Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Idaho]

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.

Yeah but that's quite inconvenient, so can we just go back to picking and choosing from the good book?

[Pannonian]

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.

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

[Fragony]

How dare you state the oh so obvious

[Idaho]

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

[Fragony]

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

What errors are you refering to, I hope you don't mean what happened in Europe in WW2 but it would be of. But yes we should weather the storm and don't overeact.

[Pannonian]

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.

[Fragony]

What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.

Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicultural left is so dangerous. They will abandon theirworldview, they should be gently but firmly be escorted to their padded walls.

wtf did anyone expect

[Pannonian]

Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicu'tsrl left is so dangerous.

Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.

[Idaho]

What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.

I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.

My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.

I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.

[Fragony]

Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.

Resseting that to mostly, without saying anything myself, can you dismiss that a lot of areas in Europe are now no-go areas. Multicurtulism has always been a narcist dream of self-congratuling gutmenschen. Reality is now, it doesn't work.

[Idaho]

Resseting that to mostly, without saying anything myself, can you dismiss that a lot of areas in Europe are now no-go areas. Multicurtulism has always been a narcist dream of self-congratuling gutmenschen. Reality is now, it doesn't work.

Where are these "no go" areas? And who is it that can't go?

[Fragony]

Where are these "no go" areas? And who is it that can't go?

Ambulances, police. Can't is a shade too grey, but they avoid area's that are enriched with people with culture when they can. Ambulances refuse to go there unles they get police protection. You know that's true, don't pretend you don't know it. It isn't just England where there are self-acaimed sharia-police monitoring the street and people are just hostile, problem is everywhere where islam is.

[Gilrandir]

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.

[Pannonian]

I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.

My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.

I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.

So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?

[Idaho]

Ambulances, police. Can't is a shade too grey, but they avoid area's that are enriched with people with culture when they can. Ambulances refuse to go there unles they get police protection. You know that's true, don't pretend you don't know it. It isn't just England where there are self-acaimed sharia-police monitoring the street and people are just hostile, problem is everywhere where islam is.

Fact free post. Where are these places and who can't go. I want some basic factual support for this.

[Fragony]

This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.

But we should talk about books making people do things. And if we are wrong admit we are wrong

[Idaho]

So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?

So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.

[Greyblades]

Where are these places and who can't go. I want some basic factual support for this.

Seconded.

[Fragony]

So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.

Can I counter that by saying that a large chunk isn't interested in humanity? The gab is too big to take humanity for granted, man is wolf to man

[Pannonian]

So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.

What did you think of the reciprocal relations of the two blocs' governments during the Cold War? Did you think, at the time, that it was unreasonably restrictive on basic human rights? Or did you accept it as a fact of life? I'd like to know what your experience of it was. My own experience is that planes flying over the USSR expected to be shot down, so even transit across airspace wasn't allowed, let alone actual travel to and from these countries. I didn't think it was unreasonable then. The USSR could do whatever it liked with its borders.

[Idaho]

Difficult to know where to begin unpicking this.

Things can be "facts of life" and still be unjust.

Travel to the eastern bloc was certainly possible, and happened quite a bit.

What does that have to do with the current situation? We aren't talking about federations of nation states lining up in opposition. It would be clearer if we were, and perhaps that's your issue. You long for clarity and simplicity so that your clear and simple approaches make sense. You need to disavow yourself of this misunderstanding.

[Pannonian]

Difficult to know where to begin unpicking this.

Things can be "facts of life" and still be unjust.

Travel to the eastern bloc was certainly possible, and happened quite a bit.

What does that have to do with the current situation? We aren't talking about federations of nation states lining up in opposition. It would be clearer if we were, and perhaps that's your issue. You long for clarity and simplicity so that your clear and simple approaches make sense. You need to disavow yourself of this misunderstanding.

And you refuse to recognise a common fact that distinguishes between Muslims who don't cause trouble and Muslims who do. By your theoretical and philosophical arguments, you seek to mix the former with the latter, when the latter are easily and clearly distinguishable using existing methods. How would you define the latter? Or are you arguing that the latter does not exist?

BTW, I'm a frequent traveller on the east London railways, where the 2005 actual and attempted bombings took place, and where the recent stabbing took place. Unlike an Exeterian like you, I am familiar with the surroundings of Liverpool Street, Aldgate, The Oval, Leytonstone, etc. So if you want to talk about people not being affected, maybe you should be looking at yourself.

NB. I went to see the Lord's Test 2 days after the 7/7 bombings. 7/7 was, of course, the day that the Test started. People who went on the Thursday, if they hadn't been directly affected by the bombs, would have had to walk home from NW London (you do read the Standard, right?). For me, that would have meant 30-40 miles to the other end of the city.

BTW, were you around during the Cold War era? You seem to be only aware of the post-Cold War world, and you assume that the world now is the world that's always been.

[Idaho]

My background, which you know nothing about, is irrelevant. I would rather rebutt your arguments than attempt to measure our lifetime proximity to terror attacks or where I was during the cold war.

What is this "fact" that distinguishes violent from non violent Muslims?

[Pannonian]

My background, which you know nothing about, is irrelevant. I would rather rebutt your arguments than attempt to measure our lifetime proximity to terror attacks or where I was during the cold war.

I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.

I guess it's easy for Exeterian uber-liberals to preach philosophy from an ivory tower when they're not affected by how their philosophy works out in practice.

What is this "fact" that distinguishes violent from non violent Muslims?

Radicalisation. I await your definition of it.

[Idaho]

I've been doing this Internet bickering thing for over 20 years. I can't be provoked that easily. I'll stick to actually discussing the issue and steer clear of the inaccurate and desperate ad hominem.

You still haven't been clear on the fact that differentiates violent and non violent Muslims. Saying "radicalisation" doesn't give any further illumination.

[AE Bravo]

You seem a bit detached from your fellow Brits who happen to be Muslim. Don't you know that a lot of them feel obligated to go to Saudi Arabia for religious reasons at some point?

You'd be exiling most ordinary Muslims based on your logic that the religious ones are the problem.

[Pannonian]

I've been doing this Internet bickering thing for over 20 years. I can't be provoked that easily. I'll stick to actually discussing the issue and steer clear of the inaccurate and desperate ad hominem.

You still haven't been clear on the fact that differentiates violent and non violent Muslims. Saying "radicalisation" doesn't give any further illumination.

Illumination doesn't work when the other party persists in pinching out the light. I've already given an effective definition using methods available to us.

You seem a bit detached from your fellow Brits who happen to be Muslim. Don't you know that a lot of them feel obligated to go to Saudi Arabia for religious reasons at some point?

You'd be exiling most ordinary Muslims based on your logic that the religious ones are the problem.

That's their problem with their religion. If they can't redefine their culture into one that fits with the dominant British culture, which has been remarkably undemanding to the point where nearly anyone and their dog can make the mark, then they can leave of their own accord, since that's the definition I can see working. If they don't want to leave, then I see no problem with them, as they've obviously opted to throw in their lot with Britain. People who throw in their lot with Britain's liberal humanist society don't tend to want to blow innocents up on the streets of London (or indeed under them).

[AE Bravo]

How does pilgrimage not make them fit for british culture?

[Pannonian]

How does pilgrimage not make them fit for british culture?

They go to countries that are notable for producing radicals who return to Britain and other countries to cause trouble. Christianity has dropped the idea of pilgrimage. Maybe British Muslims should think about that too. There are many beautiful places in the world that are untainted by extremist Islamism that they can travel to instead.

[Papewaio]

Better stop Catholics and Protestants traveling to Northern Ireland then...