It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Now hearing that it could be as high as 30 - Unknown what the hell is going on.
Several explosions (possibly grenades) around the Stade de France, where there is a match going on. Two gunmen performing drive-by shootings with AK-47s, while 5 or 6 gunmen in the Northeast of downtown. There is also a hostage situation being reported. The incident is ongoing.
casualThis liberal PC bullshit makes me fucking sick.
So in a thread made to update on the attacks in Paris the thing that makes you "fucking sick" is someone not wanting people to generalize an entire population on the actions of a few.
The.Natty.VeganSo in a thread made to update on the attacks in Paris the thing that makes you "fucking sick" is someone not wanting people to generalize an entire population on the actions of a few.
Maybe he's disgusted by how SJWs/Liberals/PC people defend them so vehemently. Its appalling really
And no I do not think this is a Muslim problem. I think it's a problem with Middle Eastern people. Call me Xenophobic, or racist, I don't care. People are afraid of the truth
THEDIRTYBUBBLEAnd no I do not think this is a Muslim problem. I think it's a problem with Middle Eastern people. Call me Xenophobic, or racist, I don't care. People are afraid of the truth
I mean, it is true that the middle east has been fighting for thousands of years. Religion is a powerful thing and I'm surprised the countries over there have survived this long with all the war they wage on themselves.
While I can't really agree or even want to agree with your statement part of me feels it's actually true and you're right.
NinetyFourWell I hate getting heavily political on the internet, I try to avoid it but I have my own views on this shit so I'll say em anyways. Even if we can't all agree on what we're all saying, I still think it's half decent to read what others have to say and maybe adjust your shit accordingly if there's some sound logic in it. Think rationally and not emotionally.
@Dback, it's very much a vicious cycle. I really do wish we could follow Bill Maher's ideology on terrorism; pull all troops out of the middle east and let their own citizens deal with the local terror groups, from there fortify our own respective borders.
I feel like that would take a lot of their motivation for terrorism away, really from there they can only blow shit up on the basis of them feeling like it or 'religion'. I do feel like a lot of it is hatred fed though, and that if we left them alone there wouldn't be so many people keen to join their forces.
With all this you'd have to consider the civilians we'd just be leaving out on a limb there. The terror groups could take total regional control and leave these people with no choice but to be governed under them or probably get slaughtered. Then there's the issue of having a whole country that's practically a terror group... But shit to the rest of the world it probably feels like that right now.
Along with all that there is the chance of there being oil interest over there that the nations leaders would like to keep a handle on, and everything above is just a scapegoat for it. If this is the case then you can absolutely bet that military forces will be staying planted in the regions for a long, long time...
As you pointed out, it's definitely an extremely complex situation that no one has the answers to. People who have all the answers need to step back and look at all the variables. I honestly have no idea what we should do. if we are looking out for our best interests then we should say fuck them, but morally can we live with that shit? That is a death sentence for millions. Then you factor in the natural resources of the region and who the fuck knows
THEDIRTYBUBBLEMaybe he's disgusted by how SJWs/Liberals/PC people defend them so vehemently. Its appalling really
And yet you've had more people die from white kids shooting up schools than you have had from terrorism in the united states. But obviously if I were to draw any conclusion that one white kid equals all white kids then I'd be a fucking idiot. Same goes for people who view radical islamist=standard muslim. Muslims are just as terrified and disgusted by the actions of these terrorists as you and me.
casualRead a pew poll. Sorry bud, this is the manifestation of the doctrine of Islam. There's nothing fringe about this. The muslim world is overwhelmingly in support of honor killings, executing apostates, views women as undeniably inferior, and the quran explicitly calls for forceful conversion, or death. But, please, lecture me about bigotry, and how most muslims are just like any other moderate religious group. I don't classify ALL muslims as any one thing. Obviously not all muslims are culpable. But, you're adding nothing productive to the discussion by pretending that this is yet again another act of mass murder that just so happens to coincidentally be committed by Islamic fundamentalists.
Religion is a scourge, and at one time or another throughout the mire and cesspool of humanity's existence, each major religion has been largely responsible for the most reprehensible and disgusting acts ever committed. However, it's empirical and undeniable that within the last.....say 50 years or more give or take, Islam has a near monopoly on horrific acts committed in the name of God.
But, please, keep apologizing for a group of people whose so called moderates won't even outright condemn the actions of terrorists murdering innocent civilians.
I'm tired of people who want to pretend that there aren't differences amongst various groups and ideologies. The world has people with really bad ideas. Lately, the muslim world has been responsible for deplorable acts carried out on the back of fucking terrible ideas. It's ok to point out that that's the case. It doesn't make me a bigot, close minded, or whatever, it just means I've been paying attention for the last 32 years of my life, and I'm sick of people like you skipping the part where we honestly take stock and appraise the reality of the world and situation, and go right to the part where we act tolerant and accepting and spit platitudes about how dangerous stereotyping people is.
I don't give a fuck whether you like my opinion or not, and it's not really your fault that you've been raised to ignore any and all evidence of how various groups of people are fundamentally different from one another in a misguided attempt at achieving world harmony.
In closing, fuck the pieces of shit who carried this out, and fuck you for playing some high minded, enlightened prick who wants to chide people about stereotypes. Let me take a wild guess....no one you loved died today. Or on any other day like it. I hope the people responsible for keeping this country safe are the most effective stereotypers to ever walk the face of the earth.
Ever read the Quran? Ever read the Hadiths or Sunna? Even know what those latter two are? I am going to guess not. If you have, you would understand how open they are to interpretation and how contradictory they can be, even in regards to Sharia Law. To compound this difficult and contradictory nature, Islam lacks a hierarchy like Christianity, resulting in many different interpretations of these texts even within Sunni and Shia sects themselves.
And your Pew Polls? Nice try, but you are cherry-picking parts of the picture. Islam is a global religion and most extremists come from two areas, the Middle East, and the former USSR territories (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, etc. And extremism is a concern in these places as well. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/05/extremism-in-muslim-nations/
I am not blind to the faults of Islam or its followers, just like I am not blind to the Jewish, Christian, or even Buddhist radicals either.
What Islam is experiencing now is akin to the Crusades. It is deplorable, it is gross, and it is an insult to those who do not follow the strict path.
But to be intolerant and classify ever Muslim and believer of Islam as dangerous? It makes you just as bad as them. You are falling right into the "Us vs. Them" mindset the extremists so desperately crave. They want you to hate them, they want you to fear them, they want you to alienate every single moderate Muslim out there, because once you do that, you have another enemy.
And actually, I had very close friends die in 9/11, one family friend even helped take down Flight 93. On top of that, many other family friends died in the wars that followed.
The.Natty.VeganAnd yet you've had more people die from white kids shooting up schools than you have had from terrorism in the united states. But obviously if I were to draw any conclusion that one white kid equals all white kids then I'd be a fucking idiot. Same goes for people who view radical islamist=standard muslim. Muslims are just as terrified and disgusted by the actions of these terrorists as you and me.
Wait what school shooting resulted in 3000 deaths?
The.Natty.VeganAnd yet you've had more people die from white kids shooting up schools than you have had from terrorism in the united states. But obviously if I were to draw any conclusion that one white kid equals all white kids then I'd be a fucking idiot. Same goes for people who view radical islamist=standard muslim. Muslims are just as terrified and disgusted by the actions of these terrorists as you and me.
the total deaths from school shootings in the us is like a few hundred tops
stupid teenage white girls putting that paris filter on their snapchat story in order to seem deep and sensitive when they don't actually care at all, nor is it going to do anything
J.D.I actually have read the Quran and hadiths. Let me collect my thoughts and I'll respond because Casual isn't totally off base in his indignance.
No, and I agree with some of his points, but to generalize about the religion is wrong. It is going to let the extremists win. By alienating the moderates one pushes them towards either extreme.
DBack1321This is the shit I don't get. Like with all the ISIS videos on the internet where hey just line dudes up and execute them, you know you're going to die, so why not fight back?!? You probably will die, but you will 100% take one to the dome if you just sit there and take it. It's not like they are going to have a change of heart two guys from you and stop shooting people in the back of the head "Oh lets just go home Akbar, I'm sick of doing this today. The rest of you are free to go."
At least go out swinging. I refuse to sit there and let someone execute me.
Going back to this
What I'm seeing reported is that 118 people were executed in the theater and there were 2-3 gunmen in there. Why didn't people fight back? They could have easily overwhelmed the gunmen. Yes, some people would have been shot/killed and it takes a ton of courage to get yourself to take action but I just can't believe that many people let the gunmen proceed with their intent.
I haven't had the time to read this whole thread yet but I just wanted to say I hope everyone stays safe. Keep your head on a swivel, these are crazy times we're living in.
What I'm seeing reported is that 118 people were executed in the theater and there were 2-3 gunmen in there. Why didn't people fight back? They could have easily overwhelmed the gunmen. Yes, some people would have been shot/killed and it takes a ton of courage to get yourself to take action but I just can't believe that many people let the gunmen proceed with their intent.
Maybe this is too soon but it's bothering me.
I don't know man it doesn't make sense. I can not even fathom how people would just sit there and let themselves be killed without at least trying to fight back.
What I'm seeing reported is that 118 people were executed in the theater and there were 2-3 gunmen in there. Why didn't people fight back? They could have easily overwhelmed the gunmen. Yes, some people would have been shot/killed and it takes a ton of courage to get yourself to take action but I just can't believe that many people let the gunmen proceed with their intent.
Maybe this is too soon but it's bothering me.
DBack1321I don't know man it doesn't make sense. I can not even fathom how people would just sit there and let themselves be killed without at least trying to fight back.
Whether it's true or not I don't know, but wasn't it reported in here that they had explosives? Seemed like luck that they didn't go off before they were killed, but a bomb vest that would kill everyone in the theatre would've certainly given me second thoughts about making a move.
What I'm seeing reported is that 118 people were executed in the theater and there were 2-3 gunmen in there. Why didn't people fight back? They could have easily overwhelmed the gunmen. Yes, some people would have been shot/killed and it takes a ton of courage to get yourself to take action but I just can't believe that many people let the gunmen proceed with their intent.
.MASSHOLE.No, and I agree with some of his points, but to generalize about the religion is wrong. It is going to let the extremists win. By alienating the moderates one pushes them towards either extreme.
I don't think it's generalizing. There are specific doctrines within Islam that are highly problematic and the moderates you refer to need to recognize this and address them head on, instead of saying things like "these attacks had nothing to do with Islam" (a blatant lie), and distracting from the underlying problem by worrying about backlash against Muslims.
These Muslim doctrines are different from doctrines in other religions - that should be obvious, because the Quran and Bible (or any other religious text) are different books with different religious rules. There are also certain basic underlying facts about Islam that differentiate it from other religions - as you identify, Christianity had its crusades, and its inquisition, and there was a reformation, where Islam has not been reformed. Part of that is because Islam, uniquely among Abrahamic religions, claims to be God's final word - in the case of Christianity and Judaism, at least, we're waiting for something more. That has its own problems, but the point is, we're dealing with different challenges in confronting Islam than we are with other religions. They're not the same. Treating them the same is lying to oneself.
One of the key differences is where Islam comes from. Muhammad is not Jesus. Muhammad was a very successful warlord, which is why Islam was successful. He was able to successfully defeat numerous enemies, and in the process gain a number of followers. This is inherently problematic, because following in the footsteps of a medieval warlord, treating this person as your moral guide, is not going to yield acceptable social behaviour in the 21st century. I'm honestly surprised you even raised the Hadiths; there is a lot in there that is horrifying. The fact that ISIS routinely enslaves women and rapes them daily... they're not doing anything that Muhammad and his followers didn't do during their conquests. This reveals a further issue: there is nothing that ISIS is doing that isn't eminently justifiable under Islamic doctrine. Murdering gay people by throwing them off of rooftops is prescribed in the hadiths. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as Saudi Arabia is often referred to for, is similarly prescribed. Moderate Muslims will point to many of these doctrines and say that ISIS is misinterpreting them in the most heinous, overly literal fashion, but the problem is that ISIS's interpretation is pretty reasonable just from the words on the page, which are supposedly the literal word of God. So convincing them they're wrong to read the holy scriptures that way becomes pretty difficult.
Next thing I'd note is that I don't really know what you mean by "extremist". Maajid Nawaz has some helpful terminology here. He differentiates between Islamists, who take the view that society should be governed under Islamic law to some extent, and Jihadists, who think the same but that this Islamic rule must be brought about by force (namely, Jihad). Both of those pose problems, and while Jihadists are obviously "extremists", you could argue that Islamists are too, and here, pew polls are absolutely revealing. There is an alarming percentage of the population of, for example, Pakistan or even southeast Asian muslim majority countries that will say the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith) should be death. Are those people extremists? If so, there are tens of millions of extremists, if not hundreds of millions. You mention "cherry picking" parts of the picture, but that is precisely what we need to do. Islam, or any religion, is a collection of doctrines. It's a set of ideas, or rules, particularly when we come to Sharia, and we do need to cherry pick because a really devoted Muslim who really treats this as the word of God is going to subscribe to all of it. So if there are 90 completely acceptable moral rules, and then ten that are horrifying, we need to talk about the ten that are horrifying and deal with those before more gays get thrown off of rooftops.
As a result I don't think the word "extremist" is very helpful. "Extremism" is only a problem depending on the things you take to the extreme, just like "religious fundamentalism" is only a problem depending on the fundamentals of your religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a follower of Jainism, the less we need to worry about you hurting innocent people, for example.
Sad to say, but the reality of the situation is that what we saw in Paris today is a lovely Sunday afternoon picnic compared to the horror that we might laughing refer to as the lives of women and other vulnerable groups in certain areas dominated by fundamentalist Islam. The practice of acid-throwing is perhaps the most jarring example; girls permanently disfigured because their attackers feel that women should not learn how to read.
It is absolutely infuriating to know that this behaviour exists. The worst sufferers of Islamism in the world are actually Muslim. These problems need to be solved for their sake as much as for the Western world's sake, and that starts by being honest about what the problem is, and not trying to figure out how to be sensitive to a religious group. A religion is just a set of ideas and all ideas exist to be criticized.
mirozWhether it's true or not I don't know, but wasn't it reported in here that they had explosives? Seemed like luck that they didn't go off before they were killed, but a bomb vest that would kill everyone in the theatre would've certainly given me second thoughts about making a move.
Yea that's true. I'm curious to know how big the theatre is. A typical bomb that someone could carry/wear won't be able to take out everyone in a theatre. Most of them are explosives with some type of fragmentation (nuts/bolts/random whateverthefuck that can make a hole in you) mixed in or layered over the explosive.
Maybe they tried to set them off, but the explosive was defective. I wonder what they tried to use. If it was homemade, they have to get the process right or it won't do anything/just partially det. The initiator could've also been faulty. It happens more often than you would think. There are lots of things that could g wrong haha.
mirozWhether it's true or not I don't know, but wasn't it reported in here that they had explosives? Seemed like luck that they didn't go off before they were killed, but a bomb vest that would kill everyone in the theatre would've certainly given me second thoughts about making a move.
yeah by the sounds of it, it looks like these guys shot at anything that was moving which I would assume makes it more difficult to gang-up on them and overwhelm them, then they just started throwing explosives into crowds of people (at least from the reports I read in this thread here) which is even more fucked. Definitely see where those guys are coming from but given the circumstances, it seems like it would have been certainly difficult for someone to act as a hero.
What I'm seeing reported is that 118 people were executed in the theater and there were 2-3 gunmen in there. Why didn't people fight back? They could have easily overwhelmed the gunmen. Yes, some people would have been shot/killed and it takes a ton of courage to get yourself to take action but I just can't believe that many people let the gunmen proceed with their intent.
Maybe this is too soon but it's bothering me.
DBack1321I don't know man it doesn't make sense. I can not even fathom how people would just sit there and let themselves be killed without at least trying to fight back.
mirozWhether it's true or not I don't know, but wasn't it reported in here that they had explosives? Seemed like luck that they didn't go off before they were killed, but a bomb vest that would kill everyone in the theatre would've certainly given me second thoughts about making a move.
I've done some extensive active-shooter/hostage training with my local swat team, and while it does seem that it should be fairly easy for people to overwhelm the gunmen, in reality it is not.
Your first reason is fear. I don't know how many people on here have had a gun pointed at them, but it's a scary experience to be looking down the barrel. Especially if people aren't used to it. They go into shock and are petrified. Unless you are trained people do not usually respond to a more powerful force by fighting it.
Second is surprise. There's still some gray area on whether explosives were used, but if you here explosions and gunshots what's your first instinct? Usually it will be to move away, or try to protect yourself. Self preservation is very prominent in us humans. If the majority of the people have that same reaction, it would be impossible for you to ever overwhelm a gunman with an automatic weapon/explosives.
Third is coordination. You would need quite a large crowd to take down someone armed with a automatic weapon, so unless say 30 random civilians are able to put aside self preservation and suicide rush the gunmen, it doesn't work. Even trained swat teams can have trouble coordinating quickly when a scenario changes. So the situation would be much worse for civilians.
Someone I know from high school just posted on Facebook they were at the Bataclan show when it happened. Her and her boyfriend managed to escape. Crazy crazy stuff.
what the fuck is wrong with you people nearly 160 people lost their lives and you all are bickering between each other and getting heated and flaming for shit none of yall will change your opinions about. disappointing guys... really?
J.D.I don't think it's generalizing. There are specific doctrines within Islam that are highly problematic and the moderates you refer to need to recognize this and address them head on, instead of saying things like "these attacks had nothing to do with Islam" (a blatant lie), and distracting from the underlying problem by worrying about backlash against Muslims.
These Muslim doctrines are different from doctrines in other religions - that should be obvious, because the Quran and Bible (or any other religious text) are different books with different religious rules. There are also certain basic underlying facts about Islam that differentiate it from other religions - as you identify, Christianity had its crusades, and its inquisition, and there was a reformation, where Islam has not been reformed. Part of that is because Islam, uniquely among Abrahamic religions, claims to be God's final word - in the case of Christianity and Judaism, at least, we're waiting for something more. That has its own problems, but the point is, we're dealing with different challenges in confronting Islam than we are with other religions. They're not the same. Treating them the same is lying to oneself.
One of the key differences is where Islam comes from. Muhammad is not Jesus. Muhammad was a very successful warlord, which is why Islam was successful. He was able to successfully defeat numerous enemies, and in the process gain a number of followers. This is inherently problematic, because following in the footsteps of a medieval warlord, treating this person as your moral guide, is not going to yield acceptable social behaviour in the 21st century. I'm honestly surprised you even raised the Hadiths; there is a lot in there that is horrifying. The fact that ISIS routinely enslaves women and rapes them daily... they're not doing anything that Muhammad and his followers didn't do during their conquests. This reveals a further issue: there is nothing that ISIS is doing that isn't eminently justifiable under Islamic doctrine. Murdering gay people by throwing them off of rooftops is prescribed in the hadiths. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as Saudi Arabia is often referred to for, is similarly prescribed. Moderate Muslims will point to many of these doctrines and say that ISIS is misinterpreting them in the most heinous, overly literal fashion, but the problem is that ISIS's interpretation is pretty reasonable just from the words on the page, which are supposedly the literal word of God. So convincing them they're wrong to read the holy scriptures that way becomes pretty difficult.
Next thing I'd note is that I don't really know what you mean by "extremist". Maajid Nawaz has some helpful terminology here. He differentiates between Islamists, who take the view that society should be governed under Islamic law to some extent, and Jihadists, who think the same but that this Islamic rule must be brought about by force (namely, Jihad). Both of those pose problems, and while Jihadists are obviously "extremists", you could argue that Islamists are too, and here, pew polls are absolutely revealing. There is an alarming percentage of the population of, for example, Pakistan or even southeast Asian muslim majority countries that will say the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith) should be death. Are those people extremists? If so, there are tens of millions of extremists, if not hundreds of millions. You mention "cherry picking" parts of the picture, but that is precisely what we need to do. Islam, or any religion, is a collection of doctrines. It's a set of ideas, or rules, particularly when we come to Sharia, and we do need to cherry pick because a really devoted Muslim who really treats this as the word of God is going to subscribe to all of it. So if there are 90 completely acceptable moral rules, and then ten that are horrifying, we need to talk about the ten that are horrifying and deal with those before more gays get thrown off of rooftops.
As a result I don't think the word "extremist" is very helpful. "Extremism" is only a problem depending on the things you take to the extreme, just like "religious fundamentalism" is only a problem depending on the fundamentals of your religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a follower of Jainism, the less we need to worry about you hurting innocent people, for example.
Sad to say, but the reality of the situation is that what we saw in Paris today is a lovely Sunday afternoon picnic compared to the horror that we might laughing refer to as the lives of women and other vulnerable groups in certain areas dominated by fundamentalist Islam. The practice of acid-throwing is perhaps the most jarring example; girls permanently disfigured because their attackers feel that women should not learn how to read.
It is absolutely infuriating to know that this behaviour exists. The worst sufferers of Islamism in the world are actually Muslim. These problems need to be solved for their sake as much as for the Western world's sake, and that starts by being honest about what the problem is, and not trying to figure out how to be sensitive to a religious group. A religion is just a set of ideas and all ideas exist to be criticized.
Been reading about acid attacks. really fucked up... but in most countries men are the predominant victims and the countries where women are the predominant victims arent muslim countries and the attacks are seldom related to religion anyway.
fucking terrible tho... better to die in my opinion
J.D.I don't think it's generalizing. There are specific doctrines within Islam that are highly problematic and the moderates you refer to need to recognize this and address them head on, instead of saying things like "these attacks had nothing to do with Islam" (a blatant lie), and distracting from the underlying problem by worrying about backlash against Muslims.
These Muslim doctrines are different from doctrines in other religions - that should be obvious, because the Quran and Bible (or any other religious text) are different books with different religious rules. There are also certain basic underlying facts about Islam that differentiate it from other religions - as you identify, Christianity had its crusades, and its inquisition, and there was a reformation, where Islam has not been reformed. Part of that is because Islam, uniquely among Abrahamic religions, claims to be God's final word - in the case of Christianity and Judaism, at least, we're waiting for something more. That has its own problems, but the point is, we're dealing with different challenges in confronting Islam than we are with other religions. They're not the same. Treating them the same is lying to oneself.
One of the key differences is where Islam comes from. Muhammad is not Jesus. Muhammad was a very successful warlord, which is why Islam was successful. He was able to successfully defeat numerous enemies, and in the process gain a number of followers. This is inherently problematic, because following in the footsteps of a medieval warlord, treating this person as your moral guide, is not going to yield acceptable social behaviour in the 21st century. I'm honestly surprised you even raised the Hadiths; there is a lot in there that is horrifying. The fact that ISIS routinely enslaves women and rapes them daily... they're not doing anything that Muhammad and his followers didn't do during their conquests. This reveals a further issue: there is nothing that ISIS is doing that isn't eminently justifiable under Islamic doctrine. Murdering gay people by throwing them off of rooftops is prescribed in the hadiths. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as Saudi Arabia is often referred to for, is similarly prescribed. Moderate Muslims will point to many of these doctrines and say that ISIS is misinterpreting them in the most heinous, overly literal fashion, but the problem is that ISIS's interpretation is pretty reasonable just from the words on the page, which are supposedly the literal word of God. So convincing them they're wrong to read the holy scriptures that way becomes pretty difficult.
Next thing I'd note is that I don't really know what you mean by "extremist". Maajid Nawaz has some helpful terminology here. He differentiates between Islamists, who take the view that society should be governed under Islamic law to some extent, and Jihadists, who think the same but that this Islamic rule must be brought about by force (namely, Jihad). Both of those pose problems, and while Jihadists are obviously "extremists", you could argue that Islamists are too, and here, pew polls are absolutely revealing. There is an alarming percentage of the population of, for example, Pakistan or even southeast Asian muslim majority countries that will say the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith) should be death. Are those people extremists? If so, there are tens of millions of extremists, if not hundreds of millions. You mention "cherry picking" parts of the picture, but that is precisely what we need to do. Islam, or any religion, is a collection of doctrines. It's a set of ideas, or rules, particularly when we come to Sharia, and we do need to cherry pick because a really devoted Muslim who really treats this as the word of God is going to subscribe to all of it. So if there are 90 completely acceptable moral rules, and then ten that are horrifying, we need to talk about the ten that are horrifying and deal with those before more gays get thrown off of rooftops.
As a result I don't think the word "extremist" is very helpful. "Extremism" is only a problem depending on the things you take to the extreme, just like "religious fundamentalism" is only a problem depending on the fundamentals of your religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a follower of Jainism, the less we need to worry about you hurting innocent people, for example.
Sad to say, but the reality of the situation is that what we saw in Paris today is a lovely Sunday afternoon picnic compared to the horror that we might laughing refer to as the lives of women and other vulnerable groups in certain areas dominated by fundamentalist Islam. The practice of acid-throwing is perhaps the most jarring example; girls permanently disfigured because their attackers feel that women should not learn how to read.
It is absolutely infuriating to know that this behaviour exists. The worst sufferers of Islamism in the world are actually Muslim. These problems need to be solved for their sake as much as for the Western world's sake, and that starts by being honest about what the problem is, and not trying to figure out how to be sensitive to a religious group. A religion is just a set of ideas and all ideas exist to be criticized.
But as I mentioned, there is an inherent contradiction between some of these teachings. The Hadith, Sunnah, and Quran all are driven by the fact that Muhammed is the "ideal" Muslim, and that one should look to him and his actions when some of these teachings are in question. Hadith's and Sunnah are supposed teachings, sayings, and deeds compiled about Muhammed and meant to drive moral guidance as well as jurisprudence. But the issue in this lies at the heart of Islam, the lack of a central authority who can "authenticate" and interpret each one. Instead, what the religion has is hundreds of different Imams who claim their interpretation is correct, resulting in many dissenting opinions.
Even at the heart of these texts lie contradictions. The treatment of women for example, is a controversial topic. Muhammed is believed to have talked about the treatment of women ( a Hadith), yet his actions inherently contradict that (a Sunnah). The question is, what do you follow? Do you follow his examples or his words? Ultimately it is up to the individual to decide.
Beneficial interpretation of Islamic texts is not a new phenomenon, but one that is centuries old. Look back at the rise of the Saudi empire, it came about because two individuals, a tribal leader and a religious leader, came together and interpreted words that allowed for the killing of fellow Muslims, something that was unheard of in centuries prior. As a result, the rise of the use of takfir as reason to kill fellow Muslims increased. Prior to their rise, this was almost unheard of.
I never mentioned Islamists as a threat, only extremists but your choice of religious fundamentalists is a better choice of words. Religious fundamentalism can be dangerous when teachings are taken too literally.
Be careful when you bring up certain actions though, do not forget that cultural history also plays a big belief in many of these countries. Afghanistan and Pakistan are dictated by both Muslim and Pashtun beliefs, and that anti-education of women belief is not a Muslim one, but a Pashtun one. Iran, known for its strict rules, is very anti-acid and punishes attackers severely.
.MASSHOLE.But as I mentioned, there is an inherent contradiction between some of these teachings. The Hadith, Sunnah, and Quran all are driven by the fact that Muhammed is the "ideal" Muslim, and that one should look to him and his actions when some of these teachings are in question. Hadith's and Sunnah are supposed teachings, sayings, and deeds compiled about Muhammed and meant to drive moral guidance as well as jurisprudence. But the issue in this lies at the heart of Islam, the lack of a central authority who can "authenticate" and interpret each one. Instead, what the religion has is hundreds of different Imams who claim their interpretation is correct, resulting in many dissenting opinions.
I never mentioned Islamists as a threat, only extremists but your choice of religious fundamentalists is a better choice of words. Religious fundamentalism can be dangerous when teachings are taken too literally.
You obviously touch upon a major issue with religion and its role as a moral guide. If the religion's fundamentals are regarded as "extreme" or "fringe", then that has hugely negative implications for people using these works are moral guides. If people can't follow the religion for what it is/says and people must instead use their own reason and common sense then I think that casts huge doubts on the legitimacy of the text.
And that is even further complicated when there are blatantly contradictory passages concerning the same question/topic. If I wrote a book on ethics and opened it with "Thou shall not kill" and later on wrote that those who don't believe me should "be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman" I would be a considered complete failure.
J.D.I don't think it's generalizing. There are specific doctrines within Islam that are highly problematic and the moderates you refer to need to recognize this and address them head on, instead of saying things like "these attacks had nothing to do with Islam" (a blatant lie), and distracting from the underlying problem by worrying about backlash against Muslims.
These Muslim doctrines are different from doctrines in other religions - that should be obvious, because the Quran and Bible (or any other religious text) are different books with different religious rules. There are also certain basic underlying facts about Islam that differentiate it from other religions - as you identify, Christianity had its crusades, and its inquisition, and there was a reformation, where Islam has not been reformed. Part of that is because Islam, uniquely among Abrahamic religions, claims to be God's final word - in the case of Christianity and Judaism, at least, we're waiting for something more. That has its own problems, but the point is, we're dealing with different challenges in confronting Islam than we are with other religions. They're not the same. Treating them the same is lying to oneself.
One of the key differences is where Islam comes from. Muhammad is not Jesus. Muhammad was a very successful warlord, which is why Islam was successful. He was able to successfully defeat numerous enemies, and in the process gain a number of followers. This is inherently problematic, because following in the footsteps of a medieval warlord, treating this person as your moral guide, is not going to yield acceptable social behaviour in the 21st century. I'm honestly surprised you even raised the Hadiths; there is a lot in there that is horrifying. The fact that ISIS routinely enslaves women and rapes them daily... they're not doing anything that Muhammad and his followers didn't do during their conquests. This reveals a further issue: there is nothing that ISIS is doing that isn't eminently justifiable under Islamic doctrine. Murdering gay people by throwing them off of rooftops is prescribed in the hadiths. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as Saudi Arabia is often referred to for, is similarly prescribed. Moderate Muslims will point to many of these doctrines and say that ISIS is misinterpreting them in the most heinous, overly literal fashion, but the problem is that ISIS's interpretation is pretty reasonable just from the words on the page, which are supposedly the literal word of God. So convincing them they're wrong to read the holy scriptures that way becomes pretty difficult.
Next thing I'd note is that I don't really know what you mean by "extremist". Maajid Nawaz has some helpful terminology here. He differentiates between Islamists, who take the view that society should be governed under Islamic law to some extent, and Jihadists, who think the same but that this Islamic rule must be brought about by force (namely, Jihad). Both of those pose problems, and while Jihadists are obviously "extremists", you could argue that Islamists are too, and here, pew polls are absolutely revealing. There is an alarming percentage of the population of, for example, Pakistan or even southeast Asian muslim majority countries that will say the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith) should be death. Are those people extremists? If so, there are tens of millions of extremists, if not hundreds of millions. You mention "cherry picking" parts of the picture, but that is precisely what we need to do. Islam, or any religion, is a collection of doctrines. It's a set of ideas, or rules, particularly when we come to Sharia, and we do need to cherry pick because a really devoted Muslim who really treats this as the word of God is going to subscribe to all of it. So if there are 90 completely acceptable moral rules, and then ten that are horrifying, we need to talk about the ten that are horrifying and deal with those before more gays get thrown off of rooftops.
As a result I don't think the word "extremist" is very helpful. "Extremism" is only a problem depending on the things you take to the extreme, just like "religious fundamentalism" is only a problem depending on the fundamentals of your religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a follower of Jainism, the less we need to worry about you hurting innocent people, for example.
Sad to say, but the reality of the situation is that what we saw in Paris today is a lovely Sunday afternoon picnic compared to the horror that we might laughing refer to as the lives of women and other vulnerable groups in certain areas dominated by fundamentalist Islam. The practice of acid-throwing is perhaps the most jarring example; girls permanently disfigured because their attackers feel that women should not learn how to read.
It is absolutely infuriating to know that this behaviour exists. The worst sufferers of Islamism in the world are actually Muslim. These problems need to be solved for their sake as much as for the Western world's sake, and that starts by being honest about what the problem is, and not trying to figure out how to be sensitive to a religious group. A religion is just a set of ideas and all ideas exist to be criticized.
I watched a 3 hour debate between Sam Harris and the host of the young turks on thursday. Harris touches on a lot of this, especially about Muhammad and Jesus and their distinct approaches in "converting" and how those approaches shaped the respective religions/texts. It's interesting.
Thanks for not just knee jerk writing me off as a bigot.
What I'm seeing reported is that 118 people were executed in the theater and there were 2-3 gunmen in there. Why didn't people fight back? They could have easily overwhelmed the gunmen. Yes, some people would have been shot/killed and it takes a ton of courage to get yourself to take action but I just can't believe that many people let the gunmen proceed with their intent.
Maybe this is too soon but it's bothering me.
they had explosives, and i'm pretty sure it's difficult to fight back against explosives and assault rifles when you are unarmed.
nutz.they had explosives, and i'm pretty sure it's difficult to fight back against explosives and assault rifles when you are unarmed.
I wouldn't be surprised if, bring that it was a death metal concert, lots of people were high on whatever and their trips turned into insane nightmares and they just completely gave up.
But who knows? I've never done any drugs so I could be wrong.
It's heavy to think about if that's how some of them went.
FistsofhamBeen reading about acid attacks. really fucked up... but in most countries men are the predominant victims and the countries where women are the predominant victims arent muslim countries and the attacks are seldom related to religion anyway.
fucking terrible tho... better to die in my opinion
casualI watched a 3 hour debate between Sam Harris and the host of the young turks on thursday. Harris touches on a lot of this, especially about Muhammad and Jesus and their distinct approaches in "converting" and how those approaches shaped the respective religions/texts. It's interesting.
Thanks for not just knee jerk writing me off as a bigot.
I'm not going to knee jerk write you off as a bigot either, but I'm interested to hear (given your point of view is that this is an inherent problem with Islam) what you think the solution is?
**This post was edited on Nov 14th 2015 at 1:23:47pm
TwigI'm not going to knee jerk write you off as a bigot either, but I'm interested to hear that given your point of view is that this is an inherent problem with Islam, what do you think the solution is?
haven't been following this debait, but
I agree that Islam is the motherload of bad ideas and what you need to do is push up the people who are reforming the religion this global jihadist phenomenon isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I could show you a Poll that like 85% of British Muslims thoght the Danish cartoonist should have been tried for drawing that picture. Terrorism set aside they keep gay people and women extremely oppressed and use their religion to hide behind it. Idk how to change someone to believe that it's no longer appropriate to kill you if you want to leave the religion. If that was true in Christianity I would have been killed a long time ago.
But seriously, not having deals with some of the worst perpetrators is a good start. I mean Canada just made a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the Saudis, a country with one of the worst human rights records (due to their Muslim ideologies) and who directly fund ISIS and other terrorist organizations with money, arms, and personnel. Total economic sanctions is definitely a good start. Problem is, we love our oil more than we love human rights so that will never happen.
The.Natty.VeganAnd yet you've had more people die from white kids shooting up schools than you have had from terrorism in the united states. But obviously if I were to draw any conclusion that one white kid equals all white kids then I'd be a fucking idiot. Same goes for people who view radical islamist=standard muslim. Muslims are just as terrified and disgusted by the actions of these terrorists as you and me.
Pretty sure you don't have to worry about that chief.
My thoughts and prayers go out to all of my Parisian friends in these dark times.
onenerdykidWow. Ben Affleck is retarded. He can't separate "criticizing an idea" from "criticizing a people" and lumps them together as the same thing.
Yeeeeesh. Her argument that being opposed to a religion is the same as being racist against blacks is completely and absolutely ridiculous. And I'm glad Maher called her out on the false equivalence fallacy. At least someone is using logic.
Hey guys, I just posted in the other threads regarding my thoughts on this, but ill post here too.
I've lived in Paris all my life and have been calling friends, xhecking updates, been absolutely stunned all day. I havent done anything else than talk about the events today.
Regarding general info as to what is happening here maybe i can add some details, we just had an update from the government
129 confirmed dead, around 350 injured with 99 in critical condition.
There was 7 different spots where terrorists acted: the stadium (80k people in there), for unknown reasons (maybe a last minute introspection?) 3 suicide bombers blew themselves up during the game outside the stadium, killing 1 civilian.
The concert hall: 3 terrorists came with aks and explosives during the concerts, gunning down a lot (ive read numerous testimonies, the reason why nobody could fight back is that terrorist kept their distance and just kept shooting, very calmy, single precise shots, and then the ones who could not escape back stage got crammd against the scene not being able to move, some playing dead. At that point they could not run towardq the terrorists to stop them, they were literally on top of each other). Terrorists were shot down an hour later by french forces. 80 got killed
Then their was a a car with 3 or 4 terrorists armed with aks and shotguns who shot randomly from the car in the streets before and after shooting down around 30 people at a restaurant terrasse. Those terrorists are still on the run and this is why paris is on lockdown, we have very little info concerning them as police does not want anything to leak to the terrorists. We can only expect more shootings before they are found. Government has confirmed the idendity of a few terrorist, kamikaze at stadium was syrian, unknown to french forces, 2 other were french, known to government for radicalisation but without prior crimes i think.
We also know now that the 3 different teams worked together, and that they all had explosives vests.
Governmentally, we are on lockdown (meaning no public buildings are opened, cant have any mass assemblies on the streets, and special governmental abilities such as requesting media censure on things such as info about the remaining terrorists, ability to search homes without warrants, and to incarcerate anyone with suspicion of complicity or even prior relation with terrorists).
We are also in 3 days mourning, meaning all flags will be rolled up.
The "urgency state" (highest state of government lockdown concerning an attack, hadnt been used since in the Algeria war) will stay on until monday (meaning no more public lockdown on monday). However this might change if we dont find tge terrorists on the run: unis and schools and public buildings are perfect targets.
I just want to say that this is fucking terrible and a tragedy and add a couple of things to keep in mind.
1. Please don't use this as an excuse for xenophobia or islmamaphobia!
2. Don't put this on the refugees, these are the people the refugees are fleeing.
3. This shit is happening every day in non western developed nations and barely gets any media... This is not to take away from the attrocities that occured in Paris but it is to say that this is a global issue and it certainly is hypocritical to care just about attacks occuring in western developed nations.
4. Less than two percent of terrorist attacks are carried out by muslims. Again please don't use this as an excuse for islamaphobia!
My sister's coworker had a close friend who was killed in the concert hall apparently. I have never really thought much of that six degrees of separation theory, but this was just too real. Have been disgusted all day by what happened yesterday. My friend Robin wrote this on Facebook, and I thought I would share it
"I'm sad to hear about what happened in Paris last night. Not only because of the immence loss of lives, but because this makes me very afraid. This is happening every day in the middle east, hitting the same people that might now be blamed for it here - the civil population, the people who chose to become refugees and try to find a new life in Europe. I'm afraid that this event will fuel turncoats to enforce our borders even more harschly. I'm afraid this event will fuel a world view where there's two poles. The 'democratic' west and the islamist, authoritarian east. This is exactly what IS wants.
The main mechanism behind IS isn't religion. It's fascism. And I'm not using that word as a slur for evil in this case. IS wants to achieve a strong united state based in the Middle East. Islam is only used to justify that goal. However it is not a war between Islam and 'the west' and all it stands for. It's mainly a war on other muslims. The muslims who doesn't believe islamic nationalism. It's a war on any person standing in the way of the Islamic State they're trying to achieve.
Nationalism at home will only fuel nationalism in theirs. Which will benefit IS. It's exactly what they're trying to achieve. Blaming religion isn't sufficient to solve this either. It's a too simple explanation. While institutionalized religion has often through history been used to legitimize the state, just like in this case, it doesn't explain the rise of it. We need to see what fuels a minority of muslims in the middle east's support for the IS. The worldwide and domestic economic inequalities. Just like it fuels nationalism in Europe. IS blames the godless, morally corrupt west, while european nationalists blame Islam. Theyre both just two sides of the same rusty coin.
What we need is a world without borders. A world where a few doesnt own more than the rest of the world combined."
McLSHey guys, I just posted in the other threads regarding my thoughts on this, but ill post here too.
I was trying to find you on facebook yesterday. I too have been checking with all my friends in Paris, fortunately most of them were away at the time (one staying with me here in Shef. He's shocked, left to go home a few hours ago).
On that note, I think I'm gonna avoid facebook for the next week. I really don't want to read everyone's opinions on muslims again. Anyone who tries to manipulate these events for political gain can fuck right off.
