Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

Since when has anyone of us said those people are no threat? But seriously, you have a bigger chance, as European, to die in some car accident or from a simple flue than getting bombed by Islamic terrorists. Why not keep the hysteria at least somewhat on a reasonable level.

You guys simply dont like the Islam. That is all.
 
naossano said:
Sander said:
It's a response to the generalized fear of Muslims in general in Europe, the idea that Muslims pose an inherent threat to European society as a whole. They don't, really -- or at least not in a comparative sense.
Click to expand...

There is not enough terrorist to outright invade Europe and kill everyone, but it doesn't mean they aren't a threat, as every casual European could fear for his life.
And many many muslims are opposed to those radical islamist, in France and in many muslim countries.
Click to expand...
I can fear for my life every time I step on my bike to go somewhere. That'd be a far more rational fear than the generalized fear of Islamic terrorist attacks, which has turned into a generalized fear of Muslims in many parts of Europe.

Crni is correct: this fetishizing of Islamic violence is completely irrational.
 
My purpose was to attack journalistic integrity and truthfulness of the article, not really join the actual debate. I know, I have little chance of dying in a Muslim attack. That goes double for me, since I live in Poland. I simply pointed out that even according to the report they cited, the threat Muslim terrorists pose is much larger than the article says.

With that out of the way, I'm going to focus on something important for once (to keep the hysteria down). Celebrating the Majestic Gore Bag gets kind of hard when you realise that:
1. There is few Gore Bags made IRL and posted on the Internet. Even if there were, they were probably illegal (well, it's possible to make an animal Gore Bag, but without the human element, what's the point?)
2. Even if there were any, posting pictures of an open one (when it's closed, I could have a bag of laundry smeared with ketchup) here would likely piss off a lot of people and get me in trouble
3. Since murder, corpse desecration and mutilation are banned by law in Poland (imagine that), there is no chance of me making my own.
Make no mistake though, I still see the glory of the Magnificent Gore Bag. Technically we are all Gore Bags though, so I'm gonna post this:
frontman.jpg
The photo shows just the content of the Gore Bag, without the Bag itself. The Bag is exclusive skinlike material that does a great job protecting the Gore, keeping it warm and preventing it from going dry. Comes with a special bonus: does not decompose if provided with air, food and water. Well, not forever, but nobody's perfect.

EDIT: Congrats, Hassknecht. Now go 10 posts back and see Sander's post from a page ago.
 
Last edited:
yeah well, no one forced you to engange in this discussion. We are talking about terrorist attacks in france, so the Islam and its role in Europe will be obviously a topic.
 
Well I for one think Swedes are an imminent threat to Europe. I do get to hate them, right? Or are ya'll going to stop me from doing so because ya'll are so P.C., and stuff?
 
Hate who you want. Just don't expect people to treat you with kiddie gloves when you're being retarded.
 
Look, Swedes (and Norwegians) were Vikings once. Do you know what they are responsible for? That could happen again. I'm just in favour of a pre-emptive strike, that's all.

Anyway, good link to that Daily Beast - article. I'm enjoying reading it. Thanks Hassknecht.
 
Crni Vuk said:
yeah well, no one forced you to engange in this discussion. We are talking about terrorist attacks in france, so the Islam and its role in Europe will be obviously a topic.
Click to expand...

Not really. As said earlier, many muslim are agains't those terrorist. Some muslims were victims of the attacks. Some muslims also actively fight agains't RADICAL Islam. That, not only in France, but also North Africa & Middle-East, in which the population is muslim. And yet, they are at war agains't those guys.
 
naossano said:
Some muslims also actively fight agains't RADICAL Islam.
Click to expand...
And vice versa. For instance, those crazy extremists from Taliban don't consider followers of Shia denomination to be muslims at all! Despite the fact that Shiites are the second largest branch of Islam in the world, so we really shouldn't generalize here.
 
naossano said:
Crni Vuk said:
yeah well, no one forced you to engange in this discussion. We are talking about terrorist attacks in france, so the Islam and its role in Europe will be obviously a topic.
Click to expand...

Not really. As said earlier, many muslim are agains't those terrorist. Some muslims were victims of the attacks. Some muslims also actively fight agains't RADICAL Islam. That, not only in France, but also North Africa & Middle-East, in which the population is muslim. And yet, they are at war agains't those guys.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said talking about it, not to blame it or creating a hysteria and thinking about the Islam as the biggest threat to Europe after Hitler.

There is a difference between criticism and irrational fear which leads only to more violance in the end. Though if we talk about the Islam, or really any religion than we can not simply ignore the extremists. They do exist in Europe, that is afterall a fact. And we have to find ways how to deal with it. I just believe that Europe is facing a much bigger threat with the growing right wing groups, particularly as some of them get back in to politics, at least in some European nations. They have a lot more followers and supporters than any Islamic group in Europe.
 
am starting to think a lot of people dont actually understand the nuances inherent in the current global socio-political sphere, and their far reaching impacts. here is going to be a long rant, completely unsourced ( hai sanderzz! ), but true nonetheless.

the original reason for invading afghanistan and iraq... it was to protect and legitimize Wilson's dream.

oil? that was a lie that was sold to haliburton. they figured it out way too late though, they really should have listened to hans blix.

WMDs? that was a half-truth sold to the people. yes iraq had them, no they were not effective beyond 100 miles. they didnt really have any of the big threats, just the small ones. really barely a threat to israel.

the true reason was to defend and protect Wilson's dream due to the current incarnation being completely useless and ignored by everyone who was a "target" of it. it had zero bite to it. and it was arguably actually encouraging what it was supposed to be stopping! a complete and utter failure of execution.


afghanistan was a 2 part proxy war. it served 2 purposes.

1) give russia a black eye

afghanistan has always been a thorn in russias side since the 70s, and US peripheral involvement in the 80s and 90s did nothing to actually help the country move into "modern civilization" but rather to keep giving russia a black eye. ultimately pointless because the US was never willing to actually go the distance to help them, mostly because there wouldnt ever be any public support for it. by the time we actually did go in there, the "enemy" was way too deeply entrenched to be disposed. they would always have returned back to the life they had known for 30-50 years. its all they knew!

2) give islam a black eye

by deposing and removing the old muslim guard in charge of the country and try to replace it with a "modern government" to prove that it could work and sustain itself, it would be seen as a huge loss to current islamic spread. effectively islamic spread is the new truman doctrine.


Islamic Spread:
the problem is that people participating in islamic spread are not doing so under a countries banner, but under a religious banner, and most western states have protections for religious institutions. the issue is that islam is not very compatible with western thoughts and ideals, in fact on many points it goes against them. so how do you deal effectively with islamic spread given western ideals?

yet again we fall back to the proxy war scenario. that is what western militaries know, and they know it well.

climate change proponents say we need to change over to renewable sources of energy/power, and politicians wanting to appease them go along and give tax breaks and credits to those who change to new methods. the military sees this and looks at ethanol and bio-disel and sees the true global impact these technologies will have. so they start a campaign to seem "reasonable" and hip with the new crowd and adopt ethanol and bio-disel technologies into their domestic plan. of course this has the hugely adverse effect of impacting basic food costs such as corn and other grains food prices which are subsidized in the US, but on the global market causes food prices to skyrocket.

now western countries have remarkably stable food prices, the problem becomes the countries that do NOT have those stable food prices. this has a direct impact of not only the military adopting limited forays into this, but also the public adoption of these grossly inferior technological solutions which causes....

enter: the arab spring

most muslim cities in the middle east are known to be relatively stable and slowly shifting to western thoughts/ideals away from core islamic tenants. these "terrorist groups" do not gather and make their headquarters in the main big cities, they do so in the rural areas. and like most countries/states, the rural areas tend to have greater numbers of people than the few larger cities which acts as a buffer from those states/countries from turning too far away from their islamic roots.

see: egypt/afghanistan/libya/syria

in egypt the conservative muslim population tries to advocate destruction of their historical monuments such as the pyramids/sphynx/icons as detracting from muslim ideals and maintains enough of a voting bloc to prevent much change

afghanistan has enough people that all they know is the old islamic order that likes things the way they were to prevent rapid change and "modernization" of their country


meanwhile iran builds up their infrastructure and announces plans to build a nuclear power plant and amid claims of equality with other nations tells them they have a right to build it. which of course they do have that right. this causes fear because nuclear power plants can be used to enrich nuclear material for nuclear/atomic bombs. then their leader turns to the conservative muslim population saying the people of israel needs to be driven into the sea. of course he could never actually USE these WMDs on the main city jeruselem because that is also a holy site to the followers of islam because islam is an abrahamic religion which means jewish holy sites are also islamic holy sites. but they could be used against outlying areas. but that would be a problem because using those weapons on the outlying areas of israel could pose the problem of contaminating the holy sites making them useless. so we see yet more and more posturing in attempt to appease his conservative islamic people.

so what does the "islamic states" do? THEY engage in proxy wars by backing the palestinians against the jews in israel meanwhile denying them the ability to relocate into their states to form their own little state inside another country because that would not help them. they want an israel constantly under threat of violence to create the situation where both sides of Hamas and Moussad doing violent and deadly attacks against each other so both sides have atrocities to hold up to support their backing of their chosen horse in this proxy war of "islam vs the west"


and of course all of this leads back to...

Wilson's dream which is made irrelevant through toothless inaction for the very thing it was designed to do. coordinated action both politically and militarily to act as a world police.

so what happens? the EU forms and changes their immigration rules and laws in attempt to solve some of their cooperative issues. the biggest problem is the loophole historically known as "the right of free passage" which is a core tenant of western countries but when applied to the EU leads to a huge problem as countries exploit this loophole in attempt to seem progressive and inclusive and doing something about world issues such as political and war torn area refugees. which is exacerbated by the collective free passage ideal.

country F allows 100 people from sierra leone to immigrate, then once they are immigrated and granted residence, they utilize free passage to go to country G. of course since they left country F, that country then subtracts 100 from their yearly quota so allows another 100 in to make up for that "loss" that now country G has to account for.

now given that in the past country G has maybe taken in 10 a year, now they have 100. sure they may allow a max of only 100, but now they are hitting their yearly maximums.

so what happens? with these muslim and other war torn immigrants not used to how it is in a developed modern western country, a minority population of those immigrants commits crime. this turns into a problem because the increased crime stats lends credence to maybe this not being a great idea. it comes to such a head in the smaller population states that it leads to accusations of racism and such against countries crime reporting bureaus that they omit the race to hide the problem. rather than dealing with the core problem of having to buffer these immigrants to assist in their assimilation. and because of the time proven habit of people to group together those that are similar to you, there becomes immigrant "cities" within the established structure. whenever you have immigration faster than assimilation, you always end up with these "cities".

see: china town, korea town, etc. usually easily observable by finding "ethic" grocery stores.


ugh, i ran out of time writing this up, later i shall make another post relating this huge fucking WALL-O-TEXT to how it impacts western/european countries. stay tuned!
 
All extremism is dangerous. This is especially the case for religious extremism and even more so when the religion in question is expansionist and intolerant.

It's obviously true that other religions, like Christianity, also have scriptures that are equally bad taste, violent and dangerous. But there are few extremists that take up arms to fight for it. We don't exactly have a plentiful supply of crusaders. Christianity has evolved past the literal and radical interpretation of the available scriptures.
What we do have all across the globe is a plentiful supply of Jihadis who would love to topple our society, restrict our freedoms and at best convert us, or at worst kill us.

Muslim extremists are far from being our greatest threat, but they are visible & feared. Discounting this threat is silly. It's not because it's not the biggest threat or not the only threat that you should just ignore it & its origin. Seeing this and talking about it is not Islamophobia. It's being realistic.

Personally, I loathe religion, much like alec. I like the symbolism and the good that it can represent, but I usually can't stand it because I can too clearly see the abuse, the danger and the futility. I will however die defending everyone's right to peacefully practise their religion without otherwise influencing society.

But as said before, we should not forget that our society has never been safer than it is today.
 
WesDude, you really should stop smoking, what ever you smoke, you're even worse than I am. You sound like you seriously believe in the stuff you writte. I mean it must be some kind of bizarre joke with the intention to mock all of us, which would be extremly clever!
 
SuAside said:
All extremism is dangerous. This is especially the case for religious extremism and even more so when the religion in question is expansionist and intolerant.

It's obviously true that other religions, like Christianity, also have scriptures that are equally bad taste, violent and dangerous. But there are few extremists that take up arms to fight for it. We don't exactly have a plentiful supply of crusaders. Christianity has evolved past the literal and radical interpretation of the available scriptures.
What we do have all across the globe is a plentiful supply of Jihadis who would love to topple our society, restrict our freedoms and at best convert us, or at worst kill us.

Muslim extremists are far from being our greatest threat, but they are visible & feared. Discounting this threat is silly. It's not because it's not the biggest threat or not the only threat that you should just ignore it & its origin. Seeing this and talking about it is not Islamophobia. It's being realistic.

Personally, I loathe religion, much like alec. I like the symbolism and the good that it can represent, but I usually can't stand it because I can too clearly see the abuse, the danger and the futility. I will however die defending everyone's right to peacefully practise their religion without otherwise influencing society.

But as said before, we should not forget that our society has never been safer than it is today.
Click to expand...

As I see it, radical Islam is indeed something that cannot be discounted. It is on the rise, and that's not just a media-fed illusion (albeit they aren't spotless). Something like ISIS and the extremists in Yemen and Africa cannot be glossed over. They aren't anywhere near the first threat in Europe, but in the rest of the world militant Islam is a thing and it's a thing that claims thousands of lives each year.

With that being said, I'm really not sure at all we can make the ''radical Islam is a problem, so the problem is Islam'' association, by way of looking at the scriptures or whatever. This is an incredibly complex socio-political problem that has been brewing for close to a century, with things such as the fall of the Ottomans, the partition of the Middle East and Africa by uncaring Western powers, the arrival of Israel, the rise of oil Sheiks that have the funds to finance terrorist activities in the first place, and so on and so forth. Several of my professors at University back in the day, as well as published papers I've read, claim that radical Islam is by and large a way for certain individuals to gain and wield power in their region; it is a means, not an end, just like Christianty was a means by which lots of people enriched and empowered themselves during the Crusades. So blaming Islam itself seems like a way to ignore complex problems to me; it may have issues, but little more than any other organized religion.

As for if we've moved on past it...well, ''we'' is a very general term. As I said, Europeans killed each other in the millions twice over within the last century, and the West is hardly spotless today either. So while it is true there are probably less militant Christians than militant Muslims, that doesn't stop nutjobs like Brejvik from existing, and really the difference is not really something worth making a fuss over. Maybe I'm rambling, but as I said someone killed by a terrorist or by a drone is no less dead.
 
though, we should not forget that in the case of ISIS we are talking about eventually 10 000 people, at least that is what I have read. Compare that to the Iraq which I think has around 300 000 soldiers.

I don't think there is a real chance that ISIS will overrun Iraq, or the middle east. The truth is many of the Islamic nations hate each other just as much as they hate America or Europe. If not even more.
 
I think those "blasphemy" protests a couple of years ago, conveniently occurring on 9/11, demonstrate that radical Islam isn't the only problem. Most of those protesters were probably just stupid rather than radical, a problem not unique to Muslims. However the ability for religious figures to influence behaviour internationally to such a degree is pretty unique to Islam.

Also, I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare international terror with domestic terror. If I get assassinated in Turkey for talking about genocide, then you probably could have expected as much. However, it's another thing entirely to be killed for insulting a religion in a country where it's practitioners make up less than 10% of the population with a largely migrant background.

Crni Vuk said:
though, we should not forget that in the case of ISIS we are talking about eventually 10 000 people, at least that is what I have read. Compare that to the Iraq which I think has around 300 000 soldiers.
Click to expand...

If those number meant anything then ISIS shouldn't of been a problem at.
 
Depends. Also are they really a problem for us? As far as I can see. No. They get a lot of attention by our media though.

I would guess that the core of ISIS is maybe 10 000 people, or even less. But they probably have a lot of supporters from Syria, Iraq and Europe, people that simply decide to fight for them. ISIS is also limited mostly to areas where they have some support, like the the towns they conquered. Let us also not forget that even if many people are not part of ISIS they might still fight for them, simply because they have for the moment common goals. Just as how many people decided to fight the Soviets with the radical groups in Afghanistan without beeing a member of those groups. what happens down there right now has the face of a civil war really. If someone killed your whole family with a tank driving over them while you had to watch, than you probably don't care much who gives you the weapon to fight them.

And let us not forget the simple fact that neither the Syran Army, the Iraq government or the Kurdish fighters are saints either. They murdered and opressed people for decades as well. The US forces got criticised quite a lot for the fact how they supported the Government in Iraq which was very biased and opressing certain groups. This frustration and hate will eventually find its way out. ISIS is dangerous, but they have lost a lot of steam in the last weeks. They will be a problem for years I guess, just like many other terror groups down there. I mean even Al Qaida still exists, and they sem to be even in competition with ISIS now. But it will be more of a problem in the middle east, a problem that we helped to create with our actions, destroying the Iraq, bombing Syria an so on.

We are messing around with the middle east for the last 20 years or so. I am surprised that we don't see more violance here in Europe and the US if I am honest. But while it is a tragedy we should not be surprised that this violence will hit eventually us as well.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
WesDude, you really should stop smoking, what ever you smoke, you're even worse than I am. You sound like you seriously believe in the stuff you writte. I mean it must be some kind of bizarre joke with the intention to mock all of us, which would be extremly clever!
Click to expand...

no, that is all the way it is. i dont listen/watch a lot of news or radio or podcasts or whatever is hip nowadays but you have to understand what is happening and why. i am sure you have heard the saying "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" but that is slightly not 100% i think. i would say its far more accurate if you change learn to understand. unfortunately we have so many people shouting their opinions that we lose sight of actual understanding the real root and causes which leads us to the visible effect.

if you know of people who are saying things akin to what i said above, then you should really probably try to listen to why they are saying it and what they see as the causes as they are right. the real issue is that so many people are trying to push and shove the visible effect and drawing the unseen cause that fits what they want to think that people lose sight of the real causes.


lets have a test!

if you live in the US, you constantly hear about wage stagnation and income inequality and economic mobility being huge problems. now, the "accepted" reasons are generally a bunch of bullshit that people try to push because they want to tell you they have the solution.

so lets have a test!

i will give you 4 years where something happened that led us into this situation and are the ACTUAL causes of the above, lets see if you can get them right!

1) 1920
2) 1941
3) 1986
4) 2001

GO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top