Gunmen kill 12 in terrorist attack - Paris

[davidatpreston]

I've already addressed this in post #19. The post you've quoted was more to do with my belief that this heinous act was committed by 3 individuals misappropriating a religion for their own psychopathic ends, rather that being seen as symptomatic of the religion and it's 1.6 billion followers. (Having said that, I do wonder if Muslims weren't predominantly darker skinned whether there would be such a clammer for outward shows of remorse, regret or anger.)

 

NOTHING to do with skin colour, so please don't hint at racism, not very subtely either ! There are white-skinned Islamists and it is the values of the extreme version of that religion that are under question, sweet f a to do with race.

 

For many people, it is the extreme versions of this ancient set of superstitions that passes itself off as a religion and the way it won't let women be equal, wants to kill or imprison people just for being gay, and will not tolerate other religions that is the problem.

 

There are extremists in Islam who are forcing a situation where either a secular society will have to go, or their version of Islam will not be tolerated, I wonder this is what they want to provoke.

 

I for one would not be prepared to live in a society that was ruled by Shia law, and I suspect 90 per cent or more of non-Muslims worldwide would. People like BLACK non-Muslim Nigerians, and many in other parts of Africa who make your remark about skin colour so absurd as they suffer worse terrorism than ourselves.

[bookworm]

Or maybe you're just a nasty bigoted onanistic dunce. Yoreet with tha marmate?

 

nar bay carful wutna cus wono o thase dees that bluddy alo or tharn wull slip dine und strangle thee, yewtopea dunner exist ,wul it mite dew fer they but fer the rest on us itsa dangerous tarm und terrer und murder con strike onyweer,newt rung wit thee werld itsc them puddled ****ers whu live on it,nar dunner o towk at wunce wut.

[mr.hobblesworth]

NOTHING to do with skin colour, so please don't hint at racism, not very subtly either ! There are white-skinned Islamists and it is the values of the extreme version of that religion that are under question, sweet f a to do with race.

 

For many people, it is the extreme versions of this ancient set of superstitions that passes itself off as a religion and the way it won't let women be equal, wants to kill or imprison people just for being gay, and will not tolerate other religions that is the problem.

 

There are extremists in Islam who are forcing a situation where either a secular society will have to go, or their version of Islam will not be tolerated, I wonder this is what they want to provoke.

 

I for one would not be prepared to live in a society that was ruled by Shia law, and I suspect 90 per cent or more of non-Muslims worldwide would. People like BLACK non-Muslim Nigerians, and many in other parts of Africa who make your remark about skin colour so absurd as they suffer worse terrorism than ourselves.

 

For you, this obviously has no racial dimension; I only wondered aloud if this was the case across the board and neither of us can categorically state facts either way.

 

I don't really want to turn this in to a discussion regarding the rights and wrongs of Islam. I think I've already veered off too far in that direction in my attempts at pointing out that the shocking events of yesterday were the actions of sick and twisted individuals wilfully misinterpreting Islam for their own vile purposes, rather than representatives of the religion.

[davidatpreston]

For you, this obviously has no racial dimension; I only wondered aloud if this was the case across the board and neither of us can categorically state facts either way.

 

I don't really want to turn this in to a discussion regarding the rights and wrongs of Islam. I think I've already veered off too far in that direction in my attempts at pointing out that the shocking events of yesterday were the actions of sick and twisted individuals wilfully misinterpreting Islam for their own vile purposes, rather than representatives of the religion.

 

I'm not sure you can avoid discussion of the rights and wrongs of Islam (or some versions of it) when the people who commit these and similar atrocities are saying that their reason for doing it is on that very subject.

 

Some tribal people, Kurds, and others in Iraq were killed by ISIS routinely, some others were given the choice of accepting ISIS values totally (even though they were already muslims) or being killed. They didn't have the luxury of not wanting to discuss it, the time may well come where many of us don't either.

[For Us All]

For you, this obviously has no racial dimension; I only wondered aloud if this was the case across the board and neither of us can categorically state facts either way.

 

I don't really want to turn this in to a discussion regarding the rights and wrongs of Islam. I think I've already veered off too far in that direction in my attempts at pointing out that the shocking events of yesterday were the actions of sick and twisted individuals wilfully misinterpreting Islam for their own vile purposes, rather than representatives of the religion.

 

The problem is,the only time we seem to hear about Islam is at times like this?

[For Us All]

The best way to fight this would be for every newspaper to print what offended these people on their front pages, worldwide. Not to agree with the cartoons, but just show them - so they are everywhere and these people can see how counter-productive it is to do these acts.

 

I wonder if Sony might make a film about it too.

 

I am prepared to believe that most muslim are against this, but would be totally convinced if they got out on the streets to condemn it, and raised a huge fund for the families of thoe poor souls who were murdered.

 

I also hoped that our self-censored news media had the guts to show those cartoons.:(

[Houston Valiant]

Yeah, nice one, more discrimination, prejudice, racism and islamophobia will certainly bring about a rapid end to such heinous acts.

 

 

 

Bull. It is to do with their interpretation of the religion, not the religion itself. 1.6 billion people follow Islam. The Qur'an doesn't kill people, words don't shoot innocent satirists, Allah didn't jump down from a cloud and give them the wink.

 

Your quote is taken out of context by the way. The Qu'ran has a cluster**** of different interpretations and reading the original text will only reveal a small part of understanding Islam. It's a complicated multi headed hydra of a religion, and any one who ascribes it as being a singular violent (or, indeed, peaceful) dogma is clearly ignorant. Equally, anyone droning on about "Muslims" or Islam in the wake of this attack, rather than condemning the attackers as a murderous gang (full stop) is at best displaying their ignorance and, at worst, their bigotry and xenophobia.

 

The entire goal of extremists like this is to spur Western hatred of Islam to further the perceived culture war that gives their groups' existence meaning.

 

In that case , a day after the freedom of the press has been attacked in the name of Islam, with the attackers shouting "Allah Akbar" on the streets of Paris, what you say is bull . If you really believe your last line , then you're a misguided fool. Nothing personal.

[Houston Valiant]

I've already addressed this in post #19. The post you've quoted was more to do with my belief that this heinous act was committed by 3 individuals misappropriating a religion for their own psychopathic ends, rather that being seen as symptomatic of the religion and it's 1.6 billion followers. (Having said that, I do wonder if Muslims weren't predominantly darker skinned whether there would be such a clammer for outward shows of remorse, regret or anger.)

 

 

What a load of rubbish. Don't try to bring the race card into this.

[mr.hobblesworth]

http://www.makkahmasjid.co.uk/wp/index.php/2015/01/07/attack-on-french-magazine-staff-condemned-prophet-muhammad-does-not-require-avenging/

 

According to the AFP news agency, the gunmen shouted: “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad”. Imam Qari Asim, Imam of award-winning Makkah Mosque, said: “This is absolutely ridiculous. Our Prophet does not require avenging. Forgiveness and compassion defined our Prophet Muhammad, not violence and avenge.”

 

“If gunmen did shout “Allah-u-Akbar” when killing people in Paris, such gunmen are an insult to Allah and affront to human dignity. They are acting against prophetic behavior and therefore we must distance ourselves from such evil and cowardly actions.”

 

“Islam cherishes human liberties and freedoms, including freedom of speech, and does not allow us to take anyone’s life, no matter how much we disagree with their views or actions. Any difference of opinion or grievance must be dealt with through legal channels and democratic means that are prevalent in our society” said Imam Qari Asim, MBE.

 

Our Prophet (peace be upon him) did not preach violence to be a solution to all the problems. Never in history has hatred or violence resolved any issues permanently and it will not do so in future.

 

Violence begets violence. The cycle of hate and counter-hate, violence and counter-violence needs breaking. We must not let acts of hatred or terrorism divide our communities.

[CambridgeDon]

http://www.makkahmasjid.co.uk/wp/index.php/2015/01/07/attack-on-french-magazine-staff-condemned-prophet-muhammad-does-not-require-avenging/

 

Very interesting. For someone who purports to know so much about Islam, and quotes their spokesman, do you have any idea what taqiyya means?

 

What yesterday's events show is that this religion needs to reform itself from within and until it does it will continue to be in crisis and we will continue to be in danger.

[For Us All]

The BBC's editorial guidelines on the issue raised some surprise on QT tonight.

 

Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence.The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form.

[Bea Smith]

http://www.makkahmasjid.co.uk/wp/index.php/2015/01/07/attack-on-french-magazine-staff-condemned-prophet-muhammad-does-not-require-avenging/

 

 

Well, it's a start. But you pointed out that there are 1.6 billion muslims, so I would have expected rather more by now, in fact hundreds of times more including street rallies.

 

Meanwhile, how about a twitter hashtag campaign #showthecartoons to get our own gutless press to ALL show us what is so awful that people have to die for it - I want to see them, and I am sure others do too.

 

Even better would be millions of people wearing 'Frankie says Relax' style T-shirts with the cartoon on - and don't anyone dare say this is provocative, it would be a fitting tribute for those who died and what they might well want.

[CambridgeDon]

The BBC's editorial guidelines on the issue raised some surprise on QT tonight.

 

Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence.The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form.

 

Nothing more and nothing less than appeasement in the face of murderous intolerance. As, Winston Churchill once said “an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

 

One thing is for certain, if the crocodile eats the BBC (and we can but hope) it will certainly get indigestion.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Well, it's a start. But you pointed out that there are 1.6 billion muslims, so I would have expected rather more by now, in fact hundreds of times more including street rallies.

 

On Twitter, Facebook, the press, BBC News, even the Question Time that's on as I type, Muslims have been very vocal in their disgust at yesterday's event. Have a Google. As an aside, when crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity, do you also believe that Christians should hold/ have apologised, held rallies and raise money for the victims? I'm not trying to rile you with this, just genuinely curious to know.

 

As for Cambridge Don's post, you believe that "You'd think that they [Muslims] would absolutely want to disassociate themselves from such vile behaviour. For their own credibility, they need to do it." but when they do, you just treat it with suspicion and go on about taqiyya.

 

(By the way, I have never purported "to know so much about Islam" at all. I openly admit that I don't.)

[Bea Smith]

On Twitter, Facebook, the press, BBC News, even the Question Time that's on as I type, Muslims have been very vocal in their disgust at yesterday's event. Have a Google. As an aside, when crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity, do you also believe that Christians should hold/ have apologised, held rallies and raise money for the victims? I'm not trying to rile you with this, just genuinely curious to know.

 

As for Cambridge Don's post, you believe that "You'd think that they [Muslims] would absolutely want to disassociate themselves from such vile behaviour. For their own credibility, they need to do it." but when they do, you just treat it with suspicion and go on about taqiyya.

 

(By the way, I have never purported "to know so much about Islam" at all. I openly admit that I don't.)

 

You may remember a few weeks ago you sickly mocked the dogs burnt to death after the Manchester dogs home fire, and got very annoyed with those of us on here who were pleased that money had been raised.

 

The fact is that ordinary working class people in this country have always been ready to dig deep for worthy causes - whether it is an earthquake, Ebola, famine, tsunami or whatever - British people, whether or not Christian but at least for the moment the majority of the country identifies as Christian, are generous to a fault.

 

Britain gives massive amounts of foreign aid, a fact that makes me proud of my country although there are many things that we don't do right, this is one that we do. I do accept that some of the donations come from Muslims.

 

I would point out how miserly and mean the mega-rich gulf countries like the disgusting Saudi regime, and Qatar who can find billions for their corrupt World Cup were when asked for aid to combat Ebola in Africa. Whilst impoverished and bankrupt Cuba made a magnificent gesture in sending hundreds of doctors, these Islamic gulf states gave virtually nothing.

 

As for Christians apologising for crimes, I racked my brains and went through Google as you suggested, but strangely enough, can't find any instances of Islamic newspapers being firebombed, Islamic cartoonists being murdered, Christian terrorists hijacking plaanes and flying them into mosques or gatherings at Mecca or anything similar.

 

There are the lovely Westboro Baptist mob, but they are more of a joke than anything else and so far as I am aware haven't done anything anti-muslim, as they seem more obsessed with attacking gays and acting disgracefully at the funerals of their own dead soldiers, which suggests many things about their twisted mentality.

 

Should they start murdering or bombing and say it was in the name of Christianity though, I reckon there would be absolute outrage on an unimaginable scale from real decent Christians, who would not hold back in anger or condemnation and probably donations.