Hundreds of Muslims gather to celebrate funeral of man who beheaded French teacher

stoneill wrote: »

It's a debatable point that what she did during her tenure was much worse and much longer lasting.

Maggie was a democratically elected prime minister. Inherent in the job will be decisions/policy that will not benifet others. Like any nations leader, there'll be good and bad.

However, to equate even her to a chap hacking the head off a teacher in a Parisean street, over his course content is a stretch, even for a Republican Argentinian Miner.

Wibbs

stoneill wrote: »

It's a debatable point that what she did during her tenure was much worse and much longer lasting.

Noting debatable about it. She was a cast iron cnut, not least to her own people and I'd have raised no objection if her pocky corpse had been thrown into the nearest sewer. However I don't see Thatcher's name in the thread title so the comparison is the definition of whataboutery.

And she was one individual, not a movement within a faith, a movement that stands directly against the very human rights you take for granted.

marieholmfan

Wibbs wrote: »

Noting debatable about it. She was a cast iron cnut, not least to her own people and I'd have raised no objection if her pocky corpse had been thrown into the nearest sewer. However I don't see Thatcher's name in the thread title so the comparison is the definition of whataboutery.

And she was one individual, not a movement within a faith, a movement that stands directly against the very human rights you take for granted.

She was the point of the spear of a war against mankind and not least against Ireland.

jmayo

AllForIt wrote: »

One has to worry about the seemingly growing number of white people in our midst who on seeing any commentary related to any demographic that is not one's own that they will deem it to be racially motivated and respond accordingly.

I wonder if that happens in Muslim countries the other way around. Me things not.

I think we have an enemy within and they cause so much problems we could do without.

You mean the Quislings.

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't matter... if even one Muslim might, possibly, maybe, even slightly is against what happened, then you can't talk about "Muslims" that way. You have to interject with qualifiers like "some", or "many", otherwise you're stepping across some imaginary line in the sand.

I am really tired of this shyte.

Also it is fooking disingenuous.
Where there might be a very small minority that engage in utter violence, there is a bigger minority that facilitate it and condone it.

And there is a majority, even in Western countries which are largely native born, that hate Western secularism, Western liberal ideas on women and sexuality.
Most of these condemn the killing of the French teacher, but they would damn well condone his sacking and would have no problem with him never working in education again.

There is a dangerous slipping point and we have already reached it in many Western countries where the numbers show that muslims see themselves as muslim first and whatever else second.

Also anyone can search my posti9ng history on PIRA and sinn fein, but comparing PIRA or indeed ETA, PLO even with ISIS and islamists is so wide of the mark.
They had clear political goals usually linked around disputed territorial claims.
ISIS just wants to kill anyone that doesn't subscribe to their imaginary friend and their belief system.

tdf7187 wrote: »

And little Leo V wants more of these types in our country.

Why on earth someone would call Leo "little" (presumably as some sort of perjorative) is a mystery to me; the Tánaiste is 6'2" and about 16 stone...

DrumSteve wrote: »

I actually had a big reply done up about how the comparisons between the RA and this little **** head are ridiculous but I cannot be bothered.

The IRA also murdered teachers; ISIS has suicide bombers, whereas the IRA had proxy bombs.

I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.

El Tarangu wrote: »

The IRA also murdered teachers; ISIS has suicide bombers, whereas the IRA had proxy bombs.

Sure, they did, and they were utter scum for doing so. All the same, the whys are important. The IRA with their misguided belief in a united Ireland vs this guy lashing out at someone who supposedly disrespected his prophet.

Context.

I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.

I have yet to see any degree of widespread condemnation from a Muslim population over these kind of attacks. Sure, I've seen a few small groups with a spokesperson make conciliatory remarks, but no outright condemnation.

The actions of the IRA were often condemned by the general population and many leaders in the Republic. I know many people who grew up supporting the idea of an united Ireland but have since turned away from it, because they can't accept the IRA.. simply put, they don't want any association with them.

It's a inaccurate comparison because the IRA were condemned for their behavior... each and every time that they engaged in it. Widespread condemnation. A minority, like here, seeking ever increasingly wild justifications, and deflections..

WrenBoy

El Tarangu wrote: »

The IRA also murdered teachers; ISIS has suicide bombers, whereas the IRA had proxy bombs.

I think that people use the example of the IRA to illustrate that equating all Irish people with the actions of the PIRA is as unhelpful as equating the actions of all "Muslims", a couple of billion people across a couple of hundred countries, with the actions of a few hundred terrorists.

One had/has a political /military aim to remove British rule from all of Ireland. The other is a religion who's teaching are that all those that do not submit to that religion should be attacked and subjugated until they are "subdued" everywhere, worldwide. Not a fringe, debatable opinion by scholars, a main concrete part of the faith which luckily not all are prepared to act on themselves. To go against that teaching is to go against the religion which they will not do. It is much more apart of their lives and identity than religion in the west is to us.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have yet to see any degree of widespread condemnation from a Muslim population over these kind of attacks. Sure, I've seen a few small groups with a spokesperson make conciliatory remarks, but no outright condemnation.

There were loads of condemnations from many Muslim groups in France (granted, while these were reported widely in the French, they may not have made to English-speaking media).

WrenBoy wrote: »

One had/has a political /military aim to remove British rule from all of Ireland. The other is a religion who's teaching are that all those that do not submit to that religion should be attacked and subjugated until they are "subdued" everywhere, worldwide. Not a fringe, debatable opinion by scholars, a main concrete part of the faith which luckily not all are prepared to act on themselves. To go against that teaching is to go against the religion which they will not do. It is much more apart of their lives and identity than religion in the west is to us.

Everyone's own cause always seems justified and righteous to themselves, and rarely to those on the receiving end of the bullets/bombs/beheadings.

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That is a very bold claim to make without any evidence to back it up...

Perhaps if you were to address that question to Mr. Ramsam Kadyrov, ( if you have ever heard of him ) you might be surprised to hear his views on it.

TomTomTim

El Tarangu wrote: »

Everyone's own cause always seems justified and righteous to themselves, and rarely to those on the receiving end of the bullets/bombs/beheadings.

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

No one here supports the IRA. As has already been highlighted, you can hate both groups.

Saying that, you are still playing the false equivalence game. There's a big difference between Islamist's who move to the west, yet have the audacity to hate western values to the point of killing us, and IRA members/supporters who had a group of people from a different culture forced upon them.

People like yourself aren't too different than all the apologists for the CC when **** started rising to the top. You do nothing but facilitate the continuation of negative behavior, all while thinking you're morally righteous.

WrenBoy

El Tarangu wrote: »

Everyone's own cause always seems justified and righteous to themselves, and rarely to those on the receiving end of the bullets/bombs/beheadings.

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

The IRA's aim is not to rid the world of all Protestants or have them live under a special system of laws making all non-Catholics second class citizens all over the world . Islam beseeches followers to "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"

Can't believe Im quasi-defending the IRA here.

El Tarangu wrote: »

The IRA saw no compunction with murdering people purely on the basis that they were protestant; to me, there is not an awful lot of daylight between this and ISIS/Al Qaeda/whoever murdering people on the basis that they are Christian, or other.

Jesus H Christ.

You might regale us with stories of the IRA committing genocide of a people, enslaving and the industrial the rape of girls?
-selling slaves to each other
-casting gays from rooftops
-setting pilots on fire in cages as they stream it
-machine gunning 100s of cadets into pits
-hacking heads from lines of captives

The only similarity is both killed in their cause.
Their causes were very very different.
One's cause had an end game that would see British removal from Ireland, as happened in 1921.
Are the IRA of 1921 same as ISIS? They killed protestants (wrongly) in West Cork...

The other would see the annihilation of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their ideology, including fellow Muslims. Globally.

Most Republicans would be repulsed by the execution of a person, simply because of their religious belief. There is a significant number of Islamic extremists who would see this scumbag as a venerated martyr.

Deleted User wrote: »

You just did. More than once. Finding justifications is defending.

Rubbish. That was in the days of when people were fighting various forms of oppression, and sought freedoms for their nation or particular group. What oppression or freedoms were they fighting against to cut the head off a civilian in a foreign country?

Go on.. I'd love to see you argue the freedom fighter angle on this one.. because I suspect you know that you don't have a leg to stand on.

When was the last time we (western nations) honored someone for beheading a civilian? Hell, a variety of western nations have brought up their soldiers on criminal charges for "barbaric" behavior abroad, which is far cry from what you're suggesting (imagine what we'd do to a civilian vigilante who decided to do the same). Nor, have I seen any suggestion of a western civilian population praising the behavior of soldiers in torturing or killing "the enemy" in brutal ways.

Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Ever seen American Sniper?

CinemaGuy45

Being called a racist by people who defend this kind of scum means you must be doing something right.

The big R word is meant to silence people.

This man should have been wrapped in bacon chopped up and dumped in a septic tank full of pig filth.

ElJeffe

I spoke to a Muslim guy only last Friday who said he didn't view a lot of the events in Europe the last few years as terrorism. I don't know if he was looking for a reaction or he was genuine but it left me a little stunned tbh.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Jesus H Christ.

You might regale us with stories of the IRA committing genocide of a people, enslaving and the industrial the rape of girls?
-selling slaves to each other
-casting gays from rooftops
-setting pilots on fire in cages as they stream it
-machine gunning 100s of cadets into pits
-hacking heads from lines of captives

I'm not claiming that the IRA was as bad as ISIS; taking the actions of one Chechen Muslim man who brutally murdered a teacher, and equating it with all Muslims in the world (or even all the people in Chechnya - and that one was mod) is about as accurate/helpful as when the English blamed all Irish people for the actions of the PIRA.

200 turning up at his funeral says no more about the wider population of the region than the few thousand that turned up at Bobby Storey's funeral.

ElJeffe wrote: »

I spoke to a Muslim guy only last Friday who said he didn't view a lot of the events in Europe the last few years as terrorism. I don't know if he was looking for a reaction or he was genuine but it left me a little stunned tbh.

Why would he? First and foremost for each and every Muslim on the planet is to follow the teachings of Mohammad...so of course killing non believers, especially those perceived as insulting Islam is lauded. And that's the main problem with Islamic
Murder is legalised, but only one way..muslims killed by non muslims, is not to be countenance.. under any circumstances. It's extreme racist and islamophobic

ElJeffe wrote: »

I spoke to a Muslim guy only last Friday who said he didn't view a lot of the events in Europe the last few years as terrorism. I don't know if he was looking for a reaction or he was genuine but it left me a little stunned tbh.

I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute).

jmreire wrote: »

Why would he? First and foremost for each and every Muslim on the planet is to follow the teachings of Mohammad...so of course killing non believers, especially those perceived as insulting Islam is lauded. And that's the main problem with Islamic
Murder is legalised, but only one way..muslims killed by non muslims, is not to be countenance.. under any circumstances. It's extreme racist and islamophobic

Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.

Gervais08

El Tarangu wrote: »

I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute).

Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.

Or more likely they do but haven’t yet got round to it.

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

She was the point of the spear of a war against mankind

and the hyperbole prize goes to... *opens golden envelope*

seamus wrote: »

Large funerals for horrible murdering scumbags in their home town is not exactly a surprise.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/174E1/production/_113175459_bobby_storey_funeral50.jpg

https://world.time.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2013/04/1667961061.jpg

Thats the whataboutism of whataboutary whateverism.

joseywhales

Going to a funeral does not imply that one supports the dead person's actions.

There are more than 200 muslims in the world.

Wanting to dishonor the body of your enemy, no matter how much you hate them or what they did, is dishonorable.

Case solved.

joseywhales wrote: »

Going to a funeral does not imply that one supports the dead person's actions.

except for close family, it does.

It was 200 from that village.

Entrances to Shalazi - population 5,330 - were sealed off by 65 police officers to stop others attending.

El Tarangu wrote: »

I've seen a fair few Irish people on boards saying that the IRA are great, but I don't think it's representative of Irish peoples generally (and anyway, I don't actually believe that for a minute).

Given that there are millions of Muslims in France and Belgium, the fact that the streets of their cities are not littered with the corpses of non-believers is probably indicative of the fact that most Muslims don't actually feel this way.

There's a very big difference between the % of believers that actually carry out these atrocities, and the "Silent Majority",,,, but just because this majority is not actively involved. does not mean that they disagree with them. How can they when the Quran explicitly teaches that the unbelievers must submit, or be killed? Can you say with 100% confidence that European Cities will never see a religious war Islam V The Rest? Because Historically, that was how Islam spreads, by conquest. And it has been doing it since the 6th century. Isis being the latest version, but its being spread globally by other mean's too ...Saudi Arabia being very active world wide in spreading the Wahhabi version of Islam, the one which isis took inspiration from. If you happened to be in a room with your Muslim friend, and the news came on, and showed say, the Hagia Sofia being reopened as a Mosque, just see how the expression on his face will change, and how he will react. He will be very happy Hamdulilah.
As for your comment about the IRA,, they never claimed to be empowered by God, and were following His instruction and directives.

jmreire wrote: »

There's a very big difference between the % of believers that actually carry out these atrocities, and the "Silent Majority",,,, but just because this majority is not actively involved. does not mean that they disagree with them. How can they when the Quran explicitly teaches that the unbelievers must submit, or be killed?

Well to be fair you can quote the old Testament to that effect. In fact the Koran is not referring to christians when it references unbelievers, but atheists or sometimes polytheists. Christians are people of the book.

The modern extreme version of Islam might not make that distinction though.

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

except for close family, it does.

It was 200 from that village.

That's not true, I have often attended funerals for people I didn't know but whose family I've been close to. A funeral isn't just about the guy who died.

People attend funerals for all kinds of reasons, some to just remember that period of their life, some for religious reasons. Remember these are complex human beings not just savage muslims as they are being portrayed. They each have their own personality and beliefs. Many are forced to conform in public to the dominant politics. In my view attending a funeral can be the result of any of this. I certainly won't assume that all of these people want to behead teachers.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well to be fair you can quote the old Testament to that effect. In fact the Koran is not referring to christians when it references unbelievers, but atheists or sometimes polytheists. Christians are people of the book.

The modern extreme version of Islam might not make that distinction though.

Islam is based 100% on the Old Testament.....Mohammed claimed that the one true religion as handed down to Moses by God, had been strayed from. And he claimed that God had instructed him via the Angel Gabriel to restore it. He conveniently ignored what Jesus had taught, as in "The New and Everlasting Covenant between God and Man" which took all the savagery and death out of the Old Testament to give us what we have today. And so we have the present day Islam, following the Quran, which has not changed in 1400 years, and can never be changed as its the Word of God. And thats the problem.