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

Marcos

conorhal wrote: »

Excellent post. I'll crib my response by surmising some of a paper I was looking at on 'pathological altruism', something that the West seems to be in the deep grip of.

Pathological altruism can be defined as behavior which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others but results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.
Often it's the product people’s own good intentions, coupled with a variety of cognitive biases based on incomplete access to, or inability to process, the wide range of information necessary to make prudent decisions that align with cultural values associated with altruistic behavior.
This can sometimes blind them to the disasterous consequences of their actions.

This dynamic of pathological altruism involves subjectively prosocial acts that are objectively antisocial in their results.

And example of this would be a mother who attempts to protect her son by refusing to vaccinate him and who consequently fuels a loss of herd immunity underpinning a local whooping cough epidemic in which an infant dies.

A prime example of this in the context of the thread was Merkel insisting on accepting millions of migrants on the basis of one picture of a dead child on a Turkish beach.
It was an emotionally incontinent reaction to a specific case that ignored all the facts. Facts like the child has been safe in Turkey for over a year and the reason that his father put him in a boat in the first place is that his application for a visa to Canada was taking too long, ergo we must throw open the gates to Europe and accept hundreds of thousands of third world military age men into the EU.

We really need to start thinking about the long term consequences of mass immigration in this world and what impact it's having.

The Chinese have a term for the (white) western people who exhibit this behaviour. Baizhuo

the term evolved to criticize some people among the left who seemingly advocate for positive slogans like peace and equality to boast their sense of moral superiority, but are ignorant of real-world consequences, and utilize destructive behavior like political sacrifice and identity politics

It's born out of arrogance and a need to feel and show that they're more virtuous than everybody else.

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

Remind me what the Crusades were about?

Jesus, you people are really bad at this.

Rather than give you a history lesson, which you probably won't believe, I suggest you research the crusades yourself.

GreeBo

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

This is actually painful, arguing with someone so deficient in rudimentary knowledge of what they're arguing about.

It appears that you are incapable of debating without resorting to ad hominems, its terribly childish.

So you've accepted he wasn't killed because he was British, some progress...

But it seems you cannot fathom that as
Moubtbatten was a senior royal, and as senior royals are military commanders of an army; and he knew he was at risk, as the IRA had previously tried to get him. In the eyes of the IRA he was a legitimate target.
I disagree. He was an auld codger.

Im sorry? trying to kill someone once before makes them a legitimate target??
In any case, surely legitimacy in the eyes of the murderer is hardly relevant?
He was killed because he was a senior royal, there is nothing legitimate about that. What was it that he actually *did* that made him a target?

Next, something about Charlie Hebdo- not really sure what you're saying, it might get that anyone who endorses their view of free speech is a "legitimate" risk? Is that it? Is it a view you share?

It wasnt terribly complicated. I was pointing out that anyone with any clue of what goes on in the world would be aware that there are those who dont take kindly to people taking the piss out of the prophet. Charlie Hebdo was sufficient warning for that. Arguably as much warning as Mountbatten had that he was a "legitimate target".

Whether I share it or not is as relevant as you agreeing that Mountbatten was a legitimate target. As I said above, legitimacy is in the eyes of the murderer.

But anyway, you seem confused and are conflating a French civics teacher of being beheaded in a Parisean street, by a Chechyn because of a cartoon with IRA activities... really?

This is not complicated.
The teacher knew that by taking the piss out of the prophet he was making himself a target, rightly or wrongly.
To you (and I for that matter) a cartoon of a prophet is not worth killing someone over, to others it is.
But equally, being a member of the royal family (something that you are born into and have no control over) isnt worth killing someone over.

Murder by its definition, is not self defence.
Killing someone is not necessarily justified. Jesus, you should know this basic stuff.

Ehh, thats exactly the point? Why would you distinguish between the IRA and ISIS? Both groups commit murder based on differences of beliefs.

Its not to me to forgive others sins, but I imagine if there was genuine remorse, one might be more ready to forgive?

So if ISIS said "sorry" everytime they kill that would make it better?
Another poster brought up the idea of remorse as something that somehow distinguishes the IRA from ISIS, remorse is only relevant to those left behind, the same number of people are dead with or without remorse.

RWCNT

GreeBo wrote: »

Distinguishing between two forms or murder based on who is doing the murdering is arguably racist.

Why treat a car bombing murderer any differently than a beheading murderer?

The only possible reason I can see is because you want to somehow say that they IRA (for example) are not as bad as ISIS, even though they kill people for the basically the same reasons, beliefs. And your basis for this is that car bombs are more humane than beheading.

Is there some "murder technique" scale that I'm perhaps unaware of?
Where does strangulation fit in for example?

I can see that you're well meaning, but holy ****, this ain't it chief.

I'm no apologist for the 'Ra but boiling it down to "IRA and ISIS are the same as they were both motivated by beliefs" is an absurdly reductive take. You have to realise that the matter of what the beliefs in question actually are is at least somewhat important. You're really not going to do anybody any good spitting these kinds of takes, pal.

biko

GreeBo wrote: »

Remind me what the Crusades were about?

The recovery of the Holy Land from Islamic rule.

The First Crusade began in 1095 when the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, requested military support
from the Council of Piacenza in the Byzantine Empire's conflict with the Seljuk-led Turks.

Are you really trying to bring up stuff from a thousand years ago in a thread about a beheader from Chechnya?

[Deleted User]

TomTomTim wrote: »

Islamist's invaded Europe well before the Crusades, a point you people love to overlook. Thankfully for us, Charles Martel destroyed them in battle, so they never got much further than Italy and Spain.

Pretty much. They don't want to consider the Spain was overrun by the Moors, 300 years before the first crusades.

TomTomTim

GreeBo wrote: »

Remind me what the Crusades were about?

Islamist's invaded Europe well before the Crusades, a point you people love to overlook. Thankfully for us, Charles Martel destroyed them in battle, so they never got much further than Italy and Spain.

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

Distinguishing between two forms or murder based on who is doing the murdering is arguably racist.

Why treat a car bombing murderer any differently than a beheading murderer?

The only possible reason I can see is because you want to somehow say that they IRA (for example) are not as bad as ISIS, even though they kill people for the basically the same reasons, beliefs. And your basis for this is that car bombs are more humane than beheading.

Is there some "murder technique" scale that I'm perhaps unaware of?
Where does strangulation fit in for example?

I don't blame you for trying to strawman your way out of your "disliking decapitation is racist" post, it is possibly the stupidiest post in the history of this, or any other forum.

It really should become a meme.

4ptmgh

[Deleted User]

robertpatterson wrote: »

Lol our doing?

Collective responsibility... for westerners. No similar collective responsibility for non-western groups though.

It's interesting how often it's westerners pushing the double standard.

[Deleted User]

conorhal wrote: »

We really need to start thinking about the long term consequences of mass immigration in this world and what impact it's having.

Pretty much. I think a lot of it comes down to our approach to democracy. four or five year terms, after which another election occurs. So, the moment one election is finished, people are already preparing for the next one down the line.. which is only four years away.

As such, there is such emphasis on short term planning, since politicians only tend to serve for a limited period, and their campaign promises only cover short term "needs". Along with the instant gratification culture that has grown out of consumerism, and the internet, we're a people who have forgotten how to consider the long-term consequences of our decisions. We make virtuous decisions, with the belief that they are righteous, but aren't willing to consider the negative connotations of those decisions.

Immigration is a major issue, but integration is of greater concern. Not assimilation, which many people confuse it with. There is already a sizable foreign population in Europe, with no clear, and proven method of integrating them into European culture. It's just a mishmash of wishful thinking and hopeful thoughts...

Which is why we're essentially screwed.

robertpatterson

weisses wrote: »

So you do not see the fact that in history Islam and muslims had more to fear from us in the west then vice versa ?

And that the hate in some Muslims against the west is of our own doing ?

Lol our doing?

GreeBo

WrenBoy wrote: »

The West in or out of the Middle East would not change the teachings of islam.
Muslim Caliphates spread islam and crushed opposition through violence before the US even existed. See the Caliphate of the Ottoman Turks and tell me the difference between them and Daesh. They have the exact same motives and use the same tactics albeit updated with todays military tech.

Remind me what the Crusades were about?

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

"Disliking decapitation is racist"

Peak Boards.

Distinguishing between two forms or murder based on who is doing the murdering is arguably racist.

Why treat a car bombing murderer any differently than a beheading murderer?

The only possible reason I can see is because you want to somehow say that they IRA (for example) are not as bad as ISIS, even though they kill people for the basically the same reasons, beliefs. And your basis for this is that car bombs are more humane than beheading.

Is there some "murder technique" scale that I'm perhaps unaware of?
Where does strangulation fit in for example?

biko

A look at Chechnya
12 mins in a Chechen music producer says married women shouldn't touch other men. You know the Islam runs deep then, it's always the women whose freedom is ****ed by oppressive ideologies.
There and here. But have you even heard a Irish feminist oppose that? Me neither.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxA9i7zFGKA

GreeBo

TomTomTim wrote: »

You're really something. Decapitation is one of the most savage acts known to man, if that needs to be explained to you then there's little hope for you.

Whereas car bombs on main shopping streets are fine and dandy?
Why are you distinguishing between different mechanisms for killing people? To what end? What possible purpose does it serve?

Anyway, this thread is another win for the apologists. As usual the thread has devolved in semantic nonsense, with the real substance taking a back seat. If I went into a Trump thread arguing the way these people do I'd be swiftly be thread banned, yet they are allowed to do this derailing every time this topic pops up.

Who is apologising for either side? Posters like you keep trotting that line out but its a complete strawman. All that is being pointed out to you, is that to the victims, its irrelevant if they were murdered by ISIS, IRA, Nazis, lone gunman or whatever.
Its one group of people killing another group of people based on disagreement about beliefs.
*You* are the one breaking it into semantics by deciding that beheading is worse than a carbomb and so Islamic Fundamentalists are therefore "worse" than other types of terrorist, such as IRA members.

To those of us who have a basic problem with one group murdering another posts like yours are sheer semantic nonsense.

B.A._Baracus

Reading this thread...some of yous are disgusting.
Like here we are talking about a murderer getting a hero's funeral after he beheaded someone for showing Muhammad. You'd think the reaction would all be the same. That we'd all be on the same page.

But no. Some of yous posting bile, getting it up for others etc.

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

While I agree that the majority of Muslims have little interest in murdering us all, the fact remains that our culture (way of life) is at a direct opposite of what most Islamic beliefs accept. While they wouldn't have the interest in murdering us, most would want us to change how we live, and bring in their own values over ours.

The part you're ignoring is that throughout the world there are many regions which are extremely poor, have little access to education (of close to our standard), and social conditioning has been ongoing for centuries. There are huge populations of Muslims who are uneducated, and unwilling to accept western values.

The star of western civilisation is waning, and we're not as powerful on the world stage as we used to be. As time goes by, other nations, likely to be Muslim nations will rise to compete with us, and there will be conflict. The teachings in Islam make this a guarantee, because of the belief that there must be one religion under God, and that religion must be Islam.

You don't seem to realise, probably because you're attributing your own experience with Christianity, to Muslims, but Islam is a very different animal, with little scope for change, and a greater degree of intolerance. In virtually every instance of a country gaining a Muslim majority, that nation has merged society, government and religion, to the extent that the religion has direct influence over the lifestyles of the people. And in most cases, we've seen those countries, no matter how westernised, become more traditional, or even harsh in how they apply Islamic rules to the people.

The issue is that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who would welcome the fall of Western nations, and the rise of their own faith. That would not be good for us.

Your effort to dismiss the threat is dangerous. And foolish. (Nope. Not calling you a fool).

Excellent post. I'll crib my response by surmising some of a paper I was looking at on 'pathological altruism', something that the West seems to be in the deep grip of.

Pathological altruism can be defined as behavior which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others but results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.
Often it's the product people’s own good intentions, coupled with a variety of cognitive biases based on incomplete access to, or inability to process, the wide range of information necessary to make prudent decisions that align with cultural values associated with altruistic behavior.
This can sometimes blind them to the disasterous consequences of their actions.

This dynamic of pathological altruism involves subjectively prosocial acts that are objectively antisocial in their results.

And example of this would be a mother who attempts to protect her son by refusing to vaccinate him and who consequently fuels a loss of herd immunity underpinning a local whooping cough epidemic in which an infant dies.

A prime example of this in the context of the thread was Merkel insisting on accepting millions of migrants on the basis of one picture of a dead child on a Turkish beach.
It was an emotionally incontinent reaction to a specific case that ignored all the facts. Facts like the child has been safe in Turkey for over a year and the reason that his father put him in a boat in the first place is that his application for a visa to Canada was taking too long, ergo we must throw open the gates to Europe and accept hundreds of thousands of third world military age men into the EU.

We really need to start thinking about the long term consequences of mass immigration in this world and what impact it's having.

biko

weisses wrote: »

Muslims invading ... bad

Christians invading ... good

I get you

Chechnya was invaded by Islam (Ottomans) in the 16th century. Was that a good thing, or a bad thing?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

So you do not see the fact that in history Islam and muslims had more to fear from us in the west then vice versa ?

And that the hate in some Muslims against the west is of our own doing ?

You're being incredibly selective with your approach to History. Both Islam and Christianity were militant faiths.. while Christianity held sway in Europe, Islamic civilisations were sweeping into Africa, and Asia. Just look the to multiple invasions of India by Muslim armies, and while there were a number of crusades by Christian nations, none of them even came close to the range that Islam spread.

But once more, you're ignoring the content of my previous post. I spoke of the danger of Islam to western culture, and people. I didn't once seek to justify that danger or excuse it. Why? Because it doesn't matter who started it, or who was worse.

What matters is the situation we have today. Islam has always been, and always will be, an aggressive religion. Just as Christianity was, however, Christianity has lost the support of the people... Islam hasn't.

You're hoping to justify Islam's hostility to western civilisation, except you're ignoring that Muhammad was a warrior leader, and his teaching encouraged military expansion... conflict would have happened anyway.. just as Islam has wiped out a whole host of religions and cultures it deemed offensive. (as has Christianity, but Christianity isn't a threat to us.. whereas Islam is)

RandRuns

weisses wrote: »

Says the one who uses Sweden as Example for a non invading country :rolleyes::D

Im not excusing terrorism ... Im providing a perspective as to why some hate us so much ...

Could you tell us all what Islamic country Sweden has invaded then? I'm sure we (and the Swedes) would love to know.

You are excusing terrorism, you are just doing it in a particularly cowardly and mendacious way.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

There is always a nuance ..Something that always seems to be missing when we are discussing Islam/Muslims here in the west.

I agree Players in the region kept a lid on things. They had their own cruel and barbaric ways of maintaining this, probably in a way that would have raised a few eyebrows over here. But in the end it happens over there and as long its staying there I don't mind ... Along comes the US, illegally invading a sovereign country, Creating a huge ****show, allowing a barbaric terrorist group to take hold. And we all know what happened in Europe during the years that followed.

All Im saying is that a lot of hate geared towards the west is of our own doing

Resonable enough, to account for some of the hate.

But could you accept a lot of the hate is purely due to the Western lifestyle?

As ISIS themselves say, the military intervention are secondary:
Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the group sets out six points explaining the justifications for their hatred of the West. It mentions, in order, the West’s disbelief in Islam, the prevalence of secularism, atheism, ‘transgressions’ against Islam, military operations, and territorial incursions.

... “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,”

weisses

Nermal wrote: »

1% of the population of Iraq is Christian.

Over 8% of that of France is Muslim, and within a generation it will be 20%.

Samuel Paty was not murdered in revenge for occupation, he was murdered by the occupier.

Sure.....

Nermal

weisses wrote: »

The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc

The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq

1% of the population of Iraq is Christian.

Over 8% of that of France is Muslim, and within a generation it will be 20%.

Samuel Paty was not murdered in revenge for occupation, he was murdered by the occupier.

weisses

RandRuns wrote: »

Not surprisingly, you have either completely misunderstood my post, or (more likely I think), deliberately refuse to accept your ignorance of the subject matter.

Based on the posts I've seen so far, your views on this subject are worthless, and are purely based on mistaken feelings, rather than facts, therefore there is no point in further engaging with your feeble efforts to excuse terrorism.

Says the one who uses Sweden as Example for a non invading country :rolleyes::D

Im not excusing terrorism ... Im providing a perspective as to why some hate us so much ...

weisses

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I think its a bit more nuanced than that.
Toppling certain players who were keeping a lid on things created a vacuum, but the extremists were always there, festering away.
But it was "brown on brown" and no one in the west gave a single solitary sh1t.

You're right, we'll be picking up the pieces for decades.

There is always a nuance ..Something that always seems to be missing when we are discussing Islam/Muslims here in the west.

I agree Players in the region kept a lid on things. They had their own cruel and barbaric ways of maintaining this, probably in a way that would have raised a few eyebrows over here. But in the end it happens over there and as long its staying there I don't mind ... Along comes the US, illegally invading a sovereign country, Creating a huge ****show, allowing a barbaric terrorist group to take hold. And we all know what happened in Europe during the years that followed.

All Im saying is that a lot of hate geared towards the west is of our own doing

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Problem is that our interventions in the middle east gave legitimacy to those preaching the extreme Islam. Invading Iraq created a vacuum And we all knew what happened after that...

Its action, reaction for decades now

I think its a bit more nuanced than that.
Toppling certain players who were keeping a lid on things created a vacuum, but the extremists were always there, festering away.
But it was "brown on brown" and no one in the west gave a single solitary sh1t.

You're right, we'll be picking up the pieces for decades.

RandRuns

weisses wrote: »

Muslims invading ... bad

Christians invading ... good

I get you

Not surprisingly, you have either completely misunderstood my post, or (more likely I think), deliberately refuse to accept your ignorance of the subject matter.

Based on the posts I've seen so far, your views on this subject are worthless, and are purely based on mistaken feelings, rather than facts, therefore there is no point in further engaging with your feeble efforts to excuse terrorism.

weisses

WrenBoy wrote: »

The West in or out of the Middle East would not change the teachings of islam.
Muslim Caliphates spread islam and crushed opposition through violence before the US even existed. See the Caliphate of the Ottoman Turks and tell me the difference between them and Daesh. They have the exact same motives and use the same tactics albeit updated with todays military tech.

Problem is that our interventions in the middle east gave legitimacy to those preaching the extreme Islam. Invading Iraq created a vacuum And we all knew what happened after that...

Its action, reaction for decades now

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

So you do not see the fact that in history Islam and muslims had more to fear from us in the west then vice versa ?

And that the hate in some Muslims against the west is of our own doing ?

Imagine bring this guy.
Oh wait, its the same guy...

weisses wrote: »

Imagine having some perspective and knowledge of History .. You might even learn a thing or two

Jasis, the irony.
He who casts the first stone is forever the transgressors.... eh?

(Notwithstanding it would appear you have no idea of who threw that first stone, but yea... "oil")

Banana Republic 1

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

Just like a shiners funeral.