11 people killed at a French satirical Newspaper

[Orogun01]

Islamist aligned group Boko Haram strapped a bomb to a ten year old kid, and used her to blow up a market place today, killing 19 people.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963

 

And you're wasting breath inventing half-assed conspiracy theories.

 

You're bloody heroes.

I really don't like this post

 

I'm trying to come to grips with what its exactly that I don't like about it.

It may be the holier than thou tone of taking the moral high ground (correctly, I may add) on the discussion while committing the hypocrisy of failing at its own standard. I don't know who you are in RL Wals, I don't know if you actually are doing something to end global terrorism but even if you did that wouldn't a reason to shame others for their choice. I don't like to push onto others things that I wouldn't carry myself and so I tend to look upon that kind of behavior badly. I'll chalk this up to a bad temper due to a horrible situation, but I don't think shaming people in forums makes you a bloody hero either. Sorry if I offend.  

[teknoman2]

religious extremism can only be fought with religion. these people did what they did while welcoming death as the means to reach heaven. the only way to scare them and anyone else that may follow in their footsteps, would be to use the tenents of their faith to deny them heaven. 

for example, the police, before going after them, could have made a big show about how they soak their bullets in pig blood (contact with pigs = no heaven for muslims) even if fake. terrorizing the terrorists like a boss, and then we see how many more dare try something like that again

[Meshugger]

A german newspaper that printed some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons got firebombed last night.

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/german-paper-printed-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-hit-arson-attack-say-the-police-

[BruceVC]

 

Islamist aligned group Boko Haram strapped a bomb to a ten year old kid, and used her to blow up a market place today, killing 19 people.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963

 

And you're wasting breath inventing half-assed conspiracy theories.

 

You're bloody heroes.

I really don't like this post

 

I'm trying to come to grips with what its exactly that I don't like about it.

It may be the holier than thou tone of taking the moral high ground (correctly, I may add) on the discussion while committing the hypocrisy of failing at its own standard. I don't know who you are in RL Wals, I don't know if you actually are doing something to end global terrorism but even if you did that wouldn't a reason to shame others for their choice. I don't like to push onto others things that I wouldn't carry myself and so I tend to look upon that kind of behavior badly. I'll chalk this up to a bad temper due to a horrible situation, but I don't think shaming people in forums makes you a bloody hero either. Sorry if I offend.  

 

 

Geez dude, thats quite a guilt trip you putting Walsie on there

 

I didn't think you played the   " guilt trip " card, thats more a SJW function 

[Valsuelm]

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.

 

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?

[Valsuelm]

 

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.

 

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?

 

 

Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive.

 

However.

 

First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not.

 

And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I might use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all, depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.

 

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?

 

 

Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive.

 

However.

 

First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not.

 

And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational.

 

 

Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.

 

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?

 

 

Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive.

 

However.

 

First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not.

 

And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational.

 

 

Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop?

 

 

Questioning stops usually when answers are found. If answers are not found a question generally remains open.

 

Have you ever stopped questioning why you're on planet earth? Or perhaps you've never questioned that? For those of us who have tackled that age old unanswered question, the question generally remains open within you unless you've found an answer. Some out there accept the answer to that question from others on faith, so for them the question is answered, while others do not.

 

This is just one example, but it's basic philosophy and applies to pretty much everything.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.

 

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?

 

 

Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive.

 

However.

 

First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not.

 

And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational.

 

 

Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop?

 

 

Questioning stops usually when answers are found. If answers are not found a question generally remains open.

 

Have you ever stopped questioning why you're on planet earth? Or perhaps you've never questioned that? For those of us who have tackled that age old unanswered question, the question generally remains open within you unless you've found an answer. Some out there accept the answer to that question from others on faith, while others do not.

 

This is just one example, but it's basic philosophy and applies to pretty much everything.

 

 

You right, I'm an agnostic and often I question and want to understand creation and evolution and our purpose on earth. Its interminable the questioning as I obviously can't just accept things on faith, sometimes I wish I could but I just can't 

 

But if  there was a finite answer I wouldn't question it anymore. And for somethings there are finite answers. For example  " did Germany lose WW2" ...as far as conventional understanding goes the answer to this is an emphatic "yes "...why would you still question that?

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

I think Hollande's public approval ratings are below 10%. He's the most moronic of the EU bureaucratic technocrats. 

 

A pinnacle of mediocrity?

 

 

The summit. A product of political inbreeding in the stagnant pond of European politics, carefully engineered to be devoid of ideology, charisma and leadership skills.

[Blarghagh]

Anonymous seems to be systematically taking down online jihadist networks. Thoughts?

[Meshugger]

Anonymous seems to be systematically taking down online jihadist networks. Thoughts?

 

Unless they are actually causing financial damage, it's just something worth a chuckle.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The problem with any appropriate measures regarding weeding out the fanatics from the muslim population is that they're all extra judicial. The authorities knew that these individuals were bad news, but as citizens and without any way to lose that status, and being born in France (thus without another country of origin) they couldn't be deported, and deportations are rare and complicated anyway. And they couldn't be imprisoned without actually doing something.

So you end up with a ticking time bomb that you can only put under surveillance and hope to catch before it blows.

 

The problem with Islam is that its both a political ideology and a religion. Christianity's "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." , when interpreted literally and (honestly) sidesteps the issue of combining political rule and religion. Christians are clearly instructed not to concern themselves too much with the government of the day and not to (ab)use it to spread religion. Historical excesses to the contrary are exactly that - and patently anti-christian.

 

Islam was conceived by a man that was both a warlord and a prophet who used the texts of abrahamic religion as a rallying cry to unite disparate tribes in a specific time and historical situation. As a warlord he had no qualms about killing (described in religious texts) as a way to achieve his political goals, very much like the Jewish tribes of the old testament. It would not be possible to achieve these goals with anything like "meek shall inherit the earth" thus the end product (Islam as a religion) is both expansive and combative by its very nature.

 

Islam as a "religion of peace" is an attempt to represent the religion in a  positive light for the purposes of PR in the west. When one reads the Koran, its clear that its anything but, which can be explained by the historical situation of the time of its writing.

 

The American (aheist? secular?)  mentality of drawing a line of equality between all religions is a disservice here - religions are simply not the same. One look at the terrible position of Christians/animists/jews/minority religions living in Muslim majority countries, especially in northen africa and the middle east tells you all you need to know what political Islam looks like towards those who aren't muslims.

Atheists don't even register as its a thousand fold worse sin to be an atheist rather than, say, a christian an Islamic country.

Turkey was the only country that came halfway to embracing a western mentality, but that was before the current PM regressed all the changes.

 

What this means for the west is that  anything but a completely changed interpretation of Islam is fundamentally incompatible with a secular government. Which is why there will always be incidents like this, even if the majority of the immigrant Islamic population remains passive. 

 

[Blarghagh]

Have you actually read the Koran? Because I didn't find it more or less violent than the bible. About the same, really. The Koran had some more sections espousing peace than the Bible did, but it also had more espousing violence - yet the violence in the Bible is more brutal. In my opinion.

[Walsingham]

Seems like I hit a nerve there.

 

 

The point isn't what I've done to tackle terrorism, but what we all could be doing.

 

You are - I assume - all citizens of free democracies. Your opinions count. _Especially_ the bull**** ones. You talk to other people, you can vote. You can think and learn and form novel and exciting perspectives on what can be done about terrorism.

 

This is what democracy is for. It is what free speech is for. It is why free speech actually matters. Your thoughts, coming out of your mouths and keyboards matter.

 

 

Jihadis are killing, enslaving, torturing, and corrupting thousands of people right now. Quit pretending it's some sort of post-modern fake moon landing.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Walsingham

[Drowsy Emperor]

Have you actually read the Koran? Because I didn't find it more or less violent than the bible. About the same, really. The Koran had some more sections espousing peace than the Bible did, but it also had more espousing violence - yet the violence in the Bible is more brutal. In my opinion.

 

Yes.

 

What you're saying is not entirely correct. The Bible is not one book. The new testament invalidates most of the old for a Christian, and the tone and shift in beliefs between the two is huge. The old testament as a religious text is today only relevant in Judaism, to Christians its of secondary value.

 

In fact, the old testament and the Koran were created in similar historical circumstances which is why it could be argued that they have more in common than either has with the new.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Blarghagh]

That's true, the new testament is lovely compared the old testament.

[Zoraptor]

There's still a fair bit of the nasty in the NT, especially if you want to go looking for it. One of the justifications for forced conversions was that you were just 'saving their souls from eternal damnation' and it really isn't hard to go from Revelations to it being your duty to save as many souls that way as you can.

 

Really though, if you're looking for excuses to be nasty to people any religion can be used. Plenty of Buddhists in Burma at the moment deciding that Buddha really meant that you should set Muslims on fire, plenty of Christians who think that Jesus was a bit of a hippy and 'turn the other cheek' is crap in CAR etc. It's almost always just an excuse and justification, someone dressing stuff up in the trappings of an acceptable morality system by interpreting that system, er, liberally.

[Walsingham]

There's still a fair bit of the nasty in the NT, especially if you want to go looking for it. One of the justifications for forced conversions was that you were just 'saving their souls from eternal damnation' and it really isn't hard to go from Revelations to it being your duty to save as many souls that way as you can.

 

Really though, if you're looking for excuses to be nasty to people any religion can be used. Plenty of Buddhists in Burma at the moment deciding that Buddha really meant that you should set Muslims on fire, plenty of Christians who think that Jesus was a bit of a hippy and 'turn the other cheek' is crap in CAR etc. It's almost always just an excuse and justification, someone dressing stuff up in the trappings of an acceptable morality system by interpreting that system, er, liberally.

 

I agree, but surely this is the point. Man turns the printed word into actions.

 

These men turned it into murder. Others have turned the bible into murder, and still do. But it's not exactly the mainstream interpretation, now is it?

 

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims. Muslims are the majority victims of jihadis. You do the maths.

[Drowsy Emperor]

*shrug* that's true, but currently Christianity or any other religion is not much of a force in europe, unlike Islam. The current attitude and hands off politics re. islam and immigration  is basically "solving a problem by denying its existence", which is how the communists tried to handle unresolved ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia and one of the reasons it broke up so much worse than it could have.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Wrath of Dagon]

There's a mainstream tradition in Islam of taking the Koran literally, while Christianity and Judaism rationalize away things that modern morality finds objectionable. So when the Koran says "You must fight the infidel until they submit" the Jihadists take that as their marching orders. The Egyptian president has just made a very important speech on this very subject : http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/ Of course Christianity went through it's own very similar period : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre But that was 400 years ago!

[Orogun01]

That's true, the new testament is lovely compared the old testament.

Except for all that crap that Paul wrote, he was a very disturbed person.

[HoonDing]

 

That's true, the new testament is lovely compared the old testament.

Except for all that crap that Paul wrote, he was a very disturbed person.

 

[Meshugger]

Interview with random people in the neighbourhood of the Kouachi bros:

 

 

Marie-Thérèse, a teacher living on a neighbouring street, who declined to give her surname, said she had been troubled by the reluctance of teenagers in her class to observe a minute of silence the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

 

“Several started shouting and one said he wished he had a Kalashnikov to kill me,” said the teacher, Marie-Thérèse, who declined to give her surname. “I work in a tough school in a tough area, but the same thing happened in other schools.”

 

Le Figaro and other newspapers reported similar behaviour in schools in several French cities, and cases of non-Muslim pupils trying to attack Muslim classmates were also reported.

“Many of the kids I teach could easily be radicalised,” Marie-Thérèse said. “This doesn’t bode well for the future of France. We’ve got to make more effort to reconcile communities.”

 

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html