Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people."
I got a sadistic touch, I am amused by that as well. The multicultural left dived on this like a pack of starved hyena's and they now kinda look like the idiots we know they are for making so much noise. Got to love desperation.
HoreTore 00:52 03-25-2012
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Good for you, Nasser is an Egyptian by the way
Seriously?
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people."
Well crap! So Germany is invading France again!?!?
"I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people." Do you mean, "like the Norvegian one"? Because no body accused the Christianity for his murders... And he was much more efficient than the Islamic lunatic we've got in France...
Originally Posted by :
The multicultural left dived on this like a pack of starved hyena's and they now kinda look like the idiots we know they are for making so much noise
Reread the first couple of pages of the Anders Behring Breivik page. I remember something completely different.
Not so smug now, are you?
The anecdotal evidence tells us that only angst filled white kids commit school shootings. Must be all that Green Day and Skrillex them kids be subscribed to.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Reread the first couple of pages of the Anders Behring Breivik page. I remember something completely different.
Not so smug now, are you?
Find me the post where I assume anything there. Sorry, no soup for you
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
The anecdotal evidence tells us that only angst filled white kids commit school shootings. Must be all that Green Day and Skrillex them kids be subscribed to.
Virginia-tech? No soup for you either
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Virginia-tech? No soup for you either
Didn't you hear? That was the video games fault. Jack Thompson said so.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Didn't you hear? That was the video games fault. Jack Thompson said so.
But that makes total sense, an Asian could have lost a game Starcraft.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
But that makes total sense, an Asian Korean could have lost a game Starcraft.
Fixed that for you.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Reread the first couple of pages of the Anders Behring Breivik page. I remember something completely different.
Not so smug now, are you?
Breivk's MO was "international terror" and it has been years since an indiginous terrorist committed acts in his own country, excepting Northern Ireland sadly.
So the "Al-Qeida" angle was perfectly logical for that point of view, I remember little "crowing" at the time, though there was an attitude of "well, another one."
The reaction to the French shooting was "Look, this is what happens when politicians get Xenophobic, Sarkozy is responsible for his recent rhetoric". Certainly, the Guardian here ran pieces to that effect and and I have no doubt the French left-leaning press were even more forthright. The fact is though, they were wrong and Sarko looks right.
Brievik is shown to be an anomoly, an aboration, and the reasuring narrative of fear is restored.
To be fair to both sides, the MO was more IRA to Red Terror than Jihadist, but it was always more likely to be a Muslim overall and the fact that the Left jumped the gun serves them right.
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
The French Left said it did, because they wanted to blame Sarkozy for what they saw as his "lurch to the right" - now he benefits from their haste.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
I think we need an Algerian right-wing terrorist to bring balance to the universe.
Originally Posted by Viking:
I think we need an Algerian right-wing terrorist to bring balance to the universe.
Nah, we need a Communist South American one to "balance" things.
gaelic cowboy 19:42 03-25-2012
Originally Posted by Husar:
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
Yea it does the didn't the Spanish government get thrown out of office for trying to lay the Madrid bombing on ETA instead of manning up and admitting that AQ had attacked Spain.
gaelic cowboy 19:52 03-25-2012
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
To be fair to both sides, the MO was more IRA to Red Terror than Jihadist
Actually if you think about it lately this MO is
THE tactic of AQ inspired people lately, it's like AQ franchising if you will lone wolves or small isolated groups with no large network that can be intercepted.
And lets remember that much of the IRA/Red Terror MO was learned in the training camps in the middle east back in the day, to me it makes sense this tactic would resurface due to increased surveilence of AQ.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The French Left said it did, because they wanted to blame Sarkozy for what they saw as his "lurch to the right" - now he benefits from their haste.
And they are now predictably morally and intellectually superior in absolute silence. Except for a persistant French teacher who knew, for a fact, that it simply wasn't true, and demanded a minute of silence from her shocked class for the REAL victim. She has been suspended. Got to love lefties for always getting it all wrong
“The French Left said it did, because they wanted to blame Sarkozy for what they saw as his "lurch to the right" - now he benefits from their haste.”
No one from the French left said this. The one who spoke about the racist campaign from Sarkozy to regain on Le Pen was the Christian Democrat François Bayrou, far to be leftist this one. Marine Le Pen is trying desperately to gain on her alleged “victimisation” of her movement but is failing, as Sarkozy.
Sarkozy because he is the guy who was Minister of Interior and the President who cut in the police forces and the Interior Intelligence, and Le Pen because 2 of the 3 French soldiers were Muslim…
Sakoleon is at the end of the road.
Le Pen was crushed during a debate with the Leftist Jen Luc Mélenchon when she refused to answer to him. She is now trying a comeback thanks to this murder but her game is over, even if she greatly helped by the media. Sarkozy needs her as guard dog to push the leftist out of the game. But like a good doggy, she will go to the niche when she will have done her job. Well, that was the plan, and it failed.
I, for instance, will not vote for the so-called Socialist François Hollande. This guy has no programme, no spine and no bones. A future Papandreou, and we don’t need an Hollandreou. Sakozy sold France to the Troika, and only somebody with temper and pride can face their demands.
The Red is back on our flag.
Que se vayan todos.
And by the way, the French are more concern by unemployment, pension and low salaries than by a stupid murderer. Even with the media that try to convice them that they are.
Greyblades 20:23 03-26-2012
Originally Posted by :
And by the way, the French are more concern by unemployment, pension and low salaries than by a stupid murderer. Even with the media that try to convice them that they are.
[pretentious latin] Vita perseverat [/pretentious latin]
You must be reading other stuff Brenus, of course politicians are more cautious. Look at the purpose of this threat for example, it was initially started because of the euphoria over it not being a muslim for a change, or as labour putted it 'rubbing diversity in the noses of the right'. But the left simply got it all wrong, islam is a cancer not an enrichment, and the leftist multicultural religion could suck skippyballs through straw, it sucks that badly
Originally Posted by Fragony:
...islam is a cancer not an enrichment, and the leftist multicultural religion could suck skippyballs through straw, it sucks that badly...
Indeed. I just find it surprising that in this day and age this is not obvious everyone. The acts of both islamist governments and islamist terrorists over the course of the last fifteen years have been pretty convincing as to what their nature is and what their goals are.
Kralizec 14:39 03-27-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
Sure it is. A lot of its laws are based on sharia, especially when it comes to family law, women's rights, religious freedom, etc.
Just quoted this bit because of the point I'm about to make. That Algeria's family law has islamic influences is to be expected, and this is the case for most countries with (largely) muslim populations. Family law is an area that tends to incorporate lots of religious and cultural influences, outright or subtle. This is also the case in the christian west, allthough probably to a lesser degree.
It certainly isn't secular in any sense of the word, and I find Sharia law to be abhorrent, but I'd still hesitate calling the Algerian government islamist. First and foremost it's a military dictatorship, whose regime has fought a long and bloody civil war against actual islamists. That there are islam-influenced laws on the books in Algeria is just local flavour, and not central to the regime's character, IMO.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
It certainly isn't secular in any sense of the word, and I find Sharia law to be abhorrent, but I'd still hesitate calling the Algerian government islamist...
Can it be both non-secular and non-theocratic? I do not doubt that things can get worse though (i.e. like they are in Saudi Arabia), but the way things are right now is already bad enough imho. How islamist does it have to be in order to qualify as such?
To be fair, institution of sharia in one or another form is not a fundamental aspect of an Islamic or Islamist state. Let's be serious here.
Originally Posted by Hax:
To be fair, institution of sharia in one or another form is not a fundamental aspect of an Islamic or Islamist state. Let's be serious here.
Can you name an islamic or islamist state that has not implemented sharia into its legal code?
You misunderstand me; what I meant to say that the implementation of shari‘a law is not the only aspect of an Islamic state.
I think you really have to define what you mean with Islamist of Islamic here. It gets really murky.
EDIT: To define my position somewhat: A state can be secular, yet have an Islamist government. When you look at recent events in Tunsia, which is in many cases quite secularised but is currently led by a Islamist-leaning cabinet with an Islamist prime minister but has a liberal-secular president. Would you call Tunisia an Islamic state?
Another example is Turkey: heavily secularised, but currently being led by an Islamist government. Still, I don't think there's anyone who thinks Erdogan is the president of an Islamic state.
Algeria, strangely enough, has no such things. Islamist parties are barred from running in elections, the Algerian government has fought an incredibly bloody war against supposed Islamists and there is no presence of Islamists in the government right now. And yet, you'd say Algeria has an Islamist government? I don't think that opinion has any basis in reality.
HoreTore 15:23 03-27-2012
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
Just quoted this bit because of the point I'm about to make. That Algeria's family law has islamic influences is to be expected, and this is the case for most countries with (largely) muslim populations. Family law is an area that tends to incorporate lots of religious and cultural influences, outright or subtle. This is also the case in the christian west, allthough probably to a lesser degree.
It certainly isn't secular in any sense of the word, and I find Sharia law to be abhorrent, but I'd still hesitate calling the Algerian government islamist. First and foremost it's a military dictatorship, whose regime has fought a long and bloody civil war against actual islamists. That there are islam-influenced laws on the books in Algeria is just local flavour, and not central to the regime's character, IMO.
Indeed. Saddam's laws(after the mid-80's change) wasn't very different from Algerias laws, yet calling Saddam an islamist is just nonsense.
Kralizec 15:26 03-27-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
Can it be both non-secular and non-theocratic? I do not doubt that things can get worse though (i.e. like they are in Saudi Arabia), but the way things are right now is already bad enough imho. How islamist does it have to be in order to qualify as such?
I really don't know much about Algeria; except that it became independant from France and some years later became embroiled in a civil war between the government and various islamic groups, with extreme atrocities. From the little that I know, I'm saying that the regime, at its core, does not adhere to an islamic ideology. Neither is it seriously dedicated to secularism or "enlightenment". The islamic influences on their legal system are to be expected because it's population is islamic and not particulary modern. That's why I called it "local flavour".
And yes, a country can be non-secular without being a theocracy. The UK, the nordic countries and probably others all have state churches.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO