Paris attacks.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muslim beliefs are not native to most of Western Europe, this is a fact. British, French, Dutch and Scandinavians (for example) have a history of mocking and making humour from things that muslims find offensive, such as cartoons, spitting image and other such humour. That is native to our culture and history, we don't take offence at it to the extent we want to call for the death of people, some might get very angry but sorry, we just don't seek death for humour and will fight to ensure people are free to express it, we have done for generations as freedom of mind is vital to our nations.

That doesn't seem to fit with most of the practising muslims, to the effect that 100's maybe 1000's will march to call for the death of something we see as part of our culture, but don't seem to march when people use their very important religion as the cause for mass murder to refute their association with those beliefs. That again doesn't fit with Europe, we can't understand how you put such standards above native european standards, frankly we find it impossible to understand and we have no appetite to try and understand it, it's not native to us and has become a problem that is impacting our historical companion as nations. This thread CLEARLY shows that, as do the masses on the streets showing their solidarity for France and their people, all races, just the people of France, it's what we do.

The native lifestyle must prevail, the time right now is not to debate why the minority feels hard done by or why they feel we don't understand. Many British comedians rip the hell out of Christianity (I use it purely as 'another religion') call their leaders pedophiles but masses of Christians don't call for the death of those comedians because well, that's our native culture and we have evolved to understand religions place in most of our minds. That evolution means we don't have an appetite to take a religious belief that is different to the one our nations were often founded on and start using it or elevating it's importance, giving it anything more than a passing glance because to us, it's not important and right now for many is seen as the route cause of the troubles we face.

To hear muslims try and 'yes but' that fact is to end the conversation for more and more people these days. Not fair perhaps, not rational maybe, but a reality and a problem for the minority as we have seen many many times before over the years.

The natives are restless.
 
Last edited:
52 people were murdered during the 7/7 2005 bombings in London, please tell me how many Muslims were murdered in the UK in retaliation?

They hit us in our home, we hit them in their home, thats how this works. Being the 'good guys' we haven't yet got around to murdering them on our own soil yet but as i said i wonder how long that will continue.
 
Let's get something straight, Islam has, and is, a problem right now -



I posted an article from the Independent earlier stating that 25% of British Muslims sympathised with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo mass murder.

Islam is a problem right now, and significant numbers of Muslims even in a country like the UK sympathise with mass murder over cartoon drawings. That's a problem for everyone else in the UK.

The poll really doesn't support your conclusion.

78% said they found the drawings in Charlie Head deeply offensive.
27% said they felt 'some sympathy' for the motivations behind the attacks.
95% of respondents consider themselves British.
93% said they believe Muslims in Britain should always follow British law.

Having some sympathy for the motivation behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks is not the same as agreeing with the method or scale of retaliation. It isn't even an indication that those polled agree with the motivation - a number of them have 'some sympathy' for it, sure, but that isn't exactly a resounding endorsement. I could describe myself as having 'some sympathy for the motivation behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks'. That same motivation could have driven peaceful protest, rather than violence and acts of terror. Do I agree with acts of violence as reprisal for satire? Nope. Not at all.

I'm also somewhat confused over your choice of quote in your post. The author totally disagrees with your view, which is very evident from even a cursory glance at the article. What you have chosen to do there is quote selectively to give the impression that the article reinforces your point. It doesn't. At all.
 
The middle east has been screwed for a long time. Let's jot kid ourselves, Ghadaffi amd saddam were brutal dictators. But they held power, had relatively well trained armies and kept out terrorist extremism.

By removing them we opened the countries up to this kind of attack we've seen in Iraq, libya, and after building power and money now Syria.

I'm not sure why they hate the West so much, we gave them free reign in the east. I guess they don't want us now cramping them in and stopping their growth. Naturally but what else can we do given their doctrine and violence?

Amazing post and perfect example of how ignorance can be found across the world, whether people follow a 'sky pixie' or not.

Do tell us why Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, isn't baying for the blood of non-Muslims and isn't actively anti-West. How about Turkey? They once held the Caliphate, and that's a country full of Muslims.
 
Amazing post and perfect example of how ignorance can be found across the world, whether people follow a 'sky pixie' or not.

Do tell us why Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, isn't baying for the blood of non-Muslims and isn't actively anti-West. How about Turkey? They once held the Caliphate, and that's a country full of Muslims.

Because they live in countries which aren't troubled (relative to Syria et al). The problems arise when the west and Islamic societies meet. They are fundamentally different and whilst the wests ideology is one of tolerance to all types of people. Their way is not. Look at how women are treated in such countries. The problem lies here in the west where we tolerate them and a minority of them choose not to adapt to the way of life of the country they belong to but instead try to force their way of life on ours.
 
Amazing post and perfect example of how ignorance can be found across the world, whether people follow a 'sky pixie' or not.

Do tell us why Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, isn't baying for the blood of non-Muslims and isn't actively anti-West. How about Turkey? They once held the Caliphate, and that's a country full of Muslims.

To be fair Indonesia has had plenty of problems over the last couple of decades with many thousands being killed. Lets not even get into Turkey one of primary helpers of the Islamic state.
 
I have had enough and so have most people.

The bigger the wall you build the bigger it will fall.

Out before ban.... :p


They are here with superior birth rates and motivation... A wall is useless and when what seems like half of the left actually support them due to thier spite of the middle and right it is game over. I said it and will maintain it there will be an Islamic victory in Western Europe within 200-300 years. And this time there will not be a reconquista like Islamic Spain due to the brainwashing and political correctness among the youth.


A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero


According to the Pew Forum, the total number of Muslims in Europe in 2010 was about 44 million. The population of Western Europe was 397.5 million 2009. Care to take a guess at how this figure will look after all of the Syrians and Afghans arrive? Germany expects 800,000 not to mention they still have not sent for the rest of the family yet. Just wait until lame cousin Abdul and uncle Mohammed arrive as well.
 
Last edited:
It's possible to be concerned about both. A tragedy like this isn't a green light to to make dumb, knee-jerk statements.

Yeah but they're not concerned about both, it's literally their only concern. There's zero concern given to stopping future attacks or finding the people who helped organise this.
 
The poll really doesn't support your conclusion.

78% said they found the drawings in Charlie Head deeply offensive.
27% said they felt 'some sympathy' for the motivations behind the attacks.
95% of respondents consider themselves British.
93% said they believe Muslims in Britain should always follow British law.

Having some sympathy for the motivation behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks is not the same as agreeing with the method or scale of retaliation. It isn't even an indication that those polled agree with the motivation - a number of them have 'some sympathy' for it, sure, but that isn't exactly a resounding endorsement. I could describe myself as having 'some sympathy for the motivation behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks'. That same motivation could have driven peaceful protest, rather than violence and acts of terror. Do I agree with acts of violence as reprisal for satire? Nope. Not at all.

I'm also somewhat confused over your choice of quote in your post. The author totally disagrees with your view, which is very evident from even a cursory glance at the article. What you have chosen to do there is quote selectively to give the impression that the article reinforces your point. It doesn't. At all.

The motivation was a cartoon, the motivation connected to the act of mass murder. Sympathising to whatever degree that drawing a cartoon is possible motivation for mass murder is not rational by the standards of Western Europe. Sympathising is not the same as agreeing but it is not totally rejecting something that is unacceptably evil. At what point is an act so evil it is rejected completely?

Secondly I fail to understand your confusion, the whole article was entitled - "Fareed Zakaria: Let’s be honest, Islam has a problem right now". That title was chosen because that was the gist Fareed intended to communicate. The author explicitly states modern Islam has a problem at this time with intolerance and extremism by using US State Department and Pew Research data, I shall repeat it -

In 2013, of the top 10 groups that perpetrated terrorist attacks, seven were Muslim. Of the top 10 countries where terrorist attacks took place, seven were Muslim-majority. The Pew Research Center rates countries on the level of restrictions that governments impose on the free exercise of religion. Of the 24 most restrictive countries, 19 are Muslim-majority. Of the 21 countries that have laws against apostasy, all have Muslim majorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html
The author disagrees with Bill Maher implying Islam is inherently extreme, most people here won't have a clue who Bill Maher is or have watched his programme on HBO - that is why I did not quote those passages.

Since you are claiming I posted a viewpoint rejected by the article you can, of course, completely refute the article title by disproving every quote I quoted related to whether Fareed believes Islam has a problem right now?

Disprove that Fareed supports the premise that modern day Islam has a problem ...
 
Last edited:
Having some sympathy for the motivation behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks is not the same as agreeing with the method or scale of retaliation.

I don't think you read that report fully.

"Acts of violence against those who publish images of the prophet Mohammad can never be justified - Disagree 24% Don't know 6%"

So that's a quarter of people that I have to live amongst (thanks to the Extreme Left), who are perfectly OK with violence, and presumably violence in the form of shooting AK47's into a group of people.

Sorry, to me that means 24% of muslims in the UK are ****ing insane and I don't want to share my country with any more of them thanks.


I really hope you don't mind my irrational aversion to living anywhere near people who are OK with killing for their pixie.
 
Millions die every year, this is a redundancy.

This thread has already gone horribly off-topic with people bickering about stuff barely relevant to the attacks. Considering this new "members charter" has been brought in, it has not been honored at all. If the Dons were removing off-topic crap then half this thread would probably have been removed by now...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom