Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

[Hassknecht]

I also don't understand why people are so scared of a violent islamisation of Europe. I mean, how did christian religion and culture become the predominant culture in the north? By force and genocide, of course, and now everyone's fucking happy with it. So if that whole islamisation business were real, our ancestors will probably love the shit out of it. Why struggle?

 

[Cyberfiend]

I think political correctness is not going away anytime soon, especially not by something like this.
Already many mainstream media institutions are starting to print critiques of Charlie Hebdo's caricatures and a general reluctance to put their pedestal too high. The initial feeling of "western brotherhood" is already fading, and some hardcore right-wingers are already starting to smell conspiracy and false flag operations.

This is happening on my facebook wall as we speak.

Some White canadian asshole in his mid 30's literally wrote "je ne suis pas Charlie because je ne suis pas a racist piss baby", then linked to a tumblr post.

 

[Cyberfiend]

I also don't understand why people are so scared of a violent islamisation of Europe. I mean, how did christian religion and culture become the predominant culture in the north? By force and genocide, of course, and now everyone's fucking happy with it. So if that whole islamisation business were real, our ancestors will probably love the shit out of it. Why struggle?

As a Gay woman who's seriously considering converting to Judaism, I'd be pretty boned if Europe adopted Islamic doctrine.

 

[Sander]

Ah so because I am a white male I should feel ashamed 24/7 because this automatically means I am an evil opressor, even though I never actively do so. It just is that way apparently.

No, and no one's saying that. You don't need to be ashamed of being a white man. But when you perpetuate harmful myths that further oppression of marginalized groups, then you should be ashamed of what you're doing, because what you're doing is both bullshit and harming people.

And again with that feelings bullshit. It's easy to say 'can't we all just get along, we're human beings ;__;' from your ivory tower of wealth and relative security in europe. Meanwhile in reality this simply doesn't work.

Have you ever lived in a 'culturally enriched' part of your city? I did. And people were constantly getting simply for being german daring to set foot in their little enclave built on welfare. There were shops were you were not meant to go as a german if you didnt want to get harmed. Germans being insulted as fucking stupid, how they are superior and soon to overrule the country anyway and yadda yadda. People being called infidels because they are not muslim and thus deserve to be killed was the norm. And I know exactly the same from many friends in different cities around here.

So forgive me if I can't appreciate that glorious multiculti that you praise so much. I once thought pretty similar that each human being should deserve the same respect like anyone else. Then I grew up and saw how it is in the real world.

It sucks that you experienced that. Maybe the answer shouldn't be to then turn around and do the same thing to others, though. Perpetuating the cycle of violence and oppression isn't going to do a thing.

And yes, I do live in what you call a "culturally enriched" part of my city. I do my daily shopping at a Turkish Dutch supermarket. There are many shops aimed at immigrant populations in the neighborhood. Great fun. Very friendly all.

I think political correctness is not going away anytime soon, especially not by something like this.
Already many mainstream media institutions are starting to print critiques of Charlie Hebdo's caricatures and a general reluctance to put their pedestal too high. The initial feeling of "western brotherhood" is already fading, and some hardcore right-wingers are already starting to smell conspiracy and false flag operations.

"Political correctness" is largely a myth. Racism and islamophobia have been accepted as part of mainstream discourse for two decades. When parties like FN and PVV and UKIP represent large parts of the population, you can't really speak of a culture where certain things are unspeakable. No one's stopping anyone from saying some pretty horrendous things about large groups of people.

People expressing that Charlie Hebdo is a racist publication isn't political correctness, by the way. It's just observing what it is.

As a Gay woman who's seriously considering converting to Judaism, I'd be pretty boned if Europe adopted Islamic doctrine.

An actually realistic fear would be Europe adopting fascist policies, given that those parties are gaining more and more political power and Islamic parties by and large don't even exist.

 

[Ceratisa]

I also don't understand why people are so scared of a violent islamisation of Europe. I mean, how did christian religion and culture become the predominant culture in the north? By force and genocide, of course, and now everyone's fucking happy with it. So if that whole islamisation business were real, our ancestors will probably love the shit out of it. Why struggle?

Because the time was very different, why would they love something that went against their very culture?

 

[Cyberfiend]

Please don't tell me what I can/cannot be worried about as a minority. I'm worried about fascism. And I'd be worried if Islam was adopted in Europe.

See that map? That shows where it's illegal to be gay. Notice how almost every Muslim country is represented? Yeah no thanks. Islamisation (if it was an actual thing) would scare the shit outta me.

 

[Sander]

Please don't tell me what I can/cannot be worried about as a minority. I'm worried about fascism. And I'd be worried if Islam was adopted in Europe.

Lots of people are worried about what would happen if "Islam" (which is not that monolythic) were to become the basis of government in Europe. I'm just saying that that's not a remotely realistic fear because the odds of that happening are minuscule. You're allowed to worry, of course.

Also just to note, you've been double-posting a bit here and we generally frown on that. We prefer you edit your posts to avoid cluttering the topic.

 

[MutantScalper]

Cyberfiend,

if you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory you'll see that LGBT-rights are a relatively new thing even in highly developed western nations.

 

[Cyberfiend]

Also just to note, you've been double-posting a bit here and we generally frown on that. We prefer you edit your posts to avoid cluttering the topic.

Duly noted. Sorry, I'm a bit of a scatter brain when it comes to the way I post.

Cyberfiend,

if you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_ri...y_or_territory you'll see that LGBT-rights are a relatively new thing even in highly developed western nations.

I am aware. We're making some progress slowly but steadily. However, as you can see in the map barely any of the Muslim countries have budged on the subject, and while they may be more accommodating in the future, right now people are literally being killed for who they fall in love with. And I can't bank on them having a change of heart in the future, because they might not. Here are some statistics on homosexuality and Islam. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Homosexuals Scary shit indeed. Makes me very glad I live in Europe where the most shit I get on an average day is street harassment.

 

[Akratus]

@Sander @alec



Sander, Alec, you are both morons. The left-right argumentative circle never fails to blind people to the utter failure of either participant to get literally anywhere.

 

[SuAside]

To turn this discussion into another direction: The thing I take away from all this is basically how little terror the EU actually faces. You have to remember that to do what these men did, is retardedly easy. It takes a little money, a set of balls and very little skill. I could do it with far more effect and casualties. What we need to take away from this is that it's an extremely rare occurence and that we should not let it affect our society, laws and mindset.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Shouldn't we prioritize impressing this on the guys who murder cartoonists and behead people, over the people exercising their rights to say what they want, however disagreeable their opinions might be?

I wasn't aware we had to choose between one or the other.

That makes two of us, I wasn't aware prioritize meant 'choose between one or the other'. I think in the immediate term, we might benefit more from impressing your lesson of 'treating people as human beings' more on murderers of cartoonists and journalist beheaders to be more important than on those who hurt others' feelings.

 

[Akratus]

To turn this discussion into another direction: The thing I take away from all this is basically how little terror the EU actually faces. You have to remember that to do what these men did, is retardedly easy. It takes a little money, a set of balls and very little skill. I could do it with far more effect and casualties. What we need to take away from this is that it's an extremely rare occurence and that we should not let it affect our society, laws and mindset.

When the first news of the 9/11 hijacking reached some control tower, their first response was as I heard it: "A hijacking? When was the last one, '91?" Totally unprepared for it.

The unfortunate reality is that for many proper preventative security something overly bad first needs to happen.

 

[Cyberfiend]

When the first news of the 9/11 hijacking reached some control tower, their first response was as I heard it: "A hijacking? When was the last one, '91?" Totally unprepared for it.

The unfortunate reality is that for many proper preventative security something overly bad first needs to happen.

That's true. For all their big talk, 9/11 brought America to its knees. I still remember when it happened funnily enough. It changed so damn much for the worse imo. I doubt France will follow America's footsteps though, thank God.

 

[SuAside]

The unfortunate reality is that for many proper preventative security something overly bad first needs to happen.

Most of the security features available to prevent it, is actually far from "proper".
It always comes at a cost and often still doesn't protect that much more than before.

A bit extreme, but he who sacrifices freedom (and integrity) for security deserves neither.

Spoiler

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
- Benji

 

[Ilosar]

To turn this discussion into another direction: The thing I take away from all this is basically how little terror the EU actually faces. You have to remember that to do what these men did, is retardedly easy. It takes a little money, a set of balls and very little skill. I could do it with far more effect and casualties. What we need to take away from this is that it's an extremely rare occurence and that we should not let it affect our society, laws and mindset.

You have a point there, but unfortunately it is wishful thinking I think. This will affect at least French politics a great deal, Front National can now get on a soapbox and point fingers at them evil immigrants (never mind that at least two of those lunatics were native French if the info I got is right).

My personnal impression (which may be off base), is that if some crazy fucker gets in his head that he has to kill people, he's going to find some excuse. If he's a Brejvik, it's because immigrants are destroying our values, so time to shoot teenagers. If he's a Timothy McVeigh, it's because gov'ment is teh evulz. If he's IRA, it's because the British are the Great Oppressor. And if he's a radical Muslim, it's because people who aren't also radical Muslims are Infidels. Or if he's one of the who-knows-how-many crazies who shoot up schools in the US, it's because he had a hard life and girls didn't like him or some other pathetic shit. So on and so forth.

The common denominator between these is that it just takes one sick fuck with a gun or bomb to kill a lot of people without anyone being able to do that much short of being psychic. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything, but I fear people like that will always exist and efforts to curb those acts will mostly be shots in the dark that will only harm normal people.

 

[aenemic]

Islam has a problem and it has everything to do with their dogmatic writings. They are not compatible with Western society.

(Am not revisiting this thread. )

What a whole bunch of generalization and then a cowardly cop-out to boot.

Parts of Islam have a problem and are incompatible with Western society, just as parts of Christianity and many others have a problem and are incompatible with Western society (and other societies, for that matter). What about the muslims who flee to western society to get away from islamic extremists?

When a christian extremist commits murder, he's a lunatic. When a muslim extremist commits murder, he's a muslim. That's the main problem, right there.

 

[SuAside]

You have a point there, but unfortunately it is wishful thinking I think. This will affect at least French politics a great deal, Front National can now get on a soapbox and point fingers at them evil immigrants (never mind that at least two of those lunatics were native French if the info I got is right).

Oh, certainly. I meant that we -should- not let it affect us (outside taking prudent precautions without harming our standards & morals), not that it wouldn't affect us.

 

[Sander]

That makes two of us, I wasn't aware prioritize meant 'choose between one or the other'. I think in the immediate term, we might benefit more from impressing your lesson of 'treating people as human beings' more on murderers of cartoonists and journalist beheaders to be more important than on those who hurt others' feelings.

Again: we can do both. Yet you keep coming in with "why are you not telling this to murderers." Well, we are. Everyone is. From #JeSuisCharlie to every Islamic organization I know of to every government I know of to every public institution I've seen. I think we've got that aspect covered, dude.

And as an immediate danger to people in Western Europe, Islamophobia has been a problem for decades and is only increasing in the wake of these attacks. Please stop trying to belittle that.

 

[Atomic Postman]

This isn't written by me, but I found it very interesting...

So I'll just leave this here....

Quran (2:191-193) "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, etc...)"

The historical context of this passage is not defensive, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. The verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:216) "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (4:74) "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:89) "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

So this verse tells any Muslim that you should never try to make peace with me or be my friend, unless I convert to Islam. Since I am currently acting against Islam by pointing out it's violent nature, you should "slay [me] wherever you find [me]."
Quran (4:95) "Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward,"

This passage criticizes peaceful Muslims who do not join the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (4:104) "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
No reasonable person would interpret these last two verses to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15-16) "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Translation: Those who do practice pacifism and peace instead of war will be sent to hell.

Quran (8:67) "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (9:5) "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is challenged by this passage, since the Muslims to whom it was written were not under attack. The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."

Quran (9:29) "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. This verse clearly illustrates that Islam was not designed to coexist with other religions.

Quran (9:38-39) "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) "If there had been immediate gain, and the journey easy, they would without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them"
This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (17:16) "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."
Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (33:60-62) "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter."

Quran (47:3-4) "...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make prisoners,"
Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.
"But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Quran (48:17) "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."
Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then the blind, lame and sick would not be exempt. This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
There are countless more but I don't have enough room for them. The Hadith is even more violent, racist, misogynistic, and evil