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

RWCNT · 10-12-2020 03:49PM

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.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 03:49PM

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.

RandRuns · 10-12-2020 03:50PM

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.

Marcos · 10-12-2020 03:57PM

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.

biko · 10-12-2020 03:58PM

RandRuns wrote: »

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

When he use the word "remind" it implies he at some point knew...
Maybe "tell me what the crusades were about?" would gave been a better question.

conorhal · 10-12-2020 04:01PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Actually it's irrelevant to the victims who they were murdered by because they're dead. It's highly relevent to the rest of society however in how they react to the motivations of the perpetrators. A lone crazed gunman and a terrorist organization require very different responses.

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

You just don't want anybody to address the actual root cause of the problem by covering it in semantic nonsense yourself.
Speaking of which.....

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 think we can actually say that ISIS are objectively worse then the IRA.
One was involved in a regional political conflict, the other is a global one. One killed several thousand people over 40yrs of conflict, for the other that ammounts to a bad week in Syria.

biko · 10-12-2020 04:05PM

There is no connection nor likeness between IS and IRA.
It's mad that apologetics/mutakallim even try that excuse.

Montage of Feck · 10-12-2020 04:08PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Remind me what the Crusades were about?

To support* the byzantine empire against a Islamic turkic invasion and bring the holy land back into the christian fold, albeit it Latin rather than oriental.

The majority of the territory under Islamic rule at that time had formerly been roman provinces populated of various ethnicities such as Assyrians, Berbers, Greeks and Jews.

*Strings attached, lol

RandRuns · 10-12-2020 04:27PM

Wonder how the Crusades research is going. I probably should have included a trigger warning.

I'm still waiting for that list of Islamic countries Sweden invaded as well.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 04:28PM

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.

"you people"? LOL

Ok, and before the Islamists invaded Europe there were no wars or no one taking land from anyone else?

Your thinking is so clouded by "they are barbarians" that you cant see the contradictions that are staring you in the face, even when pointed out to you with examples.

Their issue with you is exactly the same, to them, as your issue with them.

10-12-2020 04:29PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Dhera, I couldn't be bothered replying

biko · 10-12-2020 04:30PM

RandRuns wrote: »

I'm still waiting for that list of Islamic countries Sweden invaded as well.

Quite a number of countries have been invaded by Sweden over the centuries. All neighbours, and Russia, Poland etc.
None Islamic though, just good old Jesus countries.

RandRuns · 10-12-2020 04:30PM

biko wrote: »

Quite a number of countries have been invaded by Sweden over the centuries. All neighbours, and Russia, Poland etc.
None Islamic though, just good old Jesus countries.

Yup, but apparently they suffered islamic terrorism because of the islamic countries they invaded.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 04:31PM

biko wrote: »

There is no connection nor likeness between IS and IRA.
It's mad that apologetics/mutakallim even try that excuse.

Can you for once please point out where anyone is apologising for anything that either side has done?

Frankly its getting a bit tiresome when you keep trotting it out without anything to back it up.

Whats the difference between the IRA and ISIS?

They are both, in their own minds, fighting to take back what is theirs with a big dollop of religious differences on top.

You and other posters just see IS as more barbaric than the IRA and so choose to seem them differently.

biko · 10-12-2020 04:34PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Can you for once please point out where anyone is apologising for anything that either side has done?

Frankly its getting a bit tiresome when you keep trotting it out without anything to back it up.

Whats the difference between the IRA and ISIS?

They are both, in their own minds, fighting to take back what is theirs with a big dollop of religious differences on top.

You and other posters just see IS as more barbaric than the IRA and so choose to seem them differently.

It's funny how you asked me to point out an apologetic and then proceeded, in the same post, to make excuses for IS.

You're a funny guy.

WrenBoy · 10-12-2020 04:35PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Remind me what the Crusades were about?

Pushing back against muslim expansion into Christian lands, the murder of Christians, taking of slaves and kidnapping Christian Children to turn them into a slave army (look up the Janissaries)

Marcos · 10-12-2020 04:40PM

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.

They were starting to attack France, and that caused the French, Italians, Germans, British etc to realise that they needed to band together to survive. Throw in the Pope calling for a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Islamic invaders then there you have it.

RandRuns · 10-12-2020 04:41PM

WrenBoy wrote: »

Pushing back against muslim expansion into Christian lands, the murder of Christians, taking of slaves and kidnapping Christian Children to turn them into a slave army (look up the Janissaries)

No, no, no, it was all caused by a Stockholm-based IRA cell invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam.

biko · 10-12-2020 04:50PM

If things would have gone differently at the Battle of Vienna in 1683 we probably wouldn't have this conversation in English, probably not at all.

Like the Chechen we'd be Muslims now. And some think that wouldn't be a bad thing. I kinda disagree.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 05:25PM

conorhal wrote: »

Actually it's irrelevant to the victims who they were murdered by because they're dead. It's highly relevent to the rest of society however in how they react to the motivations of the perpetrators. A lone crazed gunman and a terrorist organization require very different responses.

Indeed, and in this particular thread we are talking about two terrorist organisations, namely the IRA and ISIS.
Yet some are now trying to distinguish between the barbaric terrorists and the friendly local terrorist, as if that somehow matters or makes a difference.

You just don't want anybody to address the actual root cause of the problem by covering it in semantic nonsense yourself.
Speaking of which.....

The root cause is a difference of beliefs. If you would read what I am actually posting and not try to interpret everything as me absolving ISIS this would go a lot better.

[/quote]
I think we can actually say that ISIS are objectively worse then the IRA.
One was involved in a regional political conflict, the other is a global one. One killed several thousand people over 40yrs of conflict, for the other that ammounts to a bad week in Syria.[/QUOTE]

One is bigger than the other for sure, I'm not sure that automatically equates to worse however.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 05:26PM

biko wrote: »

And some think that wouldn't be a bad thing. I kinda disagree.

There you go again.

Who are those "some" you are referring to?

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 05:28PM

biko wrote: »

When he use the word "remind" it implies he at some point knew...
Maybe "tell me what the crusades were about?" would gave been a better question.

LOL, just hilarious.

So the crusades werent the Latin Church taking land that was held by Islamic rule?

If your argument is "well Islam stole it first" then all you need to do is go back a little further in time and you will discover that the Church took it from someone before them, and on and on.

Thats pretty much the history of our planet, unless you believe that some people have a natural right to some piece of land?

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 05:30PM

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The majority of the territory under Islamic rule at that time had formerly been roman provinces populated of various ethnicities such as Assyrians, Berbers, Greeks and Jews.

*Strings attached, lol

and what was it before the Assyrians, Berbers, Greeks and Jews?

No matter what point you choose to start at, if you just go back further, someone else "owned" the land.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 05:31PM

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Dhera, I couldn't be bothered replying

and yet you did.

I suspect just in case you could rustle up some more thanks from the usual suspects.

RWCNT · 10-12-2020 05:51PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Can you for once please point out where anyone is apologising for anything that either side has done?

Frankly its getting a bit tiresome when you keep trotting it out without anything to back it up.

Whats the difference between the IRA and ISIS?

They are both, in their own minds, fighting to take back what is theirs with a big dollop of religious differences on top.

You and other posters just see IS as more barbaric than the IRA and so choose to seem them differently.

Please, for the love of god, do a bit of research into the troubles. I live in the UK and have had to explain this to British people who often have little to no knowledge of their own history and even less about anything that took place outside their own island. It was in no way, part or form a religious conflict.

I don't want to say anything that could be interpreted as defending the IRA, but you're forcing my hand a bit here. Disclaimer: I am not. You can't possibly believe that the desires of Republicans in the North during the troubles are equivalent to ISIS's desire for the restoration of the calpihate of early Islam dating back to 600 and something-ish EC and calling for the termination of literally anyone that doesn't pledge allegiance to this goal.

I believe you and I share a belief that the actions of Islamic extremists shouldn't be pinned on ordinary Muslims - and that's what is motivating you to argue so passionately in this thread against people you rightly or wrongly believe to be doing so. But I think you're overlooking that by continuously digging your heels in on this comparison you're actually disrespecting the memory of the huge amount of Muslims who IS have slaughtered due (the majority of their victims, as it happens) to their repugnant ideology. What about those Muslims? Surely they matter just as much as the people you hope to defend.

10-12-2020 05:59PM

GreeBo wrote: »

LOL, just hilarious.

So the crusades werent the Latin Church taking land that was held by Islamic rule?

Actually, you'll find that the land taken was owned by more than Muslims. It was owned by other religious groups, which have since, for the most part, disappeared from the overall region.

If your argument is "well Islam stole it first" then all you need to do is go back a little further in time and you will discover that the Church took it from someone before them, and on and on.

True enough. Land is retained by those strong enough to keep it. There will always be someone who wants what you have.

Thats pretty much the history of our planet, unless you believe that some people have a natural right to some piece of land?

The problem being that Western aggression was raised as justification for the behavior of Islamic groups. It's not as if biko raised the issue in a vacuum.

WrenBoy · 10-12-2020 06:36PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed, and in this particular thread we are talking about two terrorist organisations, namely the IRA and ISIS.
Yet some are now trying to distinguish between the barbaric terrorists and the friendly local terrorist, as if that somehow matters or makes a difference...

Actually we weren't, I haven't seen anyone report isis taking responsibility or that Chechen lad being a part of isis, he's just your everyday "lion of islam" Thats part of the point Im trying to make, one is a terrorist organisation the other is an ideology and a large sect of a major world religion. But admittedly the conversation has gone off the rails to be about IRA and daesh and Crusades.

biko · 10-12-2020 06:39PM

Remember when IRA took thousands of prisoners, and raped and burned them alive?

I don't, but someone here might. Or maybe someone wants to speak on behalf of IS to explain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDniN3k5aQ8

TomTomTim · 10-12-2020 06:40PM

WrenBoy wrote: »

Actually we weren't, I haven't seen anyone report isis taking responsibility or that Chechen lad being a part of isis, he's just your everyday "lion of islam" Thats part of the point Im trying to make, one is a terrorist organisation the other is an ideology and a large sect of a major world religion. But admittedly the conversation has gone off the rails to be about IRA and daesh and Crusades.

That's exactly what they wanted.

GreeBo · 10-12-2020 06:45PM

RWCNT wrote: »

Please, for the love of god, do a bit of research into the troubles. I live in the UK and have had to explain this to British people who often have little to no knowledge of their own history and even less about anything that took place outside their own island. It was in no way, part or form a religious conflict.

Sorry, I'm wasn't trying to imply that the troubles were caused by religious differences, they were involved however since it was (largely) Catholic Irish nationalists and Protestant Unionists.

I don't want to say anything that could be interpreted as defending the IRA, but you're forcing my hand a bit here. Disclaimer: I am not. You can't possibly believe that the desires of Republicans in the North during the troubles are equivalent to ISIS's desire for the restoration of the calpihate of early Islam dating back to 600 and something-ish EC and calling for the termination of literally anyone that doesn't pledge allegiance to this goal.

But as someone not involved in either conflict, your argument is basically that ISIS have been doing it for longer so they are more wrong?
The IRA were "terminating" people who didn't support a United Ireland...the only difference is that "you" believe the IRA had a valid reason for killing people but ISIS dont, that incongruity is all I'm pointing out.

Despite what a handful of posters are stating, I am in *no way* defending, condoning or absolving any ISIS actions (or in fact anyone who tries to achieve anything by murdering anyone else)
Its really not a great way to convince people to join your cause.

I believe you and I share a belief that the actions of Islamic extremists shouldn't be pinned on ordinary Muslims - and that's what is motivating you to argue so passionately in this thread against people you rightly or wrongly believe to be doing so. But I think you're overlooking that by continuously digging your heels in on this comparison you're actually disrespecting the memory of the huge amount of Muslims who IS have slaughtered due (the majority of their victims, as it happens) to their repugnant ideology. What about those Muslims? Surely they matter just as much as the people you hope to defend.

Extremists are by definition extreme, it really doesn't matter what noun you stick in front of them.

The whole point of my posts is to say that *anyone* who is murdering anyone else on the back on some cause/belief is abhorrent, its far to easy to believe that ISIS (or Pol Pot or either side in Gaza strip for example) are different than the IRA.
The only reason I can see people doing this is that they find it easier to relate to the IRA than these other groups.
But do you really think someone in Sweden for example would think the IRA murders were more legitimate than the ISIS ones? There is bias on here because of what the I in IRA stands for, that really makes no sense to anyone outside.

I find murdering for a cause repugnant, irrespective of the cause of who is doing it.

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

Comments