France: Charlie Hebdo shootings

[Sour Mash]

1990's and prior Bomb threats and actual bombings in London, Manchester, Omagh amongst other places. Then terrorism = IRA.

 

9/11 - Terrorism = Islam.

 

As Hypo says, it's about perception. This is massively shaped by the media.

 

Funny, there was a terrorist attack in America yesterday, someone planted a bomb at a NAACP HQ in Colorado Springs. The police are searching for a 'balding white man'. Where's the coverage? This is a white man, attacking an organisation for black people. I mean, white people have never done anything bad to black people right? No murders there, no history of oppression, no entire back catalogue of atrocities.

 

 

 

Ok, again as you are so absolutely sure of this, you can provide something to support your claim? Right? Simply declaring me 'mental' for not agreeing that Islam is worse than everything else ever isn't really a convincing argument.

First result from a google search. Guess the website is a bit biased, but regardless, find a comparison to that

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2013.htm

[KelvinsRightGlove]

First result from a google search. Guess the website is a bit biased, but regardless, find a comparison to that

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2013.htm

 

I'm going to give that website as much credence as the website run by Ched Evans pals pronouncing his innocence.

 

Edit: That was a bit glib and unfair. The reason I say this is that the website you link to is simply a list of Terrorist acts in the name of Islam. There's absolutely no context here though. You can look at this and say, yes, that is a lot of awful things happening. But with no context of anything committed by anyone else, it is proof of nothing at all.

Edited 7 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove

[Sour Mash]

I'm going to give that website as much credence as the website run by Ched Evans pals pronouncing his innocence.

 

Edit: That was a bit glib and unfair. The reason I say this is that the website you link to is simply a list of Terrorist acts in the name of Islam. There's absolutely no context here though. You can look at this and say, yes, that is a lot of awful things happening. But with no context of anything committed by anyone else, it is proof of nothing at all.

You're the one saying that Islamic related events aren't occuring any more than other religions or non-religious incidents, feel free to post up a similar link demonstrating your point.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

You're the one saying that Islamic related events aren't occuring any more than other religions or non-religious incidents, feel free to post up a similar link demonstrating your point.

 

That website proves nothing. It in no way proves Islam is worse than any other religion or anything else.

 

It in no way disproves my point, that blaming 1.6B people for the actions of less than 1% of that group and demanding an apology from all of them, repeatedly, whilst stigmatising them constantly is nonsense.

[OldNick]

That website proves nothing. It in no way proves Islam is worse than any other religion or anything else.

 

It in no way disproves my point, that blaming 1.6B people for the actions of less than 1% of that group and demanding an apology from all of them, repeatedly, whilst stigmatising them constantly is nonsense.

I dont think anybody is blaming the 1b muslims, but the ones in the community who hide them or fail to point them out to the authorities

[Sour Mash]

That website proves nothing. It in no way proves Islam is worse than any other religion or anything else.

 

It in no way disproves my point, that blaming 1.6B people for the actions of less than 1% of that group and demanding an apology from all of them, repeatedly, whilst stigmatising them constantly is nonsense.

So post up a comparison for another religion?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That website proves nothing. It in no way proves Islam is worse than any other religion or anything else.

 

It in no way disproves my point, that blaming 1.6B people for the actions of less than 1% of that group and demanding an apology from all of them, repeatedly, whilst stigmatising them constantly is nonsense.

 

That's because anyone disagreeing with your point is frankly, a bit mental.

[Bearsy]

Edit: wrong thread soz i don't know anything bout this

[hypochondriac]

I dont think anybody is blaming the 1b muslims, but the ones in the community who hide them or fail to point them out to the authorities

 

I agree. Anyone who harbours terrorists are wrong. In reality though how many does that consist of? As a percentage of the total Muslim population?

[St Marco]

That website proves nothing. It in no way proves Islam is worse than any other religion or anything else.

 

I think you have to be very naïve to believe that. While it is true you cannot blame a whole group of people based on the actions of a few, you can however look at the details in those actions and find out why they happen and ask if the people around the religion are doing enough to prevent these types of attacks?

 

Personally I don't think so. If so called Christians went around beheading people do you think the church would support that or condemn it? It seems to me there is an ever increasing amount of these types of attacks and you could argue they are being committed by people who have been taken into these countries by way of Asylum etc. This is why I believe in stricter immigration rules. It isn't about being racist it is about knowing who you have actually invited to come live here. What dangers they could bring. Its common sense not racism.

 

The sad fact is when these things happen it demonises a whole group of people which is wrong. But those people could do more to prevent these things. It isn't an isolated nut job going about it i.e Brevik, it is a lot of people who honestly believe they are doing something that will gain them favour with their religion. These brain washed people need to realise they are not doing gods work, they are murderers pure and simple. And whether you like the fact or not it seems to be coming from people hiding behind the Islam banner.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I dont think anybody is blaming the 1b muslims, but the ones in the community who hide them or fail to point them out to the authorities

 

That is completely different though, anyone who harbours a criminal or someone with criminal intent is a cůnt, and they are essentially terrorists themselves. But that isn't something that is only for Muslims.

[hypochondriac]

I think you have to be very naïve to believe that. While it is true you cannot blame a whole group of people based on the actions of a few, you can however look at the details in those actions and find out why they happen and ask if the people around the religion are doing enough to prevent these types of attacks?

 

Personally I don't think so. If so called Christians went around beheading people do you think the church would support that or condemn it? It seems to me there is an ever increasing amount of these types of attacks and you could argue they are being committed by people who have been taken into these countries by way of Asylum etc. This is why I believe in stricter immigration rules. It isn't about being racist it is about knowing who you have actually invited to come live here. What dangers they could bring. Its common sense not racism.

 

The sad fact is when these things happen it demonises a whole group of people which is wrong. But those people could do more to prevent these things. It isn't an isolated nut job going about it i.e Brevik, it is a lot of people who honestly believe they are doing something that will gain them favour with their religion. These brain washed people need to realise they are not doing gods work, they are murderers pure and simple. And whether you like the fact or not it seems to be coming from people hiding behind the Islam banner.

 

What is the equivalent of the head of the church in Islam? Imams routinely condemn actions such as those against lee rigby. The problem is it goes unreported so you assume it hasn't happened.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What is the equivalent of the head of the church in Islam? Imams routinely condemn actions such as those against lee rigby. The problem is it goes unreported so you assume it hasn't happened.

 

Watch the news, watch Newsnight and you'll see them on there. It happens often, but I assume some people just haven't seen it.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Here's one:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/parisian-imams-condemn-attack-call-it-declaration-war-20150107

 

 

Paris shooting: Top French imam condemns attack, calls it 'a declaration of war'

PUBLISHED ON JAN 7, 2015 9:58 PM 118 368 0 0

WHATSAPP

0

PRINT

EMAIL

 

 

Hassen Chalghoumi (left), Imam of the municipal Drancy mosque in Seine-Saint-Denis, walks with police near the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, after a shooting Jan 7, 2015. -- PHOTO: REUTERS

The head of the French Muslim Council (CFCM) has condemned the deadly shooting on a popular satirical newspaper by three suspected Islamic extremists, calling it a "declaration of war".

 

"It's a thunderous declaration of war," Mr Dalil Boubakeur, who is also imam of the mosque of Paris, was quoted as saying by Le Figaro newspaper.

 

"The times have changed. We're entering a new phase of this confrontation," he said. He added that "we are horrified by the brutality and the savagery" of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, which killed at least 12 people, including the newspaper's editor-in-chief and its top cartoonists.

 

"We absolutely condemn such an act and we look forward to the authorities meting out justice," said Mr Boubakeur, who planned to visit the scene of the shooting, according to his entourage.

 

"The (Muslim) community is dumbfounded by what has happened."

 

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/parisian-imams-condemn-attack-call-it-declaration-war-20150107#sthash.86c2EPOR.dpuf

[hypochondriac]

Here's one:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/parisian-imams-condemn-attack-call-it-declaration-war-20150107

 

 

Paris shooting: Top French imam condemns attack, calls it 'a declaration of war'

PUBLISHED ON JAN 7, 2015 9:58 PM 118 368 0 0

WHATSAPP

0

PRINT

EMAIL

 

 

Hassen Chalghoumi (left), Imam of the municipal Drancy mosque in Seine-Saint-Denis, walks with police near the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, after a shooting Jan 7, 2015. -- PHOTO: REUTERS

The head of the French Muslim Council (CFCM) has condemned the deadly shooting on a popular satirical newspaper by three suspected Islamic extremists, calling it a "declaration of war".

 

"It's a thunderous declaration of war," Mr Dalil Boubakeur, who is also imam of the mosque of Paris, was quoted as saying by Le Figaro newspaper.

 

"The times have changed. We're entering a new phase of this confrontation," he said. He added that "we are horrified by the brutality and the savagery" of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, which killed at least 12 people, including the newspaper's editor-in-chief and its top cartoonists.

 

"We absolutely condemn such an act and we look forward to the authorities meting out justice," said Mr Boubakeur, who planned to visit the scene of the shooting, according to his entourage.

 

"The (Muslim) community is dumbfounded by what has happened."

 

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/parisian-imams-condemn-attack-call-it-declaration-war-20150107#sthash.86c2EPOR.dpuf

 

Odd. Nick has been telling everyone that all Muslims have been covering this up and hiding them?

[pap]

STW's take:-

 

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/paris-massacre-lessons-that-need-to-be-learned-by-our-war-making-governments

[Sour Mash]

STW's take:-

 

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/paris-massacre-lessons-that-need-to-be-learned-by-our-war-making-governments

So is their point that these individuals wouldn’t have had the funding and support from ISIS to carry out this attack if it wasn't for France's involvement in the Middle Eastern conflicts or wouldn't have had the motivation to murder some artists and journalists if it wasn't for France's involvement in these conflicts?

[hypochondriac]

So is their point that these individuals wouldn’t have had the funding and support from ISIS to carry out this attack if it wasn't for France's involvement in the Middle Eastern conflicts or wouldn't have had the motivation to murder some artists and journalists if it wasn't for France's involvement in these conflicts?

 

I think their point is that the actions of the West in the middle east have massively contributed to the threat of these sort of attacks. I would say that is unarguable.

[pap]

I think their point is that the actions of the West in the middle east have massively contributed to the threat of these sort of attacks. I would say that is unarguable.

 

Indeed. I think that one of the most worrying things about some of the comments on here, and indeed, much of the way the threat is covered, is that they have no historical context whatsoever.

 

People forget that we lived alongside Muslims for over 45 years before 9/11, and while we've had isolated incidents of terrorism from Islamic countries, these have usually been state sponsored. I'm talking the shootings outside the Libyan embassy, Lockerbie, etc. Prior to the open invitation of the 1990s for extreme Islamic groups to move to Londonistan, I'd never heard of radicalisation or home-grown Islamic terrorism. I can't remember people being that arsed about Muslims in particular, and I keep an ear out for that sort of thing. Ignorant c**ts would use "Paki" as a catch all term for anyone brown, but targeted criticism toward Islam itself? Nope.

 

The forebears of IS were heroes in the 1980s when they were giving the Bear a bloody nose in Afghanistan, being supplied by the US via Pakistan. Even during the first Gulf War, there was no general briefing against Muslims. There was no need, the action was seen as both legitimate and limited. Kuwait was liberated, but Bush Snr famously didn't finish what he started.

 

Now you can get away with being a liberator. Hell, there are even some perks. Invasion is a different matter, particularly since both invasions were unnecessary, pre-planned, and proven to be based on a crock of shít.

 

Invading Afghanistan was never a pre-requisite for bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. The Taleban were willing to hand him over before the invasion started. We all know the complete tissue of lies Iraq turned out to be, completely fabricated to serve a pre-existing agenda. Over a million have died as a result of that policy. With those numbers, it is inevitable that many of those left behind are going to have hardened attitudes toward the West, and that some of those are already going to be in the West, subject to the racial profiling and casual harassment that our mainstream media seems to have encouraged and legitimised.

 

Cause and effect. Only really discernible with that historical context, innit?

Edited 7 January, 2015 by pap

[Unbelievable Jeff]

 

 

 

 

 

[Noodles34]

Indeed. I think that one of the most worrying things about some of the comments on here, and indeed, much of the way the threat is covered, is that they have no historical context whatsoever.

 

People forget that we lived alongside Muslims for over 45 years before 9/11, and while we've had isolated incidents of terrorism from Islamic countries, these have usually been state sponsored. I'm talking the shootings outside the Libyan embassy, Lockerbie, etc. Prior to the open invitation of the 1990s for extreme Islamic groups to move to Londonistan, I'd never heard of radicalisation or home-grown Islamic terrorism. I can't remember people being that arsed about Muslims in particular, and I keep an ear out for that sort of thing. Ignorant c**ts would use "Paki" as a catch all term for anyone brown, but targeted criticism toward Islam itself? Nope.

 

The forebears of IS were heroes in the 1980s when they were giving the Bear a bloody nose in Afghanistan, being supplied by the US via Pakistan. Even during the first Gulf War, there was no general briefing against Muslims. There was no need, the action was seen as both legitimate and limited. Kuwait was liberated, but Bush Snr famously didn't finish what he started.

 

Now you can get away with being a liberator. Hell, there are even some perks. Invasion is a different matter, particularly since both invasions were unnecessary, pre-planned, and proven to be based on a crock of shít.

 

Invading Afghanistan was never a pre-requisite for bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. The Taleban were willing to hand him over before the invasion started. We all know the complete tissue of lies Iraq turned out to be, completely fabricated to serve a pre-existing agenda. Over a million have died as a result of that policy. With those numbers, it is inevitable that many of those left behind are going to have hardened attitudes toward the West, and that some of those are already going to be in the West, subject to the racial profiling and casual harassment that our mainstream media seems to have encouraged and legitimised.

 

Cause and effect. Only really discernible with that historical context, innit?

 

Thats not true, though debated and close Mullah Omar could not bring himself to authorise the betrayal of a 'guest' in their country, probably regrets it now mind.

[whelk]

Is that a serious question?

and is that all you do on here, call people names who don't agree with you, how old are you?

 

Yes it was.

 

Wouldn't expect any sense back from you though. You **** ****** ****. ***** **** **** bottom ***** willy

[Sour Mash]

I think their point is that the actions of the West in the middle east have massively contributed to the threat of these sort of attacks. I would say that is unarguable.

Why would the actions of the West in the middle East make someone want to kill some journalists and cartoonists in Paris? Talk me through the connection between the two there.

 

You still haven't listed all the similar attacks by non-muslims that you say happened so often.

[pap]

Thats not true, though debated and close Mullah Omar could not bring himself to authorise the betrayal of a 'guest' in their country, probably regrets it now mind.

 

Linked the original source on this site before, so it is. The US state department even acknowledged the offer, but they didn't consider it serious, apparently.

 

Probably because the hawks wanted to carve up the Middle East.

[pap]

Yes it was.

 

Wouldn't expect any sense back from you though. You **** ****** ****. ***** **** **** bottom ***** willy

 

Serious questions don't usually come with insults attached.

 

Interesting choice of swear filter avoidance, btw.

[whelk]

Serious questions don't usually come with insults attached.

 

Interesting choice of swear filter avoidance, btw.

 

'Twas a joke there was nothing edited just stars.

 

Contrary di ck isn't too offensive for you pap surely?

[Patrick Bateman]

And cue the Islamophobes going into overdrive.

 

 

Nothing to do with being Islamaphobic (is that a word?), but why are there such an intolerant amount of them, committing obscene acts for something so ridiculous? FFS, someone drew a f**king cartoon, it's ridiculous.

[aintforever]

That website proves nothing. It in no way proves Islam is worse than any other religion or anything else.

 

It obviously is though isn't it. Even if it is just a minority there is a bigger problem with Muslims than any other faith.

 

I think the time for treading on eggshells around these people is over.

[Ludwig]

I would have thought it will be a natural reaction. I myself am tolerant of Islam but it is hard to keep that way when these barbaric acts are undertaken

 

No, it really isn't.

[ART]

12 DEAD and 66 MILLION WOUNDED

 

[Verbal]

Why would the actions of the West in the middle East make someone want to kill some journalists and cartoonists in Paris? Talk me through the connection between the two there.

 

I'm quoting this because, not surpisingly, you haven't had an answer. If I were guessing, based on the half-witted argument above, we're supposed to believe that it was the West that really pulled the trigger on the cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Ebdo. We should all feel profoundly guilty about our appalling actions.

 

In fact, the killers were motivated by the same blind hatred that led to Salman Rushdie having to go into hiding for having the temerity to write The Satanic Verses. The fatwa against Rushdie was 'issued' in 1989, so is rather inconvenient for the 'we must blame ourselves' idiots trying to make a mechanical link between the invasion of Iraq and the killings at the magazine. Once you turn everything into a global conspiracy, it all makes 'sense'. Of course, you have to heavily rewrite that history, adding in all kinds of patent rubbish (e.g. that Bin Laden et al were western 'heroes' during the Afghan war against the Russians) to make things fit.

 

So no, the victims at Charlie Ebdo were not shot because the Americans invaded Iraq. They were shot because they dared to satirise the belief that religious figures are beyond discussion or even representation.

 

They were killed by the very people, in other words, that they 'attacked' with their cartoons - the small-minded, ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, violent, worthless pieces of **** who are so puffed up by their own deluded sense of superiority that they'd think nothing at all of pumping bullets into the heads of those who disagree with them.

[ART]

Extensive report and latest photos

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900259/Gunmen-kill-11-Charlie-Hebdo-attack.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[hypochondriac]

It obviously is though isn't it. Even if it is just a minority there is a bigger problem with Muslims than any other faith.

 

I think the time for treading on eggshells around these people is over.

 

What would you suggest as a solution?

[aintforever]

What would you suggest as a solution?

 

F*ck knows, there probably isn't one but there is obviously something f*cked up with Islam. Charlie Hebdo mocked all the religions yet only muslims decided they should die for it. There's no point skirting around the issue.

[Noodles34]

I'm quoting this because, not surpisingly, you haven't had an answer. If I were guessing, based on the half-witted argument above, we're supposed to believe that it was the West that really pulled the trigger on the cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Ebdo. We should all feel profoundly guilty about our appalling actions.

 

In fact, the killers were motivated by the same blind hatred that led to Salman Rushdie having to go into hiding for having the temerity to write The Satanic Verses. The fatwa against Rushdie was 'issued' in 1989, so is rather inconvenient for the 'we must blame ourselves' idiots trying to make a mechanical link between the invasion of Iraq and the killings at the magazine. Once you turn everything into a global conspiracy, it all makes 'sense'. Of course, you have to heavily rewrite that history, adding in all kinds of patent rubbish (e.g. that Bin Laden et al were western 'heroes' during the Afghan war against the Russians) to make things fit.

 

So no, the victims at Charlie Ebdo were not shot because the Americans invaded Iraq. They were shot because they dared to satirise the belief that religious figures are beyond discussion or even representation.

 

They were killed by the very people, in other words, that they 'attacked' with their cartoons - the small-minded, ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, violent, worthless pieces of **** who are so puffed up by their own deluded sense of superiority that they'd think nothing at all of pumping bullets into the heads of those who disagree with them.

 

of course you are right in many of the above but as well as the religious argument, the west on the soils of Islam is a very evoking issue for many. Why did Bin Laden materialise into what he was, because of Americans in Saudi (obviously not as an invading force) and he (and many others) see the infidels on their land as a real issue (clearly actions like today don't justify this viewpoint).

It's a fact that the west in Afghanistan and Iraq severely stoked a fire that was admittedly already burning.

[Pastor Patrón]

 

 

Totally srs, its all to gain support for Israel, that's why the media's all over it.

[pap]

I'm quoting this because, not surpisingly, you haven't had an answer. If I were guessing, based on the half-witted argument above, we're supposed to believe that it was the West that really pulled the trigger on the cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Ebdo. We should all feel profoundly guilty about our appalling actions.

 

In fact, the killers were motivated by the same blind hatred that led to Salman Rushdie having to go into hiding for having the temerity to write The Satanic Verses. The fatwa against Rushdie was 'issued' in 1989, so is rather inconvenient for the 'we must blame ourselves' idiots trying to make a mechanical link between the invasion of Iraq and the killings at the magazine. Once you turn everything into a global conspiracy, it all makes 'sense'. Of course, you have to heavily rewrite that history, adding in all kinds of patent rubbish (e.g. that Bin Laden et al were western 'heroes' during the Afghan war against the Russians) to make things fit.

 

So no, the victims at Charlie Ebdo were not shot because the Americans invaded Iraq. They were shot because they dared to satirise the belief that religious figures are beyond discussion or even representation.

 

They were killed by the very people, in other words, that they 'attacked' with their cartoons - the small-minded, ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, violent, worthless pieces of **** who are so puffed up by their own deluded sense of superiority that they'd think nothing at all of pumping bullets into the heads of those who disagree with them.

 

 

First, 10/10 for the strawman attempt. I believe that Sour Mash was asking everyone to explain the contents of a Stop The War article, seemingly indecipherable unless imperfectly regurgitated by a member of the SaintsWeb collective.

 

My points on this thread have consistently been about the dangers of generalising against an entire faith based on the actions of its most extreme adherents. Foreign policy has helped to drive that, increased the number of extremists and created power vacuums that have allowed organisations like ISIS to thrive, elements of which were funded by proxy by Western interests.

 

The journalists and cartoonists may have been the specific focus, but this was a highly symbolic attack with broader motives than avenging a cartoon or as shurlock suggests, the content of a speculative history fiction book.

[Verbal]

First, 10/10 for the strawman attempt. I believe that Sour Mash was asking everyone to explain the contents of a Stop The War article, seemingly indecipherable unless imperfectly regurgitated by a member of the SaintsWeb collective.

 

My points on this thread have consistently been about the dangers of generalising against an entire faith based on the actions of its most extreme adherents. Foreign policy has helped to drive that, increased the number of extremists and created power vacuums that have allowed organisations like ISIS to thrive, elements of which were funded by proxy by Western interests.

 

The journalists and cartoonists may have been the specific focus, but this was a highly symbolic attack with broader motives than avenging a cartoon or as shurlock suggests, the content of a speculative history fiction book.

 

I wasn't responding to you. You haven't said anything of any interest.

[shurlock]

of course you are right in many of the above but as well as the religious argument, the west on the soils of Islam is a very evoking issue for many. Why did Bin Laden materialise into what he was, because of Americans in Saudi (obviously not as an invading force) and he (and many others) see the infidels on their land as a real issue (clearly actions like today don't justify this viewpoint).

It's a fact that the west in Afghanistan and Iraq severely stoked a fire that was admittedly already burning.

 

By one of the suspect's own admission, it was the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib that motivated him to fight in jihad. Who knows whether it was a necessary or sufficient condition or simply a pretext for a preexisting bloodlust; but to contemptuously sweep such biographical details under the carpet smacks of the same mindless, mechanical reasoning that Verbal is taking others to task for.

[ART]

Suspects identified by ID card left behind

 

According to French news reports, the three men were identified by police after one of the brothers left an ID card in the Citroën C3 that they abandoned as they escaped.

 

It is being reported that the three men have been arrested, but as yet there has been no official confirmation of this news.

[dubai_phil]

It obviously is though isn't it. Even if it is just a minority there is a bigger problem with Muslims than any other faith.

 

I think the time for treading on eggshells around these people is over.

 

Sorry, Bullsh1t. There are problems with every Religious faith. Some kill people in Cold Blood - Christians did that to each other through history (Inquisitions etc) and also during the Crusades when they slaughtered Muslims. More recently many in the Church killed children's souls with their abuse. This is 12 deaths, how many thousands of people had their lives destroyed by the scandals in the Catholic Church with Child abuse? Faith is Good, Religion can be exploited by rotten eggs in any denomination or faith.

 

I'm quoting this because, not surpisingly, you haven't had an answer. If I were guessing, based on the half-witted argument above, we're supposed to believe that it was the West that really pulled the trigger on the cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Ebdo. We should all feel profoundly guilty about our appalling actions.

 

In fact, the killers were motivated by the same blind hatred that led to Salman Rushdie having to go into hiding for having the temerity to write The Satanic Verses. The fatwa against Rushdie was 'issued' in 1989, so is rather inconvenient for the 'we must blame ourselves' idiots trying to make a mechanical link between the invasion of Iraq and the killings at the magazine. Once you turn everything into a global conspiracy, it all makes 'sense'. Of course, you have to heavily rewrite that history, adding in all kinds of patent rubbish (e.g. that Bin Laden et al were western 'heroes' during the Afghan war against the Russians) to make things fit.

 

So no, the victims at Charlie Ebdo were not shot because the Americans invaded Iraq. They were shot because they dared to satirise the belief that religious figures are beyond discussion or even representation.

 

They were killed by the very people, in other words, that they 'attacked' with their cartoons - the small-minded, ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, violent, worthless pieces of **** who are so puffed up by their own deluded sense of superiority that they'd think nothing at all of pumping bullets into the heads of those who disagree with them.

 

The true Extremist wants to live in an obscene version of Saudi society. Not where the woman is revered but cannot drive or work, but a society that will try and kill a child because she wants an education. They want to live in the Stone Age but still have Smartphones. The PROBLEM is that this is an "Anti Civilisation" it has no place for an Opinion or a Political view and so it is almost impossible for a Western mind to understand. Freedom simply does not exist in their minds. It is an almost Communist System where your only hope to advance is to be a part of the elite clergy or "Army of God".

 

TRUE Islamic society is different, it brought about much of the quest for knowledge and science, art and music (although not to my taste!)

 

The issue the West has is you cannot be Politically Correct and then stand up for "Freedom of Speech" a fundamental tenet of Islam is that it eschews all Idology. Visit a Mosque, it is VERY plain, whereas Christianity is all about Images, Icons, Statues and the Holy Cross. The Danish cartoons attacked a core belief of Islam and Enraged millions.

To hear one of the murdered cartoonists defending his right to offend Muslims by reprinting the cartoons because he was an Atheist and it did not offend him on Sky News this evening showed up the insanity of the mess.

 

Jose Mourinho is "Enraged" by a refereeing mistake. Even the word has been rendered meaningless. But the fact was the Cartoons offended a huge swathe of the World's population. The circumstances of history and the arming of the Extremists happened without the Cartoons. All that did was to paint a huge target on those responsible.

 

To these brainwashed demented idiots, those cartoonists were as bad as Hitler, Western Society in their eyes failed them. Instead of reviling the Publishers they lauded them as true Guardians of Free Speech.

 

The point is not about solving the issue. The point is that they must be exterminated. Their recruitment lines must be broken. The route to the limited number of BAD Madrasses must be stopped. Evil Preachers MUST be removed and deported or simply put on sentences that take them away from all their followers. They ARE a minority. Normal Muslims are getting fed up having to apologise and condemn another atrocity every other week, they want them dealt with, but no, the PC Human Rights and Freedom of Speech conflict gets in the way.

 

Everything that makes the West civilised plays into the hands of the Extremists. We cannot change the DNA of our Society but to defend and reprint the Cartoons? That was a choice Society made. The Extremists only need PR they only need victories. You keep giving them easy ones.

 

Send the bloody whole of Nato into Iraq, do a deal to help Assad destroy ISIS when they come over the border back into Syria before letting him retire to Russia/Tehran beef up the budgets of your Security forces and their ability to hack communications and CURB the Human Rights and Travel ability of ANYONE in Europe who spouts Extremist Bile.

 

Won't even slow them down.

 

This is the new post 9/11 reality, it will keep happening and the West will be enraged and appalled and shocked.

 

FFS how many true IRA active agents were there back in the day? How much mayhem did they cause. The Nutters exceed that number by THOUSANDS, their money comes from Saudi AND Qatar or Iran depending on their Sect, but hey, it's OK Blatter gave them a World Cup.

[Sour Mash]

I'm quoting this because, not surpisingly, you haven't had an answer. If I were guessing, based on the half-witted argument above, we're supposed to believe that it was the West that really pulled the trigger on the cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Ebdo. We should all feel profoundly guilty about our appalling actions.

 

In fact, the killers were motivated by the same blind hatred that led to Salman Rushdie having to go into hiding for having the temerity to write The Satanic Verses. The fatwa against Rushdie was 'issued' in 1989, so is rather inconvenient for the 'we must blame ourselves' idiots trying to make a mechanical link between the invasion of Iraq and the killings at the magazine. Once you turn everything into a global conspiracy, it all makes 'sense'. Of course, you have to heavily rewrite that history, adding in all kinds of patent rubbish (e.g. that Bin Laden et al were western 'heroes' during the Afghan war against the Russians) to make things fit.

 

So no, the victims at Charlie Ebdo were not shot because the Americans invaded Iraq. They were shot because they dared to satirise the belief that religious figures are beyond discussion or even representation.

 

They were killed by the very people, in other words, that they 'attacked' with their cartoons - the small-minded, ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, violent, worthless pieces of **** who are so puffed up by their own deluded sense of superiority that they'd think nothing at all of pumping bullets into the heads of those who disagree with them.

 

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/01/the-dastardly-attack-in-paris.html & http://www.englishpen.org/campaigns/salman-rushdie-condemns-attack-on-charlie-hebdo/

[Sour Mash]

. The Nutters exceed that number by THOUSANDS, their money comes from Saudi AND Qatar or Iran depending on their Sect, but hey, it's OK Blatter gave them a World Cup.

Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but you've previously vehemently supported Qatar's right to hold the world cup.

[Gemmel]

There is only one solution. Take away the biggest "Grievance" that the Muslim World has. Give Palestinians a viable homeland.

 

Now, you have a history of talking b0ll0cks, but that is just hysterical.

[SuperMikey]

Watched this story unfold on the TV at work today, absolutely horrific to see. I do worry that this is going to lead to more scaremongering and another lurch to the right both in France and globally though. People talk about Islam being responsible for these acts, and how it's a dangerous religion. There obviously is a problem with extremists within the Islamic faith, and that does need to be addressed.

 

However, people are blaming the entire faith of Islam for the actions of these people, when in reality the people committing these acts have been radicalised by twisted words and by twisted people who have capitalised on the utter destruction and desolation caused in areas of the Middle East by Western intervention. We've failed to stop the influence of extremists in the region who have radicalised the gullible, the angry and those who have lost most of their lives to a needless war, and now we're seeing that seeping into our own back yards with acts like this.

 

Very worrying stuff, but I dread to think of all the scaremongering stories about Islam that will come out of this. There have been atrocities committed in the name of many religions (including Christianity, as previously mentioned), but that doesn't make those atrocities representative of everybody associated.

[Sour Mash]

Watched this story unfold on the TV at work today, absolutely horrific to see. I do worry that this is going to lead to more scaremongering and another lurch to the right both in France and globally though. People talk about Islam being responsible for these acts, and how it's a dangerous religion. There obviously is a problem with extremists within the Islamic faith, and that does need to be addressed.

 

However, people are blaming the entire faith of Islam for the actions of these people, when in reality the people committing these acts have been radicalised by twisted words and by twisted people who have capitalised on the utter destruction and desolation caused in areas of the Middle East by Western intervention. We've failed to stop the influence of extremists in the region who have radicalised the gullible, the angry and those who have lost most of their lives to a needless war, and now we're seeing that seeping into our own back yards with acts like this.

 

Very worrying stuff, but I dread to think of all the scaremongering stories about Islam that will come out of this. There have been atrocities committed in the name of many religions (including Christianity, as previously mentioned), but that doesn't make those atrocities representative of everybody associated.

So your main concern is that there may be some "scaremongering" and not that we could well see similar, repeat offences over the coming weeks and months.

[SuperMikey]

So your main concern is that there may be some "scaremongering" and not that we could well see similar, repeat offences over the coming weeks and months.

 

Don't remember saying anything about a main concern or that i'm not concerned about future attacks. As usual you've done an excellent job at completely missing the point.

[Sour Mash]

Don't remember saying anything about a main concern or that i'm not concerned about future attacks. As usual you've done an excellent job at completely missing the point.

You wrote three paragraphs, all focused on "scaremongering". That would suggest it's your main concern.

[SuperMikey]

You wrote three paragraphs, all focused on "scaremongering". That would suggest it's your main concern.

That would suggest it's my main point. My main concern is obviously future events and the consequences this will have, but the main point in my post was addressing how this will reflect on the perception of Islam in the public eye.

 

Either way, that's semantics.

[buctootim]

Police operation in Reims apparently