Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion

BS. The Salman Rushdie affair was way before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

France now has minimal involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, other countries targeted by extremists for similar things (such as Sweden and Denmark) have had little to no involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is apologist claptrap.

From the Middle-East. I'd be surprised if they were not.

Can you read? I've stated not once but twice that I'm in no way, shape or form justifying what terroists do or have done including today's attack

There is no conspiracy, it's just cowardice

A similar example is the ex-Muslim Society and the Islamic society on TSR (note that both groups consist largely of people who are not ethnic Europeans).

The Islamic society is far more aggressive and badly behaved, makes far more extreme demands and generally protests its victimhood to a much more extreme degree than the ex-Muslim society. In return the moderators protect the Islamic thread to a much greater level, not just from trolling, but any legitimate discussion which will cause annoyance to the Islamic posters and maybe that's acceptable, it is their thread, but the ex-Muslim posters do get hounded and have their posts deleted, even on their own thread, their own space, to the point where it looks as if it's I-Soc rules in the ex-Moose endz.


Like I said, there is no conspiracy, it's just very sad that the world consists of people who make concessions not to those who deserve them, but to those who shout the loudest, kick up the most fuss and who are generally the most difficult to get along with.

BS. The Salman Rushdie affair was way before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

France now has minimal involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, other countries targeted by extremists for similar things (such as Sweden and Denmark) have had little to no involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is apologist claptrap.

Actually, our answers are quite clear, you just seem to reject them because they don't fit in with your view that Islam is bad, therefore you will not stop spreading misinformation until the Muslims themselves believe in the extreme narrative that you propose.

That verse does not justify today's attack. These people were not at war with Muslims.

Your Ibn Kathir quote lists 3 conditions. To 'oppose and contradict' is to fight against Muslims (due to them following Islam) and to contradict the law in clear rebellion - this fulfils 2 of the conditions.

The third condition is that whilst physically fighting against Muslims and rebelling, the person doing so is in a state of disbelief. Once all 3 of these conditions are met, then the person has 'waged war' and thus this ayah comes into effect.

Actually, they did shout Allahu Akbar, you can hear it clearly in one of the video.

Why are you trying to deny this was an islamofascist attack? What is your game?

It's not gonna be anyone else, is it...

Yh exactly! I was expecting to see brains on the pavement the way he is shot at point blank.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

Past tense. These people still resent the West, despite most countries pulling out. As for pre-intervention attacks, like I said, every group has nuts that wil kill for a cause. That nut killed for Islam. Stalin killed for Communism, Hitler killed for ethnic cleansing, those in charge of the Christian Crusades/Holy Wars killed for reclaiming Christian homeland, and Elliot Rodger killed because he had a resentment for women. Each of these individuals is to blame for their actions, not their motive, because what motivates one person to kill doesn't motivate all people to kill.

You said "invaded their country". The middle east is not a country.

And France didn't even take part in the invasion of Iraq



So you claim. But you repeatedly argue the toss from their point of view, and then just say, "I don't agree with it, I'm just saying what they believe".

Everyone here is aware of what they believe. And in fact, your own understanding of their beliefs seems rather lacking.

You are disgracefully offering completely speculative motives and trying to confer some kind of political legitimacy on this attack by saying it was a response to the invasion of Iraq. There is no evidence for that whatsoever, and it would be idiotic if they were because France didn't even take part in the invasion of Iraq

From where I'm standing, you are engaging in a mealy-mouthed justification based on no evidence whatsoever

Usually, when people are against offending, inflammatory content, and so on, they only mean stuff that they find offensive and inflammatory.

It's funny isn't it: horrific, vile things are published all the time about gay people, which call for their death, call them abominations, etc. Yet, when has a gay person or group ever even touched the publisher of such things?

you are citing a handful of loose odd cases ( some of which are incorrect but anyway)

cases like this today are not odd or random cases, they are multiple and re-occurring and all have the same old motives, that come from islamic groups. so no it isnt just a random bunch of people with unconnected motives- thats an ignorant summation

It's obviously more than a cartoon. The prophet is revered in a way that most can't comprehend (as there's not really a similar figure, could say Jesus in Christianity), and depictions are a big no-no. Of course you can argue freedom of speech, but what is there to gain from these cartoons bar spreading hatred?

Not gonna lie so yeah I am basing it on movies. But still someone getting shot with an Ak47 at point blank, there should be little bit of blood no?

I've stated earlier that the extreme fervour in follwing Islam is one of the factors of Islamic extremism- that goes without saying. My case is that a) it's not the only factor and b) Islam itself isn't responsible, the actions of a few (in this case, two gunmen) are.

And what are the basing that idea from? Movies?

Shooting someone at point black does not mean their head is going to explode.