nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

splashuum

Very disrespectful on the French victim. Its arguable that the body of the terrorist shouldn't have been allowed to leave France. The large crowd at the funeral lauded the terrorist as a "lion of Islam"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9025443/Terrorist-beheaded-French-teacher-buried-Chechnya.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Detritus70

splashuum wrote: »

Very disrespectful on the French victim. Its arguable that the body of the terrorist shouldn't have been allowed to leave France. The large crowd at the funeral lauded the terrorist as a "lion of Islam"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9025443/Terrorist-beheaded-French-teacher-buried-Chechnya.html

If the Hate Mail promised me a million bucks, world peace, a cheeseburger and a blowjob I still wouldn't click on any link from that hateful rag.
If they reported the sky was blue, I wouldn't even need to look out the windowto know it had turned pink.
So if the DM reports it, to me it didn't happen.

El Tarangu

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Its your point, for you there is "not a lot of daylight between IRA murdering Protestants and ISIS" is the issue!

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

GreeBo

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yeah I missed the part where he beheaded someone for a cartoon in the Daily Mail.

Ffs you people.

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

[Deleted User]

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

Just when you were about to stop digging, you said "na, **** this, I'm going all the way to Australia"

Jasis.
Go on,

TomTomTim

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

Are you hallucinating? No one is standing behind any terrorists. Posters like yourself are getting very desperate.

GreeBo

TomTomTim wrote: »

Are you hallucinating? No one is standing behind any terrorists. Posters like yourself are getting very desperate.

If no one is standing behind it, why are posters differentiating (for example) the IRA from ISIS by saying things like "ah well the IRA never beheaded anyone"?

Again, to the person murdered, they really don't care about the how or indeed the why.

RandRuns

It always puzzles me why so many people are willing to tie themselves up in linguistic and moral relativity knots to defend or deflect from islamic terrorism. I've never met anyone willing to do it in real life, but every discussion online has lots of them. Can anyone explain why that is? What is it about islamic terrorism that makes people so defensive?

jmreire

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

The main difference is that the Good Friday finished the war in the north.. but for 1400 years and counting, radical Islam has been, still is. and will continue into the future..while the world and the human race exists, or until the Quran changes.

RWCNT

RandRuns wrote: »

It always puzzles me why so many people are willing to tie themselves up in linguistic and moral relativity knots to defend or deflect from islamic terrorism. I've never met anyone willing to do it in real life, but every discussion online has lots of them. Can anyone explain why that is? What is it about islamic terrorism that makes people so defensive?

I think it's that people often feel these things are brought up in an effort to suggest that all or a majority of Muslims are supportive of radical Islamic terrorism and therefore that Muslims are generally bad people and not to be trusted. Perhaps they know or are friends with a Muslim and feel that could lead to their unfair treatment, so they try to draw a comparison towards our own home grown terrorism to take the heat off the muslims a bit.

However, while it's a fair enough point its an overly simplistic comparison IMO and it turns up in every single thread on the topic as sure as night follows day, to the point it makes people even more angry. From what I've seen it doesn't serve its intended purpose.

Rolo2010

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

The Troubles had nothing to do with their interpretations of Christianity.

jmreire

RandRuns wrote: »

It always puzzles me why so many people are willing to tie themselves up in linguistic and moral relativity knots to defend or deflect from islamic terrorism. I've never met anyone willing to do it in real life, but every discussion online has lots of them. Can anyone explain why that is? What is it about islamic terrorism that makes people so defensive?

One reason is just have a look at recent events where the French Teacher, Samual Paty was decapitated, and all he was doing was his job,, an not even remotely attacking Islam. Who wants to invite that on themselves?

[Deleted User]

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you reckon the two kids blown up with Mountbatten (or the countless other innocents who were murdered) are thinking to themselves "Well at least we weren't beheaded!"?

Murdering people for any reason is wrong and you cant stand behind one set of murderers and also condemn another set, just because they have different beliefs than you do.

Why yes, yes you can.

Motive, casuality and understanding rationale are key, as is mind set of the perpetrator, both before and after.
The "why" the person committed the atrocity.

Take your Mountbatten example.
Did the perpetrator intend to kill two kids?
Doubt it.
Does he regret killing them?
Possibly*

Our Chechen friend certainly intended what he did, and I doubt he regretted it.

*His wife has stated, "Tommy never talks about Mountbatten, only the boys who died. He does have genuine remorse. Oh God yes"

Blondini

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.

Probably for the best then if you don't invite him around to see your comic collection just in case ....

[Deleted User]

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

Even if this were the case it doesnt really matter to whether we condemn this act of violence or the funeral celebrations. Not sure of the point.

And nobody was killed for religious beliefs really.

The only thing I agree with is that we shouldn't tar all muslims.

[Deleted User]

RandRuns wrote: »

It always puzzles me why so many people are willing to tie themselves up in linguistic and moral relativity knots to defend or deflect from islamic terrorism. I've never met anyone willing to do it in real life, but every discussion online has lots of them. Can anyone explain why that is? What is it about islamic terrorism that makes people so defensive?

Some are unable to separate a Muslim from an Islamist.

Not all Muslims are Islamists.
However, all Islamists are Muslims.

But the million dollar question is, what % of Muslims are Islamists...

One can criticise all Islamists without criticising all Muslims.

[Deleted User]

jmreire wrote: »

The main difference is that the Good Friday finished the war in the north.. but for 1400 years and counting, radical Islam has been, still is. and will continue into the future..while the world and the human race exists, or until the Quran changes.

Who knows, the Middle East was more secular a few generations ago. Chechnya used to be part of an atheistic country.

GreeBo wrote: »

If no one is standing behind it, why are posters differentiating (for example) the IRA from ISIS by saying things like "ah well the IRA never beheaded anyone"?

Again, to the person murdered, they really don't care about the how or indeed the why.

Why are the IRA even in this thread? Thats the real question.

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are the IRA even in this thread? Thats the real question.

Some posters get annoyed that people voice their upset at innocent people getting blown up, run over, shot/stabbed to death or their heads sawed off by islamists. So in an effort to shut those people up they say that the IRA did bad things before so we shouldn't give out and just shut up about it. Thats my reading anyway.

RandRuns

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

El Tarangu

RandRuns wrote: »

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP? The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

TomTomTim

RandRuns wrote: »

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

As bad as they may be they still have basic instincts of self-preservation, something that seems to be lost in many of the "enlightened intellectuals" of the west. Never has there been a group of people so destructive, so wrong, yet so full of hubris.

El Tarangu

Rolo2010 wrote: »

The Troubles had nothing to do with their interpretations of Christianity.

Deleted User wrote: »

And nobody was killed for religious beliefs really.

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing I agree with is that we shouldn't tar all muslims.

In that, we agree.

Rolo2010

El Tarangu wrote: »

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

In that, we agree.

They were murdered because they came from a Unionist background. It just was a coincidence that one side happened to be Catholic and the other Protestant. Conflict still would have happened if both sides were one or the other. Pick up a history book.

RandRuns

El Tarangu wrote: »

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP? The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is just one of the many justifications and defences given.

I didn't see anyone equivocating this murderers actions with a group of 2 billion people, but I do see people pretending that's the case in order to defend his actions, and the actions of others like him.

RWCNT

El Tarangu wrote: »

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

True, but the reason for their murder was not the content of their religious beliefs - it wasn't as though the IRA were killing protestants because they wanted them to convert or because of strong objection to the protestant's brand of Christianity. They also weren't motivated by their interpretation of the scriptures.

It's an important distinction. You can hate or persecute a religious group without the issue or conflict being specifically religious in itself. Another example would be racists who engage in anti-Semitism not on the basis of objection to the teachings of the Torah, but instead due to belief in racist conspiracy theories about Jewish people being up to all sorts of evil things.

[Deleted User]

El Tarangu wrote: »

The 10 men I was referring to at Kingsmills were murdered because they were protestants

It wasn't on matters of spiritual belief, as you know, but ethnographies religious violence. That said it doesn't matter because it was an atrocity anyway and with regards to this thread, not relevant.

[Deleted User]

El Tarangu wrote: »

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP?

You may have not defended them but you didn't condemn them. Whataboutary is often a form of defense anyway

The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

You didn't just do that.

El Tarangu

Deleted User wrote: »

You may have not defended them but you didn't condemn them.

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, for me there isn't; I don't see a whole lot of difference between a radicalised muslim murdering a teacher due to some arbitrary religious difference, and the IRA shooting dead 10 workers because they don't believe in transubstantiation (or the UVF murdering some taxi driver, because he did).

El Tarangu wrote: »

who has defended the actions of the murderer in the OP? The only thing I see is people cautioning against equivocating this animal's actions with a group of 2bn people.

Do please point out where I defended this person.

GreeBo

WrenBoy wrote: »

Some posters get annoyed that people voice their upset at innocent people getting blown up, run over, shot/stabbed to death or their heads sawed off by islamists. So in an effort to shut those people up they say that the IRA did bad things before so we shouldn't give out and just shut up about it. Thats my reading anyway.

Not at all, some of us just like to point out that it's silly to act like these terrorists are somehow different from the IRA or any other bunch of lunatics who kill innocent people.
Some posters are apoplectic that mourners would attend this funeral since this guy was so evil, yet can't see any connection with so called normal people from their own country attending and celebrating the lives of known home terrorists.

Feel free to be abhorred that people would celebrate this murdering asshole, but don't imagine that he is somehow different than some white, English speaking, murdering asshole just because you understand his language and are more familiar with his choice of imaginary spaghetti monster.

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

I wonder if there are forums in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where dozens of Muslim lads are manfully defending the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the Israeli Defence Forces, and explaining how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were completely justified.

I somehow doubt there is. Self-flagellation and privilege guilt seem to be a uniquely white, western thing.

You must be reading different posts than I am, I didn't see anyone on here defend this whack job?

ILoveYourVibes

This is one of those situations were everyone seems to make a spectacle of themselves and no one behaves respectfully enough towards the tragedy.

Some Muslims ..some non muslims who are Islamophobic ...both sides just being embarrassing ...