Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

ak22 said:
So you going to the blame a religion ? because someone used it as justification for a violent attack even though that religion forbids its? :confused:





Yep I'm definitely in General Discussion thread..... :p
Click to expand...

Yes i am going to blame the religion 100% without a single doubt it is the religion fault. Without the religion in the picture there would be no terrorist mass murder. It is that simple. It does not matter that you think you are good muslim or that good muslims exist. It matters in this context, only that the religion was used as justification for killing people for what was meant as a satire cartoon.

Do you right wing people defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik? No every so called right wing person i know of denounced such violence without even a second thought.
 
The Funktopus said:
I'm starting to doubt the alleged 'skill' of the Charlie Hebdo attackers if these are the same clowns who robbed food and fuel from a petrol station in northern France. If they had any nouce about them, they'd have had money set aside for their escape, and would have avoided drawing attention to themselves by simply buying what they needed.

Unless they never planned to survive the initial attack or escape Paris.
Click to expand...

The reason why they've robbed this petrol station is because the location of their supplies has been compromised by the police.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Yes, immigrants to Norway. I doubt he was complaining about the number of immigrants in Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...

No, read his dossier/manifetso or whatever it is called and all his rhetoric, it wasn't just for norway it was for whole of europe as he sees all of europe and 'indigenous' white population and the christian based culture as under threat. Pretty much the same sort of rhetoric you will find in this thread.
 
dowie said:
It is a mainstream view/interpretation whether you like it or not. Islamic law calls for death for insulting the prophet... that isn't an extreme interpretation, it is pretty clear.

Turkey doesn't claim to implement Islamic law.
Click to expand...

So it's not a mainstream view/interpretation in Europe then? Mainstream would imply a significant number of people believe it. Your quote specifically mentioned Turkey having only having a very small minority believing it, and didn't show any for the rest of Europe, which will undoubtedly be lower than a Turkey.

If you're going to suggest it doesn't have to be as long as it is somewhere else then I'll remind you of the anti gay laws in Christian Uganda and other African nations. You can't pick and choose based on what religion you dislike.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Yes i am going to blame the religion 100% without a single doubt it is the religion fault. Without the religion in the picture there would be no terrorist mass murder. It is that simple. It does not matter that you think you are good muslim or that good muslims exist. It matters in this context, only that the religion was used as justification for killing people for what was meant as a satire cartoon.

Do you right wing people defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik? No every so called right wing person i know of denounced such violence without even a second thought.
Click to expand...

People can claim they used religion to justify killing, but if the religion explicitly forbids then then people are to blame.

You logic of saying " does not matter that you think you are good muslim or that good muslims exist. It matters in this context, only that the religion was used as justification for killing people for what was meant as a satire cartoon. "

If the religion forbids it then the justification is false.... People will kill over anything even if their was or was not religion.
 
Last edited:
JRS said:
Yes, there would be.

People are crappy to people no matter what. Religion is just an excuse. If they needed another, they'd find another.
Click to expand...

Non sense. There is no other possible justification that exists for mass murdering a bunch of cartoonists. It is giving religion a free pass, once again, to commit violence, only for other religious to call it "extremism" or "terrorism" both arbitrary terms.

 
ak22 said:
I'm referring to your last post(below)







So you going to the blame a religion ? because someone used it as justification for a violent attack even though that religion forbids its? :confused:





Yep I'm definitely in General Discussion thread..... :p
Click to expand...

And remember, we don't do the same for any other religion, just islam.

Good religion - Bad religion... See? One kills for good and the other kills for bad... See?:p
 
Amp34 said:
So it's not a mainstream view/interpretation in Europe then? Mainstream would imply a significant number of people believe it.
Click to expand...

It is a mainstream view in Europe and in general that Islam calls for the death of people who insult the prophet under Islamic law. That is different to the question of whether someone thinks a person should be killed.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Yes i am going to blame the religion 100% without a single doubt it is the religion fault. Without the religion in the picture there would be no terrorist mass murder. It is that simple. It does not matter that you think you are good muslim or that good muslims exist. It matters in this context, only that the religion was used as justification for killing people for what was meant as a satire cartoon.

Do you right wing people defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik? No every so called right wing person i know of denounced such violence without even a second thought.
Click to expand...

I guess you also believe the crusades in the 13th century were fought entirely for religion too? ;)
 
anything I don't mind said:
Yes i am going to blame the religion 100% without a single doubt it is the religion fault. Without the religion in the picture there would be no terrorist mass murder. It is that simple. It does not matter that you think you are good muslim or that good muslims exist. It matters in this context, only that the religion was used as justification for killing people for what was meant as a satire cartoon.

Do you right wing people defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik? No every so called right wing person i know of denounced such violence without even a second thought.
Click to expand...

So many right wing and neo nazi's praised his actions, infact so much that there were attempts at copycat attacks.
 
ak22 said:
People can claim they used religion to justify of kill, but if the religion explicitly forbids then then people are to blame.

You logic of saying " does not matter that you think you are good muslim or that good muslims exist. It matters in this context, only that the religion was used as justification for killing people for what was meant as a satire cartoon. "

If the religion forbids it then the justification is false.... People will kill over anything even if their was or was not religion.
Click to expand...

So you're saying those cartoonists would have been killed by those gunmen if Islam wasn't involved in any way? :confused:
 
anything I don't mind said:
All the religious books are evil and terrible basis for ethics.

http://www.evilbible.com <- christian bible is evil

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm <- quran is evil.
Click to expand...
The bigger problem with religious texts is they are utterly inconsistent.

Some verses of both preach violence, others preach mercy.

A book which supports all viewpoints ultimately supports none. Ergo it's upto the individual readers to apply their own moral perspective (which in some cases may be lacking) or the viewpoint of the cleric/preacher who may abuse that position of power resulting in extremism.

Unless a book is unilaterally violent or non-violent it doesn't really preach anything regarding violence - for an example of one it's very difficult to interpret Jainism to support violence at all (due to the concept of ahimsa resulting in nonviolence, non-injury or absence of desire to harm any life form).

Saying that there is no criticism a person can make against the Quran one can also make about pretty much any religious text, it's bias when some people claim the Quran is evil & the Bible is fine - in reality they both have their nasty parts & both have good parts.

Religion is rarely the sole cause of any given conflict, there are almost always geopolitical, land, resources, wealth or power struggles underneath. It is on the other hand a good way of motivating impressionable young disenfranchised people into killing or being killed for another's gain.
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
So you're saying those cartoonists would have been killed by those gunmen if Islam wasn't involved in any way? :confused:
Click to expand...
Perhaps what is being said is that if they had latched onto another religion maybe (like Christianity) then they would've killed someone else who offended their sensibilities? Because the people aren't normal (and represent a minority i.e. crazy people who hold no value in human life)... not because they're Muslim.
 
dowie said:
It is a mainstream view in Europe and in general that Islam calls for the death of people who insult the prophet under Islamic law. That is different to the question of whether someone thinks a person should be killed.
Click to expand...

Yet your figures indicate it isn't even a mainstream view in a more religions European countries like Turkey.

Having said that as you appear to consider most British Muslims as not muslim (because they don't conform to your strict view of Islam) I guess that would mean most Muslims (according to your strict view) would believe in feat for insulting Islam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom