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

CinemaGuy45

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Moronic statement. These terrorist cults kill far more fellow Muslims than any other grouping.

What we need to show those who murder or agree with murder in the name of Islam is that we find murder outrages.

A cartoon and a murder should not be conflated.

Signore Fancy Pants

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I don't have the answers here and I will admit that.

I do know giving into the wishes of evil killers only shows that killing people gets them what they want.

Whatever happened to not giving into the demands of terrorists?

There's really no bargaining to be had with an ideology/theology. What they want is a Caliphate under strict religious rule.

jmreire

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Still in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Mali.

Previously in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Kuwait...and a few more.

Was in Liberia in 05-06, were you there then?

No, I arrived in 2007, left in 2008 after 18 Mth's. Still have the souvenirs of it to this day LOL, Col.Ger Aherne was there at that time too. I spent quite a lot of time in Afghanistan, several years in fact, all told. Was scheduled to go to work in the Golan heights, based in Jerusalem, but my visa request was refused, ironically it was because I was Irish, and there was an Irish peace keeping force on the Golan at the time. But in that part of the world, the middle east, I spend some time in Lebanon, Iran, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, and Syria ..2013-2016. I was in quite a few other places too, but outside of the middle east.

Banana Republic 1

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

There's really no bargaining to be had with an ideology/theology. What they want is a Caliphate under strict religious rule.

Same as American evangelicals

WrenBoy

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Same as American evangelicals

Except they don't view mass murder as an acceptable way to achieve it. Neither does their religion advise them to do so.

GreeBo

jmreire wrote: »

(A) When a long suffering people decide to revolt and throw off the murderous shackles of a despotic regime, would you call them murdering bastards? Because that's what the British did not only here in Ireland, but in any Country they ruled. America, Kenya etc. All fought for their independence. And the Irish Republican Army were instrumental in getting rid of them. And in each case, in each Country, the method was the same: Revolution.

You mean "the method was the same: terrorism"?
and how did all that terrorism work out exactly in the north? Did I miss the united ireland announcement? Or perhaps are we only getting anywhere when people stop killing each other and talk instead?
You can glorify the killings, I'll glorify the conversations.

(B) Or put them on the same level of people who kill solely on the instructions of their God to kill the unbelievers??

(C) And in the here and now present time, how would you rate your chances of being killed by an IRA bomb, knife or bullWeet?, versus being killed by an Islamic terrorist in the same manner?

Ah, so in say, 30 years if ISIS have stopped killing people your opinions on the actions "in there here and now" will change? You'll look back on them more fondly perhaps?

We will extrapolate a little bit further, closer to home. You are attacked in your own home, in the middle of the night by an armed robber, who threatens you and your family with violence, and indeed fires the gun, narrowly missing one of your family, just to impress you that he means business. You tackle him, and in the altercation, you manage to get the gun of him, and in the melee, shoot him dead. Does that make you a murderous bastard

And thats the same as blowing up innocent victims because....?

GreeBo

Gervais08 wrote: »

There’s been attempts at justification for attacks here.

Has there?
Unless you are talking about the IRA attacks, no one has justified *any* ISIS/Islam/Muslim attacks on this thread that I have seen.

Can you point them out please? Perhaps you have misread other posts?

Signore Fancy Pants

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Same as American evangelicals

Only very loosely in theory, as in Evangelism is a theology. Not nearly a bit similar in practice, polar opposites in fact.

GreeBo

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Killing innocent people should bring about the exact opposite of what they evil killers want.

CinemaGuy45 wrote:

I do know giving into the wishes of evil killers only shows that killing people gets them what they want.

Whatever happened to not giving into the demands of terrorists?

Yep, just like it should when the IRA or ETA or anyone does it, right?

Or are only the Muslims evil and the other murdering terrorist groups are grand because they think they have a legitimate right to kill people?

Kivaro

Mr Meanor wrote: »

This may go some way to explaining some individuals
A research paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920303238

Quote from the study paper:


(TIV) tendency for interpersonal victimhood

'The study distinguishes TIV from narcissism. Narcissistic individuals also experience moral superiority and vengeful desires, but these feelings tend to spring from the belief that their authority, capability, or grandiosity is being undermined. TIV, on the other hand, is associated with low self-esteem. And while narcissists do not want to be victimized, high-TIV individuals lash out when their victimhood is questioned.'

Interesting take on it. Looking at the most recent posts where there is deflection from the topic, deliberate obfuscation, and attempts to offer explanations for the behaviour of Islamic terrorists, it could be a combination of both groups in the study paper.

RandRuns

Since the thread seems to have gotten dragged well of the original point, what, exactly is the "ah sure the IRA were worse" posters purpose here?
Let's say you got everyone on the thread to agree that ISIS were no worse than some other terrorist organisation, what then?
Do you feel islamic terrorism should be ignored or excused? If so, why? If not, why are you trying to minimise it?

I'm genuinely curious. You seem to go on to every thread where islamic terrorism or rape are mentioned in an attempt to deflect from it, minimise it, or just drag the thread into endless circular argument. What is your end goal? To get people to accept it as normal?

biko

Is it possible IS-bots exist?

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

Since the thread seems to have gotten dragged well of the original point, what, exactly is the "ah sure the IRA were worse" posters purpose here?

Are they worse or are they the same? Seems to me that the point has been they are the same.

Let's say you got everyone on the thread to agree that ISIS were no worse than some other terrorist organisation, what then?

Then you start to treat all terrorist groups equally. You might prioritize some over others but that would be based on their impact, not the justification of their cause.

Do you feel islamic terrorism should be ignored or excused? If so, why? If not, why are you trying to minimise it?

Seriously? Have you read *any* of my posts? Where on earth do you get the idea that I want to ignore, excuse or minimise it?
Posters like yourself constantly peddle out this narrative that by equating terrorists groups, we are minimising them...its completely made up. I have *constantly* and *repeatedly* denounced any and all terrorist groups, its basically been the entire point of my posts, something that seems to have passed you by somehow.

I'm genuinely curious. You seem to go on to every thread where islamic terrorism or rape are mentioned in an attempt to deflect from it, minimise it, or just drag the thread into endless circular argument. What is your end goal? To get people to accept it as normal?

Again with the strawman. The goal is not stop distinguishing peoples actions based on their religion.
Terrorist murder = terrorist murder.
Child Abuse = child abuse.

Doesnt matter if the perpetrators are wearing a burka, a swastika or a collar.

GreeBo

biko wrote: »

Is it possible IS-bots exist?

Is it possible that you could have an adult conversation and accept people have different opinions on things than you do?

I know another group who don't like people to have opinions that differ from their own...

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Are they worse or are they the same? Seems to me that the point has been they are the same.

Then you start to treat all terrorist groups equally. You might prioritize some over others but that would be based on their impact, not the justification of their cause.

Yea- But they are different.

GreeBo wrote: »

Child Abuse = child abuse.
Doesnt matter if the perpetrators are wearing a burka, a swastika or a collar.

First thing you've said that makes sense

biko

GreeBo wrote: »

I know another group who don't like people to have opinions that differ from their own...

Antifa?
BLM?
Boards users in general?

Gervais08

biko wrote: »

Antifa?

I would have said the ideological left generally but that works!

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

Are they worse or are they the same? Seems to me that the point has been they are the same.

The IRA don't kill anyone any more though, islam does.

GreeBo wrote: »

Then you start to treat all terrorist groups equally. You might prioritize some over others but that would be based on their impact, not the justification of their cause.

See above - since islamic terrorism has only continued to ramp up in recent decades (I know, I know, the number of victims doesn't matter) and IRA murders have stopped, why would you treat them equally? Should we put anti-terrorism resources into groups that have disbanded, just so you can achieve some kind of weird equality? Or is the real reason so that it takes the heat off islamic terrorism?

GreeBo wrote: »

Seriously? Have you read *any* of my posts? Where on earth do you get the idea that I want to ignore, excuse or minimise it?

Because that is what you do constantly. You are trying to downplay islamic terrorism on this thread, and you are trying to downplay islamic mass rape on another one. It is clear to everyone who reads your posts.

GreeBo wrote: »

Posters like yourself constantly peddle out this narrative that by equating terrorists groups, we are minimising them...its completely made up. I have *constantly* and *repeatedly* denounced any and all terrorist groups, its basically been the entire point of my posts, something that seems to have passed you by somehow.

Why would you try to "equate" them at all? Isn't it enough to condemn and discuss islamic terrorism without constantly trying to "equate" it with any other terrorism (with a far lower death toll)? It's like saying "Yeah cancer is bad, but what about shark attacks? It is deflection and minimisation - for what reason, only you can say.

GreeBo wrote: »

Again with the strawman. The goal is not stop distinguishing peoples actions based on their religion.
Terrorist murder = terrorist murder.
Child Abuse = child abuse.

Doesnt matter if the perpetrators are wearing a burka, a swastika or a collar.

It does, because the only way we will tackle it is to get to the root cause. People like you want to hide the root cause, for reason we can only guess at.

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

The IRA don't kill anyone anymore though, islam does.

Ah, time heals all wounds? Come back lads, all is forgiven?
How do you feel about Hitler these days? Its positively AGES since he killed anyone.

RandRuns wrote: »

See above - since islamic terrorism has only continued to ramp up in recent decades (I know, I know, the number of victims doesn't matter) and IRA murders have stopped, why would you treat them equally? Should we put anti-terrorism resources into groups that have disbanded, just so you can achieve some kind of weird equality? Or is the real reason so that it takes the heat off islamic terrorism?

See above.

Note that I'm not in any way (and never have) said that you we should be putting the same number of resources into all terrorist groups, especially the ones that are now defunct. I'm saying that when equating them, they are all equal.

As for "taking the heat off islamic terrorism"...what on earth are you talking about? Where have I given *any* indication that I want to take any heat off *any* terrorism? Seriously, stop peddling this crap.

RandRuns wrote: »

Because that is what you do constantly. You are trying to downplay islamic terrorism on this thread, and you are trying to downplay islamic mass rape on another one. It is clear to everyone who reads your posts.

No its not. Its "clear" to anyone who has an agenda that is anti-muslim perhaps.

All I have ever said is that this stuff isn't tied to religion and you can't tar a whole bunch of people with the same brush, based on their religious commonality.

RandRuns wrote: »

Why would you try to "equate" them at all? Isn't it enough to condemn and discuss islamic terrorism without constantly trying to "equate" it with any other terrorism (with a far lower death toll)? It's like saying "Yeah cancer is bad, but what about shark attacks? It is deflection and minimisation - for what reason, only you can say.

I do condemn and discuss terrorism, I'm just not willing to get posters get away with Islamophobia or Xenophobia and someone pretending to themselves that any sort of terrorist is somehow worse than (for example) the IRA.

RandRuns wrote: »

It does, because the only way we will tackle it is to get to the root cause. People like you want to hide the root cause, for reason we can only guess at.

Ok, so if the root of the problem is as simple as "Islam", whats you plan? Kill 'em all?

Annoyingly for your argument, if Islam is the root cause, why do we have all these other murdering terrorist groups?
Its like you want to lay all the blame for everything at the door of Islam, for reasons we can only guess at....

RandRuns

RandRuns wrote: »

See above - since islamic terrorism has only continued to ramp up in recent decades (I know, I know, the number of victims doesn't matter) and IRA murders have stopped, why would you treat them equally? Should we put anti-terrorism resources into groups that have disbanded, just so you can achieve some kind of weird equality

Republican terrorism is still a threat and we do put plenty of resources into anti terrorism units here.
They haven't gone away you know!!

RandRuns

bubblypop wrote: »

Republican terrorism is still a threat and we do put plenty of resources into anti terrorism units here.
They haven't gone away you know!!

Good to see you've taken a break from "but others do it too" over on the muslim rape gangs thread to post the same here.

You lads wouldn't happen to be mates, would you?
Same NGO perhaps?

RandRuns

RandRuns wrote: »

Good to see you've taken a break from "but others do it too" over on the muslim rape gangs thread to post the same here.

You lads wouldn't happen to be mates, would you?
Same NGO perhaps?

Excuse me? I think you may be mixed up there.
And I don't work for an NGO, what's your problem with them?

I wouldn't like you to think that we don't police ALL terrorists here, we most certainly do.

GreeBo

The quality of posting from numerous posters on here has gone so childish as to render any reply a waste of my time.
You should be capable of maintaining an adult conversation with people who disagree with your opinions.


Throw in some infantile memes/responses regarding terrorism and there is just no point in me continuing with this thread.

Thanks to those who kept it civil and made it an interesting debate.

/unfollow

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

The quality of posting from numerous posters on here has gone so childish as to render any reply a waste of my time.

Good Lord, you really have absolutely no self-awareness at all, do you?

Banana Republic 1

biko wrote: »

Antifa?
BLM?
Boards users in general?

Antifa is not a group

Gervais08

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Antifa is not a group

Well then they’re a **** load of individuals who all seem to think and act and dress alike just by pure coincidence.

biko

The first two minutes describe Antifa perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjiqS8gPPB0

theballz

If your free exercise of your religion requires that I follow it’s precepts, that is not freedom of religion; that is theocracy.

suicide_circus

I'll take the knee for BLM when PL footballers are taking the knee for Samuel Paty

take everything

I am cringing hard for GreeBo at this stage.

Godwinning.
Seeing in others what they can't see in themselves (basically projection).
Little self awareness.

It's like a parody of mental gymnastics.

theballz

take everything wrote: »

I am cringing hard for GreeBo at this stage.

Godwinning.
Seeing in others what they can't see in themselves (basically projection).
Little self awareness.

It's like a parody of mental gymnastics.

the four factors in radicalization: a grievance narrative, whether real or perceived; an identity crisis; charismatic recruiters; and ideological dogma.

theballz

GreeBo wrote: »

The quality of posting from numerous posters on here has gone so childish as to render any reply a waste of my time.
You should be capable of maintaining an adult conversation with people who disagree with your opinions.


Throw in some infantile memes/responses regarding terrorism and there is just no point in me continuing with this thread.

Thanks to those who kept it civil and made it an interesting debate.

/unfollow

Critiquing Islam, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry. “Islamophobia” is a troubled and inherently unhelpful term. Yes, hatred of Muslims by neo-Nazi-style groups does exist, and it is a form of cultural intolerance, but that must never be conflated with the free-speech right to critique Islam. Islam is, after all, an idea; we cannot expect its merits or demerits to be accepted if we cannot openly debate it.

Banana Republic 1

theballz wrote: »

Critiquing Islam, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry. “Islamophobia” is a troubled and inherently unhelpful term. Yes, hatred of Muslims by neo-Nazi-style groups does exist, and it is a form of cultural intolerance, but that must never be conflated with the free-speech right to critique Islam. Islam is, after all, an idea; we cannot expect its merits or demerits to be accepted if we cannot openly debate it.

Ya that would be fine if one knew what one was talking about.

bewareofthedog

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Antifa is not a group

His name is Robert Paulson

RandRuns

Wonder why my post asking if there were people who still believe that antifa are not a group disappeared?

Are we not allowed to say that now?

Banana Republic 1

bewareofthedog wrote: »

His name is Robert Paulson

Fight club was a movie

theballz

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Ya that would be fine if one knew what one was talking about.

Part of our challenge is to galvanize and organize this silent majority against jihadism so that it can start challenging the narrative of violence that has been popularized by the organized minority currently dominating the discourse.

Grievances are not in themselves sufficient to radicalize somebody. They are half the truth. My meaning is best summarized this way: when we in the West failed to intervene in the Bosnian genocide, some Muslims became radicalized; when we did intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, more Muslims became radicalized; when we failed to intervene in Syria, many more Muslims became radicalized. The grievance narrative that pins the blame on foreign policy is only half the story. It is insufficient as an explanation for radicalization.

I see alot of that in this thread.

Banana Republic 1

theballz wrote: »

Part of our challenge is to galvanize and organize this silent majority against jihadism so that it can start challenging the narrative of violence that has been popularized by the organized minority currently dominating the discourse.

Grievances are not in themselves sufficient to radicalize somebody. They are half the truth. My meaning is best summarized this way: when we in the West failed to intervene in the Bosnian genocide, some Muslims became radicalized; when we did intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, more Muslims became radicalized; when we failed to intervene in Syria, many more Muslims became radicalized. The grievance narrative that pins the blame on foreign policy is only half the story. It is insufficient as an explanation for radicalization.

I see alot of that in this thread.

Ill think you find many grievances stem from the sykes piquet agreement after the first world war. Now I'm going to eat some toastized with some marmeladized.

James Brown

theballz wrote: »

Critiquing Islam, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry. “Islamophobia” is a troubled and inherently unhelpful term. Yes, hatred of Muslims by neo-Nazi-style groups does exist, and it is a form of cultural intolerance, but that must never be conflated with the free-speech right to critique Islam. Islam is, after all, an idea; we cannot expect its merits or demerits to be accepted if we cannot openly debate it.

Like Judaism?
Like Catholics?
Like Protestants?

How does this read to you...

Critiquing Judaism, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry. “Anti-Semitism” is a troubled and inherently unhelpful term. Yes, hatred of Jews by neo-Nazi-style groups does exist, and it is a form of cultural intolerance, but that must never be conflated with the free-speech right to critique Judaism. Judaism is, after all, an idea; we cannot expect its merits or demerits to be accepted if we cannot openly debate it.

?

theballz

Bowie wrote: »

Like Judaism?
Like Catholics?
Like Protestants?

How does this read to you...



?

It reads completely the same. Yes, they are all ideas. However, only one of the ideas in question results in decapitating of non-believers.

Banana Republic 1

theballz wrote: »

It reads completely the same. Yes, they are all ideas. However, only one of the ideas in question results in decapitating of non-believers.

Non of those do what an brain dead statement

theballz

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Non of those do what an brain dead statement

No idea is above scrutiny and no people are beneath divinity.

The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence.

We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.

Ten of Swords

Small number of posts deleted. Quit arguing about the spelling of certain words, it's off topic and petty in the extreme

biko

theballz wrote: »

It reads completely the same. Yes, they are all ideas.

That's heresy

CinemaGuy45

I am not politically correct and my straight talking does offend at times but for me one of the unforgivable crimes is murder.

Dragging up one murder to try and minimise another is insulting to those who have died and their loved ones.

All religions are nonsense some are worse but only one seems to have a problem with violence in the name of the religion.

I have no time for Republic or Loyalist murdering scumbags.

Islam is never going to change when people keep on trying to sweep the terror under the carpet.

I don't worry about offending people who do not see murder as a vile and evil act.

All murder is evil what happened in Paris was Demonic.

joseywhales

So on topic(not ira comparisons or radicalised islam)

Do people believe that someone who commits a terrible crime should not have a funeral? Or that people should not be allowed to attend? I am still not seeing the issue. It seems imbalanced to want to deny burial or return a body to a family even after death. Surely death is the end of it, should we raise their bodies on spikes?

Why would I get angry at a corpse?

WrenBoy

joseywhales wrote: »

So on topic(not ira comparisons or radicalised islam)

Do people believe that someone who commits a terrible crime should not have a funeral? Or that people should not be allowed to attend? I am still not seeing the issue. It seems imbalanced to want to deny burial or return a body to a family even after death. Surely death is the end of it, should we raise their bodies on spikes?

Why would I get angry at a corpse?

They are celebrating the murder and beheading of innocents in the west in the name of islam. If you don't see the issue/ red flags there then I wish you well but it makes me wonder at the self preservation instincts of those in this country and the west in general.

jmreire

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Ill think you find many grievances stem from the sykes piquet agreement after the first world war. Now I'm going to eat some toastized with some marmeladized.

While its true that western interference in Islamic Countrys in most cases didn't have a positive outcome, its equally true that since the 6th century, Islam has been spreading, and continues to do so, by every means possible, peacefully or by conquest. Had the West never interfered, you would still have unbelievers being killed. Its in the Quran, and thats the book they follow. Love and peace are also to be found in it, and that's the version most Muslims follow, but they can't really argue with the jihadists when they truthfully claim the they too are following the Book. But for all Muslims, the spread of Islam, until it rules the world, is a goal.

Banana Republic 1

jmreire wrote: »

While its true that western interference in Islamic Countrys in most cases didn't have a positive outcome, its equally true that since the 6th century, Islam has been spreading, and continues to do so, by every means possible, peacefully or by conquest. Had the West never interfered, you would still have unbelievers being killed. Its in the Quran, and thats the book they follow. Love and peace are also to be found in it, and that's the version most Muslims follow, but they can't really argue with the jihadists when they truthfully claim the they too are following the Book. But for all Muslims, the spread of Islam, until it rules the world, is a goal.

An eye for an eye.

jmreire

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

An eye for an eye.

The "eye for an Eye" bit is taken from the old testament, which was changed by Jesus, when he proclaimed the new and everlasting covenant between God and Man 2'000 years ago. Mohammad took a lot of his inspiration from the old testament, aided and abetted by a Christian Priest, Waraqa Ibn Nawfal. And when Waraqa died, Mohammad said that he received no more messages from God. But to this day, the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, stoning etc all remain in the Quran, Hadiths and Sharia. They have not changed from the 6th to the 21st century.