Shooting at Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris
- Thread starter rednev
- Start date
Suddenly when acts are carried out in the name of Islam all religions get drawn into this? Why don't we as a society condemn Islam just like we criticize the Catholic church for covering up child abuse? It's fecking sheepishness. Call a spade a spade.
But certain religions promote intolerance. Where do you think the word 'infidel' came from?
The global press needs to have an "I'm Spartacus" moment, Rushdie is right to talk about a "fearless disrespect".
Because this is what happens, this is why Islam is incompatible with Western societies. This is why people are starting to get more and more apprehensive of Islam and of the political establishments as there is nothing done to stop the murder death kill by Islamic extremists.
Might have something to do with the fact that people are promptly called racists when they do.
English, with its etymological root in Latin.
Yeah, you seem like a paragon of tolerance.
Mind you people calling people racist for criticising an ideology and a religion are the worst racists of them all. Islam is not a race, there are white, arab, black and asian muslims.
In fairness not wanting to be shot to death for a joke makes a lot of sense.
Exactly.
Are you fecking serious? What about nationalism? You don't think nationalism causes wars just as a much as religion? Look at Northern Ireland. Look at ETA.
I am indeed intolerant of the intolerant. There is no question about it that I would not tolerate Islam and any religion for that matter if it were up to me, since organised religion in its nature is a tyrannical concept.
I do not believe in equality of cultures. I believe that Western Humanist and Secular culture is far superior than any theocracy or religious motivated ideology.
You on the other hand are just a smart ass as your comment above the one I'm replying to indicates.
Care to actually contribute some genuine solutions?
What does nationalism have to do with my statement?
No religion doesn't mean the alternative is nationalism. What kind of line of thought is that? Seriously.
I'm advocating for common sense. No religion. No nationalism. Instead live a world in which we maintain humanist, secular values. No killing. Focus on prosperity for all, focus on technological advancement, focus on developing civilisation towards a future where we get better, kinder and stronger as a species.
I don't think it's that simple but the statement "there is nothing wrong with religion" is clearly false. However I dont think its the single cause to the world's problems, like the economy for example.
You said
"No religion = Freedom and tolerance for everything."
I'm saying that is bollocks. Man will always fight, be it for nationalism, be it for political rights, be it for oil, be it for money.
At least it won't be for an imaginary deity which inspires them to kill, murder and destroy everyone who disagree with them and their interpretation.
It would be a nice start to a civilised world.
No, instead it'll be tangible resources which inspire them to kill and start wars.
Getting rid of religion isn't a a genuine solution. And a superficial analysis of religion isn't particularly helpful either. Your posts smack of "my team is better than yours", which is exactly what Islamists think themselves.
The atmosphere that has built up around certain movements is fairly new and, most likely, temporary. Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have been attacked 50 years ago. A political movement has taken root amongst some muslim people in modern times. It's more nationalism than religion.
The thing I would argue is that a lot of "religious" wars are a cover for a real motivation. For example, the crusades were to do with greed and control rather than religion. The worry with Islam and the people who carried out these attacks today is that they genuinely seem to be doing it solely for religion.
Rather have a man to be rational about their motives than killing non believers wholesale for the sake of their imaginary deity.
With a rational man one can debate, with an irrational man, one will find it's head next to it's body before the debate started.
More people have been killed in the name of Democracy and by Democratic governments in the last 100 years than by any religion. Human beings are cnuts.
No, the Crusades were about retaking Christian lands. For your information, the Muslims conquered these Christian lands in the Levant (Syria, Libanon etc.) and dispersed the Christians who lived there for centuries (Islam's founded centuries after Christianity). The Crusades then happened to retake those lands, much like the reconquista of Al-Andalusia in Spain.
Of course there are plenty of other motives that play a part.
But a nice start would be made by having no religion /religious motives to play a part in the first place.
Patience with Islam will begin to run out amongst the people we consider to be right-minded, rational thinkers. Extremists like this only serve to widen the divide further. Sad. It will only get worse, I suspect.
Ever cared to wonder why it wouldn't have been attacked 50 years ago? How about there weren't as many Muslims in France as there are now. People were also much much more averse to minorities causing any trouble than people are nowadays. That is why it wouldn't have happened 50 years ago.
Reality is that today it did happen and with a Muslim population of about 20% in France, it's easy to see why they are feeling so confident in their intimidation of the non-Muslims in France (forgot the vehicular homicide attempts in France the last couple months).
I can dig deep into religion and Islam specifically. I read arabic, speak it. But there is no point in doing so on this forum.
Again, taking land was the goal. Religion was the excuse.
You're saying ISIS is down to a lack of tolerance? Well yes it is I suppose, a lack of tolerance for anything that conflicts with their religion!That doesn't exempt religion for its horrid teachings, the Qu'ran more so than Christianity's new testament.
In case of Islam it's not only greed for money and land, it's also because the Qu'ran and hadiths command the spread of the ummah, the caliphate. By force and by other means. These teachings are part of the religion, whether you like it or not.
Which is my worry. Like I said earlier, a lot of wars are called "religious wars" when religion isn't the main issue. Northern Ireland for example. What are the two sides normally called? Catholics and Protestants. When in reality it was nationalism vs. unionism. The worry I have with ISIS and the men who carried out todays attack is that it's solely in the name of religion, and when that occurs it very hard to stop or negotiate.
I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you, Lynk. Now if only I can change your mind about Welbeck...
Whether it represents Islam is 100% relevant if you want to mock the fact that people will claim it doesn't represent Islam. It's pretty simple.
The talk of how much damage it causes is completely separate and nothing to do with the post I originally quoted.
In the case of ISIS what other motive could it be than spreading their religion in order to establish absolute control and dominance over its subjects? Sure the motive is money and land, but it is carried out with the backing of Islamic doctrine. They have established a very purist Islamic caliphate, so how anyone can say it's not religiously motivated is beyond me.
This is why I said before, if religion ceased to exist, that would at least be one step into a more civilised world. The other motives would become more transparant then and we could deal with them in a more swift way.
It will never happen though, too many people across the world are drunk and high on religion.
I think there's a better chance of ISIS being rational than that happening!I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you, Lynk. Now if only I can change your mind about Welbeck...
Just heard the news. Switched over to Sky News and get f*cking Kay Burley. I swear bad things only happen when she's on air.
The attack may not represent ISLAM, but it was definitely carried out in the name of ISLAM.
This is such a fallacy.
The ummah (muslim world) is stuck in a vicious circle of hatred, vitriol and nihilistic thought. The blame is always put on someone else, favourably the zionists / jews, the Americans, the christians, the aheists, whoever isn't muslim according to their narrow qualification of whoever that may be - since massacres amongst muslims is also a frequent occurrence. They have brains and they can use them, but instead they choose to have them polluted with the zealous beliefs that they have adopted. Blinding them from any other outcome than their circular thought pattern.
Why is it that in today's age all the technological advancements, discoveries in medicine, philosophical thought etc. occur in non Islamic nations by non-muslims? Muslims have contributed feck all to the world in the last 2 centuries except for a violent and hateful interpretation of their religion.
That's not a generalisation at all.
And if it was anything else it would have been carried out in that name.
Didn't watch the full vid of the officers being shot but they never stood a chance. I'm curious to know why only one unit responded while the gunmen were on the scene. It seems like there there would of been mkre of a police presence giving the circumstances and the time it took for these two scumbags to pull off this unspeakable act.
Fun fact, according to some Encyclopedia of wars, only 6% of wars are caused by religion. I want to look a bit more into that, don't really have the time at work but it immediately goes against what you've said. I'd be interested in seeing if it's actually legit or not.