Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions &amp; discussion

Original post by viddy9

Not that the Rushdie Affair didn't come subsequent to substantial Western meddling and atrocities in the Middle East.

The West is to blame for Iran's extreme reaction to Rushdie's work?

Now I've heard everything

Reply 443

Lady Comstock

14

Original post by Jemner01

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.

Exactly. I would wager that Afghanistan and Iraq were extremely minimal in the minds of the fanatics who carried out this atrocity, and they would have targeted this magazine whether it had been in Pakistan or France. It's probably the fact that it is a magazine run by non-believers that riles them than it being located in Paris.

As to your last sentence, their motive clearly is to blame and something that needs to be addressed, namely that non-believers should be punished with summary execution for exercising freedom of speech.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 444

viddy9

16

Original post by Lady Comstock

Which was minimal, and I imagine had very little influence on the minds of those who threatened Rushdie. Regardless, you know full well that had Rushdie released his book in Pakistan or England, he would have been subject to the same reaction. Islam has yet to go the same enlightenment and liberalisation that Christianity has undergone.

I'd hardly call it minimal - we were already meddling in Iran and Iraq, we were doing deals with tyrants and we'd installed a tyrant in place of the democratically elected leader in Iran, for instance.

I agree that it most likely didn't have much influence on the minds of those who threatened Rushdie though, my reply was simply a factual point: the sum total of the bad things we've done in the Middle East isn't all to do with post-2001 actions. Not that you were even implying this - but the poster to whom you were replying seemed to imply this.

Original post by Lady Comstock

It is when the usual "it's all the West's fault" line is parroted out, with minimal logical justification.

When they are actually defending the actions, then it is. But, as long as the action itself isn't defended, we can understand the reasoning behind the action and indeed partially assign blame to other parties which didn't partake in the action. Indeed, we can learn from mistakes.

If someone went and murdered the gunmen who engaged in this action, I would not defend the murder, but I would assign partial blame to the gunmen.

Original post by young_guns

The West is to blame for Iran's extreme reaction to Rushdie's work?

Now I've heard everything

You haven't heard anything, because I never stated anything of the sort. Exactly where do you think I said such a thing? I was merely stating what is a well-known fact. The blame lies almost solely with the Ayatollah.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 445

Nathanielle

15

Original post by Dexa

Who else think that the newspaper was stupid to almost bring this onto themselves? Why do something that you know will provoke a reaction from extremists? My sympathies to those who suffered for this.

Yeah, you should allways lead your life like extremists want you to live it. Great post. Under Nazi occupation you would rather tell the Nazis where the Jews were, instead of risking your head by hiding them? Great attitude. (And yeas you can compare this attitude. These cartoonist just treated Muslims as any other religion in France, a laicistic country.)

Reply 446

Original post by Thuggee

and i didnt either (nor anyone on this thread afaik) its like you jump tot he stupidest conclusion whenever someone points out the facts, like you have a chip on your shoulder or something.
it would be ignorant to claim islam influences all billion muslims in this way, it would also be ignorant to say it influences zero in this way. the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
ajnd that of course is talking about events such as this, not touching on perhaps the far greater numbers that perhaps, would support IS, either explicitly or implicitly. or fund raise for it. or jsut agree with it in principle ( without acting on it) For example do you genuinely the only racists on the planet are those that run around shouting and attacking black people in the street? what about 10 times as many that have the same ideas in their head, in their own homes?

the prevalance of acts such as this in last decade+ shows there is a problem, and it has not been addressed by the muslim world one bit. this is one reason in fact why the USA has had to be so pro-active in the islamic world, becuase the latter is not keen to be

Exclaiming that Islam is the problem and not extreme fundamentalism coupled with the willingness to act on extreme fundamentalism in an extreme way is eaxtly what people in this thread, including you, are doing. In this case, you're not blaming the two actual gunmen, you're blaming the teachings of Islam which I already said are partly responsible for spurring the actions of these attackers, and indeed any attacker attacking in the name of Islamd/Mohammed/Allah/etc. You're correct in saying the numbers are neither all nor none, but it's closer to none than all, otherwise the problem of Islamic extremism would be much greater than it is now. Support for IS or extremism is different than acting out the extremism. The two are extremely close, but all the Muslims who may support extremism but do not say anything or do anything are not a problem, because they're not doing anything. They're not acting on it. If they were, like you say, funding extremism or showing support for the extremism then the debate on what the consequence of that support should be can be had. You're assuming I'm stupid with the racism analogy- I understand you can hold a beleif without acting upon it. But that's the problem- acting upon it. I don't care in the slightest if someone is a racist, but if the act on the racism by shooting black people then I've got a problem. They key here is acting upon. The extremists that commit crimes like the one commited today, or the one in Australia, or 9/11, or any act are the ones that should be dealt with in some manner. Simply holding an opinion, or voicing that opinion, shouldn't be punished by delivering democracy from above.

If you consider bombing pro-active then you'll have to look again, beacuse it seems intervention has caused the adverse effect and created more extremists. You're harking for more intervention, for the problem to be solved, but the way the UN have been "solving" it isn't working if more are being created.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 447

matthewduncan

12

Original post by HarryBarney

You do have a point. With an AK47 a weapon that has been used to amputate people on single shots and literally destroy heads from close and far range there is a significant lack of blood. Which raises suspicions and takes us into the world of conspiracy. The 'headshot' also seems as it hit the pavement unless it exited and then hit the pavement. His head did not have the whiplash effect either from the force of the shot. :/

Posted from TSR Mobile

exactly mate. the evidence is there.
No blood,no whiplash effect after the headshot.
These are ak47s lol

Reply 448

Original post by viddy9

You haven't heard anything, because I never stated anything of the sort. Exactly where do you think I said such a thing?

Why link the two issues unless they are linked in your own mind?

Reply 449

Trupac

5

Original post by HarryBarney

You do have a point. With an AK47 a weapon that has been used to amputate people on single shots and literally destroy heads from close and far range there is a significant lack of blood. Which raises suspicions and takes us into the world of conspiracy. The 'headshot' also seems as it hit the pavement unless it exited and then hit the pavement. His head did not have the whiplash effect either from the force of the shot. :/

Posted from TSR Mobile

The cognitive bias instilled by the mainstream media will make most people ignore the facts. Like in this case , everyone is so bent upon bashing Islam that no one is questioning the credibility of the video which is being plastered across all major news channels.

Reply 450

Original post by Jemner01

If you consider bombing pro-active then you'll have to look again, beacuse it seems intervention has caused the adverse effect

What intervention caused 9/11?

Reply 451

viddy9

16

Original post by young_guns

Why link the two issues unless they are linked in your own mind?

The reply chain that I joined seemed to be implying that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only bad things we've ever done to the Middle East, and so any action such as the one in Paris today that occurred before the 21st Century cannot be even partially explained by Western atrocities. That is not the case. The Rushdie Affair is not one of these cases, however.

Reply 452

queen-bee

19

Original post by Dexa

Who else think that the newspaper was stupid to almost bring this onto themselves? Why do something that you know will provoke a reaction from extremists? My sympathies to those who suffered for this.

Exactly what I was just thinking, but it's sad lives were lost.

Reply 453

Original post by Trupac

The cognitive bias instilled by the mainstream media will make most people ignore the facts. Like in this case , everyone is so bent upon bashing Islam that no one is questioning the credibility of the video which is being plastered across all major news channels.

What an idiotic comment, you clearly know nothing about ballistics.

An 7.62mm round only amputates an arm when the bullet tumbles, which it would not have done on such a short trajectory.

By the way, if you are basing your belief in a conspiracy on the supposed lack of blood (you have up-close high res imagery do you?), you have clearly watched too many movies.

Some people are pathetically desperate to believe everything is a conspiracy

Reply 454

Original post by young_guns

What intervention caused 9/11?

Any of them, or all of them. Who can say. Although before you predictably go off on a tangent with the "it's all Islam's fault" spiel, no I do not beleive the 9/11 attacks to be justified or hold the beleif that the actions of Al-Queda were legitimate.

Reply 455

Original post by viddy9

The reply chain that I joined seemed to be implying that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only bad things we've ever done to the Middle East

Many inhabitants of the Middle East have a remarkable ability to ignore crimes committed by their own leaders and only rev up the outrage machine when it involves non-Muslims committing so-called crimes.

Their voices are often hauntingly silent when it comes to the crimes of their co-religionists

Reply 456

Original post by Jemner01

Any of them, or all of them.

Name them. It shouldn't be hard, the 9/11 hijackers operated under a well-publicised manifesto

Reply 457

Original post by young_guns

What an idiotic comment, you clearly know nothing about ballistics.

An 7.62mm round only amputates an arm when the bullet tumbles, which it would not have done on such a short trajectory.

By the way, if you are basing your belief in a conspiracy on the supposed lack of blood (you have up-close high res imagery do you?), you have clearly watched too many movies.

Some people are pathetically desperate to believe everything is a conspiracy

A 7.62x39mm bullet can't amputate an arm unless you're deliberately trying to amutate it. Even tumbling, there isn't enough force to completely sever and rip off an arm. If you kept shooting at the arm then yeah, but then it would be more of a fine paste than an amputation.

Reply 458