what millions of violent jihadists ARE DOING in the name of Islam, or the millions who passively support and fund Islamic terror worldwide.
If I had seen one protest by Muslims in my area saying they disowned these actions, I would be persuaded there is another gentler form of Islam. If one muslim person I've spoken to, JUST ONE, in 15 years, had expressed strong opposition to this consistent thread of behavior among Al Qaida, ISIS, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, I might begin to believe that other muslims worldwide feel the same way. But they don't, and I don't.
While I'm sure there are a few, they are about as big and influential a movement within the Muslim global community as the Westboro Baptist church (which, for those not in the know, for all its vitriol and noise, only has about 40 members).
O'Reilly's opening editorial from January 7th, followed by discussion with two anti-terrorism experts, including former CIA official Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer:
O'Reilly rightly cites the rampant global presence of Islamic violence, in every muslim nation, and every nation muslims immigrate to.
And the liberal PC delusion, in the mainstream liberal media and both European and U.S. government leadership, that this "does not represent Islam". It sure as fucking hell does.
From Al Qaida's 1998 Declaration of Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders forward, and through all the inspired branch affiliates of Al Qaida worldwide, they are invoking medieval islamic caliphate, trying to resurrect it, and quoting the Koran. Please enlighten me what part of this is "not representative of Islam"?
It should be pointed out, Jaburg, that the New York Times and Washington Post wouldn't publish those cartoons in 2006 that parodied Islam. Hypocritically, they censored themselves and wouldn't publish them, even just to give their audience an informed perspective of what the controversy and cartoons were. Even as they bemoaned repressed freedom of speech.
No major US news outlets published them.
While I think that was cowardly of the U.S. media, it was out of fear of violence from muslims. As I recall, most of them linked in their articles to sites that did show all the cartoons, that I and others linked and posted here on the RKMB boards.
Originally Posted By: Ultimate Jaburg53
I don't think this is all muslims.
It's like any group of like minded insane people with weapons.
They could be inspired by the Quaran, the Bible, or the Beatles but they are the same thing.
I think we're usually in agreement, Jaburg, but on this issue, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that most of Islamic practitioners don't endorse Islamic jihad and violence.
I'm adding those billions of Chinese, American Farrakhan, and other Muslims of that nature.
It's middle eastern Muslims that are nucking futs.
The point he's trying to make--or, at least, I'm trying to make--is that the difference between the two is purely cultural and, in many aspects, strategic. The only thing that has kept Muslim philosophy from reaching it's logical conclusion outside the Middle East en masse* is the Western parameters established by their (rapidly shifting) European venue.
Note that the French government had only established the "Muslims only" sectors in France (and most other countries in Europe) after Muslims would constantly throw verbal and physical tantrums about not being able to run the neighborhoods Sharia style. That is, in and of itself, coercion. And these neighborhoods grow in size and number everyday.
They're fighting a war against the west as well. They're just going about it differently. And one strategy supplements the other. Suppose for a moment the government didn't give into the pressure and didn't allow the Sharia neighborhoods, there would be violent rioting. We've already seen it in the past.
*I say "en masse" because honor killings are still taking place in smaller doses in western society. They're largely ignored though.
Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack The Huffington Post | By Carol Kuruvilla & Antonia Blumberg
Posted: 01/07/2015 11:43 am EST Updated: 01/08/2015 2:59 pm EST
Muslims in France and around the world banded together on Wednesday to strongly condemn the deadliest terror attack the country has seen in the past two decades.
Three masked gunmen stormed the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that has become notorious for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. One of the men reportedly shouted “Allahu akbar” as they unleashed a barrage of bullets that left at least twelve dead.
Muslim leaders and activists immediately denounced the terrorists actions, reiterating the verse in the Quran that tells Muslims when one kills just one innocent person, it is as if he has killed all of humanity.
The Grand Mosque of Paris, one of the largest in France, issued a statement on its website shortly after the attacks, saying its community was "shocked" and "horrified" by the violence.
We strongly condemn these kind of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures. Our community is stunned by what just happened. It’s a whole section of our democracy that is seriously affected. This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation.
The Union of Islamic Organizations of France also responded on its website, writing: “The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these horrible murders. The UOIF expresses its deepest condolences to the families and all the employees of Charlie Weekly.”
Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy mosque in Paris's Seine-Saint-Denis suburb, spoke with France's BFM TV and condemned the attackers, saying, "Their barbarism has nothing to do with Islam."
"I am extremely angry," Chalghoumi said. "These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom. This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this."
Countless Muslim activists, leaders and authors took to social media Wednesday to express horror and dismay at the attack: ...
The Muslim communies don't have to be "in on it" to aid the cause of Muslim terrorists.
Do all the Mosques in Europe have to be "in on it" to house the people who plan shit like this?
Pull up cites for as many Muslim detractors as you wish. Their lip-service isn't going to change their doctrine.
Quite frankly though, they've already shown utter contempt for the culture in which they've decided to house themselves by refusing to correspond with its laws--and lashing out violently against it when it tries to enforce said laws. If that isn't active support of militant Muslim culture, then I'm not sure what is.
Not "all". But such an overwhelming minority (if not a majority in the muslim community) to pose an existential threat to the West, and to any other non-muslim culture.
As is evidenced not only in western nations with almost daily attacks, but also in nations of Africa, in China, the Phillipines, East Timor, India and anywhere else in the world where muslims come in contact with another culture.
Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack The Huffington Post | By Carol Kuruvilla & Antonia Blumberg
Posted: 01/07/2015 11:43 am EST Updated: 01/08/2015 2:59 pm EST
Muslims in France and around the world banded together on Wednesday to strongly condemn the deadliest terror attack the country has seen in the past two decades.
Three masked gunmen stormed the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that has become notorious for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. One of the men reportedly shouted “Allahu akbar” as they unleashed a barrage of bullets that left at least twelve dead.
Muslim leaders and activists immediately denounced the terrorists actions, reiterating the verse in the Quran that tells Muslims when one kills just one innocent person, it is as if he has killed all of humanity.
The Grand Mosque of Paris, one of the largest in France, issued a statement on its website shortly after the attacks, saying its community was "shocked" and "horrified" by the violence.
We strongly condemn these kind of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures. Our community is stunned by what just happened. It’s a whole section of our democracy that is seriously affected. This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation.
The Union of Islamic Organizations of France also responded on its website, writing: “The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these horrible murders. The UOIF expresses its deepest condolences to the families and all the employees of Charlie Weekly.”
Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy mosque in Paris's Seine-Saint-Denis suburb, spoke with France's BFM TV and condemned the attackers, saying, "Their barbarism has nothing to do with Islam."
"I am extremely angry," Chalghoumi said. "These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom. This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this."
Countless Muslim activists, leaders and authors took to social media Wednesday to express horror and dismay at the attack: ...
I've seen several on the liberal side in these RKMB discussions post a muslim-liberal columnist here and there who protests islamic violence, and who waxes philosophic about what Islamic faith truly means. But that doesn't change what millions of violent jihadists ARE DOING in the name of Islam, or the millions who passively support and fund Islamic terror worldwide.
If I had seen one protest by Muslims in my area saying they disowned these actions, I would be persuaded there is another gentler form of Islam. If one muslim person I've spoken to, JUST ONE, in 15 years, had expressed strong opposition to this consistent thread of behavior among Al Qaida, ISIS, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, I might begin to believe that other muslims worldwide feel the same way. But they don't, and I don't.
While I'm sure there are a few, they are about as big and influential a movement within the Muslim global community as the Westboro Baptist church (which, for those not in the know, for all its vitriol and noise, only has about 40 members).
Former muslim and Lebanon-born critic of islam Brigitte Gabriel. She has a shrill voice that could scrape the paint off a garage door, but she makes some great points.
All these rallies with people saying, "I am Charlie" are so fucking stupid. And all the news outlets are calling this an example of "standing up" to the terror and "extremists".
I'm reminded of the protests in Iran where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets said they weren't going to take it anymore. Then suddenly, it fizzled because they were unwilling to do anything beyond that. All "Kiss Kiss", but no "Bang Bang". Another culture clearly the victim of western peacenik assholes who claim that violence is unnecessary to facilitate improvement. OF COURSE France--one of the countries from which that mindset originates--is going follow the same cycle as Iran.
I have no doubt that the French National Front will build more steam, but people are going to eventually lose their sense of urgency here all the same.
What makes it worse is that Hamas and Hezbollah apparently has the more liberal commentators fooled--no difficult task there--after speaking out against the attack. Every time I hear the phrase, "Once you've lost [BLANK], you've definitely lost the [BLANK]," my eyes roll of their own volition. I'm sure there's a name for that kind of argument, I just don't know what it is.
Recycling the "actions of the few" and "no true Muslim" tunes is a textbook KGB disinformation tactic designed to divide your enemies.
