"Shootings" reported in central Paris.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Amy. J S
Couldn't agree with this more. I find that people (myself included) can be detattched to what has actually happened; we've become desensitised by it. People have gone out, they have families, friends and lives of their own, to enjoy themselves and their life has been taken so, so needlessly. Really makes you think.
You can only truly understand the enormity of these attacks when they involve you on a personal level (if that makes sense).
As you've rightly said, people are "desensitised".
Original post by MrsSheldonCooper
Bear in mind 9/11, 7/7 and ISIS was caused by a small proportion of Muslims. There's billions of Muslims out there and ISIS barely covers 5% of them.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-islamic-university-muslim-leaders-condemn-isis-slaughter-of-ethiopian-christians-say-it-goes-against-any-religion-137976/ - Islamic university condemns ISIS
https://www.rt.com/news/229383-kasasbeh-reaction-isis-crucify/ - Jordanians condemn ISIS
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/isis-concern-british-muslim-leaders-condemn-extremist-group-9599273.html - British Muslim leaders condemn ISIS
http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-islamic-university-muslim-leaders-condemn-isis-slaughter-of-ethiopian-christians-say-it-goes-against-any-religion-137976/ - Islamic university condemns ISIS
https://www.rt.com/news/229383-kasasbeh-reaction-isis-crucify/ - Jordanians condemn ISIS
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/isis-concern-british-muslim-leaders-condemn-extremist-group-9599273.html - British Muslim leaders condemn ISIS
Even if 1% of muslims are extremists, that is 18 million people. Estimates suggest that 20% of muslims think killing in the name of Allah is good.
Those posting news that some scholars and leaders "condemn" attacks. Of course they will. Do you think it would be sensible to admit that they support it if they really did and planned something like that themselves?
Original post by TheArtofProtest
I'd say yes (because intervention can mean ground troops as well) but it is established in this scenario, they are synonymous so I don't know why you chose to make a redundant division.
I would have thought that it would be a recurring spiral of antagonism and more killings.
We get worked up because of XXX and we go and bomb them. They know we bomb them because they did XXX so they go and do it some more to get a rise and reaction out of us. We stand at the sidelines and feel helpless so we support stronger and stronger action.
Isn't that how it is?
I'd understand it if we were helping those fleeing but we are not.
Japan, giving $200 million to help the war on IS but will not accept any refugees.
The gulf countries, bombing the **** out of IS, but hardly a murmur of refugees.
Western countries, also bombing the **** out of IS, but their populace doesn't want refugees.
Don't tell me that this is strictly about helping refugees.
I would have thought that it would be a recurring spiral of antagonism and more killings.
We get worked up because of XXX and we go and bomb them. They know we bomb them because they did XXX so they go and do it some more to get a rise and reaction out of us. We stand at the sidelines and feel helpless so we support stronger and stronger action.
Isn't that how it is?
I'd understand it if we were helping those fleeing but we are not.
Japan, giving $200 million to help the war on IS but will not accept any refugees.
The gulf countries, bombing the **** out of IS, but hardly a murmur of refugees.
Western countries, also bombing the **** out of IS, but their populace doesn't want refugees.
Don't tell me that this is strictly about helping refugees.
I'm asking you if you are against intervention. Not if you are against the intervention that has happened already. Hence the division.
I disagree with that simple summary. There absolutely are more reasons for responding than revenge. Deterrence for example. Solving the cause of the problem which would stop the symptoms.
Well I'll leave the friendly conversation alone and officially call you a loon. Fighting against an invading fascism is helping refugees! It's fighting for the continuation of their home? Is it? I mean, it's solving the problem rather than the symptom. It wasn't a coincidence that this was the matter everyone agreed on once the debate on migrating refugees died down.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by The Rad Prince
Such a Shia thing to say x
Such a Shia thing to say x
Guilty as charged.
Original post by Ishea16
Muslims would NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER join ISIS. ISIS are the one that are killing Muslims in Syria and other parts of the world. There are some absolute idiots that support them and all i can say for them people is that God help them.As a Muslim I Hate Hate Hate ISIS more than any non Muslim, they are not human forget Muslims Why do ALL the Muslims get Hate when its a group of animals that are causing the pain and chaos?Do you seriously believe all the Muslims you have met could be as brutal and disgusting as ISIS?How hard must it be for me and all the other Muslims to be always blamed for something I have not done? To go out and people looking at you disgusted? As a civilised nation why have we not stopped generalising? i am a Muslim but i didn't kill innocent CHILDREN men and women i wasn't responsible for the tragedy in Paris i am not the one trying to take over the world i am a Muslim but i am not ISIS so stop blaming me
I hate Tottenham Hotspurs, and would never support them, but I know that other people would, and do. Just because you don't support ISIS doesn't mean no other Muslims would.
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
Who are the main victims of muslim terrorism?
Muslims.
Why are those muslim being terrorised? What is the ideology of the second, targeted group of muslims? Why aren't they fighting on the side of the terrorists?
Ask yourself these questions.
Muslims.
Why are those muslim being terrorised? What is the ideology of the second, targeted group of muslims? Why aren't they fighting on the side of the terrorists?
Ask yourself these questions.
What is your argument, that these Muslims are so violent they even kill those within their own religion? Good point, Poirot, totally deflects all criticism.
Original post by Josb
A Syrian passport has been found near the body of a terrorist at the Stade de France.
I'm not going to get my tinfoil hat out, but it all seems a little too neat - if you're planning and carrying out a terrorist attack, why would you carry a passport with you?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Whilst not being overtly Christian it does play an important part in the types of politics he comes from. It's part of what defines the west against the percieved invasion and taking over of Europe from Muslims/Islam and Marxists. If anything his version Christianity is even worse in that it is a kind of soft Christianity in that there are millions of such people in Europe who hold this belief of Beveriks... It
"It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy..." ~ Beverik
It probably describes a lot of Church of England goers in this country. But we did not demand they explained themselves after those 77 people were killed.
Some more of his views on religion.
In 2009, he wrote "Today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic."[192] Before the attacks, he stated an intention to attend Frogner Church in a final "Martyr's mass".[193]The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[32] but he is not "excessively religious"[32] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[32][194]
His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[184][194] Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God."[194][195] Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God for help during his attacks.[196]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
But we do not condone or demand some kind of inquiry into western Culture/religion. Statements such as "the deafening silence of the Muslim community" imply that the Muslim community are inherently complicit unless they, on mass, state otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent. There is an imbalance between how we treat terrorist attacks that come from different ideologies, beliefs and countries.
"It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy..." ~ Beverik
It probably describes a lot of Church of England goers in this country. But we did not demand they explained themselves after those 77 people were killed.
Some more of his views on religion.
In 2009, he wrote "Today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic."[192] Before the attacks, he stated an intention to attend Frogner Church in a final "Martyr's mass".[193]The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[32] but he is not "excessively religious"[32] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[32][194]
His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[184][194] Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God."[194][195] Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God for help during his attacks.[196]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
But we do not condone or demand some kind of inquiry into western Culture/religion. Statements such as "the deafening silence of the Muslim community" imply that the Muslim community are inherently complicit unless they, on mass, state otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent. There is an imbalance between how we treat terrorist attacks that come from different ideologies, beliefs and countries.
The more I read your post the more I thought you were digging yourself a hole.
He describes himself as a 'cultural christian'
He talks of being in the same position as 'Christian - agnostics and Christian-atheists'
He 'views religion as a crutch'
And you want to paint this as some kind of link to Christianity?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Scrappy-coco
The more I read your post the more I thought you were digging yourself a hole.
He describes himself as a 'cultural christian'
He talks of being in the same position as 'Christian - agnostics and Christian-atheists'
He 'views religion as a crutch'
And you want to paint this as some kind of link to Christianity?
Posted from TSR Mobile
He describes himself as a 'cultural christian'
He talks of being in the same position as 'Christian - agnostics and Christian-atheists'
He 'views religion as a crutch'
And you want to paint this as some kind of link to Christianity?
Posted from TSR Mobile
It;s a link to a kind of Christianity many westerners in Europe adopt. We don't go on witch hunts for Cultural Christians when a terrorist who subscribes great importance to culture Christianity goes on a killing spree. Beverik was essentially moderate in his Christianity then? Christians can't even use the 'he was an extremist outlier' line in that case.
I'm not trying to hide the fact Beverik was not an extreme dogmatic religious person like an ISIS terrorist will be. If I was I would have not included that part when I quoted him.
Beveriks interest in Christianity is the same as a lot of Europeans, yet we do not and should not hold them all responsible or complicit when he killed 77 people. But a lot of us do just that when it is a Muslim Terrorist. That is what I am saying.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The Blue Axolotl
Well done Sherlock.
Most of the ISIS/Al Qaeda attacks have been carried out in majority Muslim countries. /slowclap
Most of the ISIS/Al Qaeda attacks have been carried out in majority Muslim countries. /slowclap
The point is that these people are an enemy of a huge segment of the muslims, so it doesn't make sense to blame muslims as a whole for the actions of a faction which is actively doing the same things to the other muslims as they are doing to the west - and more often, killing more. Of course, right now people aren't thinkng straight, and I believe people have a right to that anger so long as they don't carry out retaliationary violence towards the wrong people.
Original post by Arkasia
I'm not going to get my tinfoil hat out, but it all seems a little too neat - if you're planning and carrying out a terrorist attack, why would you carry a passport with you?
I'm not going to get my tinfoil hat out, but it all seems a little too neat - if you're planning and carrying out a terrorist attack, why would you carry a passport with you?
They knew they were going to die, so they probably didn't care to be identified. It's perhaps an honour for them to appear in the news.
The Kouachi brothers also left an ID in their car in January.
Original post by Longshot700
I'm sorry but what?
I'm saying it was absolutely right to talk about the problems involved in Rotherham. The stiffening silence in the face of what happened in case you were accused of racism. Just focusing on the victims would have actually done the victims a injustice.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Arkasia
What is your argument, that these Muslims are so violent they even kill those within their own religion? Good point, Poirot, totally deflects all criticism.
No. By all means, criticise and discuss, that's how understanding is made. But 'these muslims are so violent that they even kill those within their own religion' is naive, and immature, demonstrating a lack of knowledge about whether different muslim ideologies exist in large numbers or not, including non violent forms, and perhaps a lack of willingness to gain that knowledge in order to help us progress.
Original post by Louisb19
Even if 1% of muslims are extremists, that is 18 million people. Estimates suggest that 20% of muslims think killing in the name of Allah is good.
Source?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
It;s a link to a kind of Christianity many westerners in Europe adopt. We don't go on witch hunts for Cultural Christians when a terrorist who subscribes great importance to culture Christianity goes on a killing spree. Beverik was essentially moderate in his Christianity then? Christians can't even use the 'he was an extremist outlier' line in that case.
I'm not trying to hide the fact Beverik was not an extreme dogmatic religious person like an ISIS terrorist will be. If I was I would have not included that part when I quoted him.
Beveriks interest in Christianity is the same as a lot of Europeans, yet we do not and should not hold them all responsible or complicit when he killed 77 people. But a lot of us do just that when it is a Muslim Terrorist. That is what I am saying.
I'm not trying to hide the fact Beverik was not an extreme dogmatic religious person like an ISIS terrorist will be. If I was I would have not included that part when I quoted him.
Beveriks interest in Christianity is the same as a lot of Europeans, yet we do not and should not hold them all responsible or complicit when he killed 77 people. But a lot of us do just that when it is a Muslim Terrorist. That is what I am saying.
Well I think you should be a bit more specific. Its very general you see.
How do you define the type of Christianity that Beveriks belonged to?
How much of Europe can be said to have a similar type of Christianity?
I mean, with Muslim terrorists it's all outlined and clear. They have some things in common with the majority of Muslims (five pillars etc) but we see where they differ and their views.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Arkasia
What is your argument, that these Muslims are so violent they even kill those within their own religion?
Not even. Those cases are usually Sunni vs Shia muslims (= "not real muslims" - spot the reason to kill them). I think international terrorists are usually Sunni muslims.
(edited 8 years ago)
The worst part about this is that the usual suspects will come out of the woodwork and start ranting about how the French brought this on themselves.
France didn't take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it strenuously opposed it. France is not a supporter of Israel at the UN. Pretty much none of the traditional grievances against the US apply to France. The only basis on which this is rationalised is that France stepped in to help stop a Yezidi/Kurdish genocide.
The apologists and sympathisers should be ashamed of themselves
France didn't take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it strenuously opposed it. France is not a supporter of Israel at the UN. Pretty much none of the traditional grievances against the US apply to France. The only basis on which this is rationalised is that France stepped in to help stop a Yezidi/Kurdish genocide.
The apologists and sympathisers should be ashamed of themselves
Original post by Josb
They knew they were going to die, so they probably didn't care to be identified. It's perhaps an honour for them to appear in the news.
The Kouachi brothers also left an ID in their car in January.
The Kouachi brothers also left an ID in their car in January.
That's true, but if they wanted honour/glory, they would have some form of letter or video that gets leaked to the media, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack but their press release was incredibly vague "we sent 8 brothers armed with explosive belts and assault rifles". Leaving an ID in your car makes more sense than an ID being found 'near' a body.
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
No. By all means, criticise and discuss, that's how understanding is made. But 'these muslims are so violent that they even kill those within their own religion' is naive, and immature, demonstrating a lack of knowledge about whether different muslim ideologies exist in large numbers or not, including non violent forms, and perhaps a lack of willingness to gain that knowledge in order to help us progress.
It's the same religion, with various strands, same as Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism etc all being part of Christianity. The fact is that you can't use "they kill more people in their own countries, and their own religion" as an argument against the religion being violent (especially since Sunni/Shia/Sufi strands are also all violent against each other). We can only progress via a mixture of destruction of pre-existing violent ideological institutions, and education to prevent future ones from growing.
UK / US / France bomb iraq, syria, palestine, libya killing hundreds of thousands of civilians-> NOT terrorism
ISIS kills a couple people in paris -> terrorism
white man goes on a rampage, shooting up a school or island -> NOT terrorism, just a crazy lone wolf
ISIS kills a couple people in paris -> terrorism
white man goes on a rampage, shooting up a school or island -> NOT terrorism, just a crazy lone wolf
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by MC booSack
UK / US / France bomb iraq, syria, palestine, libya killing hundreds of thousands of civilians-> NOT terrorism
ISIS kills a couple people in paris -> terrorism
white man goes on a rampage, shooting up a school or island -> NOT terrorism, just a crazy lone wolf
ISIS kills a couple people in paris -> terrorism
white man goes on a rampage, shooting up a school or island -> NOT terrorism, just a crazy lone wolf
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- GCSE Roemo and Juliet Quotes
- recommendations for youtube channels covering a-level english combined topics
- Paris Anthology- How do i actiually do more linguistic analysis here? ( A-level Engli
- what's the best way to spend last 24-48hrs before GCSE english literature exam?
- Last minute accomodation available in Glasgow?
- How does Turnitin work?
- NEED HELP from people who took WJEC English GCSE Of Mice and Men Higher IN 2023
- Cheap student accomodation in london
- How are you meant to revise for English Lit?
- HELP!! A-level English Literature Edexcel (2024)
- OCR Computer Science A level NEA
- I am a private English tutor AMA
- English Literature/Language A-level Help
- english lit xmas carol analysis
- Can I submit further criteria on resubs?
- New Thread Experience Testing Thread
- HEC MSc in Marketing vs. LSE GMiM - confused which to choose
- HEC MSc in Marketing vs LSE GMiM - confused which to choose
- WKH 15 Laptop
- Please Grade my essay - English Lit GCSE
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
How do you distinguish between primary and secondary alcohols by chemical reaction?Last reply 3 minutes ago
Jaguar (JLR) Degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
DHSC Health Policy Fast Track Scheme 2023 ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 3 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 9 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 11 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 11 minutes ago
Chances of switching from LSE Acc and Fin to Econ and Maths or Fin Maths and StatsLast reply 14 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
I accepted my firm+ paid a deposit on accommodation but I’m thinking about a Gap yearLast reply 19 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 20 minutes ago
Official: University of Nottingham A108 2024 Entry Applicant threadLast reply 22 minutes ago
Will an IVA cause my Civil Service pre employment check to fail?Posted 23 minutes ago
Glasgow uni grade requirements for economic and social historyLast reply 23 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsTrending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
