Written by Mercyful_Kate on 10.01.2015 at 03:07

Written by Bad English on 10.01.2015 at 02:51

Written by Mercyful_Kate on 10.01.2015 at 02:48

Written by Urs Blank on 10.01.2015 at 02:22

Thanks to Rasputin I had an insane laugh about my country, and now it makes me think, me and all the pseudo-terrorist friends i'm living with we're gonna have a hard time dealing with your stupid reality :p

His reality is Pennsyltucky USAland. In his defense, not everyone "gets" how France works because we're not really taught much about modern Western European affairs in our social studies classes. It's also really expensive to fly there. Still, it's pretty ballsy to just make assumptions about the history of Islam in France and suggest that people in a completely different type of society go about things the way we would in our country.

rapsutin is Serbian origin

Welp, there I go assumin'. Still, USA, Serbia and France are entirely different societies which value certain aspects of their society differently. We can't say that what works for America or Serbia will work in France.

I have a question for you Kate, what exactly is the positive thing you find in Islam? Did you read the holly book? Are you aware how the Muslims treat their women and other non Muslims? How very few rights people have in that kind of a system.

America still does not have as big of a Muslim problem as the rest of the EU does, because of it's sheer size, and the number of Muslims in the country. However, among the prison population Islam is very popular and is rising steadily, and I suggest you go and visit Dearborn, Michigan, an entire city where Muslims have the final word on anything, and see how do you like that experience, because that is what EU is facing in the near future.

I have seen what Islam does to people. And it is not pretty at all.

And as far as our resident Frenchy is concerned, I suggest you look at the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, where for 50 years we all lived in peace, and where Muslims pretended to be friendly and helpful. The end result we all know, or do we? The sad fact is that those "Bosnians" are Serbs, who took Islam as their faith, and as I said before, you are first and foremost a Muslim, and everything else secondary. And I hope you live to see when the tables turn, and you become the minority and afraid for your life, because you do not belong in their society.

Two of these quotes remind me of Der Stürmer and lessons not learned.
Firstly, Hitler considered Streicher's "primitive methods" to be effective in influencing "the man in the street." i.e. his propaganda techniques.
Secondly, in German court Julius Streicher was not convicted of what we would call today 'hate speech'. How come? German law defended against 'religious offense' and Streicher argued he is vilifying a race, not a religion.

Notice that the vilifying or "primitive methods" were not a disturbance, the group or even only the group definition is what disturbed the court. Look at Europe today and tell me something has substantially changed.

Written by Rasputin on 10.01.2015 at 01:01

Let's face it, the magazine itself was a horrible magazine, and it was not satirical, it was very propaganda oriented, and as such I think it was a matter of time before someone did something to them.

Yes, it was a horrible magazine.

Written by Mercyful_Kate on 10.01.2015 at 02:00

There are actually very strict laws against hate speech and inciting racial hatred in France.

I suggest a quick read on people still using the term 'race'.

Written by Candlemass on 10.01.2015 at 10:42

Written by Rasputin on 10.01.2015 at 01:01

Let's face it, the magazine itself was a horrible magazine, and it was not satirical, it was very propaganda oriented, and as such I think it was a matter of time before someone did something to them.

Yes, it was a horrible magazine.

If you were one of those they criticized (people from all religions, left-wing politicians, right-wing politicians, military, cops, fascists, racists, naive flower power idealists... basically any kind of moron) I guess it could have been horrible It was violently irreverent, particularly against religions and racist people (their main targets). Remember that in France blasphemy doesn't exist, and they used that right to the fullest (and still will I'm sure!)
Just a drawing by Cabu, btw:

it says: "can we still laugh about everything?" and the answer by all their targets is "no", obviously.

Written by Urs Blank on 10.01.2015 at 03:03

Reading what he said I'll never be on the same page as his anyway

I'm now way too drunk to express my thoughts in a good way but I'll never share Rasputin's ones

And that's natural. I'll never share amalgamation and shortcuts which, in the end, serve extremists of every stripe.

Suicide bombing by 10-year-old girl in Nigeria kills 19.

Written by Darkside Momo on 10.01.2015 at 14:48

If you were one of those they criticized (people from all religions, left-wing politicians, right-wing politicians, military, cops, fascists, racists, naive flower power idealists... basically any kind of moron) I guess it could have been horrible It was violently irreverent, particularly against religions and racist people (their main targets). Remember that in France blasphemy doesn't exist, and they used that right to the fullest (and still will I'm sure!)
Just a drawing by Cabu, btw:
IMAGE
it says: "can we still laugh about everything?" and the answer by all their targets is "no", obviously.

This is extremely confused.
A right of freedom of speech, does not assign value to the content of the speech. Not explaining the value of a right in the framework of a political theory is the death of political discourse.
I'm not referring to their 'right', neither to whoever their satire is aimed it at because it could have been ay subject, global warming or Mohammad. Most of it is down right pathetic. I'm referring to the value of the content. Not every anti-Islamic cartoon is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses or satire of religion Joseph Heller's God Knows.
Including the image you posted - it literally contributed nothing to democratic discourse. Quite the opposite. Not only do they have no voice in that cartoon, but why listen to someone who is presented so absurdly? It shuts people's mouths and ears. The only things it contributes to is the inability to present a subject in its fullest without misrepresenting the positions of your opponents or even taking note of their opinions. Satire is a medium, nothing more - its content could be productive or not.

The value of satire in democratic discourse is debated since ancient Greece. The truth is, good satire contains decent arguments - they have good thoughtful points. In practice, most of it is just the opposite.

Written by Rasputin on 10.01.2015 at 01:01

Let's face it, the magazine itself was a horrible magazine

Yep. For a magazine advertising "satire" it was about as satirical as shitting on your hand and throwing it in someone's face. No subtlety, no humor, no nuance, just plain insults and mockery. I find it hilarious that this group of propaganda-spreading idiots are now hailed as martyrs, when they were no better than your average internet basement dwelling troll. All of their "satire" is just propaganda from your average 4chan virgin, only with added drawings.

Do they deserve to get shot for being morons? Of course not.

Do they deserve to be hailed as symbols of free speech and martyrs of free press? Bwhahaha, hell no.

Written by Slayer666 on 10.01.2015 at 17:03

Written by Rasputin on 10.01.2015 at 01:01

Let's face it, the magazine itself was a horrible magazine

Do they deserve to be hailed as symbols of free speech and martyrs of free press? Bwhahaha, hell no.

I don't think anyone give a fuck about your abjection of giving free speech/free press. Whether they just average internet basement troll or not shoudn't be your business as they make more money than your family makes it. I'm not here to defend mag in any other way(though not a big fan but few cartoons they published were hilarious) and not denying their massive image outside France but Hebdo always viewed "Mohammad" an easy target to make mock.

How many people you can stop making fun of "Mohammad"/" Abu al-Qasim"/"Pheghambar Sahab" ?

Even American sitcom like South Park made a fun of him and fatwa was issued against both creators(as it came to know). Nothing happened because people in general make a fun of him. I know its pathetic to dismantle god-like figure where loads of prayers is attached to Prophet and totally against it( different topic on why people shoudn't attack religion) but you can't tag huge magazine into one average stuff. Charlie Hebdo is much bigger than average stuff.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

Getting harder and harder to keep defending this shit...

Written by Troy Killjoy on 10.01.2015 at 21:44

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

Getting harder and harder to keep defending this shit...

You don't need to. Just explain why it's immoral and condemn it. If someone tells you are a "racist" (or any other stupid vacuous label) because of it, tell him to be topical and take a look at your argument. It's not always easy, I know, but that drives most of the 'politically correct' insane. They may even join their other non-thinking fellows on the streets.

Theocracies around the globe, God in all probability does not exist. You're dying and killing for nothing. Please stop.

Written by Candlemass on 10.01.2015 at 22:08
You're dying and killing for nothing. Please stop.

This I can absolutely get on board with. My issue is painting everyone with the same brush. I personally know quite a few Muslims and they don't share these radical views. Most of them came here to get away from all that stuff (or, well, their parents came here for that reason, but still). There just seems to be an increase in all this extremist shit and it's just so exhausting to be bombarded with it on a daily basis. Something awful and backwards is happening on a consistent basis and no matter all the reports and negative backlash it receives, people just go about their day like nothing happened because it's somewhere else in the world. How many people need to be killed in the name of a presumably non-existent deity before people step up and say look, this shit has to stop.

You know what we need is a nice island completely separated from modern society. We can dump all the crazy radical extremist religious people who feel that killing in the name of their god is both a right and a responsibility on that island. Then just let natural selection work its magic.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 10.01.2015 at 22:16

Something awful and backwards is happening on a consistent basis and no matter all the reports and negative backlash it receives, people just go about their day like nothing happened because it's somewhere else in the world. How many people need to be killed in the name of a presumably non-existent deity before people step up and say look, this shit has to stop.

I don't think it will ever stop, if things remain similar to what we have now. The "because it's somewhere else in the world", as you well said, is exactly why.
The day after the Paris attack, Boko Haram massacred 2000 people in Nigeria. Was it even on the news ? I do not judge the gravity of one action compared to the other, but if we saw such repercussion of the Paris attacks it is because it affected directly western society (and we all know Nigeria is a shithole, so who gives a damn ? Right ?).

People are not used to feel threatened, accustomed to give their opinions on everything safely behind their computers, armed why their keyboards with no retaliation to be seen. And in a few weeks, people will forget if nothing else bad happens. Until the next attack there won't be so hasty to defend the freedom of speech if it is threatened (I didn't see all these manifestations back in 2011 or each time Charlie Hebdo was under the terrorist eye, and yes, the free speech was in danger back then too, the consequence was just not as bad).

And one of the reasons stuff like the news you posted up there will continue is because there is no will to change it. For now. I see no reason why the western world would want to finish off every medieval-like theocracy if most of them are allies and going against them would result in a shitstorm never seen to date (assumong that is the only option to convince them to stop all their crap).

I expect status quo to persist, just put the terrorist alert to max level for a couple of weeks and update a few of the anti-terrorist protocols along with cooperation, then move on. European style.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 10.01.2015 at 22:16

This I can absolutely get on board with. My issue is painting everyone with the same brush. I personally know quite a few Muslims and they don't share these radical views. Most of them came here to get away from all that stuff (or, well, their parents came here for that reason, but still). There just seems to be an increase in all this extremist shit and it's just so exhausting to be bombarded with it on a daily basis. Something awful and backwards is happening on a consistent basis and no matter all the reports and negative backlash it receives, people just go about their day like nothing happened because it's somewhere else in the world. How many people need to be killed in the name of a presumably non-existent deity before people step up and say look, this shit has to stop.

You know what we need is a nice island completely separated from modern society. We can dump all the crazy radical extremist religious people who feel that killing in the name of their god is both a right and a responsibility on that island. Then just let natural selection work its magic.

I don't put all Muslims in one basket, because I simply think it's inaccurate and inaccuracy causes us to unfairly judge and treat a person. This doesn't imply the opposite tho, what I call Michal Jackson "anti-racism" i.e. we're all equal or if we're not then we're bad in same ways but different in good ways.
The truth is the only real substance "racism" has in it, from now until probably forever, is Bayes' theorem (and your moral theory).

If you want to live a good life, don't pick an ideology, check the stats. I was thinking about a nice island completely separated from modern society for friends and family . Our intuitions (heuristics) haven't changed since our cave dwelling time, not even for the "urban cave-dwellers"* still tribal and prejudiced as fuck, but still the least worst in practice .


* Love that term. Taken from Dwight Macdonald.

The case of Saudi Arabia is an especial one. Seriously if western countries want to promote democracy and fight terrorism they should also put some pressure of SA. From ideological point of view, most of the Islamic terrorists belong to the Wahhabi school of Islam, which is an integrated element of SA's government. Most of the stupid fetwas used by terrorists come straight out of SA's mosques, including the honor killing of Shie people, Marriage jihad ( jihad of women when working as a gangbang whore for Islamic terrorist) etc. Also, they are one retarded government when it comes to democracy. Rumors also have been floating around suggesting that they are the ones funding Islamic terrorists of ISIS. It is worth mentioning that they also funded extreme Islamic schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan , which after a while turned into Taliban and Al-Qaede .
Nothing would change about the Islamic terrorism unless US and the rest of the western world break their alliance with SA.

Written by Slayer666 on 10.01.2015 at 17:03

Written by Rasputin on 10.01.2015 at 01:01

Let's face it, the magazine itself was a horrible magazine

Yep. For a magazine advertising "satire" it was about as satirical as shitting on your hand and throwing it in someone's face. No subtlety, no humor, no nuance, just plain insults and mockery. I find it hilarious that this group of propaganda-spreading idiots are now hailed as martyrs, when they were no better than your average internet basement dwelling troll. All of their "satire" is just propaganda from your average 4chan virgin, only with added drawings.

Do they deserve to get shot for being morons? Of course not.

Do they deserve to be hailed as symbols of free speech and martyrs of free press? Bwhahaha, hell no.

Pa kad su budale, sta da se ocekuje.

That is a pretty accurate description of what was going on and what is still going on.

Islam will rule the world if we let it.


I pose a question to all the people here, do you think you will have freedom when Muslims become the most influential group in your country? Do you think you will be granted the same rights and freedoms that we gave them. I think not, let's hear what you think.


And, no, no. Those 2000 dead in Nigeria are just a coincidence, they were not killed by the "real" Muslims.

Sigh, and more sigh.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 10.01.2015 at 18:29

I don't think anyone give a fuck about your abjection of giving free speech/free press. Whether they just average internet basement troll or not shoudn't be your business as they make more money than your family makes it. I'm not here to defend mag in any other way(though not a big fan but few cartoons they published were hilarious) and not denying their massive image outside France but Hebdo always viewed "Mohammad" an easy target to make mock.

How many people you can stop making fun of "Mohammad"/" Abu al-Qasim"/"Pheghambar Sahab" ?

Even American sitcom like South Park made a fun of him and fatwa was issued against both creators(as it came to know). Nothing happened because people in general make a fun of him. I know its pathetic to dismantle god-like figure where loads of prayers is attached to Prophet and totally against it( different topic on why people shoudn't attack religion) but you can't tag huge magazine into one average stuff. Charlie Hebdo is much bigger than average stuff.

Due to your semi-broken English, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

"they make more money than your family makes it" - probably. Not sure how that's relevant in any way.

Mocking religion is picking on incredibly low-hanging fruit. If you're gonna do it, do it with style. Charlie Hebdo had none. The magazine was complete garbage and I don't know how anyone over the intellectual age of 12 could find it funny or thought-provoking. If they were indeed huge, it just proves how tasteless the general public is. And now their deaths seem like a bigger issue to the entire world than god-knows how much far more horrifying shit happening daily. Pathetic.

Brilliant satire, 10/10.

If all you've taken from this discussion is that Charlie Hebdo was a poor satirist, you're missing the point.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 11.01.2015 at 13:31

If all you've taken from this discussion is that Charlie Hebdo was a poor satirist, you're missing the point.

Perhaps. But what is the point?

Freedom of speech - good, extremist nutjobs - bad? I think we've all known about that for a while.

The possibility of terrorist attacks exists even in supposedly safe countries? Again, we've known about that since 9/11.

People are going to blame all Muslims for the actions of a couple of degenerates and that's just wrong, you guys? If this thread has shown anything it's that this incident will change the minds of few. Those who were defending (moderate) Muslims before still continue to do so and those who were attacking them are using this to further entrench their positions. Again, nothing new.

Really, if this attack is an eye-opener of any kind for anyone, that person needed a serious reality check years ago.

All I see here is most of the western world collectively losing their minds over something that, yes, is a tragedy, but is ultimately fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Some psychopaths got offended, got pissed off and shot a lot of people. It's tragic, but it could have happened anywhere and for any reason.

I see this incident as no different than the Brevik shootings. A monstrous act of psychopaths whose killing urges masquerade as higher ideals (racial purity/Allah/whatever).
But the Charlie Hebdo staff deserves more attention from the entire world because..... they had a shitty magazine?

Written by Slayer666 on 11.01.2015 at 14:45
But the Charlie Hebdo staff deserves more attention from the entire world because..... they had a shitty magazine?

It isn't about mourning the loss of what you think is a shitty magazine, and it isn't even just about mourning the lives lost in the attack. This is about an attack on freedom, human rights violations, indoctrinating disenfranchised youth, and discrimination - amongst other things. You might consider this one act meaningless but considering the pattern of events taking place over the course of the last decade, there is far more going on here than media blowing the death of a satirist out of proportion. If anything, the media has been trying to step around these issues by overlooking them and pointing to things like mental illness as excuses for acts of terrorism. It just so happens that the events in France have prompted political figures (such as the Canadian prime minister) to address the situation by claiming we are at war. Up until this point, it's been posturing and pussyfooting.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 11.01.2015 at 15:07

It isn't about mourning the loss of what you think is a shitty magazine, and it isn't even just about mourning the lives lost in the attack. This is about an attack on freedom, human rights violations, indoctrinating disenfranchised youth, and discrimination - amongst other things. You might consider this one act meaningless but considering the pattern of events taking place over the course of the last decade, there is far more going on here than media blowing the death of a satirist out of proportion. If anything, the media has been trying to step around these issues by overlooking them and pointing to things like mental illness as excuses for acts of terrorism. It just so happens that the events in France have prompted political figures (such as the Canadian prime minister) to address the situation by claiming we are at war. Up until this point, it's been posturing and pussyfooting.

I could be wrong, but my predictions are that things will continue being posturing and pussyfooting, as you've said. This whole thing will be popular for another month or two after which it will be promptly swept under the rug. Probably replaced by something the Israeli or Russians allegedly do, or whatever the media considers interesting.

You say your prime minister claims we're at war, but who are we at war against? The mentally ill? Religious extremism? Poverty? How do you even fight a war like that? Both of the attackers were French citizens, who grew up in an area I understand is close to Paris. So there are two possible solutions to this problem: purge all the poor Muslim-dominated areas in France or provide a better future for your citizens so they don't feel the need to kill and die for some bullshit beliefs via establishing a better economy, providing education and toning the "religious freedom" horseshit down a notch or two. I don't see any of these two options as likely to happen. No, people will Tweet #JeSuisCharlie, politicians will use this to pursue their agenda, media will use it to get more clicks and life will go on as usual. Of the two possible actual solutions to the problem, one is just inhumane and the other one takes much more time, resources and effort than anyone is willing to put in.

And as for attacks on freedom and human rights violation, I don't think there is a country under the Sun who isn't guilty of these things. They're just really good at either keeping it hush-hush or presenting it as something else.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 11.01.2015 at 13:31

If all you've taken from this discussion is that Charlie Hebdo was a poor satirist, you're missing the point.

I think you should fully read what exactly was said. Turning Charlie Hebdo into a symbol of democracy, is argued to be a mistake and reasons were provided. No one has simply said "Charlie Hebdo was a poor satirist".

Rather than chanting slogans that are so vacuous, they can fit into anyone's political interpretation or republishing simplistic cartoons of Mohammed which are easily classified into classic techniques of propaganda - people should have ceased the opportunity to read about the issues involved first hand.
Instead, everyone will create a slogan to feast on this tragic event so they can continue chanting words that refer to absolutely nothing that express only emotional attitudes.

Sexual orgies are fun, mental orgies suck. #I'mNotCharlie.

Written by Candlemass on 11.01.2015 at 18:06
I think you should fully read what exactly was said. Turning Charlie Hebdo into a symbol of democracy, is argued to be a mistake and reasons were provided. No one has simply said "Charlie Hebdo was a poor satirist".

I was paraphrasing. I was replying to Slayer666 based on his comments about the magazine being a shitty attempt at humor and whatnot.

Written by deadone on 12.01.2015 at 00:40

In reailty the war is against conservative Islam which is incompatible with western, secular values or even secular authoritarian systems.

Well, good luck fighting that war. Without finding a way to either make people forget Islam ever existed or purging every Muslim from the planet, this is not a conventional war that can be "won" via weaponry or propaganda, no matter how much politicians posture and puff their chest.

Quote:
Neither of these work when it comes to fundamentalist/conservative Islam. Australia is proof of that.

Then suggest an alternative that doesn't involve work/death camps. I'd be completely in favor of abolishing religious freedom if that would actually help, but I'm pretty sure that would only serve to aggravate Muslims further and polarize them even more towards extremism.

Quote:

Oh and people should take their own responsibility for making their lives better and not continue blaming the government for it. It's a case of "grow a set of fucking balls and stand up for yourself."

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I agree with this completely. I'm not one of the bleeding hearts who blames the acts of CH attackers on poverty, rough upbringing yada yada yada. It's their fault and their alone.

However, this isn't about whose fault is it, this is about preventing similar incidents in the future. "People should take responsibility" - yes, they should. But they won't. Because they're people.

Simple math. You have two people growing up in the same shithole area which happens to be Muslim-dominated. They're both dirt-poor, both have shit childhoods, both with virtually zero prospects in the future. One of them takes what little he has, works his ass off, and somehow manages to leave his crappy past behind and build a better life for himself. The other one gets suckered in by classic religious bullshit that promises him a higher purpose and eternal bliss if he defends Allah against the infidels, and then he ends up blowing himself up in a suicide attack.

How do you prevent the second guy from being indoctrinated? Until you find a way to fundamentally change human nature, you're not going to do it by telling him to "grow a set of fucking balls". It's sad, it speaks volumes about how much we suck as a species, but that's how it is.

Quote:
The truth is for all their faults, Western democracies are better in terms of freedom than any other countries on the planet. They also provide more opportunities to everyone and generally provide a better standard of living even to their poor than most other countries.

Somewhat true, but let's not make a saint out of a sinner. Portraying western democracies as a perfect ideal of human freedom and democracy is a load of horseshit. Isn't USA, the most stereotypically "democratic" western society run by a government bought by rich lobbyists?

Quote:

Just your opinion. Are you religious by the way? You're far too offended by the magazine and seem to be in some way justifying it's destruction which makes me think you're highly religious and thus open to offence.

Why yes, I'm a Taoist and a Wiccan. Beautiful religions both, I just couldn't make up my mind so I figured "fuck it, I'll take 'em both!". I'm thinking about also joining a cult of Anubis.

And please, I'm "offended"? In order for someone to offend me, I first have to give a single flying fuck about what that someone thinks or says. A bunch of untalented propaganda-spreaders do not have that honor.

My gripe is that the western world is making a symbol out of hack "satirists" for the sole virtue of being killed. That's not "justifying its destruction", stop putting words in my mouth. I've stated explicitly in one of my previous posts that I do not approve of violence against people who simply suck at their jobs, as that's their basic human right. Reading comprehension is hard, I know, but please do work on it.

Quote:

Oh and their deaths matter more to us because they were us. The slaughter in Nigeria matters more to them because they are they. And to your average Chinese or Bangladeshi or Fijian, neither events probably mean anything at all.

If you had the " intellectual age of more than 12" you'd understand people relate to things they have something in common.

And if you had any rational, critic thinking skills at all, you'd see how this makes you a fine example of western hypocrisy.

"The whole damn world can burn around us, so long as our precious freedom of speech is unthreatened! And once it is, we'll..... Tweet #JeSuisCharlie and take a walk outside holding a bunch of candles! That's gonna solve everything!"

Written by Candlemass on 11.01.2015 at 18:06

I think you should fully read what exactly was said. Turning Charlie Hebdo into a symbol of democracy, is argued to be a mistake and reasons were provided. No one has simply said "Charlie Hebdo was a poor satirist".

Rather than chanting slogans that are so vacuous, they can fit into anyone's political interpretation or republishing simplistic cartoons of Mohammed which are easily classified into classic techniques of propaganda - people should have ceased the opportunity to read about the issues involved first hand.
Instead, everyone will create a slogan to feast on this tragic event so they can continue chanting words that refer to absolutely nothing that express only emotional attitudes.

Sexual orgies are fun, mental orgies suck. #I'mNotCharlie.

Definitely agree !

Written by mz on 11.01.2015 at 00:18

The case of Saudi Arabia is an especial one. Seriously if western countries want to promote democracy and fight terrorism they should also put some pressure of SA. From ideological point of view, most of the Islamic terrorists belong to the Wahhabi school of Islam, which is an integrated element of SA's government. Most of the stupid fetwas used by terrorists come straight out of SA's mosques, including the honor killing of Shie people, Marriage jihad ( jihad of women when working as a gangbang whore for Islamic terrorist) etc. Also, they are one retarded government when it comes to democracy. Rumors also have been floating around suggesting that they are the ones funding Islamic terrorists of ISIS. It is worth mentioning that they also funded extreme Islamic schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan , which after a while turned into Taliban and Al-Qaede .
Nothing would change about the Islamic terrorism unless US and the rest of the western world break their alliance with SA.

This is also very true.

@Slayer666
While I agree with the majority of your post, the only thing I disagree is the examples of two muslims living and one succeeding and the other one going towards religion fanaticism. The core of Islam is what causes all the issues and problems. It is a perfect breeding ground for violence and also for holding people back. I mean, look all over EU, wherever the Muslims moved to, those places did not stay looking nice for a very long time. They turned them to ghettos. You and I both know how awesome the Gypsies are and they are what I would call "Muslim Light" because they really do not read or do anything except for maybe holidays, but still, anywhere they go, it is a disaster. I remember when somewhere in Germany they gave them a set of apartment complexes for free, and in a period of a year, it turned to shit. You cannot pour sight in the blind eye.

The other argument we keep hearing is education, education, education. Well, I'm sorry but I do not believe that the education is the solution, because as I stated before, You are a Muslim first, and everything else second. So while you may finish the Western school, and have all the education anyone else got, as soon as a new Fatwa is created, or your Imam orders something, you have to obey, if you don't...well, let's just say that your prospects of living normally go exponentially down.

People keep dividing the Muslims to "Moderates" and Radicals. What is the difference? We have all these "moderates" that live in EU, and as soon as something happens that they do not approve of, they go into the rage mode and you can't tell them apart from the Radical Muslims. People keep making this distinction in the West, while the Muslim's themselves do not. That is the problem in the West, trying to categorize something and dress up something so you would understand it, regardless of how wrong you are. Then I hear the liberals shout, "Muslims protested against those other terrorist Muslims, and they shunned them." Before we jump up in the air and clap our hands, we have to ask, how many did this, and why would they do that? The answer is simple, very few and because of fear of being targeted as a result of terrorist acts, so it has nothing to do with "I think that is wrong" it has to do with self preservation. And the process keeps repeating, as the time goes by, members of that community do something violent (the same ones who protested a year ago) they are publicly scorned but deep down they are praised because they fight for Allah.

I keep arguing that the true Islam is the violent one, every other one is wrong, because Islam demands verbatim actions prescribed from the Quran, not the current flavor. The sooner people would understand that, the better, but no one bothers to mention that. I read a book from 1990's where an American scholar assessed Islam, and called it a threat 24 years ago, he saw it for what it was, and he argued that we in the West are as wrong of interpreting it as the Islam hijacked by religious fanatics, as the Muslim populations who do not engage in violence and war.

Islam has a single task, and that is to dominate the world, once they reach their numbers, we are all dead and destroyed, because we will be the minority and they will not grant us the rights and freedoms we gave them.

You simply do not understand what a religion is. You probably have a hard time understanding and perceiving anything other than "radical Islam" (though I don't think that's what it is) because you yourself think in similar extremist terms. The world does not fall into neat categories, though. The mere notion of a world religion being "at war" with a state is ridiculous enough to discount the rest of your opinion.

I have not bothered to refute your claims about the "true core" of Islam because it is so obviously false both historically and philosophically. As Candlemass has repeatedly stated, there is no such thing as "the Islam", only people with various understandings of and levels of identification with the concept. And as I'm sure you know and just choose to ignore, Islam was a rather progressive and stabilising force for large periods of its early history. People actually wanted to move to the Islamic world because it was so much better and more peaceful there. This is not to show that "Islam is a force for peace and prosperity", either; it is simply to remind us that to make any such generalisations about a historical phenomenon over a long period of time, a large geographical area and among cultures and social realities as diverse as within any movement, is ridiculous.

As long as you see the world in false categories you cannot make accurate analyses, form credible opinions or suggest working solutions.

I can't be bothered to get into a quote fest. In short: your first reply re: the totality of Islam and different levels of it is bollocks. It may be a popular take on the religion (I do not know, and I doubt you do either) but it is no "truer" Islam than some other interpretation. Of course Islam appears to you archaic and monolithic when you only accept an interpretation that pleases you to thrash, and dismiss the personally lived religion of Muslims who don't fit this stereotype as "less Islam". And then, when you have conveniently shut out modern, politically secular Muslims (whose faith, I dare wager, is often on stronger ground than the so-called fundamentalists) you proceed to accuse Islam of not adapting to the modern world. No shit: if you choose to rule out everything that would satisfy this condition as un-Islamic, that kind of follows by necessity. This way of thinking is precisely the extremist ontology I accused Rasputin of sharing with the violent Islamists. That is a neat strategy of propaganda but it is not very honest or truthful. (And this is not to deny the historical happenstance that Islam has not kept up with the rapid secularisation and modernisation of the West as well as forms of Christianity - but that's neither here nor there, and why should it have?)

You can cite religion as a factor in many conflicts, and it is not my interest to deny that. (Though to call the Crusades a religious war first and foremost would be stretching it. A lot.) But the fact of the matter is, a world religion cannot be a participant in a war. (Some very compact cult or church could, hypothetically, but I can't think of any examples.) A war is generally waged between two states or other political units. And yet that is the nonsensical claim Rasputin keeps making: we are at war with Islam. It's even more stupid than the war on drugs or war on terrorism. Islam is not some concrete entity you can be at war with. This is precisely the kind of false categorising that plagues Rasputin's thinking and to a lesser extent, yours: "the Muslims", "the feminists", whatever.

And, uh, military action and conquest is generally how stability and prosperity comes about. Especially in the Middle Ages. To label Islam inherently violent and morally degenerate because it used the accepted form of international interaction at its time is pretty much as anachronistic and retarded as calling the medieval Catholic church violent and warlike. (Oh, but you probably do.) Debating morality in history is unacademic and pointless, though. I did not cite the prosperity and relative stability of the medieval Islamic world (or parts of it, anyhow) to make some point about how good guys Muslims are, only to demonstrate that historical circumstance is everything and there is no "true core of Islam" that causes identical effects in every place Muslims arrive, at every time. Which is exactly the stupid bullshit Rasputin keeps repeating.

Here is a pretty interesting take on the supposed fundamentalism of terrorists. I am not sure Zizek really knows what he's talking about, but he at least is attempting to understand and analyse different types of religious motivation and experience - something sorely lacking in the dismissive and meaningless generalisations about conversvatives, extremists and fundamentalists in this topic (as if the words were interchangeable or had some fixed meaning):
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

I see a majority here

Written by deadone on 13.01.2015 at 02:04


I saw this was interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim and Dutch MP who talks about this.

She hasn't been an MP for 8 years now due to the fact she had to resign due to the validity of her Dutch citizenship.

Written by deadone on 13.01.2015 at 02:28

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 13.01.2015 at 02:22

She hasn't been an MP for 8 years now due to the fact she had to resign due to the validity of her Dutch citizenship.

I thought I said "former" in my blurb?

Just checked and nope, you just said "and Dutch MP". I f you had said former I wouldn't have quoted you, trust me.

Written by deadone on 13.01.2015 at 02:51

My bad - I have corrected.

Very brave woman.

tbh I was bummed when she had to resign. I had voted for Ayaan on quite a few occassions being part of my party.

EU will burn by the end, this is just heating up. Not to support the insane Turkish politician, but the more I look at this the more I keep thinking that something is just off with this whole thing. I would at least concede with the idiot that the Intelligence knew what these idiots were doing. To make things interesting, the two shooters were trained by the NATO/CIA forces and sent to fight in Syria against Assad, then they were moved around. Plus, the third shooter had lunch with Sarkozy in the past. More things keep surfacing, but no one is covering that. This does not switch my logical conclusion that Islam never was, and never will be a religion of peace, and that the "moderate" and "radical" Muslim is a distinction of the West, which means very little.

You don't know what is worse, the "uneducated" Muslim or the "educated" one, because no matter what, the uneducated can be swayed very easily into terrorism while the educated may find himself even more radicalized by the "holly book."