Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Husar]

Then it's the duty of the supposed majority to assert themselves.

Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?
Also see below, if you accept no group blame, why should they? Why do immigrants have more group responsibility than natives?
If you are so proud of our values, individual responsibility and same rights for all are good ones to start with.

Why should I feel guilty about their so called less than warm welcomes, and why should I accommodate their subsequent turn to violence?

Wooow, wrong connection. I meant the less than warm welcomes may hinder stronger integration of the more normal muslims, not that they excuse all violence or even terrorism. And if you see no need to feel bad for it, why should moderate muslims feel bad for islamist terrorism?

And as for giving up religion being a hard thing for these second generationers: from childhood they were brought up to be British.

Were they? Or were their families placed near other immigrant families because noone British wanted them and they basically grew up in Little Arabia? Do employers accept them as British or are they less likely to hire them?

Why was this easier to give up than a religion that they had to actively, to the point of leaving this country, pursue? IIRC at least one of these militants disgusted his father, someone who actually moved to this country and regarded himself as British through and through. His father disowned him as a traitor to the country that raised him.

Good for the father, or maybe bad after all. What is this anecdote supposed to tell me? Should I want the father to be thrown out of Britain now for being muslim and not fitting in? Did I say anywhere that all muslims in Britain are cute innocent little puppies and this proves me wrong? Are you saying sometimes young people do really stupid things and listen to the wrong people? Do you think British people protesting in streets and parliaments saying muslims have no place in Britain helped the young muslim guy listen to islamists telling him that the kuffar hate him for what he is or do you think it made it harder for him to betray Britain?

[Fragony]

Man Fragony, I'm fully with you on the don't let them impose their values on us, but the way you talk about it it usually sounds like you see a few pictures with five meanies and then you immediately want to throw all the families out with the dishwasher. When I hear of families that came here as refugees and built mafia structures, threatening judges and police etc., I wish the government would drive tanks through their homes and send them back to where they came from tomorrow. But I would never extend that to all refugees or think we can expect them to have a 180° change of mind just because they had to flee a place..

You forgot gassing them all, get your reactionary right. But most aren't real refugees. Christians gays and women aren't safe in these centres, gays and women and christians are to be relocated away from people with culture, all these brain-surgeons ICT-experts and rocket-scientists keep the police from doing their job, they are too busy with 'refugees'. So yeah, a real refugee leaves his problems behind, they are timid not demanding. As some are. They even complain about not having a flatsscreen and the wifi is too slow. owwwwwwww they don't even get the food they eat at home

[Fisherking]

Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?

Have you ever seen a headline, NRA Member Shoots Up School. That is because it hasn't happened. Why do you assume the NRA is a whites only organisation? Why must they apologise for the actions of nonmembers? Do you apologise every time a white guy does something insane and illegal?

It is only a political interest group, focused on one issue. The right to keep and bare arms. Its membership is about 5 million. Less than 2% of the population. It would not be an obstacle to legislation were it not for the fact that very many nonmembers also hold that right near and dear.

[Pannonian]

Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?
Also see below, if you accept no group blame, why should they? Why do immigrants have more group responsibility than natives?
If you are so proud of our values, individual responsibility and same rights for all are good ones to start with.

Wooow, wrong connection. I meant the less than warm welcomes may hinder stronger integration of the more normal muslims, not that they excuse all violence or even terrorism. And if you see no need to feel bad for it, why should moderate muslims feel bad for islamist terrorism?

Were they? Or were their families placed near other immigrant families because noone British wanted them and they basically grew up in Little Arabia? Do employers accept them as British or are they less likely to hire them?

Good for the father, or maybe bad after all. What is this anecdote supposed to tell me? Should I want the father to be thrown out of Britain now for being muslim and not fitting in? Did I say anywhere that all muslims in Britain are cute innocent little puppies and this proves me wrong? Are you saying sometimes young people do really stupid things and listen to the wrong people? Do you think British people protesting in streets and parliaments saying muslims have no place in Britain helped the young muslim guy listen to islamists telling him that the kuffar hate him for what he is or do you think it made it harder for him to betray Britain?

So we should throw out anecdotes because they're anecdotes, in favour of philosophical theorising from a distance away that's based on nothing but your theories of how things should work. Do they build particularly high ivory towers in Germany or something?

What the anecdote shows is that there is an alternative to radicalisation, which you'd argued was an inevitable consequence of a welcome for Muslims that's been less warm that you would term adequate. The father himself didn't feel the welcome the country gave him to be unreasonably cold, and he's thrown himself into the identity of being British. Yet his son went down the radicalisation route, despite being raised from childhood by the state (and whatever your opinion of UK vs Germany, the British state helps a lot more with child rearing that the states that these people come from).

Your every post argues that Britain is in some way lacking that has produced all these radicals. Yet nearly every one of these radicals has been through a radicalisation process in the hotspots that I talked about. Those who don't go to find their identity in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. don't cause problems. They integrate well with the general dominant culture. Those who go to find their identity in these places are usually the troublemakers.

[Gilrandir]

That doesn't say that Christianity/Judaism cannot tolerate the existence of other religions, it says they cant tolerate any of it's own members following a second religion simultaneously.

... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.

@Gilrandir , I am not here to defend Christianity or any other religion. All I am telling you is that no other religion I know of is at war with every other religion on earth.

So far as I know, that distinction belongs to Islam and only to Islam.

I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.

[Greyblades]

Because the only way there leads through Jesus and not through saints. By praying to them you turn them into little side-gods but the first of the ten commandments says you shall have no gods next to God.
Include all the idolatry and stuff and it really gets a bit much to the point where some catholics worship them almost more than God.
Of course not all catholics are the same, some may even be better catholics than others.

Prayer isnt worship it's communication to those in heaven. It can be used as an avenue of worship but praying to a saint for guidance doesnt automatically make them a mini god, it certainly doesnt get you banned from heaven.

... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.

...but they do not tell the worshippers of Yahweh to kill or forcably convert the non believers: kind of my point.

[Gilrandir]

...but they do not tell the worshippers of Yahweh to kill or forcably convert the non believers: kind of my point.

I don't know the Bible well enough to claim the opposite, but perhaps they do. Anyway, on condition of a biased reading it may be interpreted the way you suggest. And it was, not once. My point was that one shouldn't take any words in the holy texts as direct or indirect guidance to action.

[Fragony]

... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.



I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.

Bible: did this
Quran: do this

Don't like either but the difference isn't that hard to grasp

[Fisherking]

I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.

If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.

Were it only the minority beliefs of a few within the whole of the religion it would not be terribly alarming. It is primarily one branch of Islam, the Sunni, but not completely limited to them. However, some 940 million of the estimated 1 billion Muslims are adherents to this branch of Islam and of the Sunnah.

All branches seek the imposition of Sharia Law universally.

We prefer to ignore studies showing 23 to 25% of Muslims have been radicalised. I guess it makes us feel better to think that it is only a tiny percentage. Even so, one percent of a billion is 10 million. Let us say that only 5% would sympathise with the 1%. That is only another 50 million who would harbour or protect the most militants.

While I think if left in isolation within Muslim Nations this movement may play its self out but the active importation into Europe, in the name of Multiculturalism, is political, if not actual suicide for western civilisation.

[Fragony]

If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.

Were it only the minority beliefs of a few within the whole of the religion it would not be terribly alarming. It is primarily one branch of Islam, the Sunni, but not completely limited to them. However, some 940 million of the estimated 1 billion Muslims are adherents to this branch of Islam and of the Sunnah.

All branches seek the imposition of Sharia Law universally.

We prefer to ignore studies showing 23 to 25% of Muslims have been radicalised. I guess it makes us feel better to think that it is only a tiny percentage. Even so, one percent of a billion is 10 million. Let us say that only 5% would sympathise with the 1%. That is only another 50 million who would harbour or protect the most militants.

While I think if left in isolation within Muslim Nations this movement may play its self out but the active importation into Europe, in the name of Multiculturalism, is political, if not actual suicide for western civilisation.

I woudn't look too far into that, if you ask an devout muslim if he wwould prefer islamimic law and he says yes it can also only mean that he would prefer it. Prefering it is ok, imposing is not.People tend to forget that ordinary muslims are terrified of these guys.

[Husar]

Do you apologise every time a white guy does something insane and illegal?

Yes, because the majority has to assert itself. I usually start on Instagram, then go via Twitter before I call Infowars live.

What the anecdote shows is that there is an alternative to radicalisation, which you'd argued was an inevitable consequence of a welcome for Muslims that's been less warm that you would term adequate.

Exactly, my argument was that ALL white British people are horrible creatures and that is why ALL muslims are radicals, that is why I said inevitable and totally excusable. I'm glad we agree.

Your every post argues that Britain is in some way lacking that has produced all these radicals. Yet nearly every one of these radicals has been through a radicalisation process in the hotspots that I talked about. Those who don't go to find their identity in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. don't cause problems. They integrate well with the general dominant culture. Those who go to find their identity in these places are usually the troublemakers.

I was always a supporter of the idea of an inferior Britain, you really should have joined Hitler during the war. Would you ever mind explaining why the ones who do not want to cut our heads off have to apologize for the others or get thrown out of the country?

I'm glad that you noticed how I silently steered the discussion towards one about Britain to show its inferiority and that you saw how I apologized for terrorists.
@Fragony: I want gas chambers only for white people because of their inherent guilt.

[Graphic]

The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!

Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920

[CrossLOPER]

The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!

Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920

That's just your "narrative".

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!

Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920

Society in general was a lot harsher to people who didn't assimilate. Just because they did assimilate does not mean in general all types will assimilate. Your logic is terrible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Society in general was a lot harsher to people who didn't assimilate. Just because they did assimilate does not mean in general all types will assimilate. Your logic is terrible.

If you make people miserable and take away their ability to fight back they will assimilate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you make people miserable and take away their ability to fight back they will assimilate.

What's your point?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's your point?

America forced people to assimilate, pretty brutally at times, and now it doesn't.

My point is that it has less to do with the incoming group and more to do with the society they come into.

Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

America forced people to assimilate, pretty brutally at times, and now it doesn't.

My point is that it has less to do with the incoming group and more to do with the society they come into.

Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes.

Ahh ok. Well, I agree with everything you just said. I think that since we do not behave the same way that we did back in the 1920s, it is bad reasoning to assume that new immigrants will be as receptive to assimilation as those in previous eras.

I'm curious on your thoughts regarding the recent London stabbings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ahh ok. Well, I agree with everything you just said. I think that since we do not behave the same way that we did back in the 1920s, it is bad reasoning to assume that new immigrants will be as receptive to assimilation as those in previous eras.

I'm curious on your thoughts regarding the recent London stabbings.

London stabbings?

Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?

I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.

I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.

[a completely inoffensive name]

London stabbings?

Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?

I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.

I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.

Thanks, that's good for me to hear (not the fact that there are frequent stabbings, but you understand what I am saying). It was blowing up in my news feed and I have been getting more critical about how "newsworthy" these type of events are.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thanks, that's good for me to hear (not the fact that there are frequent stabbings, but you understand what I am saying). It was blowing up in my news feed and I have been getting more critical about how "newsworthy" these type of events are.

It's newsworthy that he mentioned Syria and so people are saying "terrorism" but stabbings in London are no longer shocking.

[Fragony]

London stabbings?

Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?

I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.

I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.

Slitting someones throat with a machette normal? Nah this is not your ordinary stabbing

[Brenus]

"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.

[Fragony]

non-islamapoligists call it dhimmitude for a reason

[Gilrandir]

Bible: did this
Quran: do this

Don't like either but the difference isn't that hard to grasp

I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:

Leviticus 20

Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,

2 “Say to the Israelites:

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”

Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.

If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.

Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.

"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.

Perhaps it was true of later epochs, but at the time of the First Crusade the Cristians of Outremer were not molested by the Muslims and many of them OPPOSED the crusaders.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.

No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law. Under the Arabs Christians and Jews were afforded limited rights and were required to pay additional taxes. The situation was roughly similar to the one Gentiles were in during the early Roman Empire. Christians and Jews were not "sub humans" but nor were they citizens, being outside the Islamic community. Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law.

Now, under the Ottoman Turks the situation was very different and, frankly, all non-Turks were abused to a degree up until the late 18th century, I think.

I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:

Leviticus 20

Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,

2 “Say to the Israelites:

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”

Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.

Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.

Ignorenta Sacerdoti are responsible for most of the ill in the world. If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.

Of course, that only applies to Christians.

[Brenus]

"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.

"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.

Well, that's a matter of opinion - but my point is still valid because the Ottoman Empire presided over territory that had already undergone Islamisation under the Arabs.

Anyway, why are you arguing about this? You're just saying the same thing as me, but a bit more extreme.

"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...

You are familiar with the concept of citizenship - we are a bit nicer about things today but the fact remain that if you aren't a part of the polity you aren't entitled to a say in how the country is run. Our law courts are more even handed because over the last two centuries the countries of the world have developed reciprocal arrangements.

Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people.

[Brenus]

"Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people." Certainly, but a lot of people were not people in Rome or under Germanic Law, this was not reserved to the Christian... Note that when the Christians took power, first it was thanks to a military victory, not really by conversions, then the Pagans became the sub-humans and were persecuted, under the same laws they kept from the Roman Empire...
Times were like this, and it is not about blame games... The reality is/was that all powers tend to impose their rules, and my point was not to paint it in too rosy colours...

[Gilrandir]

If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.