Hundreds of Muslims gather to celebrate funeral of man who beheaded French teacher

Jequ0n

Just another sign of capitulation if France (again) deems it safer to outsource the problem for fear of igniting riots etc. Nothing new but it has continuously worsened.


Every time I go back I feel less at home there

sbsquarepants

weldoninhio wrote: »

Jesus, your posts are pathetic. Back up your argument. What “freedom” was the head hacker fighting for??

The freedom to come to a foreign country and demand that the people born and bred there don't produce any doodles you may not like, obviously. Jaysus, try to keep up will you!



I'm fairly sure it's enshrined the declaration of human rights, probably somewhere in the small print!


They should have wrapped his body in old charlie hebdo pages and fúcked it into the sea. Scumbag.

Don't be that lefty who equates the funeral of a person who fought to remove a foreign occupying force and achieve civil rights etc., with a chap who hacked off the head of a school teacher in a street, because he didn't like what he was teaching in a country he wasn't a native of.

Not this time lads.

sbsquarepants

markodaly wrote: »

Who is the funeral of the second person? Was that the Queen Mother? Not really the same thing now is it?

Edit: It was Thatcher? Well, she didn't murder anyone, so you are wrong there,... again Seamus.

Do you not think she maybe had a small hand in the death of the hunger strikers?


Thatcher had plenty of blood on her hands, not just Irish blood either - the woman was about as vile a human being as you could find an example of. Good riddance to that horrible auld cúnt too!

thegills

Gervais08 wrote:

Oh here we ****ing go - the defenders are here.

Thought it was a fair point. McGuinness got a big send off too.

Eric Cartman

It is entirely possible to despise Sinn Fein / IRA supporters for say the likes of celebrating IRA men who contributed to atrocities like omagh or murdering jean mcconville for giving a british soldier water. That was wrong and people who subscribe to the SF/IRA ideology are supporting terrorism.

And condemn a nutter who is subscribed to the ideology of islam for murdering (in a barbaric way ) a teacher for teaching kids , or for murdering people for showing a cartoon , and say that was wrong and people who subscribe to the islamic ideology are supporting terrorism.

Both can be wrong...

Kivaro

This shoite again of posters trying to bring up the deeds of Irishmen when a Muslim goes bonkers and chops people's heads off in foreign lands, as if it was some type of justification for their actions.
It is really very poor logic, and obvious deflection at the very least.

Gervais08

thegills wrote: »

Thought it was a fair point. McGuinness got a big send off too.

Yeah I missed the part where he beheaded someone for a cartoon in the Daily Mail.

Ffs you people.

Wibbs

Kivaro wrote: »

This shoite again of posters trying to bring up the deeds of Irishmen when a Muslim goes bonkers and chops people's heads off in foreign lands, as if it was some type of justification for their actions.
It is really very poor logic, and obvious deflection at the very least.

It's more about the credo of cultural equivalence that has crept into the more insecure parts of the western psyche. A contortion of the old judge not lest ye be judged. Judgment of pretty much anything is out of bounds, except for those calling nonsense on the notion.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It is entirely possible to despise Sinn Fein / IRA supporters for say the likes of celebrating IRA men who contributed to atrocities like omagh or murdering jean mcconville for giving a british soldier water. That was wrong and people who subscribe to the SF/IRA ideology are supporting terrorism.

And condemn a nutter who is subscribed to the ideology of islam for murdering (in a barbaric way ) a teacher for teaching kids , or for murdering people for showing a cartoon , and say that was wrong and people who subscribe to the islamic ideology are supporting terrorism.

Both can be wrong...

This.

stoneill

Blondini wrote: »

Don't remember Maggie Thatcher cutting a man's head off like a fcuking savage in broad daylight in the middle of a city. Must have missed that one.

It's a debatable point that what she did during her tenure was much worse and much longer lasting.

stoneill

stoneill wrote: »

It's a debatable point that what she did during her tenure was much worse and much longer lasting.

Maggie was a democratically elected prime minister. Inherent in the job will be decisions/policy that will not benifet others. Like any nations leader, there'll be good and bad.

However, to equate even her to a chap hacking the head off a teacher in a Parisean street, over his course content is a stretch, even for a Republican Argentinian Miner.

Wibbs

stoneill wrote: »

It's a debatable point that what she did during her tenure was much worse and much longer lasting.

Noting debatable about it. She was a cast iron cnut, not least to her own people and I'd have raised no objection if her pocky corpse had been thrown into the nearest sewer. However I don't see Thatcher's name in the thread title so the comparison is the definition of whataboutery.

And she was one individual, not a movement within a faith, a movement that stands directly against the very human rights you take for granted.

marieholmfan

Wibbs wrote: »

Noting debatable about it. She was a cast iron cnut, not least to her own people and I'd have raised no objection if her pocky corpse had been thrown into the nearest sewer. However I don't see Thatcher's name in the thread title so the comparison is the definition of whataboutery.

And she was one individual, not a movement within a faith, a movement that stands directly against the very human rights you take for granted.

She was the point of the spear of a war against mankind and not least against Ireland.

jmayo

AllForIt wrote: »

One has to worry about the seemingly growing number of white people in our midst who on seeing any commentary related to any demographic that is not one's own that they will deem it to be racially motivated and respond accordingly.

I wonder if that happens in Muslim countries the other way around. Me things not.

I think we have an enemy within and they cause so much problems we could do without.

You mean the Quislings.

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't matter... if even one Muslim might, possibly, maybe, even slightly is against what happened, then you can't talk about "Muslims" that way. You have to interject with qualifiers like "some", or "many", otherwise you're stepping across some imaginary line in the sand.

I am really tired of this shyte.

Also it is fooking disingenuous.
Where there might be a very small minority that engage in utter violence, there is a bigger minority that facilitate it and condone it.

And there is a majority, even in Western countries which are largely native born, that hate Western secularism, Western liberal ideas on women and sexuality.
Most of these condemn the killing of the French teacher, but they would damn well condone his sacking and would have no problem with him never working in education again.

There is a dangerous slipping point and we have already reached it in many Western countries where the numbers show that muslims see themselves as muslim first and whatever else second.

Also anyone can search my posti9ng history on PIRA and sinn fein, but comparing PIRA or indeed ETA, PLO even with ISIS and islamists is so wide of the mark.
They had clear political goals usually linked around disputed territorial claims.
ISIS just wants to kill anyone that doesn't subscribe to their imaginary friend and their belief system.

El Tarangu

tdf7187 wrote: »

And little Leo V wants more of these types in our country.

Why on earth someone would call Leo "little" (presumably as some sort of perjorative) is a mystery to me; the Tánaiste is 6'2" and about 16 stone...

DrumSteve wrote: »

I actually had a big reply done up about how the comparisons between the RA and this little **** head are ridiculous but I cannot be bothered.

The IRA also murdered teachers; ISIS has suicide bombers, whereas the IRA had proxy bombs.

I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

The IRA also murdered teachers; ISIS has suicide bombers, whereas the IRA had proxy bombs.

Sure, they did, and they were utter scum for doing so. All the same, the whys are important. The IRA with their misguided belief in a united Ireland vs this guy lashing out at someone who supposedly disrespected his prophet.

Context.

I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.

I have yet to see any degree of widespread condemnation from a Muslim population over these kind of attacks. Sure, I've seen a few small groups with a spokesperson make conciliatory remarks, but no outright condemnation.

The actions of the IRA were often condemned by the general population and many leaders in the Republic. I know many people who grew up supporting the idea of an united Ireland but have since turned away from it, because they can't accept the IRA.. simply put, they don't want any association with them.

It's a inaccurate comparison because the IRA were condemned for their behavior... each and every time that they engaged in it. Widespread condemnation. A minority, like here, seeking ever increasingly wild justifications, and deflections..

WrenBoy

El Tarangu wrote: »

The IRA also murdered teachers; ISIS has suicide bombers, whereas the IRA had proxy bombs.

I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.

One had/has a political /military aim to remove British rule from all of Ireland. The other is a religion who's teaching are that all those that do not submit to that religion should be attacked and subjugated until they are "subdued" everywhere, worldwide. Not a fringe, debatable opinion by scholars, a main concrete part of the faith which luckily not all are prepared to act on themselves. To go against that teaching is to go against the religion which they will not do. It is much more apart of their lives and identity than religion in the west is to us.

El Tarangu

Deleted User wrote: »

I have yet to see any degree of widespread condemnation from a Muslim population over these kind of attacks. Sure, I've seen a few small groups with a spokesperson make conciliatory remarks, but no outright condemnation.

There were loads of condemnations from many Muslim groups in France (granted, while these were reported widely in the French, they may not have made to English-speaking media).

El Tarangu

WrenBoy wrote: »

One had/has a political /military aim to remove British rule from all of Ireland. The other is a religion who's teaching are that all those that do not submit to that religion should be attacked and subjugated until they are "subdued" everywhere, worldwide. Not a fringe, debatable opinion by scholars, a main concrete part of the faith which luckily not all are prepared to act on themselves. To go against that teaching is to go against the religion which they will not do. It is much more apart of their lives and identity than religion in the west is to us.

Everyone's own cause always seems justified and righteous to themselves, and rarely to those on the receiving end of the bullets/bombs/beheadings.

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

jmreire

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That is a very bold claim to make without any evidence to back it up...

Perhaps if you were to address that question to Mr. Ramsam Kadyrov, ( if you have ever heard of him ) you might be surprised to hear his views on it.

TomTomTim

El Tarangu wrote: »

Everyone's own cause always seems justified and righteous to themselves, and rarely to those on the receiving end of the bullets/bombs/beheadings.

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

No one here supports the IRA. As has already been highlighted, you can hate both groups.

Saying that, you are still playing the false equivalence game. There's a big difference between Islamist's who move to the west, yet have the audacity to hate western values to the point of killing us, and IRA members/supporters who had a group of people from a different culture forced upon them.

People like yourself aren't too different than all the apologists for the CC when **** started rising to the top. You do nothing but facilitate the continuation of negative behavior, all while thinking you're morally righteous.

WrenBoy

El Tarangu wrote: »

Everyone's own cause always seems justified and righteous to themselves, and rarely to those on the receiving end of the bullets/bombs/beheadings.

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

The IRA's aim is not to rid the world of all Protestants or have them live under a special system of laws making all non-Catholics second class citizens all over the world . Islam beseeches followers to "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

Can't believe Im quasi-defending the IRA here.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

Jesus H Christ.

You might regale us with stories of the IRA committing genocide of a people, enslaving and the industrial the rape of girls?
-selling slaves to each other
-casting gays from rooftops
-setting pilots on fire in cages as they stream it
-machine gunning 100s of cadets into pits
-hacking heads from lines of captives

The only similarity is both killed in their cause.
Their causes were very very different.
One's cause had an end game that would see British removal from Ireland, as happened in 1921.
Are the IRA of 1921 same as ISIS? They killed protestants (wrongly) in West Cork...

The other would see the annihilation of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their ideology, including fellow Muslims. Globally.

Most Republicans would be repulsed by the execution of a person, simply because of their religious belief. There is a significant number of Islamic extremists who would see this scumbag as a venerated martyr.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You just did. More than once. Finding justifications is defending.



Rubbish. That was in the days of when people were fighting various forms of oppression, and sought freedoms for their nation or particular group. What oppression or freedoms were they fighting against to cut the head off a civilian in a foreign country?

Go on.. I'd love to see you argue the freedom fighter angle on this one.. because I suspect you know that you don't have a leg to stand on.



When was the last time we (western nations) honored someone for beheading a civilian? Hell, a variety of western nations have brought up their soldiers on criminal charges for "barbaric" behavior abroad, which is far cry from what you're suggesting (imagine what we'd do to a civilian vigilante who decided to do the same). Nor, have I seen any suggestion of a western civilian population praising the behavior of soldiers in torturing or killing "the enemy" in brutal ways.

Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Ever seen American Sniper?

CinemaGuy45

Being called a racist by people who defend this kind of scum means you must be doing something right.

The big R word is meant to silence people.

This man should have been wrapped in bacon chopped up and dumped in a septic tank full of pig filth.

ElJeffe

I spoke to a Muslim guy only last Friday who said he didn't view a lot of the events in Europe the last few years as terrorism. I don't know if he was looking for a reaction or he was genuine but it left me a little stunned tbh.

El Tarangu

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Jesus H Christ.

You might regale us with stories of the IRA committing genocide of a people, enslaving and the industrial the rape of girls?
-selling slaves to each other
-casting gays from rooftops
-setting pilots on fire in cages as they stream it
-machine gunning 100s of cadets into pits
-hacking heads from lines of captives

I'm not claiming that the IRA was as bad as ISIS; taking the actions of one Chechen Muslim man who brutally murdered a teacher, and equating it with all Muslims in the world (or even all the people in Chechnya - and that one was mod) is about as accurate/helpful as when the English blamed all Irish people for the actions of the PIRA.

200 turning up at his funeral says no more about the wider population of the region than the few thousand that turned up at Bobby Storey's funeral.

jmreire

ElJeffe wrote: »

I spoke to a Muslim guy only last Friday who said he didn't view a lot of the events in Europe the last few years as terrorism. I don't know if he was looking for a reaction or he was genuine but it left me a little stunned tbh.

Why would he? First and foremost for each and every Muslim on the planet is to follow the teachings of Mohammad...so of course killing non believers, especially those perceived as insulting Islam is lauded. And that's the main problem with Islamic
Murder is legalised, but only one way..muslims killed by non muslims, is not to be countenance.. under any circumstances. It's extreme racist and islamophobic

El Tarangu

ElJeffe wrote: »

I spoke to a Muslim guy only last Friday who said he didn't view a lot of the events in Europe the last few years as terrorism. I don't know if he was looking for a reaction or he was genuine but it left me a little stunned tbh.

I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute).

jmreire wrote: »

Why would he? First and foremost for each and every Muslim on the planet is to follow the teachings of Mohammad...so of course killing non believers, especially those perceived as insulting Islam is lauded. And that's the main problem with Islamic
Murder is legalised, but only one way..muslims killed by non muslims, is not to be countenance.. under any circumstances. It's extreme racist and islamophobic

Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.

Gervais08

El Tarangu wrote: »

I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute).



Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.

Or more likely they do but haven’t yet got round to it.

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

She was the point of the spear of a war against mankind

and the hyperbole prize goes to... *opens golden envelope*

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Large funerals for horrible murdering scumbags in their home town is not exactly a surprise.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/174E1/production/_113175459_bobby_storey_funeral50.jpg

https://world.time.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2013/04/1667961061.jpg

Thats the whataboutism of whataboutary whateverism.

joseywhales

Going to a funeral does not imply that one supports the dead person's actions.

There are more than 200 muslims in the world.

Wanting to dishonor the body of your enemy, no matter how much you hate them or what they did, is dishonorable.

Case solved.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Going to a funeral does not imply that one supports the dead person's actions.

except for close family, it does.

It was 200 from that village.

Entrances to Shalazi - population 5,330 - were sealed off by 65 police officers to stop others attending.

jmreire

El Tarangu wrote: »

I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute).



Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.

There's a very big difference between the % of believers that actually carry out these atrocities, and the "Silent Majority",,,, but just because this majority is not actively involved. does not mean that they disagree with them. How can they when the Quran explicitly teaches that the unbelievers must submit, or be killed? Can you say with 100% confidence that European Cities will never see a religious war Islam V The Rest? Because Historically, that was how Islam spreads, by conquest. And it has been doing it since the 6th century. Isis being the latest version, but its being spread globally by other mean's too ...Saudi Arabia being very active world wide in spreading the Wahhabi version of Islam, the one which isis took inspiration from. If you happened to be in a room with your Muslim friend, and the news came on, and showed say, the Hagia Sofia being reopened as a Mosque, just see how the expression on his face will change, and how he will react. He will be very happy Hamdulilah.
As for your comment about the IRA,, they never claimed to be empowered by God, and were following His instruction and directives.

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

There's a very big difference between the % of believers that actually carry out these atrocities, and the "Silent Majority",,,, but just because this majority is not actively involved. does not mean that they disagree with them. How can they when the Quran explicitly teaches that the unbelievers must submit, or be killed?

Well to be fair you can quote the old Testament to that effect. In fact the Koran is not referring to christians when it references unbelievers, but atheists or sometimes polytheists. Christians are people of the book.

The modern extreme version of Islam might not make that distinction though.

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

except for close family, it does.

It was 200 from that village.

That's not true, I have often attended funerals for people I didn't know but whose family I've been close to. A funeral isn't just about the guy who died.

People attend funerals for all kinds of reasons, some to just remember that period of their life, some for religious reasons. Remember these are complex human beings not just savage muslims as they are being portrayed. They each have their own personality and beliefs. Many are forced to conform in public to the dominant politics. In my view attending a funeral can be the result of any of this. I certainly won't assume that all of these people want to behead teachers.

jmreire

Deleted User wrote: »

Well to be fair you can quote the old Testament to that effect. In fact the Koran is not referring to christians when it references unbelievers, but atheists or sometimes polytheists. Christians are people of the book.

The modern extreme version of Islam might not make that distinction though.

Islam is based 100% on the Old Testament.....Mohammed claimed that the one true religion as handed down to Moses by God, had been strayed from. And he claimed that God had instructed him via the Angel Gabriel to restore it. He conveniently ignored what Jesus had taught, as in "The New and Everlasting Covenant between God and Man" which took all the savagery and death out of the Old Testament to give us what we have today. And so we have the present day Islam, following the Quran, which has not changed in 1400 years, and can never be changed as its the Word of God. And thats the problem.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

I'm not claiming that the IRA was as bad as ISIS; taking the actions of one Chechen Muslim man who brutally murdered a teacher, and equating it with all Muslims in the world (or even all the people in Chechnya - and that one was mod) is about as accurate/helpful as when the English blamed all Irish people for the actions of the PIRA.

200 turning up at his funeral says no more about the wider population of the region than the few thousand that turned up at Bobby Storey's funeral.

Its your point, for you there is "not a lot of daylight between IRA murdering Protestants and ISIS" is the issue!

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Well to be fair you can quote the old Testament to that effect. In fact the Koran is not referring to christians when it references unbelievers, but atheists or sometimes polytheists. Christians are people of the book.

The modern extreme version of Islam might not make that distinction though.

Old Testament OLD as in, not the New Testament, which is what Christians follow.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" Quran 9:29 -Yusuf Ali

Christians and Jews are people of the book.

Detritus70

splashuum wrote: »

Very disrespectful on the French victim. Its arguable that the body of the terrorist shouldn't have been allowed to leave France. The large crowd at the funeral lauded the terrorist as a "lion of Islam"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9025443/Terrorist-beheaded-French-teacher-buried-Chechnya.html

If the Hate Mail promised me a million bucks, world peace, a cheeseburger and a blowjob I still wouldn't click on any link from that hateful rag.
If they reported the sky was blue, I wouldn't even need to look out the windowto know it had turned pink.
So if the DM reports it, to me it didn't happen.

El Tarangu

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Its your point, for you there is "not a lot of daylight between IRA murdering Protestants and ISIS" is the issue!

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

GreeBo

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yeah I missed the part where he beheaded someone for a cartoon in the Daily Mail.

Ffs you people.

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

Just when you were about to stop digging, you said "na, **** this, I'm going all the way to Australia"

Jasis.
Go on,

TomTomTim

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

Are you hallucinating? No one is standing behind any terrorists. Posters like yourself are getting very desperate.

GreeBo

TomTomTim wrote: »

Are you hallucinating? No one is standing behind any terrorists. Posters like yourself are getting very desperate.

If no one is standing behind it, why are posters differentiating (for example) the IRA from ISIS by saying things like "ah well the IRA never beheaded anyone"?

Again, to the person murdered, they really don't care about the how or indeed the why.

RandRuns

It always puzzles me why so many people are willing to tie themselves up in linguistic and moral relativity knots to defend or deflect from islamic terrorism. I've never met anyone willing to do it in real life, but every discussion online has lots of them. Can anyone explain why that is? What is it about islamic terrorism that makes people so defensive?

jmreire

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

The main difference is that the Good Friday finished the war in the north.. but for 1400 years and counting, radical Islam has been, still is. and will continue into the future..while the world and the human race exists, or until the Quran changes.

RWCNT

RandRuns wrote: »

It always puzzles me why so many people are willing to tie themselves up in linguistic and moral relativity knots to defend or deflect from islamic terrorism. I've never met anyone willing to do it in real life, but every discussion online has lots of them. Can anyone explain why that is? What is it about islamic terrorism that makes people so defensive?

I think it's that people often feel these things are brought up in an effort to suggest that all or a majority of Muslims are supportive of radical Islamic terrorism and therefore that Muslims are generally bad people and not to be trusted. Perhaps they know or are friends with a Muslim and feel that could lead to their unfair treatment, so they try to draw a comparison towards our own home grown terrorism to take the heat off the muslims a bit.

However, while it's a fair enough point its an overly simplistic comparison IMO and it turns up in every single thread on the topic as sure as night follows day, to the point it makes people even more angry. From what I've seen it doesn't serve its intended purpose.

Rolo2010

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

The Troubles had nothing to do with their interpretations of Christianity.