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

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I didn't ignore any of that. In fact, my post is about the danger that Islam represents to us all. It doesn't seek to excuse the behavior of Western nations. At all.

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 ?

RandRuns wrote: »

This old chestnut is often trotted out by those who know nothing of Islam, the causes of Islamic terrorism, and who know little of the world.

What Islamic countries have Sweden invaded? How many Muslims are Swedes responsible for killing?

Do you know who ran Iraq before the invasion? Do you know what radical islamists thought of him?

The current wave of Islamic terrorism in the west is only the latest in a near-unbroken line of attacks going back 1400 years. It has nothing to do with oil or occupation.

Please educate yourself a little before embarrasing yourself with posts like the above.

Muslims invading ... bad

Christians invading ... good

I get you

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?