Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

BBC.com: Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12


Slateman

Recommended Posts

The Islamofascists suck and they need to be dealt with. However, but for the rule of law in the west, we might see similar behavior from our own fundies. So in addition to the threat they pose, I also see them as a cautionary tale for us here.

 

 

our laws are what are stopping christians from breaking into businesses and killing cartoon editors?

 

ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does bombing abortion clinics count?

 

 

only if jesus said to do it. maybe he did. i dont know. reading is hard. and that pesky new testament is too long. 

 

gotta get me one of those fancy red letter blickies. it would make it so much easier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one end of the spectrum, you have people who are willing to commit acts of terrorism in response to mockery of their faith.

 

Somewhere in the middle you have majority populations in countries like Egypt who support the death penalty for blasphemy.

 

Then you have Muslim students at UC Berkley who wanted to prevent Bill Maher from speaking at their commencement because he hurt their feelings.

 

A common highlight in all of this is a culture that is extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does bombing abortion clinics count?

 

that is soundly rejected by every Christian organization that I know of

 

there is also a bit of a difference between being killing for being offended and a attempt (foolish) to prevent the death of innocent humans......at least in my disturbed mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is soundly rejected by every Christian organization that I know of

 

 

 

 

i think its rejected by jesus himself, but, since people believe christians are terrorists- or would be, were it not for our superior laws- i'm gonna have to check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one end of the spectrum, you have people who are willing to commit acts of terrorism in response to mockery of their faith.

Somewhere in the middle you have majority populations in countries like Egypt who support the death penalty for blasphemy.

Then you have Muslim students at UC Berkley who wanted to prevent Bill Maher from speaking at their commencement because he hurt their feelings.

A common highlight in all of this is a culture that is extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism.

I am glad you can speak for the culture of a billion plus people that spread out across the world.

A more realistic spectrum (without your arbitrary points to define it) would go more like

Super devout to practically non-observant some of whom will use violence to achieve their goals (just like with any other group on earth). And within each of those places on the spectrum are a dozen or so other differences, a salafi is very different from a Sufi who is very different from a twelver. To speak about a culture so casually without looking at all the random people and groups you lump into it is really counterproductive.

The fact is that a very small group of people committed an atrocious act but that act and the way a religion or an ideology manifests itself never happens in a vacuum and there are always outside factors and pressures that shape its development. That is why the Muslim population in Indonesia is very different from the one in Pakistan which is different from the one in Chile.

To simply ascribe a billion people from dozens of different sects and interpretations of Islam under one umbrella of culture is reductivist and just not useful at all because there is such a diversity of opinions and beliefs just like there is in any group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when a Christian does something crazy in the name of religion, it doesnt indict the entire religion.

They are the only group that has this advantage.

 

care to examine the support both from the population and organizations for crazy acts?

 

Those taking advantage of the 'religion of peace' seem to have official support in many quarters..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is soundly rejected by every Christian organization that I know of

 

there is also a bit of a difference between being killing for being offended and a attempt (foolish) to prevent the death of innocent humans......at least in my disturbed mind.

 

not to mention, according to the new testament, jesus's teachings about how to deal with your 'enemy' are quite different than islam's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me first say this is a really sad story. Hatred and violence are always troubling to me.

That said, I think it is odd the way this shooting is being characterized as "terrorism" (as in today's WaPo headline) whereas other crazed gunmen incidents are just called "mass shootings." It seems that only Muslims are called "terrorists," for some reason. It seems to me all mass murder should count as terrorism, regardless of the motive.

On top of the tragic loss of life, we also have here fuel for bigotry. The cycle of violence and hatred is just sad.

It may be a platitude, but I think it bears repeating: violence begets violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-rips-liberal-****-nation-thats-too-scared-to-insult-islam/

 

 

These guys had the balls of the Eiffel Tower,” Maher said of the cartoonists, reaching for a properly French metaphor. “I’m the liberal in this debate. I’m for free speech. To be a liberal, you have to stand up for liberal principles. It’s not my fault that the part of the world that is most against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me first say this is a really sad story. Hatred and violence are always troubling to me.

That said, I think it is odd the way this shooting is being characterized as "terrorism" (as in today's WaPo headline) whereas other crazed gunmen incidents are just called "mass shootings." It seems that only Muslims are called "terrorists," for some reason. It seems to me all mass murder should count as terrorism, regardless of the motive.

On top of the tragic loss of life, we also have here fuel for bigotry. The cycle of violence and hatred is just sad.

 

the distinction to me is the organization,funding and goals......these were not lone nuts

 

I have no problem describing any mass or single  murder as terrorism if the goal behind it fits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the distinction to me is the organization,funding and goals......these were not lone nuts

I have no problem describing any mass or single murder as terrorism if the goal behind it fits

I'm not denying the "goal" here was to retaliate for a portrayal of Mohammed, I'm just pointing out that seems to be the main reason for calling it "terrorism."

I think the word "terrorism" should be used for any action meant to terrorize, regardless of the "goal." By that criteria, Adam Lanza was as much a terrorist as these guys, although he was not labeled as such.

It seems to me there is a subtle anti-Islamic bias in the way we report things in the west. For example, Oklahoma City and the Olympic park bombings were quickly attributed to Muslims by the press before it was revealed that they were in fact perpetrated by a different brand of crazies.

It seems to me we reserve special venom for a certain kind of terrorist, when such violence is always terrorism regardless of motive or "goal."

Anyway, perhaps this is minor point, so I don't care to belabor it too much.

I find the whole situation deeply disturbing. Hate and violence only creates more hate and violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the distinction to me is the organization,funding and goals......these were not lone nuts

I have no problem describing any mass or single murder as terrorism if the goal behind it fits

Are we sure they aren't lone nuts? Sorry haven't gotten to check the news in the last few hours but I hadn't seen anything to indicate they were part of a larger organization.

But I tend to agree that this fits in with the definition of terrorism they attacked the magizine because of a very specific political motive rather than some of the other mass shootings where there wasn't that political motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying the "goal" here was to retaliate for a portrayal of Mohammed, I'm just pointing out that seems to be the main reason for calling it "terrorism."

I think the word "terrorism" should be used for any action meant to terrorize, regardless of the "goal." By that criteria, Adam Lanza was as much a terrorist as these guys, although he was not labeled as such.

It seems to me there is a subtle anti-Islamic bias in the way we report things in the west. For example, Oklahoma City and the Olympic park bombings were quickly attributed to Muslims by the press before it was revealed that they were in fact perpetrated by a different brand of crazies.

It seems to me we reserve special venom for a certain kind of terrorist, when such violence is always terrorism regardless of motive or "goal."

Anyway, perhaps this is minor point, so I don't care to belabor it too much.

I find the whole situation deeply disturbing. Hate and violence only creates more hate and violence.

I agree with your larger points but Lanza wasn't trying to influence policy and didn't have a larger political goal or motive, it appears these guys did that's why I think terrorism fits well; however, there are plenty of other examples of people shoehorning in people as terrorists or excusing away actions as mentally unstable individuals instead of terrorists, I just think this fits the definition of terrorism pretty well because of that political component.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is soundly rejected by every Christian organization that I know of

 

there is also a bit of a difference between being killing for being offended and a attempt (foolish) to prevent the death of innocent humans......at least in my disturbed mind.

I agree wholeheartedly. You do have a disturbed mind.

 

i think its rejected by jesus himself, but, since people believe christians are terrorists- or would be, were it not for our superior laws- i'm gonna have to check. 

Exhibit A. Exhibit BExhibit C . And note that these folks do have a biblical basis for their opinions. Mind you, the victims in the last two cases aren't people blaspheming Jeebus or doing anything "wrong", just existing is enough. Of course, these are fanatics, outliers. Not all Xtians are like them. But then wasn't that my point? 

 

Now if you want to say that Jeebus abolished all that, I don't recall him specifically saying anything about homosexuality or race-based genocide so one could easily say that these prior biblical laws remain in effect. OTOH Jeebus said a bunch of other stuff about love, mercy etc. so one could also make the opposite argument. The Koran is no different. Again, a case can be made from probably any holy book for doing a whole lot of things that we in modern society would consider abhorrent and criminal or for not doing such things. It's all about the interpretation.

 

Though I personally think it's all nonsense and that people would mostly be better off without any of it, there's nothing wrong with religion per se. It's the fanaticism part that's really at issue. It just so happens that Islam has fallen into the grip of ever worse fanatics over the past 50 years or so. Prior to the creation of Israel and the colonial period, you'd be hard pressed to find this kind of thing in the Muslim world at least in part because the Quran forbids doing most, if not all of the things that the Islamofascists have made a part of their standard repitiore, i.e. killing civilians, suicide, etc. However, they've come up with interpretations that say otherwise and that's what they run with. For them, or any violent religious fanatic, I have no qualms about how harshly they're handled in order to protect everyone else, religious or not from their barbarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your larger points but Lanza wasn't trying to influence policy and didn't have a larger political goal or motive, it appears these guys did that's why I think terrorism fits well; however, there are plenty of other examples of people shoehorning in people as terrorists or excusing away actions as mentally unstable individuals instead of terrorists, I just think this fits the definition of terrorism pretty well because of that political component.

Fair enough, I do agree this is terrorism.

I guess I'm just pointing out that not all terrorists are Muslims (and not all Muslims are terrorists). The guys who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists too (and self-proclaimed Christians), for example.

Overall, I'm just disheartened by the way hate fuels hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we sure they aren't lone nuts? Sorry haven't gotten to check the news in the last few hours but I hadn't seen anything to indicate they were part of a larger organization.

.

Right after it happened, a bunch of folks who study and keep an eye on this stuff pointed out how well trained and organized they appeared.

They could just have some good training and experience though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying the "goal" here was to retaliate for a portrayal of Mohammed, I'm just pointing out that seems to be the main reason for calling it "terrorism."

I think the word "terrorism" should be used for any action meant to terrorize, regardless of the "goal." By that criteria, Adam Lanza was as much a terrorist as these guys, although he was not labeled as such.

It seems to me there is a subtle anti-Islamic bias in the way we report things in the west. For example, Oklahoma City and the Olympic park bombings were quickly attributed to Muslims by the press before it was revealed that they were in fact perpetrated by a different brand of crazies.

It seems to me we reserve special venom for a certain kind of terrorist, when such violence is always terrorism regardless of motive or "goal."

Anyway, perhaps this is minor point, so I don't care to belabor it too much.

I find the whole situation deeply disturbing. Hate and violence only creates more hate and violence.

also both McVeigh and Rudolph used their Christian beliefs as motivation for the acts.

Though I personally think it's all nonsense and that people would mostly be better off without any of it, there's nothing wrong with religion per se. It's the fanaticism part that's really at issue. It just so happens that Islam has fallen into the grip of ever worse fanatics over the past 50 years or so. Prior to the creation of Israel and the colonial period, you'd be hard pressed to find this kind of thing in the Muslim world at least in part because the Quran forbids doing most, if not all of the things that the Islamofascists have made a part of their standard repitiore, i.e. killing civilians, suicide, etc. However, they've come up with interpretations that say otherwise and that's what they run with. For them, or any violent religious fanatic, I have no qualms about how harshly they're handled in order to protect everyone else, religious or not from their barbarism.

exactly my stance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying the "goal" here was to retaliate for a portrayal of Mohammed, I'm just pointing out that seems to be the main reason for calling it "terrorism."

I think the word "terrorism" should be used for any action meant to terrorize, regardless of the "goal." By that criteria, Adam Lanza was as much a terrorist as these guys, although he was not labeled as such.

It seems to me there is a subtle anti-Islamic bias in the way we report things in the west. For example, Oklahoma City and the Olympic park bombings were quickly attributed to Muslims by the press before it was revealed that they were in fact perpetrated by a different brand of crazies.

It seems to me we reserve special venom for a certain kind of terrorist, when such violence is always terrorism regardless of motive or "goal."

Anyway, perhaps this is minor point, so I don't care to belabor it too much.

I find the whole situation deeply disturbing. Hate and violence only creates more hate and violence.

 

This is a talking point that bothers me.

 

I too, at times, have felt the same way you do. It's slightly different in that my problem is with our government - we call people that are on the side we like 'rebels' and people on the side we dislike 'terrorists', regardless of their motives, actions, tactics, etc.  For example: what went on in libya. They were rebels because we were supporting them, if they were in any other country where we had better relationships with the government we would call them terrorists despite their motives and actions not being about terrorizing but instead about overthrowing a government that has been brutal to its people.

 

That aside, and back to your point, the problem with what you're saying is that you've incorrectly limited the use of terrorism to islamic extremists, then drew the conclusion that the use of the label is due to the religion/race of the people suspected of the act. When, from where I see it, the situations where the label is and isn't used is clearly divided by the idea of a lone person, or lone group, acting on behalf of its own motives (crazy or not, or however you want to describe it) compared to a person or group of persons acting with motives that seem to reflect a larger group, or large set of actions.

 

If this attack was indeed about insulting of mohamed, then it goes in line with a bunch of other attacks, it goes in line with a bunch of other group's thoughts and actions, and is thus labeled terrorism. if the IRA set off a bomb today we'd call that terrorism too, and it's not because they're muslims.

 

there's just a difference, in terms of perspective, between a lone person/group carrying out an isolated attack and a lone person/group carrying out an attack that seems to go in line with a much larger issue/motive/etc.

 

but i agree, it'd be nice if we used terrorism to describe acts meant to incite terror among the citizens. i just don't agree it's about the race/color/religion of the people doing it... error of recency may lead you that way, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly. You do have a disturbed mind.

 

Exhibit A. Exhibit BExhibit C . And note that these folks do have a biblical basis for their opinions. Mind you, the victims in the last two cases aren't people blaspheming Jeebus or doing anything "wrong", just existing is enough. Of course, these are fanatics, outliers. Not all Xtians are like them. But then wasn't that my point? 

 

Now if you want to say that Jeebus abolished all that, I don't recall him specifically saying anything about homosexuality or race-based genocide so one could easily say that these prior biblical laws remain in effect. OTOH Jeebus said a bunch of other stuff about love, mercy etc. so one could also make the opposite argument. The Koran is no different. Again, a case can be made from probably any holy book for doing a whole lot of things that we in modern society would consider abhorrent and criminal or for not doing such things. It's all about the interpretation.

 

Though I personally think it's all nonsense and that people would mostly be better off without any of it, there's nothing wrong with religion per se. It's the fanaticism part that's really at issue. It just so happens that Islam has fallen into the grip of ever worse fanatics over the past 50 years or so. Prior to the creation of Israel and the colonial period, you'd be hard pressed to find this kind of thing in the Muslim world at least in part because the Quran forbids doing most, if not all of the things that the Islamofascists have made a part of their standard repitiore, i.e. killing civilians, suicide, etc. However, they've come up with interpretations that say otherwise and that's what they run with. For them, or any violent religious fanatic, I have no qualms about how harshly they're handled in order to protect everyone else, religious or not from their barbarism.

 

you'd be taken more seriously without the 'jeebus' thing, but, whatever.

 

my point is not that people havent done horrible things 'in the name of jesus'. 

 

while we'll agree that any fanatic can twist scripture for their own purposes, its fair to say (no matter what belief one may have) that the teachings and life of jesus is a bit different from other religious figures. 

 

if one digs, you can usually there are underlying motives or causes for many who kill in the name of a religion. in the case of one chopping someones head off in the name of christ, well...

also both McVeigh and Rudolph used their Christian beliefs as motivation for the acts.

 

 

oooh- dont forget hitler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we sure they aren't lone nuts? 

 

 

according to witnesses they claimed to be part of a AQ branch, the ID's seems to support that

 

AK's and RPG seem to support that as well,though certainly not impossible to come by in France

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...