France: Charlie Hebdo shootings

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 sorry but you're the one talking nonsense. The Crusades, when was that 11th century? Inquisitions - 16th. If that is the best you can come up with you are illustrating my point perfectly about the problem with Islam. The whole world was a brutal barbaric place then, only some of us have moved on. As for Peados within the Church, that's more of a by-product of religion - the priests are not f*cking kids in the name of God or for their god. They are just sexually frustrated old men where religion has played a part in making them like that.

Fact is Charlie Hebdo mocks Christianity - nothing happens, it mock Judaism - nothing happens, it mocks Islam and people are executed.

What we have here is not religion causing division as it has done many times throughout history but people murdering innocents in the name of religion, for their religion.

It is obviously only a small part of Islam but it IS part of islam. Call it Wahhabism or whatever you cannot change that fact - it is a brand of Islam. Denying that fact for the sake of upsetting some people won't help anyone, it just sweeps it under the carpet.

5 live saying the two men were well known to police and 10 years ago had tried to go to Iraq after seeing the Abu Graib(?) pictures. Same as the 7/7 bombers who were politically motivated by the West's invasion of Iraq.

just seen that video,

 

boy, is that grim.

Harrowing

It was good to see Muslim groups come out and condemn this attack. Perhaps this might unite rather than divide.I really hope so

It was good to see Muslim groups come out and condemn this attack. Perhaps this might unite rather than divide.I really hope so

They condemn other attacks as well, for instance:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25472400

It was good to see Muslim groups come out and condemn this attack. Perhaps this might unite rather than divide.I really hope so

Thank goodness they did, otherwise we could have assumed that a billion muslims supported the attack. Phew.

Thank goodness they did, otherwise we could have assumed that a billion muslims supported the attack. Phew.

The cop shot in cold bood while injured on the ground was a muslim.

It was good to see Muslim groups come out and condemn this attack. Perhaps this might unite rather than divide.I really hope so

What would be really impressive is if a Muslim organisation/website/publication re-published a load of the cartoons directly themselves, I'd take my hat off to any of them that did that.

The cop shot in cold bood while injured on the ground was a muslim.

As, presumably, was Mustapha Ourrad who came from Algeria, one of those killed in the offices.

It doesn't make a huge difference in practice, quite easy, empty platitudes.

Who the fúck are you to dismiss what someone has come out and said? How do you know these are empty platitudes?

In one sense, it's encouraging. Typically you have to have everything explained to you. I'd like to encourage this new found confidence in expressing your opinions. Can you show us your working out?

What would be really impressive is if a Muslim organisation/website/publication re-published a load of the cartoons directly themselves, I'd take my hat off to any of them that did that.

If that's your standard, give it up. I doubt that there are many religious organisations that'd be prepare to vilify their most sacred figures just to look good.

To quote the great Cap'n Mal, my days of not taking you seriously are at a middle.

Who the fúck are you to dismiss what someone has come out and said? How do you know these are empty platitudes?

 

In one sense, it's encouraging. Typically you have to have everything explained to you. I'd like to encourage this new found confidence in expressing your opinions. Can you show us your working out?

 

 

 

If that's your standard, give it up. I doubt that there are many religious organisations that'd be prepare to vilify their most sacred figures just to look good.

 

To quote the great Cap'n Mal, my days of not taking you seriously are at a middle.

Unable to explain stuff and you get angry. Don't get so upset.

Anger? Nah.

I'm intrigued as to your expertise on the matter. I'm sure the intelligence services would be very interested in someone that can gauge the opinions (empty or not) of all Muslims. Is it just Muslims, or can you do others as well?

The likely answer is you're doing the usual trick of making ignorant, unsubstantiated and fearful remarks. If you don't have any basis for your point, that's fine. Just wanted to point it out.

Again.

I hope the entire community of who ever is responsible for this comes out and condemns it.

http://rt.com/news/220819-attack-mosque-france-paris/

Anger? Nah.

 

I'm intrigued as to your expertise on the matter. I'm sure the intelligence services would be very interested in someone that can gauge the opinions (empty or not) of all Muslims. Is it just Muslims, or can you do others as well?

 

The likely answer is you're doing the usual trick of making ignorant, unsubstantiated and fearful remarks. If you don't have any basis for your point, that's fine. Just wanted to point it out.

 

Again.

I hope the entire community of who ever is responsible for this comes out and condemns it.

 

http://rt.com/news/220819-attack-mosque-france-paris/

Everyone living in Le Mans are terrorist sympathisers unless they all come out and condemn this.

Everyone living in Le Mans are terrorist sympathisers unless they all come out and condemn this.

I'm also waiting on all white people to come out and apologise and condemn this attack on a NAACP building. Seriously though, isn't it weird how there's been hardly coverage of this?

White guy blows up building of a (black) civil rights group? Nothing. But no, I was totally making that stuff up about the media shaping the image of what a terrorist is.

Another Police officer shot near Paris this morning

I'm also waiting on all white people to come out and apologise and condemn this attack on a NAACP building. Seriously though, isn't it weird how there's been hardly coverage of this?

 

White guy blows up building of a (black) civil rights group? Nothing. But no, I was totally making that stuff up about the media shaping the image of what a terrorist is.

Why the **** would anybody apart from the Denver Post cover somebody setting off a firework (no deaths, no injuries, no damage) in Colorado?

Why the **** would anybody apart from the Denver Post cover somebody setting off a firework (no deaths, no injuries, no damage) in Colorado?

His point is well made though. This case sticks in the memory too.

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/uk-white-supremacist-bomb-factory.html

Largest haul of bomb-making chemicals in the UK. Two white supremacists arrested. Barely reported.

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/uk-white-supremacist-bomb-factory.html

 

Largest haul of bomb-making chemicals in the UK. Two white supremacists arrested. Barely reported.

Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/14/ukcrime.thefarright

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6263022.stm

The relatively subdued coverage was due to the fact they were found not guilty.

Why the **** would anybody apart from the Denver Post cover somebody setting off a firework (no deaths, no injuries, no damage) in Colorado?

The relatively subdued coverage was due to the fact they were found not guilty.

Google better, Tim.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/31/ukcrime.thefarright

Google better, Tim.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/31/ukcrime.thefarright

Follow your own advice. He was found not guilty of conspiring to cause explosions and all terrorism offences.

I haven't ever suggested I can gauge the opinions of anyone, odd thing to make up, but probably helps in deflecting your inability to explain things.

Look, you can level a lot at Papster, but I think it is very easy to read and interpret his explanations of things.

Look, you can level a lot at Papster, but I think it is very easy to read and interpret his explanations of things.

Thats a joke right? All he does is make loads of claims, almost none of which he can substantiate when challenged.

Look, you can level a lot at Papster, but I think it is very easy to read and interpret his explanations of things.

Follow your own advice. He was found not guilty of conspiring to cause explosions and all terrorism offences.

You're arguing a point I never made. Was it, or was it not, a record haul of bomb-making chemicals? If you have something to dispute there, fair play. Otherwise, stop being a useless contrarian.

The underlying point being made is that Islamic terrorism is prioritised on news agendas. It's not even the number one cause of terrorism in Europe.

Thats a joke right? All he does is make loads of claims, almost none of which he can substantiate when challenged.

Thats a joke right? All he does is make loads of claims, almost none of which he can substantiate when challenged.

So you keep saying, but the opposite is true.

When challenged, you run away. See the Israel and Gaza thread. Still waiting for instances where I've been "frequently wrong" about that.

You're arguing a point I never made. Was it, or was it not, a record haul of bomb-making chemicals? If you have something to dispute there, fair play. Otherwise, stop being a useless contrarian.

 

The underlying point being made is that Islamic terrorism is prioritised on news agendas. It's not even the number one cause of terrorism in Europe.

You cant even follow a single train of thought within a single post.

Did they kill or injure anybody? Were they found guilty of conspiring to cause explosions and acts of terrorism? Answer: no. Therefore why would they get the same media coverage as the real life murder of 12 people. Once again your media bias / conspiracy theories dont add up

You cant even follow a single train of thought within a single post.

 

Did they kill or injure anybody? Were they found guilty of conspiring to cause explosions and acts of terrorism? Answer: no. Therefore why would they get the same media coverage as the real life murder of 12 people. Once again your media bias / conspiracy theories dont add up

Again, strawman nonsense. Where did I say that the case should have received the same level of attention?

Get better or go home, Tim.

Yep and if asked to explain any of them he gets angry.

I take it your anger detection skills are sourced from the same place as your "empty platitude" detection skills.

Again, strawman nonsense. Where did I say that the case should have received the same level of attention?

 

Get better or go home, Tim.

Usual Pap tactic of declaring victory when made to look foolish.

So to be clear should the two Lancashire guys have got more media coverage and the Paris attack less, or not?

ps congrats on making another horrific attack all about you again. Its narcissism at its deepest.

Thats a joke right? All he does is make loads of claims, almost none of which he can substantiate when challenged.

Where did I say he could substantiate them? However, he does explain things well.

Usual Pap tactic of declaring victory when made to look foolish.

 

So to be clear should the two Lancashire guys have got more media coverage and the Paris attack less, or not?

Answers strawman with more strawman.

Contact the scientific community. Perpetual motion machines are possible, as long as they produce shít.

Well he hasn't been able to explain how the West's involvment in the middle east is a cause of some journalists and cartoonists in Paris to be murdered.

You've made this point a lot. All that proves is that there is currently a higher proportion of nutters misusing Islam as a front to kill and maim. That isn't the fault of the religion itself and ignores the 99% (who are the true followers of Islam) who don't go out to kill and murder others.

Where did I say he could substantiate them? However, he does explain things well.

I can explain how to make a nuclear fusion reactor using a rubber band and a bicycle pump. Means zip if it all falls apart when challenged.

Where did I say he could substantiate them? However, he does explain things well.

I don't take any buctootim criticism seriously, tbh.

The bloke has been trying to diss me for years, yet only really manages to hurt himself. His attack on my appearance was glorious.

You've made this point a lot.

Because it was a response to a link posted, I asked the question and no-one could answer it.

So you agree that All it proves is that there is currently a higher proportion of nutters misusing Islam as a front to kill and maim, and that suggesting that these instances is the fault of Islam ignores the vast vast majority of peaceful Muslims? Yes?

So you agree that All it proves is that there is currently a higher proportion of nutters misusing Islam as a front to kill and maim, and that suggesting that these instances is the fault of Islam ignores the vast vast majority of peaceful Muslims? Yes?

By far the majority of those killed by IS and the Taliban have been other Muslims. Muslims have more reason to hate them than any westerner.

By far the majority of those killed by IS and the Taliban have been other Muslims. Muslims have more reason to hate them than any westerner.

Which just underlines the idiocy of those who think the actions of a tiny minority is the fault of the religion.

So you agree that All it proves is that there is currently a higher proportion of nutters misusing Islam as a front to kill and maim, and that suggesting that these instances is the fault of Islam ignores the vast vast majority of peaceful Muslims? Yes?

Why does Islam have such a higer proportion of these nutters? Do you think the growth of Islam in the Western world over the last 30 years is a good thing? Of course not all Muslims are responsible for the attacks. Islam can be at fault for these attacks without every Muslim being responsible.

How do you consider Islam to be at fault? How should "Islam" change to stop this in your eyes?

Because it was a response to a link posted, I asked the question and no-one could answer it.

I'm sure I've seen a post on this thread that suggested a causal link. I'll try to dig that out.

It'd be wrong to suggest that his experiences directly led to the horrible events of yesterday, but according to The Independent (which cites Associated Press as its source), the younger brother had become radicalised (my words not theirs) following the actions of "The West" in Iraq...

Cherif, 32, had been sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 for helping to transport fighters for the alleged purposes of jihad from France to Iraq, for which he served 18 months, the Associated Press reported. He had said he was inspired to do so after witnessing images of CIA torture from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

A link to the article is here, but there is not too much extra information.

A similar suggested link is in The Express.

It is believed that Cherif was radicalised after expressing anger at the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the mistreatment of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

Again, the full article is here.

This piece is from the NY Times, and is a little more expansive.

Chérif’s interest in radical Islam, it was said at the 2008 trial, was rooted in his fury over the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, particularly the mistreatment of Muslims held at Abu Ghraib prison. Chérif was given a three-year sentence for involvement in a network that recruited young French Muslims to fight alongside Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in an American airstrike in 2006. Having already spent three years in pretrial detention, he was swiftly released.

The full article is here.

I've chosen to embolden that text, not the NYT.

So, to your question about how the West's involvement led to the killing of cartoonists, I'd suggest there is the start of a link right there.

It's worth repeating that it'd be wrong to suggest the West's involvement had a direct link to yesterday's attack, but it would have to be ignorance of the highest order to completely rule it out.

5 live saying the two men were well known to police and 10 years ago had tried to go to Iraq after seeing the Abu Graib(?) pictures. Same as the 7/7 bombers who were politically motivated by the West's invasion of Iraq.

I knew I'd seen it suggested that the brothers' radicalisation started after the West's actions in Iraq.

Credit to Jonnyboy.

Why does Islam have such a higer proportion of these nutters? Do you think the growth of Islam in the Western world over the last 30 years is a good thing? Of course not all Muslims are responsible for the attacks. Islam can be at fault for these attacks without every Muslim being responsible.

As I said in my post (the actual thrust of which you ignored) it may have something to do with the fact that many have been radicalised by extremists as a result of the turbulence caused by Western intervention in the Middle East. Being hit by drone strikes for the best part of a decade has led to a lot of anti-Western sentiment, which extremists have capitalised on and harnessed that anger into vengeance against those who have perpetrated this. Add that into a general feeling of persecution against Muslims worldwide since 9/11 and that can go towards brainwashing people into committing acts like this in the name of "retaliation".

How do you consider Islam to be at fault? How should "Islam" change to stop this in your eyes?

Now, I've answered your questions, you can answer mine.