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

jmreire

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?

One reason is just have a look at recent events where the French Teacher, Samual Paty was decapitated, and all he was doing was his job,, an not even remotely attacking Islam. Who wants to invite that on themselves?

GreeBo

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.

Why yes, yes you can.

Motive, casuality and understanding rationale are key, as is mind set of the perpetrator, both before and after.
The "why" the person committed the atrocity.

Take your Mountbatten example.
Did the perpetrator intend to kill two kids?
Doubt it.
Does he regret killing them?
Possibly*

Our Chechen friend certainly intended what he did, and I doubt he regretted it.


*His wife has stated, "Tommy never talks about Mountbatten, only the boys who died. He does have genuine remorse. Oh God yes"

Blondini

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.

Probably for the best then if you don't invite him around to see your comic collection just in case ....

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).

Even if this were the case it doesnt really matter to whether we condemn this act of violence or the funeral celebrations. Not sure of the point.

And nobody was killed for religious beliefs really.

The only thing I agree with is that we shouldn't tar all muslims.

RandRuns

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?

Some are unable to separate a Muslim from an Islamist.

Not all Muslims are Islamists.
However, all Islamists are Muslims.

But the million dollar question is, what % of Muslims are Islamists...

One can criticise all Islamists without criticising all Muslims.

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

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.

Who knows, the Middle East was more secular a few generations ago. Chechnya used to be part of an atheistic country.

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Why are the IRA even in this thread? Thats the real question.

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are the IRA even in this thread? Thats the real question.

Some posters get annoyed that people voice their upset at innocent people getting blown up, run over, shot/stabbed to death or their heads sawed off by islamists. So in an effort to shut those people up they say that the IRA did bad things before so we shouldn't give out and just shut up about it. Thats my reading anyway.

RandRuns

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

El Tarangu

RandRuns wrote: »

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP? The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

TomTomTim

RandRuns wrote: »

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

As bad as they may be they still have basic instincts of self-preservation, something that seems to be lost in many of the "enlightened intellectuals" of the west. Never has there been a group of people so destructive, so wrong, yet so full of hubris.

El Tarangu

Rolo2010 wrote: »

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

Deleted User wrote: »

And nobody was killed for religious beliefs really.

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing I agree with is that we shouldn't tar all muslims.

In that, we agree.

Rolo2010

El Tarangu wrote: »

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants



In that, we agree.

They were murdered because they came from a Unionist background. It just was a coincidence that one side happened to be Catholic and the other Protestant. Conflict still would have happened if both sides were one or the other. Pick up a history book.

RandRuns

El Tarangu wrote: »

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP? The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is just one of the many justifications and defences given.

I didn't see anyone equivocating this murderers actions with a group of 2 billion people, but I do see people pretending that's the case in order to defend his actions, and the actions of others like him.

RWCNT

El Tarangu wrote: »

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

True, but the reason for their murder was not the content of their religious beliefs - it wasn't as though the IRA were killing protestants because they wanted them to convert or because of strong objection to the protestant's brand of Christianity. They also weren't motivated by their interpretation of the scriptures.

It's an important distinction. You can hate or persecute a religious group without the issue or conflict being specifically religious in itself. Another example would be racists who engage in anti-Semitism not on the basis of objection to the teachings of the Torah, but instead due to belief in racist conspiracy theories about Jewish people being up to all sorts of evil things.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

It wasn't on matters of spiritual belief, as you know, but ethnographies religious violence. That said it doesn't matter because it was an atrocity anyway and with regards to this thread, not relevant.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP?

You may have not defended them but you didn't condemn them. Whataboutary is often a form of defense anyway

The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

You didn't just do that.

El Tarangu

Deleted User wrote: »

You may have not defended them but you didn't condemn them.

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).

El Tarangu wrote: »

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP? The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

Do please point out where I defended this person.

GreeBo

WrenBoy wrote: »

Some posters get annoyed that people voice their upset at innocent people getting blown up, run over, shot/stabbed to death or their heads sawed off by islamists. So in an effort to shut those people up they say that the IRA did bad things before so we shouldn't give out and just shut up about it. Thats my reading anyway.

Not at all, some of us just like to point out that it's silly to act like these terrorists are somehow different from the IRA or any other bunch of lunatics who kill innocent people.
Some posters are apoplectic that mourners would attend this funeral since this guy was so evil, yet can't see any connection with so called normal people from their own country attending and celebrating the lives of known home terrorists.

Feel free to be abhorred that people would celebrate this murdering asshole, but don't imagine that he is somehow different than some white, English speaking, murdering asshole just because you understand his language and are more familiar with his choice of imaginary spaghetti monster.

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

You must be reading different posts than I am, I didn't see anyone on here defend this whack job?

ILoveYourVibes

This is one of those situations were everyone seems to make a spectacle of themselves and no one behaves respectfully enough towards the tragedy.

Some Muslims ..some non muslims who are Islamophobic ...both sides just being embarrassing ...

Gervais08

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is one of those situations were everyone seems to make a spectacle of themselves and no one behaves respectfully enough towards the tragedy.

Some Muslims ..some non muslims who are Islamophobic ...both sides just being embarrassing ...

Away with the “islamphobia” bollocks.

GreeBo

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Why yes, yes you can.

Motive, casuality and understanding rationale are key, as is mind set of the perpetrator, both before and after.
The "why" the person committed the atrocity.

Take your Mountbatten example.
Did the perpetrator intend to kill two kids?
Doubt it.
Does he regret killing them?
Possibly*

Our Chechen friend certainly intended what he did, and I doubt he regretted it.


*His wife has stated, "Tommy never talks about Mountbatten, only the boys who died. He does have genuine remorse. Oh God yes"

Ah here, the perpetrator intended to blow up a boat with people in it and didn't give a fiddlers about who was killed as long as their primary target was killed.

It's convenient of Tommy to have genuine remorse... I'm sure the dead kids are only delighted.

And what about Mountbatten himself, what exactly did he do to make himself a viable target other than be British? How is that any different than Islamic fundamentalists targeting people from other religions?

jmayo

El Tarangu wrote: »

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 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.

So should we look on the bright side that the dead only number in the hundreds.
Mind you it hasn't been for lack of trying. :rolleyes:

But for the massive amount of surveillance, monitoring and security resources dedicated to islamist terrorism, there would be many thousands dead by now.

RWCNT wrote: »

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.

When the fook has anyone here ever said ALL muslims are terrorists ?
When has anyone said ALL muslims are islamists ?

No one has said ALL muslims are bad people.

What some of us continue to say is that it isn't just a tiny tiny minority that don't see a problem with using violence against people in the West and anyone that is seen as an enemy of islam.
A tiny tiny minority carry out these attacks but they don't operate in some sort of vaccum.

And some of us definitely say it is anything but a minority that have huge issues with our secular socially liberal societies and lifestyles.
In fact I would say with confidence it is a MAJORITY of muslims that have issues with our western values.

And that is why I argue that islam is incompatible with our western societies.

But you go right ahead banging the drum that we claim ALL muslims are this that and the other.

GreeBo

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is one of those situations were everyone seems to make a spectacle of themselves and no one behaves respectfully enough towards the tragedy.

Some Muslims ..some non muslims who are Islamophobic ...both sides just being embarrassing ...

I have a phobia towards anyone who murders others... Why is that islamaphobia in your mind?

El Tarangu

jmayo wrote: »

So should we look on the bright side that the dead only number in the hundreds.
Mind you it hasn't been for lack of trying. :rolleyes:

But for the massive amount of surveillance, monitoring and security resources dedicated to islamist terrorism, there would be many thousands dead by now.

... out of a population of 1,800,000,000.

The PIRA killed 1,700 people, and the population of Irish people on this island at the time would have been, what, 4 milllion?

So if you are Irish, you are... 100 times more likely to be a terrorist than a muslim is (at the very least) - can you not see how unhelpful it is to tarnish the reputation of so many people, based on the actions of a handful of evil psychopaths?

Sweetemotion

El Tarangu wrote: »

... out of a population of 1,800,000,000.

The PIRA killed 1,700 people, and the population of Irish people on this island at the time would have been, what, 4 milllion?

So if you are Irish, you are... 100 times more likely to be a terrorist than a muslim is (at the very least) - can you not see how unhelpful it is to tarnish the reputation of so many people, based on the actions of a handful of evil psychopaths?

Out of a population of 1,200,000,000 how many times have you heard of Christians decapitating anyone?

El Tarangu

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Out of a population of 1,200,000,000 how many times have you heard of Christians decapitating anyone?

Here's one from two days ago - would you consider this crime to be the fault of Catholics in Poland and Pentecostals in Ghana, or just this guy?

Sweetemotion

El Tarangu wrote: »

Here's one from two days ago - would you consider this crime to be the fault of Catholics in Poland and Pentecostals in Ghana, or just this guy?

You should be disgusted with yourself, using those poor kids to justify your agenda.

Looks like you already had that preloaded ready to paste.

Gervais08

El Tarangu wrote: »

... out of a population of 1,800,000,000.

The PIRA killed 1,700 people, and the population of Irish people on this island at the time would have been, what, 4 milllion?

So if you are Irish, you are... 100 times more likely to be a terrorist than a muslim is (at the very least) - can you not see how unhelpful it is to tarnish the reputation of so many people, based on the actions of a handful of evil psychopaths?

And Islamic terrorists killed almost twice that number on one fine autumn morning.

jmreire

El Tarangu wrote: »

... out of a population of 1,800,000,000.

The PIRA killed 1,700 people, and the population of Irish people on this island at the time would have been, what, 4 milllion?

So if you are Irish, you are... 100 times more likely to be a terrorist than a muslim is (at the very least) - can you not see how unhelpful it is to tarnish the reputation of so many people, based on the actions of a handful of evil psychopaths?

Sure no problem, now the Good Friday ended the IRA war. and killing. When will Islamic terrorism finish their killing? In fact over the years, they have killed hundreds of thousand's of people making the IRA death toll amateurish by comparison. And sadly, while the majority of Muslims would not take an active part in these atrocities, neither does the majority condemn them, and so by default they are in agreement. All of this killing could have been stopped along time ago....if the majority of Muslims wanted it stopped and took action to stop it.
As reported, when the Chechen's body was returned home to Chechnya for burial, he was given a hero's welcome as a Martyr and Lion of Islam, and the police had to block the road leading to his village to limit the nrs who wanted to attend his funeral. So that speaks volumes in itself.
So no, its not aimed at every Muslim, but for sure radical Islam has no place in Europe, and needs to be rooted out where and when ever it appears.

Gervais08

jmreire wrote: »

Sure no problem, now the Good Friday ended the IRA war. and killing. When will Islamic terrorism finish their killing? In fact over the years, they have killed hundreds of thousand's of people making the IRA death toll amateurish by comparison. And sadly, while the majority of Muslims would not take an active part in these atrocities, neither does the majority condemn them, and so by default they are in agreement. All of this killing could have been stopped along time ago....if the majority of Muslims wanted it stopped and took action to stop it.
As reported, when the Chechen's body was returned home to Chechnya for burial, he was given a hero's welcome as a Martyr and Lion of Islam, and the police had to block the road leading to his village to limit the nrs who wanted to attend his funeral. So that speaks volumes in itself.
So no, its not aimed at every Muslim, but for sure radical Islam has no place in Europe, and needs to be rooted out where and when ever it appears.

A mate works in a place with a high percentage of Middle Eastern staff, predominantly Muslim.

The reaction to Charlie Hebdo was that the killings were “not right” but the magazine should not have published the cartoon “as they knew what would happen”.

It wouldn’t shock me if that was the general attitude - a 6th century paedophile is held in higher regard than Western lives.

Gentlemanne

Gervais08 wrote: »

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

Sometimes the anti muslim posters reveal their true selves.

It is insanely delusional to think millions and further hundred of millions and sometimes even over a billion people depending on how you're stereotyping, are hiding in waiting, secretly wanting to murder the non-muslims.

I can almost guarantee you've imagined some anti-semitism elsewhere, when you are such an islamaphobe, that you have this idea that this massive group of people are secretely waiting to murder people not like them.

Gervais08

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Sometimes the anti muslim posters reveal their true selves.

It is insanely delusional to think millions and further hundred of millions and sometimes even over a billion people depending on how you're stereotyping, are hiding in waiting, secretly wanting to murder the non-muslims.

I can almost guarantee you've imagined some anti-semitism elsewhere, when you are such an islamaphobe, that you have this idea that this massive group of people are secretely waiting to murder people not like them.

Sure. Fine. Whatever.

Ignore ....

Gentlemanne

Gervais08 wrote: »

Sure. Fine. Whatever.

Ignore ....

Can almost guarantee this exact same guy has given out about echo chambers

RWCNT

jmayo wrote: »

When the fook has anyone here ever said ALL muslims are terrorists ?
When has anyone said ALL muslims are islamists ?

No one has said ALL muslims are bad people.

What some of us continue to say is that it isn't just a tiny tiny minority that don't see a problem with using violence against people in the West and anyone that is seen as an enemy of islam.
A tiny tiny minority carry out these attacks but they don't operate in some sort of vaccum.

And some of us definitely say it is anything but a minority that have huge issues with our secular socially liberal societies and lifestyles.
In fact I would say with confidence it is a MAJORITY of muslims that have issues with our western values.

And that is why I argue that islam is incompatible with our western societies.

But you go right ahead banging the drum that we claim ALL muslims are this that and the other.

Sorry, have you quoted me here by mistake? "When the fook" did I claim that anyone on here is saying that all Muslims are terrorists or whatever else? Calm down and read the post again, I never said that.

I'm not even referring to the way anyone raises any kind of concern about Islam or Muslims. A poster asked why people seem to get defensive over the issue of Islamic terrorism. I've provided a hypothesis for why I think that might be the case. I haven't even suggested that they're correct in doing so and I've even criticised one of the most common talking points that's brought up in these threads which is usually characterised as an attempt to defend or deflect from Muslims - the whole "what about the IRA?" bit.

If you're going to put the time into replying maybe check that you're responding to what I've actually written.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Can almost guarantee this exact same guy has given out about echo chambers

A woman, as far as I know. A "Planespeeking" woman, some might say.

WrenBoy

Its gas I never see these champions for restraint shouting not all christians or not all cops on other threads relating to the abortion and Police brutality discussions.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Sometimes the anti muslim posters reveal their true selves.

It is insanely delusional to think millions and further hundred of millions and sometimes even over a billion people depending on how you're stereotyping, are hiding in waiting, secretly wanting to murder the non-muslims.

I can almost guarantee you've imagined some anti-semitism elsewhere, when you are such an islamaphobe, that you have this idea that this massive group of people are secretely waiting to murder people not like them.

While I agree that the majority of Muslims have little interest in murdering us all, the fact remains that our culture (way of life) is at a direct opposite of what most Islamic beliefs accept. While they wouldn't have the interest in murdering us, most would want us to change how we live, and bring in their own values over ours.

The part you're ignoring is that throughout the world there are many regions which are extremely poor, have little access to education (of close to our standard), and social conditioning has been ongoing for centuries. There are huge populations of Muslims who are uneducated, and unwilling to accept western values.

The star of western civilisation is waning, and we're not as powerful on the world stage as we used to be. As time goes by, other nations, likely to be Muslim nations will rise to compete with us, and there will be conflict. The teachings in Islam make this a guarantee, because of the belief that there must be one religion under God, and that religion must be Islam.

You don't seem to realise, probably because you're attributing your own experience with Christianity, to Muslims, but Islam is a very different animal, with little scope for change, and a greater degree of intolerance. In virtually every instance of a country gaining a Muslim majority, that nation has merged society, government and religion, to the extent that the religion has direct influence over the lifestyles of the people. And in most cases, we've seen those countries, no matter how westernised, become more traditional, or even harsh in how they apply Islamic rules to the people.

The issue is that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who would welcome the fall of Western nations, and the rise of their own faith. That would not be good for us.

Your effort to dismiss the threat is dangerous. And foolish. (Nope. Not calling you a fool).

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Ah here, the perpetrator intended to blow up a boat with people in it and didn't give a fiddlers about who was killed as long as their primary target was killed.

It's convenient of Tommy to have genuine remorse... I'm sure the dead kids are only delighted.

And what about Mountbatten himself, what exactly did he do to make himself a viable target other than be British? How is that any different than Islamic fundamentalists targeting people from other religions?

Sometimes you have to wonder about peoples bone fides...

At the risk of appearing to condone that atrocity, he wasnt killed simply because he was British, he was killed because he was a senior royal, a former senior military commander, arguably a legitimate target, and a known target. Killed by a bomb planted the night before. Albeit an old man.
Deliberately? Certainly.

Our teacher, Samuel Paty, was well, a teacher...beheaded on a Parisean street in broad daylight..

That you cant separate respective motivation and objective (and as you acknowledge, possible remorse at the outcome) speaks to your lack of knowledge of Irish history and ISIS/Islamic fundamentalism, and wilful conflation of the two to obfuscate.

If you're Irish and proud of not being British, you have that gift as a result of atrocities carried out by generations of Irish men and women, who in turn had atrocities perpetrated on them by the British, to grant you that gift.

GreeBo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Out of a population of 1,200,000,000 how many times have you heard of Christians decapitating anyone?

Why would you distinguish between murder by decapitation vs any other type of murder? What relevance or difference does it make?

Is it because decapitation seems more "foreign" to you and so it must be worse?
Seems terribly racist tbh. "Why can't they blow up their targets and their families like any ordinary decent terrorist would?"

WrenBoy

GreeBo wrote: »

Why would you distinguish between murder by decapitation vs any other type of murder? What relevance or difference does it make?

Is it because decapitation seems more "foreign" to you and so it must be worse?
Seems terribly racist tbh. "Why can't they blow up their targets and their families like any ordinary decent terrorist would?"

Sure what isn't racist nowadays ?

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

Why would you distinguish between murder by decapitation vs any other type of murder? What relevance or difference does it make?

Is it because decapitation seems more "foreign" to you and so it must be worse?
Seems terribly racist tbh. "Why can't they blow up their targets and their families like any ordinary decent terrorist would?"

"Disliking decapitation is racist"

Peak Boards.

TomTomTim

GreeBo wrote: »

Why would you distinguish between murder by decapitation vs any other type of murder? What relevance or difference does it make?

Is it because decapitation seems more "foreign" to you and so it must be worse?
Seems terribly racist tbh. "Why can't they blow up their targets and their families like any ordinary decent terrorist would?"

You're really something. Decapitation is one of the most savage acts known to man, if that needs to be explained to you then there's little hope for you.

Anyway, this thread is another win for the apologists. As usual the thread has devolved in semantic nonsense, with the real substance taking a back seat. If I went into a Trump thread arguing the way these people do I'd be swiftly be thread banned, yet they are allowed to do this derailing every time this topic pops up.

GreeBo

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Sometimes you have to wonder about peoples bone fides...

At the risk of appearing to condone that atrocity, he wasnt killed simply because he was British, he was killed because he was a senior royal, a former senior military commander, arguably a legitimate target, and a known target. Killed by a bomb planted the night before. Albeit an old man.
Deliberately? Certainly.

Our teacher, Samuel Paty, was well, a teacher...beheaded on a Parisean street in broad daylight..

That you cant separate respective motivation and objective (and as you acknowledge, possible remorse at the outcome) speaks to your lack of knowledge of Irish history and ISIS/Islamic fundamentalism, and wilful conflation of the two to obfuscate.

Sometimes you have to wonder about the tint of some peoples glasses...

Why is an old British royal any more of a "legitimate target" then a school teacher?
What does "known target" mean?
This innocent teacher was a target because he was knowingly showing inflammatory (to Islam) cartoons. He was a known target since Charlie Hebdo by your logic.

To me at least and I suspect to most normal people, both of these are pathetic reasons to murder someone.

What motivation can condone murder other than self defence? What objective other than causing terror, the very definition of terrorism.

As for remorse somehow being relevant, what difference does remorse make to any victims?

If you're Irish and proud of not being British, you have that gift as a result of atrocities carried out by generations of Irish men and women, who in turn had atrocities perpetrated on them by the British, to grant you that gift.

And now we discover the tint of your glasses..."proud of not being British". :rolleyes:
You might has well be proud of your hair colour.

weisses

Deleted User wrote: »

While I agree that the majority of Muslims have little interest in murdering us all, the fact remains that our culture (way of life) is at a direct opposite of what most Islamic beliefs accept. While they wouldn't have the interest in murdering us, most would want us to change how we live, and bring in their own values over ours.

The part you're ignoring is that throughout the world there are many regions which are extremely poor, have little access to education (of close to our standard), and social conditioning has been ongoing for centuries. There are huge populations of Muslims who are uneducated, and unwilling to accept western values.

The star of western civilisation is waning, and we're not as powerful on the world stage as we used to be. As time goes by, other nations, likely to be Muslim nations will rise to compete with us, and there will be conflict. The teachings in Islam make this a guarantee, because of the belief that there must be one religion under God, and that religion must be Islam.

You don't seem to realise, probably because you're attributing your own experience with Christianity, to Muslims, but Islam is a very different animal, with little scope for change, and a greater degree of intolerance. In virtually every instance of a country gaining a Muslim majority, that nation has merged society, government and religion, to the extent that the religion has direct influence over the lifestyles of the people. And in most cases, we've seen those countries, no matter how westernised, become more traditional, or even harsh in how they apply Islamic rules to the people.

The issue is that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who would welcome the fall of Western nations, and the rise of their own faith. That would not be good for us.

Your effort to dismiss the threat is dangerous. And foolish. (Nope. Not calling you a fool).

The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc

The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq

If you want Muslims to stop hating people in the west, getting the **** out of their countries would be a first step.

I would happily become a martyr after realizing my family was bombed into oblivion by yet another drone strike accident

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

While I agree that the majority of Muslims have little interest in murdering us all, the fact remains that our culture (way of life) is at a direct opposite of what most Islamic beliefs accept. While they wouldn't have the interest in murdering us, most would want us to change how we live, and bring in their own values over ours.

While I 100% agree with what you are saying, the above quote would equally apply to protestants living in catholic Northern Ireland and vice versa during the troubles.

We are too quick to distance ourselves from Islamic terrorists just because they have different beliefs than us, murdering people for your cause has the same impact, irrespective of your cause being a united ireland, sharia law, arian rule, etc, etc.

Its one group of people killing another based on what they believe.
We distance ourselves from ISIS etc because their methods appear more barbaric to us, but that really has absolutely no bearing on anything.

WrenBoy

weisses wrote: »

The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc

The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq

If you want Muslims to stop hating people in the west, getting the **** out of their countries would be a first step.

I would happily become a martyr after realizing my family was bombed into oblivion by yet another drone strike accident

The West in or out of the Middle East would not change the teachings of islam.
Muslim Caliphates spread islam and crushed opposition through violence before the US even existed. See the Caliphate of the Ottoman Turks and tell me the difference between them and Daesh. They have the exact same motives and use the same tactics albeit updated with todays military tech.

RandRuns

weisses wrote: »

The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc

The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq

If you want Muslims to stop hating people in the west, getting the **** out of their countries would be a first step.

I would happily become a martyr after realizing my family was bombed into oblivion by yet another drone strike accident

This old chestnut is often trotted out by those who know nothing of Islam, the causes of Islamic terrorism, and who know little of the world.

What Islamic countries have Sweden invaded? How many Muslims are Swedes responsible for killing?

Do you know who ran Iraq before the invasion? Do you know what radical islamists thought of him?

The current wave of Islamic terrorism in the west is only the latest in a near-unbroken line of attacks going back 1400 years. It has nothing to do with oil or occupation.

Please educate yourself a little before embarrasing yourself with posts like the above.

Billy Mays

Hangdogroad wrote: »

The Chechens are a strange bunch in general.

Like a bit of interior decorating iirc

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Sometimes you have to wonder about the tint of some peoples glasses...

Why is an old British royal any more of a "legitimate target" then a school teacher?
What does "known target" mean?

This innocent teacher was a target because he was knowingly showing inflammatory (to Islam) cartoons. He was a known target since Charlie Hebdo by your logic.

To me at least and I suspect to most normal people, both of these are pathetic reasons to murder someone.

What motivation can condone murder other than self defence? What objective other than causing terror, the very definition of terrorism.

As for remorse somehow being relevant, what difference does remorse make to any victims?

And now we discover the tint of your glasses..."proud of not being British". :rolleyes:
You might has well be proud of your hair colour.

This is actually painful, arguing with someone so deficient in rudimentary knowledge of what they're arguing about.

So you've accepted he wasn't killed because he was British, some progress...

But it seems you cannot fathom that as
Moubtbatten was a senior royal, and as senior royals are military commanders of an army; and he knew he was at risk, as the IRA had previously tried to get him. In the eyes of the IRA he was a legitimate target.
I disagree. He was an auld codger.

- are you ok to here?
We can come back to it if you're in trouble?

Next, something about Charlie Hebdo- not really sure what you're saying, it might get that anyone who endorses their view of free speech is a "legitimate" risk? Is that it? Is it a view you share?

But anyway, you seem confused and are conflating a French civics teacher of being beheaded in a Parisean street, by a Chechyn because of a cartoon with IRA activities... really?

Murder by its definition, is not self defence.
Killing someone is not necessarily justified. Jesus, you should know this basic stuff.

Its not to me to forgive others sins, but I imagine if there was genuine remorse, one might be more ready to forgive?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc

The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq

If you want Muslims to stop hating people in the west, getting the **** out of their countries would be a first step.

I would happily become a martyr after realizing my family was bombed into oblivion by yet another drone strike accident

Imagine being this guy...