French Paper Offices Bombed Over A Joke

Quote:

---

These radical Muslims want nothing less than to destroy our civilisations, just because they hate it.

---

Hmm, this is actually a less educated opinion than I'm used to hearing from you, PVC.

I wouldn't say that radical Muslims want to destroy western civilisation. When you look at the demographic background of radical Muslims, you'll find that they are mostly younger and well-educated (western-educated, in fact) with very little background in actual Islamic theology. I think you'll find that most of them don't even visit mosques regularly and typically engage in such western practices that they find so horrific (prostitution, gambling and drinking). Very upset about a lot of things, but not serious jihadis, really.

There are some few very sad misguided people amongst them, but they represent the smallest minority of a minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Hmm, this is actually a less educated opinion than I'm used to hearing from you, PVC.

---

I am by nature a very violent man, this topic gets my blood up and I tend to abandon my regular reserve.

Let me try again.

Not withstanding your point about many of the young European Muslims' lifestyles, the fact remains that they locate Western culture, which is essentially Romano-Greek with a Germanic twist and a Christian gloss, as the Other, and they attack it any time they percieve it to threaten their interpretation of their religion. As to their theological ignorance - the same is true of hardline Evangelical Christians. Any well read Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Zorastrian scholar will appreciate that the aim of all those religions is essentially the same: to bring men to a better relationship with the Lord God. The fact is, I would willingly go to war with Muslims who tried to spread their faith through conquest, but I wouldn't hate them for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Because petrol bombs is not what the average person is up to. 2+2.

---

There was nobody inside. The 'attack' wasn't claimed

4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So apart from the likes of Stonehenge and Druids aren't all the other religions imported in UK?

=][=

I agree that all should be subject to satire.

---

Unless they were teleported in, they were imports too.

As an agnostic I think that all religions and other positions should be equally open for satire.

I thought that the comment was funny.

With the IRA they did have a valid point that broadly speaking, the English invaded Ireland and they were fighting the occupier. A fair part of areas that are Islamic occupied what was Christian territory, so there should be bombs going off in Egypt in revenge for the sacking of Alexandria.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

With the IRA they did have a valid point that broadly speaking, the English invaded Ireland and they were fighting the occupier. A fair part of areas that are Islamic occupied what was Christian territory, so there should be bombs going off in Egypt in revenge for the sacking of Alexandria.

---

There's so much wrong with that comparison that I don't really know where to start. First of all, the perception of the conqueror by the conquered, secondly, the treatment of the native population by the ruling elite. Those are two things that come to mind immediately, but it's a really bad comparison and it completely overlooks the particularities of either place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Not when these beliefs are in total opposition to our ideals. While the threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has often been overestimated, it is not something that should be left as it is. It is to be utterly beat down through intellectual debate and indeed, satire. It's what put the coffin in the nail of the religious monopoly on civil affairs during the Enlightenment, and to me, one of the most valued traditions here.

---

I agree that it is a problem when people don't share some of our more basic beliefs like freedom of expression etc. But I disagree that "intellectual debate" or satire is the answer to the problem. Do either of these actually engage extremists?

Intellectual debate has its place but it doesn't really stir up the ordinary person. Things like rhetoric, identity, gut-feelings/prejudices etc will always trump it easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

With the IRA they did have a valid point that broadly speaking, the English invaded Ireland and they were fighting the occupier.

---

You sound like Colonel Gadaffi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

You sound like Colonel Gadaffi.

---

Yeah... Hitler was a vegetarian and was against smoking. I am against smoking... so I sound like Hitler...?

I imagine Gadaffi also ordered a coffee, and so have I. The similarities just stack up.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I am against smoking...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

~:smoking:

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There was nobody inside. The 'attack' wasn't claimed

4

---

A population is divided into different categories of aggresiveness etc. Only a truly devout belief can change such levels of an individual, not a casual one.

I've "engaged" a few extremists in my time. But there is far more satisfaction in reducing their numbers by educationg their wives and children, like bringing a black girlfriend home to meet Great Grandpa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

A population is divided into different categories of aggresiveness etc. Only a truly devout belief can change such levels of an individual, not a casual one.

---

Ya sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yeah... Hitler was a vegetarian and was against smoking. I am against smoking... so I sound like Hitler...?

I imagine Gadaffi also ordered a coffee, and so have I. The similarities just stack up.

~:smoking:

---

Yeah you got me my point was that you support the massacre of Libyan civilians, and not that you share Gadaffi's well-known take on the sitation in Norn Iron which is not so much black and white as it is plain wrong.

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

---

Well to quote Tommy Tiernan "it wasn't the Mexicans" :clown:

Quote:

---

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

---

...Well we kinda did, several times, even back when we called ourselves Norman. We have been kicking the crud out of eachother since the 12th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Yeah you got me my point was that you support the massacre of Libyan civilians...

---

What foreigners do to themselves in their own ghastly country is none of my concern. I merely ask that they don't come over here and do it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

---

It is true, Rhy, notwithstanding the complex subsequent history.

What invasion are you all talking about? The Norman one? Because that is not in the slightest bit related to the (Provisional)IRA and their fight to free the "6 occupied counties".

I am just bemused at Rory talking about an "English" occupation when Ireland had only ever been incorporated into the British state, and the only population group the Irish are fighting against is a largely Scottish one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What foreigners do to themselves in their own ghastly country is none of my concern. I merely ask that they don't come over here and do it.

---

I share this sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I am just bemused at Rory talking about an "English" occupation when Ireland had only ever been incorporated into the British state, and the only population group the Irish are fighting against is a largely Scottish one.

---

English/British/whatever: when you're not on that island, what's the difference? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

What invasion are you all talking about? The Norman one? Because that is not in the slightest bit related to the (Provisional)IRA and their fight to free the "6 occupied counties".

---

Sophistry at best. rory actually wrote "with the IRA..." whereas you have tried a desperate save by adding (Provisional). Before the Provos, the IRA fought the occupation of the entire country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I am just bemused at Rory talking about an "English" occupation when Ireland had only ever been incorporated into the British state, and the only population group the Irish are fighting against is a largely Scottish one.

---

And I am bemused that you can perpetuate such an extraordinary claim. The history is certainly more complicated than just "Irish v English" but your contention here is comedic - but not untypical of loyalist apologists, especially those residing far-off in Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Sophistry at best. rory actually wrote "with the IRA..." whereas you have tried a desperate save by adding (Provisional). Before the Provos, the IRA fought the occupation of the entire country.



And I am bemused that you can perpetuate such an extraordinary claim. The history is certainly more complicated than just "Irish v English" but your contention here is comedic - but not untypical of loyalist apologists, especially those residing far-off in Scotland.

---

I think what Rhy is trying to express is that the modern IRA paint this grand narrative of the struggle against the invading English, when most of the people they have been fighting are Scots Gaels who originally left Ireland and then came back, albeit hundreds of years later. There is a certain inconsistancy to a narrative that claims such antiquity ignoring that fact.

However, I was referring to the much more recent struggle which had its roots in Catholic disenfranchisement in a Protestant-dominated government in Northern Ireland.

I don't even want to get started on the 1920's, where protestants fought in the IRA.

“Well he was involved in a best seller.” He didn’t write it himself. And it was printed after his death, after the gathering of his notes.

“Why should an imported religion be any different?” : Why should a religion be any different: Fixed for you.

“We should just chill out and respect others beliefs.” We should respect the Giant Flying Spaghetti (reformed Church of), the Jedi Cult and Father X-Mass (my grand-daughters are firm believers)? And why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Sophistry at best. rory actually wrote "with the IRA..." whereas you have tried a desperate save by adding (Provisional). Before the Provos, the IRA fought the occupation of the entire country.

---

complete bollox, I put Provisional in brackets because I presumed that's what Rory was talking about (since we were talking about the Gaddafi link) and I did it to distinguish them from the earlier IRA.

I did that because when people talk about the IRA they almost always mean the Provos, but IMO its not fair to tar the earlier version with the same brush.

I was not trying to make a "desperate save", of course the Norman invasion was every bit as irrelevant to the IRA of the 1920's as it was to the Provisionals from the 60's+.

Then again you probably know everything I just said above and were just a bit keen to score a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

And I am bemused that you can perpetuate such an extraordinary claim. The history is certainly more complicated than just "Irish v English" but your contention here is comedic - but not untypical of loyalist apologists, especially those residing far-off in Scotland.

---

"loyalist apologists". Ho frickin hum whats the point in even trying.

But at least tell me which of my claims were so "comedic". That Ireland was incorporated into a British state. Or that the modern loyalist population is largely of Scots descent.

As for being "far-off in Scotland", do you think I would have more of a right to comment on events in Ulster if I lived in the Republic?

EDIT: In fact Banquo, what about your Republican heroes like James Connolly, born and raised in Edinburgh? Guess they never knew what was going on?

Ulster loyalism/Irish republicanism is a lot more relevant today in (parts of) Scotland than 26 of your own islands counties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Etc etc

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIsTKpAoE4

Would you prefer the terms occupation and subjugation to invasion then??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Hmm, this is actually a less educated opinion than I'm used to hearing from you, PVC.

I wouldn't say that radical Muslims want to destroy western civilisation. When you look at the demographic background of radical Muslims, you'll find that they are mostly younger and well-educated (western-educated, in fact) with very little background in actual Islamic theology. I think you'll find that most of them don't even visit mosques regularly and typically engage in such western practices that they find so horrific (prostitution, gambling and drinking). Very upset about a lot of things, but not serious jihadis, really.

There are some few very sad misguided people amongst them, but they represent the smallest minority of a minority.

---

Maybe thats because they have a differant idea of what western civilisation is yes/no??? when you read there statements they have an awful lot to say in the them about the family and the womans place in it.

They look at all the freedoms from freedom of religion to the freedom of a womens body and see weakness, then they equate wearing jeans and eating burgers as West when in fact those are really just byproducts.

of course the big open secret is you cant hope to defeat the West unless you become more like them.

lol@ the video.

I am sorry I am angry gc, it is because of RL issues and Banquo's tone made me mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Would you prefer the terms occupation and subjugation to invasion then??

---

Sure there was a lot of that in Ireland's history, just as there were invasions. The question is how far was the PIRA's (and even the IRA's)campaign a direct response to those (and in particular, from "the English").

Was it in response to the 12th century Norman invasion? Hardly.

Was it in response to 16-19th century 'colonialism'. The Gaelic Irish no doubt were subjugated by an Anglo-Irish elite (that had nothing to do with the long-assimilated Normans, and were very much Anglo-Irish as opposed to English, as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms made clear), and yet so were the Presbyterian Scots settlers.

Was it in response to 20th century loyalist rule? Aye, now you're onto something, although once again it is not English oppression the Republicans are against. They have some grievances in terms of civil rights through an Irish-based institution in the NI Parliament, although mainly they are fighting a civil war because of their nationality.

And of course polite British society hates loyalists. Don't think Westminster would bat an eyelid about handing over the 6 counties to Dublin. There's a reason the first shootout the British army had in NI in the troubles wasn't with the IRA, but on the Shankill Road against loyalists.

We've always been bad at PR. When republicans supported the ANC in their imagery/rhetoric, we chose apartheid. When they chose Palestine, we chose Israel. When they chose the progressive left, we chose the reactionary right. Because that's just how we roll, yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

lol@ the video.

I am sorry I am angry gc, it is because of RL issues and Banquo's tone made me mad.

---

Well, I'm sorry for that, but I've heard enough twisting of history from both sides to last me a lifetime. This most recent post #56 is a good example of the current loyalist theme (amusingly similar to the paranoia of the nationalists thirty years back) whereas I can assure you, having been in the thick of the military aspect of the Troubles in the eighties, how powerful a lobby was that of Loyalism and how tenaciously London defended those interests. I even have a number of graves I can show you to prove it.

But nothing I say will convince you, and we are way off topic, so I shall bow out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“We should just chill out and respect others beliefs.” We should respect the Giant Flying Spaghetti (reformed Church of), the Jedi Cult and Father X-Mass (my grand-daughters are firm believers)? And why?

---

I would say for the same reason we should respect atheism.

Ridiculing religion should be legal of course, and I don't think anyone deserves to be bombed for it, but I don't think it's very constructive or helpful either.

Got us talking about it. See? It's constructive. And frankly, religion deserves to be ridiculed, especially the islam because it's the nuttiest one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Got us talking about it. See? It's constructive. And frankly, religion deserves to be ridiculed, especially the islam because it's the nuttiest one

---

If that were true then Atheism would deserve to be ignored, because Atheists, believing in nothing, would obviously have nothing to say.

Further, there are many, many "nuttier" or just plain nonsensical religions. Scientology and modern "Wicca" being top of my list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If that were true then Atheism would deserve to be ignored, because Atheists, believing in nothing, would obviously have nothing to say.

---

Not on the jubject of religion of course, is best not to ask my opinion