Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

omnithanos · 26-11-2015 01:50PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So you're saying she was in on it?

So she shot herself then is what you're saying?

Or perhaps she had surgery to make it look like she'd been shot?

Those devious Illuminati!!!!!

Perhaps it isn't the Illuminati who are attempting the deception.

One can never simply accept second hand information without it being corroborated such as the fake story of the images of the same crisis actor appearing at Paris who previously appeared at Boston and Sandy Hook.

If your friend was genuinely injured then I should apologise for my insensitivity but I remain incredulous.

AnonoBoy · 26-11-2015 01:53PM

omnithanos wrote: »

Perhaps it isn't the Illuminati who are attempting the deception.

It's always the Illuminati.

I know because I'm apparently friends with one of them.

26-11-2015 01:55PM

Mod

Perhaps my last warning wasn't clear enough. I will repeat it once more. Any users breaching this warning will be threadbanned.

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

omnithanos, your thread on this subject has been locked. Do not cross post into this thread. Take this to the CT forum as I pointed out on your locked thread.

Others, please do not respond.

omnithanos · 26-11-2015 01:55PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's always the Illuminati.

I know because I'm apparently friends with one of them.

I doubt you are unless your friend is a Rockefeller, a Rothschild or perhaps JFK himself.

omnithanos · 26-11-2015 01:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

Perhaps my last warning wasn't clear enough. I will repeat it once more. Any users breaching this warning will be threadbanned.

I pmed you asking for an explanation for this decision since my videos show factual evidence of a staged hoax and do not propose any theory.

I still await your response.

26-11-2015 01:59PM

omnithanos wrote: »

I pmed you asking for an explanation for this decision since my videos show factual evidence of a staged hoax and do not propose any theory.

I still await your response.

Mod

I have responded to your PM and asked that you contact a CMod for further discussion on the matter.

As you have now breached another rule, you are not permitted to post in this thread again.

Edit: I see that you have been permanently banned from the Conspiracy Theory forum. You won't be using this forum in lieu of there.

Rabo Karabekian · 26-11-2015 03:51PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Right I'm just not sure the the US and UK had many assets in Iraq prior to the 2nd Gulf War, nor that they have many now either for that matter. But if you're just referring to Iraq 2 then fair enough, I usually run into the kind of lunatics who would put the US behind the Iranian Revolution as some masterful false-flag but there you go.

Yeah, I don't think the US (or the UK) had any assets in Iraq prior to 2003, but sometimes interference in one country isn't about the assets you have there. A perfect example would be the first campaign against Iraq, their asset was Kuwait, and they needed to protect that. They have been on-and-off involved in Iraq since they set it up, to be fair.

As for US involvement in the Iranian revolution, I presume you mean the one ousting the shah? Haven't come across that one, but yes it's ridiculous. They were, of course, deeply involved in Iranian history up to the downfall of the Shah. This applies to lots of other countries, including Iraq and Syria (usually coups and fomenting unrest against the ba'athist regimes).

I think a good basic tenet to follow here would be to assume that someone isn't a CTer if they don't mention conspiracy theories.

IrishTrajan · 26-11-2015 04:57PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Islam is a rich culture in Arab countries but the level of Arab hatred is disturbing. Americans and Europeans are way too hostile to the Arabs.

Yeah, it's not like we're calling for the cleansing of the Middle East. It's that they're calling for the cleansing of Europe. Turkey and Iran aren't Arab, yet they get just as much blame for this conflict (in fact, they get more blame than Jordan or Lebanon for instance) as their Arab counterparts.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Look at how Israel treats the Palestinians or the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia or the ignorance when Iraqis were suffering from ISIS attacks.

200 million people want their heads, and you're condemning them for not letting up on the pressure after being screwed over like five times before? And you'd be hard-pressed finding anyone coming up with excuses for the Saudis. Nobody likes the fúcking Saudis.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The international community is less Islamophobic and just bash the Arab world.

The lion's share of the aid comes from the European Union and the United States. According to estimates made by the World Bank The Palestinian Authority received $525 million of international aid in the first half of 2010, $1.4 billion in 2009 and $1.8 billion in 2008.[51] Foreign aid is the "main driver" of economic growth in the Palestinian territories.[51] According to the International Monetary Fund, the unemployment rate has fallen as the economy of Gaza grew by 16% in the first half of 2010, almost twice as fast as the economy of the West Bank.

[...]

According to the Development Assistance Committee, the main multilateral donors for the 2006–2007 period were UNRWA and the EU (through the European Commission); the main bilateral donors were the US, Japan, Canada and five European countries (Norway, Germany, Sweden, Spain and France).[58] Since 1993 the European Commission and the EU member-states combined have been by far the largest aid contributor to the Palestinians.[59] The Arab League states have also been substantial donors, notably through budgetary support to the PNA during the Second Intifada; they have been however criticized for not sufficiently financing the UNRWA and the PNA, and for balking at their pledges.[60] After the 2006 Palestinian elections, the Arab countries tried to contribute to the payment of the Palestinian public servants' wages, bypassing the PNA; at the same time Arab funds were paid directly to Abbas' office for disbursement.[61] During the Paris Conference, 11% of the pledges came from the US and Canada, 53% from Europe and 20% from the Arab countries.[41] From 2000 the European Union had provided over €1.6 billion to UNRWA, a relief and human development agency primarily aimed to help Palestinian refugees and other segments of Palestinian society, beside additional financial aid to Palestinians.[62] In 2013 UNRWA received 294,023,401 millions of dollars from USA, 216,386,867 millions of dollars from EU, 151,566,702 millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, 93,737,454 millions of dollars, from Sweden 54,439,768 millions of dollars, from Germany 53,061,050 millions of dollars, from Norway 34,595,162 millions of dollars, from Japan 28,836,915 millions of dollars, from Switzerland 23,267,282 millions of dollars, from Australia 22,445,260 millions of dollars, from Netherlands 20,049,472 from Denmark 18,638,884, millions of dollars from Kuwait 17,000,000, millions of dollars, from France 12,852,039 millions of dollars from Italy 10,714,805 millions of dollars, from Belgium 10,271,039 millions of dollars and smaller amounts from other countries as well, totaling 1,091,649,846 billions of dollars in the year of 2013

https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/allwebsitemedia/20newsandpublications/publicationpdfsenglish/irish-aid-2013-annual-report.pdf

€10.7 million was provided in 2013, which included support
for the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees, the Palestinian Authority’s Education
Development Strategic Plan, and civil society organisations, in
both Palestine and Israel, advocating for human rights.

http://www.gsdrc.org/publications/international-aid-to-lebanon/

Between 2006 and 2011, EU institutions, the USA, UNRWA and France were consistently among the top 5 donors to Lebanon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign_aid_received#List_of_countries_by_foreign_aid_received

Egypt - $1.414 billion
Iraq - $1.9 billion
Libya - $642 million
Jordan - $978.9 million
Syria - $335.1 million

Middle East Total: $12,914,500,000.

If we hate the Arabs so much, why are we giving them money?

ilkhanid · 26-11-2015 05:07PM

backward

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Islam is a rich culture in Arab countries but the level of Arab hatred is disturbing. Americans and Europeans are way too hostile to the Arabs. Look at how Israel treats the Palestinians or the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia or the ignorance when Iraqis were suffering from ISIS attacks. The international community is less Islamophobic and just bash the Arab world.

Is that extraordinary? A large part of the Arab world is/was composed of military dictatorships or reactionary monarchies, which would be nothing without oil. As for culture, much of the the region is stagnating. The single most important Arab state is a backward, fanatical sandpit, inhabitated by indolent royals more interested in beheading witches and persecuting Shias than confronting the IS enemy at the gates.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm generally of the opinion that we shouldn't be bombing the **** out of anywhere, regardless of whether or not we are being bombed back in return.

But then again the worlds largest terrorist attack on September 11th prior to Afghanistan and Iraq 2, and it occurred ostensibly because the US has violated the sanctity of Saudi Arabian soil by stationing its troops there during the liberation of Kuwait. There is at some point a certain level of zealotry and stupidity that cannot be negotiated away.

There were multiple accelerating attacks throughout the 90s. It's just that the events since 9/11 have made them fade in the memory of most people: the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the killings on the Paris Metro, the slaughter of the tourists in Luxor and above all, the murder of tens of thousands of people in Algeria.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think the US (or the UK) had any assets in Iraq prior to 2003, but sometimes interference in one country isn't about the assets you have there. A perfect example would be the first campaign against Iraq, their asset was Kuwait, and they needed to protect that.

True enough, they needed to protect Kuwait, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Iraqi invasion was-obviously-illegal and the effort to evict the Iraqis was legal and justified.

Rabo Karabekian · 26-11-2015 05:40PM

ilkhanid wrote: »

True enough, they needed to protect Kuwait, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Iraqi invasion was-obviously-illegal and the effort to evict the Iraqis was legal and justified.

Legal, yes in the sense that it was authorised. Justified would be questionable, not in the sense of a sovereign state's integrity being compromised, in that sense yes it was justified, but questionable in that the US (and its allies) weren't taking into account the possible blowback that inevitably comes into play when you bomb a country and/or put troops on the ground. As you mentioned yourself, terrorist attacks linked to Islamists increased exponentially in the 90s.

ilkhanid · 26-11-2015 06:07PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Legal, yes in the sense that it was authorised. Justified would be questionable, not in the sense of a sovereign state's integrity being compromised, in that sense yes it was justified, but questionable in that the US (and its allies) weren't taking into account the possible blowback that inevitably comes into play when you bomb a country and/or put troops on the ground. As you mentioned yourself, terrorist attacks linked to Islamists increased exponentially in the 90s.

Well, yes, in the sense you mean it was justified and that's the sense that counts. Sometimes,unfortunately, things that are necessary have unavoidable consequences. But Iraq was only one of the causes of rising violent Islamism in the nineties. The attacks in Algeria and Egypt were aimed primarily at those two countries themselves and Islamism had been growing in those states for years, for instance Egypt was the homeland of Sayyid Qutb :Osama Bin Laden didn't conjure it up.

Irish Praetorian · 26-11-2015 06:34PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think the US (or the UK) had any assets in Iraq prior to 2003, but sometimes interference in one country isn't about the assets you have there. A perfect example would be the first campaign against Iraq, their asset was Kuwait, and they needed to protect that. They have been on-and-off involved in Iraq since they set it up, to be fair.

As for US involvement in the Iranian revolution, I presume you mean the one ousting the shah? Haven't come across that one, but yes it's ridiculous. They were, of course, deeply involved in Iranian history up to the downfall of the Shah. This applies to lots of other countries, including Iraq and Syria (usually coups and fomenting unrest against the ba'athist regimes).

I think a good basic tenet to follow here would be to assume that someone isn't a CTer if they don't mention conspiracy theories.

But the problem with the 1st Gulf War being one of US interests is, if defending the borders of one country from invasion by another is taken as being a selfish act of self interest, then what isn't? If it is possible to write off an entire country being occupied by another as simply a 'loss of assets' then what action could not be seen in cynical terms?

Rabo Karabekian · 26-11-2015 08:18PM

ilkhanid wrote: »

Well, yes, in the sense you mean it was justified and that's the sense that counts. Sometimes,unfortunately, things that are necessary have unavoidable consequences. But Iraq was only one of the causes of rising violent Islamism in the nineties. The attacks in Algeria and Egypt were aimed primarily at those two countries themselves and Islamism had been growing in those states for years, for instance Egypt was the homeland of Sayyid Qutb :Osama Bin Laden didn't conjure it up.

Yep, I agree. I said previously that foreign intervention is only one of the ways that fomented Islamism over the years. What foreign intervention tends to be good at (and definitely was in the case of the Middle East WWI (to a lesser extent), WWII and especially after actions against Iraq in the 90s) is further radicalising this element and allowing for this radicalisation to be exported outside of the Middle East. This is particularly so after the power vacuum in Iraq since 2003 and Syria since the start of the civil war.

I'm not sure if 'unavoidable consequences' really covers it, tbh. It's not as if it was the first time that action of that sort was devised. You wouldn't even have to go far (either in time or place) to see how actions like that nearly always backfire.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

But the problem with the 1st Gulf War being one of US interests is, if defending the borders of one country from invasion by another is taken as being a selfish act of self interest, then what isn't? If it is possible to write off an entire country being occupied by another as simply a 'loss of assets' then what action could not be seen in cynical terms?

Iraq I was absolutely about US (and others') interests. Why else were they attacking Iraq? To defend the good people of Kuwait from a barbaric dictator?

ilkhanid · 26-11-2015 08:31PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Yep, I agree. I said previously that foreign intervention is only one of the ways that fomented Islamism over the years. What foreign intervention tends to be good at (and definitely was in the case of the Middle East WWI (to a lesser extent), WWII and especially after actions against Iraq in the 90s) is further radicalising this element and allowing for this radicalisation to be exported outside of the Middle East. This is particularly so after the power vacuum in Iraq since 2003 and Syria since the start of the civil war.

I'm not sure if 'unavoidable consequences' really covers it, tbh. It's not as if it was the first time that action of that sort was devised. You wouldn't even have to go far (either in time or place) to see how actions like that nearly always backfire.

Iraq I was absolutely about US (and others') interests. Why else were they attacking Iraq? To defend the good people of Kuwait from a barbaric dictator?

Well, that certainly was a side-effect and a worthy one, but more realistically,yes, to defend the interests of many people and states-and why not?; to stop an independent country being swallowed up by a stronger state, the most blatant example-the only one really-since 1945, an act that would have thrown the UN into disarray and made it totally irrelevant ; to stop Saddam, for once a dictator gets away with something like this,they rarely stop at the first conquest; to reassure the Gulf States for who knows what lengths they might have resorted to to protect themselves:allied with Pakistan, attempted to co-operate to procure nuclear weapons;to stop the growth of yet another bleeding sore, yet another state waging a war for independence; to stop the possible re-ignition of the Iran-Iraq war...the right thing and the expedient thing can coincide.

Deep Six · 26-11-2015 08:41PM

Don't know if this has been posted yet but it's the full Vice interview with EODM. Horrific accounts of what happened in the Bataclan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74HBrrFnIc

The band themselves look absolutely haunted by what happened that night.

Pa8301 · 26-11-2015 08:49PM

Deep Six wrote: »

Don't know if this has been posted yet but it's the full Vice interview with EODM. Horrific accounts of what happened in the Bataclan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74HBrrFnIc

The band themselves look absolutely haunted by what happened that night.

I saw that alright. It was uncomfortable viewing at times.

KingBrian2 · 26-11-2015 09:41PM

ilkhanid wrote: »

backward

Is that extraordinary? A large part of the Arab world is/was composed of military dictatorships or reactionary monarchies, which would be nothing without oil. As for culture, much of the the region is stagnating. The single most important Arab state is a backward, fanatical sandpit, inhabitated by indolent royals more interested in beheading witches and persecuting Shias than confronting the IS enemy at the gates.

There were multiple accelerating attacks throughout the 90s. It's just that the events since 9/11 have made them fade in the memory of most people: the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the killings on the Paris Metro, the slaughter of the tourists in Luxor and above all, the murder of tens of thousands of people in Algeria.

True enough, they needed to protect Kuwait, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Iraqi invasion was-obviously-illegal and the effort to evict the Iraqis was legal and justified.

The problem is people don't care that Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabist Kingdom, they are willing to keep that country holding all the cards. The commentary and journalism on the topic of Syria is absurd. Lets have an honest debate about Syria and enough distortions. Most Arab states are nothing like Saudi Arabia. I'm talking Arab states here not Turkey or Iran

Rabo Karabekian · 26-11-2015 10:09PM

ilkhanid wrote: »

Well, that certainly was a side-effect and a worthy one, but more realistically,yes, to defend the interests of many people and states-and why not?; to stop an independent country being swallowed up by a stronger state, the most blatant example-the only one really-since 1945, an act that would have thrown the UN into disarray and made it totally irrelevant ; to stop Saddam, for once a dictator gets away with something like this,they rarely stop at the first conquest; to reassure the Gulf States for who knows what lengths they might have resorted to to protect themselves:allied with Pakistan, attempted to co-operate to procure nuclear weapons;to stop the growth of yet another bleeding sore, yet another state waging a war for independence; to stop the possible re-ignition of the Iran-Iraq war...the right thing and the expedient thing can coincide.

As I said before, because they weren't learning from the lessons of all their previous invasions/liberations/whatever-you-call-it-today. Blowback! For the most part, the US managed to contain the blowback to the countries they invaded/bombed/organised regime change (causing in some cases, decades of civil war in the aftermath, but whatever) but, at least in the Middle East, they could see actual evidence of disastrous blowback right on the door step of the country whose dictator they were trying to overthrow. That's my point (made a couple of times in previous posts) not the (highly ironic) justification of the US defending the UN, stopping dictators, preventing hostilities between Iraq and Iran and preventing 'bleeding sores' from festering.

IrishTrajan · 26-11-2015 10:14PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The problem is people don't care that Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabist Kingdom, they are willing to keep that country holding all the cards. The commentary and journalism on the topic of Syria is absurd. Lets have an honest debate about Syria and enough distortions. Most Arab states are nothing like Saudi Arabia. I'm talking Arab states here not Turkey or Iran

Qatar are as repressive as the Saudis. Bahrain are as repressive as the Saudis. Egypt is as repressive as the Saudis. Hell, the UAE is the poster-child for secularism for Arab nations, and they've only recently foiled a plot by 38 locals and 2 foreigners to overthrow the Monarchy and replace it with IS sympathisers. Syria was as repressive as the Saudis, before this powder keg blew up.

Jordan has a delicate balancing act between their Western beneficiaries' interests (the UK and US) and their Saudi neighbours' desires. Their Monarchy is the only sane one in that region, and they are drowning in debt and caught up trying to make sure the "FSA" on their part of the Syrian border remains as secular as possible without it blowing back on them.

KingBrian2 · 26-11-2015 10:30PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Qatar are as repressive as the Saudis. Bahrain are as repressive as the Saudis. Egypt is as repressive as the Saudis. Hell, the UAE is the poster-child for secularism for Arab nations, and they've only recently foiled a plot by 38 locals and 2 foreigners to overthrow the Monarchy and replace it with IS sympathisers. Syria was as repressive as the Saudis, before this powder keg blew up.

Jordan has a delicate balancing act between their Western beneficiaries' interests (the UK and US) and their Saudi neighbours' desires. Their Monarchy is the only sane one in that region, and they are drowning in debt and caught up trying to make sure the "FSA" on their part of the Syrian border remains as secular as possible without it blowing back on them.

Dispute your points About certain states. It is important to be specific when talking about this region. Egypt, Syria and Jordan are not and were never as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Basic freedom were permitted in these societies and they had benevolent relations with the US. Kurds, Palestinians, Christians, Sunnis Shi'ites and Westerns lived side by side.

What really screwed up these states was the cold war when the major powers tried to buy support from the gvts in power. They were paying them to not make a bigger deal about the abuses committed by Israel. The Arab league was never granted real power because the US only consults with Saudi. Arabia. No agreement was reached to restore territory to Syria in the Golan Heights and the ongoing conflict in the West Bank.

ilkhanid · 26-11-2015 10:38PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

As I said before, because they weren't learning from the lessons of all their previous invasions/liberations/whatever-you-call-it-today. Blowback! For the most part, the US managed to contain the blowback to the countries they invaded/bombed/organised regime change (causing in some cases, decades of civil war in the aftermath, but whatever) but, at least in the Middle East, they could see actual evidence of disastrous blowback right on the door step of the country whose dictator they were trying to overthrow. That's my point (made a couple of times in previous posts) not the (highly ironic) justification of the US defending the UN, stopping dictators, preventing hostilities between Iraq and Iran and preventing 'bleeding sores' from festering.

But it wasn't just the USA, and,irony or not, these were good justifications, based on real factors, and everybody could see them as valid, from Saudi Arabia to the UK, to Syria (a country usually loathe to co-operate with the US) and that was why the US was able to gather such a large coalition to expel Saddam. It was in nobody's interest that he retain Kuwait.
So Blowback. Everything a country might do has consequences, forseen and unforseen,a word invented well before "blowback" (a word over-used now by people, who imagine they're making some profound point instead of
using a cliche). If no invasion had gone ahead, there would have been other hell to pay, anyway, and fingers pointed down the line. In short, it matters not a damn whether somebody does something out of cynical calculation or altruism, if the end result is the same. Just as much damage has been caused by wrongheaded good intentions as callous self-interest.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Dispute your points About certain states. It is important to be specific when talking about this region. Egypt, Syria and Jordan are not and were never as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Basic freedom were permitted in these societies and they had benevolent relations with the US. Kurds, Palestinians, Christians, Sunnis Shi'ites and Westerns lived side by side.

Specific? Syria was a ruthless dictatorship. Look at Hama where old Assad dedmolished the town and the people in it to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood rebellion. It was just a (relatively) secular dictatorship, not a religious one. Iraq was even worse. Egypt was no poster boy.Basically a dictatorship of one kind or another,playing off the USA against the USSR. As for the rest:Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAR, Dubai, lazy, backward monarchies floating on oil money (and building the tallest building in the world doesn't make Dubai a good place). Qatar may not be as zealous as KSA but it and KSA are jointly responsible for a huge amount of damage in Syria, Egypt and God knows where else, playing out their long-term rivalry using the population of the ME as pawns in their squabbles.
The only places that are not a mess are Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia.

IrishTrajan · 26-11-2015 10:39PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Dispute your points About certain states. It is important to be specific when talking about this region. Egypt, Syria and Jordan are not and were never as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Basic freedom were permitted in these societies and they had benevolent relations with the US. Kurds, Palestinians, Christians, Sunnis Shi'ites and Westerns lived side by side.

Egypt was a dictatorship under Mubarak, power was concentrated in the hands of the Mubarak Clan, at the expense of their citizens. Syria, the same song and dance, it being an offence to have more than 5 males in one grouping. Bashar tried liberalizing Syria at the start, then power got concentrated in the hands of a few people who reaped enormous wealth, and Assad fell back on the "Old Guard" (his father's commanders notably) to repress the populace and secure control.

And the "lived side by side" is nonsense. The reason the rebels broke out in such large force in the northern part of Syria was because Assad had a policy of moving armed Sunni populaces into Kurdish lands. This has backfired tremendously on Bashar.

You are looking at Syria through rose-tinted glasses.

I've already agreed that Jordan was the only rational State, why are you disputing that and then reiterating what I said?

As an after-thought, Palestinians didn't live "side-by-side" in Jordan that well, considering stuff like Black September.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What really screwed up these states was the cold war when the major powers tried to buy support from the gvts in power. They were paying them to not make a bigger deal about the abuses committed by Israel. The Arab league was never granted real power because the US only consults with Saudi Arabia.

So, abuse on the part of the regimes isn't because they are totalitarian dictatorships, but because the West paid them to do it?

Over $12bn is given to the Middle East in Aid every year, a point you ignored previously. If the West is as "Arab-phobic" as you purported, why are we giving them food, clothes and money to fix their economies?

DFGrange · 26-11-2015 10:52PM

Islam is the youngest of the major religions and is going through a period of unrest which is limited compared to when Christianity has erupted. The problem is that in the modern world the effects of a few misguided zealots are amplified far beyond anything seen before.

The world goes on and they'll be forgotten in time.

volchitsa · 26-11-2015 11:26PM

DFGrange wrote: »

Islam is the youngest of the major religions and is going through a period of unrest which is limited compared to when Christianity has erupted. The problem is that in the modern world the effects of a few misguided zealots are amplified far beyond anything seen before.

The world goes on and they'll be forgotten in time.

The problem with that simplistic "mirror-image" analysis for Christianity and Islam is that Buddhist and Hindu extremist violence gives it the lie. They're thousands of years older than with of the other two, yet they have never had a "Crusades" period, and still they have regular incidents of organized mob violence directed against other religions. We're living in a period of religious violence, and saying it will all be forgotten in a couple of centuries isn't much use to the people whose lives are being destroyed by it now.

ilkhanid · 26-11-2015 11:45PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem with that simplistic "mirror-image" analysis for Christianity and Islam is that Buddhist and Hindu extremist violence gives it the lie. They're thousands of years older than with of the other two, yet they have never had a "Crusades" period, and still they have regular incidents of organized mob violence directed against other religions. We're living in a period of religious violence, and saying it will all be forgotten in a couple of centuries isn't much use to the people whose lives are being destroyed by it now.

That's being unfair to Buddhists. Apart from the attacks on the Rohynga in Burma there is no mob or religiously-inspired violence across the vast majority of the Buddhist world. China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam,Thailand are mainly secularised countries. Even in Tibet, resistance to the Chinese is based on ethnic factors and the Dalai Lama preaches peace.

KingBrian2 · 26-11-2015 11:52PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Egypt was a dictatorship under Mubarak, power was concentrated in the hands of the Mubarak Clan, at the expense of their citizens. Syria, the same song and dance, it being an offence to have more than 5 males in one grouping. Bashar tried liberalizing Syria at the start, then power got concentrated in the hands of a few people who reaped enormous wealth, and Assad fell back on the "Old Guard" (his father's commanders notably) to repress the populace and secure control.

And the "lived side by side" is nonsense. The reason the rebels broke out in such large force in the northern part of Syria was because Assad had a policy of moving armed Sunni populaces into Kurdish lands. This has backfired tremendously on Bashar.

You are looking at Syria through rose-tinted glasses.

I've already agreed that Jordan was the only rational State, why are you disputing that and then reiterating what I said?

As an after-thought, Palestinians didn't live "side-by-side" in Jordan that well, considering stuff like Black September.

So, abuse on the part of the regimes isn't because they are totalitarian dictatorships, but because the West paid them to do it?

Over $12bn is given to the Middle East in Aid every year, a point you ignored previously. If the West is as "Arab-phobic" as you purported, why are we giving them food, clothes and money to fix their economies?

The Arab states did not subject their people to honour killings, female genital mutilations. Imposing the Burqa on women, persecuting religious denominations. These are new occurrences that arose from the disastrous Iraq war.

In all this we seem to miss out that the region has Shi'ite terrorism, Sunni terrorism and Jewish terrorism. Hold an election in Syria or Egypt today and the vast majority of the population would endorse reclaiming the lands now part of the recognised state of Israel which is a UN state. Presidents like Assad, Sisi and Netanyahu actually reflect the wishes of their citizens a hell of a lot more than the autocratic ruler of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi Arabians support Boko Haram in Nigeria, they were the only regime to recognise the Taliban and to bring it back to our own interests a point that is rarely if every brought up the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian citizens. So lets be realistic secular states need security and that leads to restricting liberties for the population. It does not mean they encouraged Islamic terrorism.

ilkhanid · 27-11-2015 12:02AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Arab states did not subject their people to honour killings, female genital mutilations. Imposing the Burqa on women, persecuting religious denominations. These are new occurrences that arose from the disastrous Iraq war.

Neither did Franco's Spain or Ivan the Terrible's Russia. Did that mean their regimes was fine? There are other kinds of tyranny.

Wurzelbert · 27-11-2015 12:13AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Arab states did not subject their people to honour killings, female genital mutilations. Imposing the Burqa on women, persecuting religious denominations. These are new occurrences that arose from the disastrous Iraq war.
[...]

erm, what? honour killings, fgm, imposing the burqa on women, persecuting non-muslims are new occurrences that arose from the iraq war? what makes you think so? you really think there were no honour killings, no fgm, no burqas and no systematic killing of non-believers before the last gulf war?

KingBrian2 · 27-11-2015 02:11AM

Wurzelbert wrote: »

erm, what? honour killings, fgm, imposing the burqa on women, persecuting non-muslims are new occurrences that arose from the iraq war? what makes you think so? you really think there were no honour killings, no fgm, no burqas and no systematic killing of non-believers before the last gulf war?

All espoused by that noble Brotherhood of Islam. Many of the Jihadists were ex-convicts and became extreme while in prison. Then there is the literature & media that is streaming into the Arab States from good ol Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't like to be in the GPO in 1916 if the crown forces were those of the Saudis. Whipping if you break the code of sharia. The fanatics is Sudan treating a women who named a teddy bear after their most revered religious leader. Talk about bizarre.

acb121 · 27-11-2015 03:19AM

DFGrange wrote: »

Islam is the youngest of the major religions and is going through a period of unrest which is limited compared to when Christianity has erupted. The problem is that in the modern world the effects of a few misguided zealots are amplified far beyond anything seen before.

The world goes on and they'll be forgotten in time.

Sigh ....

Simplistic, innacurate, hair shirt wearing, appeasing, Disneyesque, Benneton Ad nonsense.

Here is the problem. We have to put up with the do gooders spouting this ignorant politically correct nonsense, and they know nothing about what they claim to be talking about.

All the folk who get offended " on behalf " of Muslims, when you point out the TRUTH about Islam, know nothing about it.

All the folk who spout uninformed rubbish like that, know nothing about Islam.

If these folk actually educated themselves, we might get somewhere. But these are the folk who control the media, moderate chatboards, define what is politically correct and so on. And they know nothing.

Unlike Christianity, Islam cannot be reformed, for numerous reasons.

But here are two biggies.

ONE - The Koran, Q'ran, ISIS manual, whatever you may wish to call it, cannot be updated or reformed. It is the LITERAL, UNALTERABLE, FINAL WORD OF GOD FOR ALL TIME. You cannot change it. To change it or contradict it or to suggest Allah meant something completely different would be to ask to be murdered. People have been murdered somwhere in the world today for just that. You will never read about them.

TWO - Islam does not have a Pope, a central figure of authority, followed by all Muslims. Hence, you have a thousands of clerics, giving pronouncements on the Islamic position on Taytos, Soda Bread and Fair City.

Please educate yourself before posting this nonsense again.

Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Comments