"Paris under attack" Topic

Which viewpoints do you find disturbing and why?

Mainly the ones that attempt to taint all Muslims with the brush of terrorist actions

Geoff-- You don't think it's reasonable to question whether Islamic beliefs might encourage or even endorse terrorist acts when (a) the terrorists self-identify as Muslims; (b) the terrorists claim that they are acting in accordance with their religious principles; and (c) such acts seem to occur VERY regularly?

Or have I misunderstood you?

This should be a wake up call for the West(as if one was needed) but I think we will only continue to fight the Islamists with words…the actual military portion will continue to be half-hearted and insufficient.

But what the heck, it's only Western civilization we're talking about…***sigh***

We have Eastern Europe involved this time. They're no fans of Islam so it will be interesting to see what Hungary, Romania, et al. will do now. We are cursed to "live in interesting times

And it's quite likely that the Russians have just lost 224 people on an airliner to what claims to be affilates of these people.

Perhaps everyone in (and I'm picking my words carefully here) the "civilised world" has a just cause here?

We keep – as a group – making comparisons to WW2 (new nazis etc).

Time to roll up our sleeves, put aside our differences and – yet again – call Vlad and his folks…

John T

We have Eastern Europe involved this time. They're no fans of Islam so it will be interesting to see what Hungary, Romania, et al. will do now.

Unfortunately it looks like they're beginning to do what Western Europe has already done: allow themselves to be overrun with Muslims "refugees" who will not assimilate into their culture and who will in the long run outbreed them and conquer them in the name of the Prophet.

Sure that sounds alarmist and pessimistic, but it's just a matter of simple math. European populations are falling or at best flat while Muslims are expanding, so allowing a large fertile Muslim population to set up shop in the middle of a declining Europe can have only have one outcome. It won't happen in my lifetime but the ongoing process is visible to anyone WILLING to see it.

As someone who has lived in the Middle East, and has Muslims as friends and family who are equally appalled by these actions, I would say it is extremely dangerous to label Islam=terrorist. Terrorists are terrorists, they are not defined by their religious belief, only by their distorted interpretation. Or to quote a good friend, "religion is a wonderful idea [sadly] spoils by those who practise it". It is not, and has not been, restricted to one religious group but to a distortion.

The killing of innocent civilians by suicide bombers and terrorists is strongly condemned in the Quran. Taking any life—except in the course of justice, is forbidden. Thus, those who commit these horrible acts are clearly not muslims, rather very evil people who try to justify their hatred and actions using God's name (7:28).

It may be questionable whether they deem their actions to be in the course of justice, but those they gave killed were not directly responsible for anything and this their actions are not in compliance with anything in the Quran.

John: Why Vlad and his folks ? Or did you mean King Jan Sobiesky ? (1683 – Relief of Vienna).

All: this is not about religion. This is about terrorism. An interesting site (for instance) is here: link
Does this mean Christianity is bad ? Of course not. See also link Suicide bombers kill 43 people in Lebanon – and there are probably far more muslim victims by attacks like this than "westerners". Using the word "islamists" is exactly what the terrorists want. Here is the "rhetorical": Every monkey likes a banana, so everyone who likes a banana is a monkey". Likewise although every terrorist calls himself (or herself!!) muslim, certainly only an infinitisimal number of people that calls himself (herself) muslim is terrorist.

Well said

The Islamic State militant group (the last two words should always carry more emphasis than the first word) have claimed responsibility, and are attempting to strengthen that this is the world against Muslims because without popular support these groups cannot survive.

Geoff -- Your arguments, while no doubt heartfelt are both illogical and factually inaccurate. We can have this discussion privately, if you wish, but the Koran and Hadiths are filled with commands to murder infidels, enslave them, subjugate them, etc. Oh, and commands to murder homosexuals, atheists, pagans and converts from Islam. And, lest I forget, commands to treat women as essentially property. There are literally thousands of websites that document this, as well as numerous English translations of the Koran and Hadiths. I've read them, and I can find no support for your claims.

In addition, the self-identified Muslim world is filled with brutal, autocratic, intolerant and oppressive regimes, which claim to be following the tenets of Islam. Indeed, I can't think of a single self-identified Muslim nation that is a democracy other than (maybe) Turkey. Maybe, And even Turkey lacks key freedoms taken for granted in the West.

And as I noted, there sure does seem to be a LOT of self-identified Muslim terrorists who claim to be killing in obedience to the commands that appear in the Koran and Hadiths.

Your position is also illogical, it seems to me. I'm pretty sure that some members of the Nazi party did not actually want to murder Jews, but are we going to excuse them merely because they didn't actually pull a trigger or push a button? Do we excuse a member of the Ku Klux Klan merely because he didn't actually lynch a black man? Clearly, it seems to me, adherents of a given ideology should not get a pass merely because they *claim* to not believe in disagreeable parts of that ideology. And since no one has a mind reading machine, it is impossible to know for sure whether someone is actually opposed to particular beliefs.

In any case, I submit that you can't win a war by pretending that your enemy is not your enemy. Nor is there any moral virtue in doing so. Or for that matter, in willfully ignoring morally despicable parts of certain ideologies in the name of "tolerance".

In any case, I submit that you can't win a war by pretending that your enemy is not your enemy.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it does seem that most terrorists are Muslim

Porthos--

Funny, I haven't read of any recent attacks by Catholic or Southern Baptist terrorists. Yet I seem to read quite regularly of terrorist attacks by self-identified Muslims who claim to be following the plain commands of their Prophet. (Commands, I might add, that appear to be pretty clear to me in the Koran and Hadiths). So I find your assertion that "this not about religion" to be dubious. Or at least inaccurate -- it does appear to me to be very clearly about *a* religion.

And while I can find numerous commands in the Koran and Hadiths to murder/enslave infidels, homosexuals, converts from Islam, etc., I can find no such commands in the New Testament. Perhaps you can point me to the scripture where Jesus tells us to slaughter non-Christians and lays out elaborate rules for when and how we're allowed to enslave them.

If you can't, then your attempt at moral equivalency fails, does it not?

EDIT-- I do agree that Muslims are often victimized by other Muslims in the name of Islam. (The endless Sunni-Shiite war is this phenomenon writ large). Typically, public opinion polls in Muslim nations show that populations are ambivalent or even supportive of terrorism aimed at infidels, But support plunges when the terrorists start killing fellow Muslims (which they invariably seem to do).

Glad to have some "muslim" allies such as Niger and Tchad to contain Islamists in Africa ..

One of the attackers seem's to have had a syrian passport :
link

Ahh, Moral Equivalence…the argument for those who don't really have a legitimate argument. An oldie but a goody.

Blackhorse -- What's striking to me is how little they apparently know about Islam and about Christianity as they confidently proclaim equivalence.

How's the old saying go? "Seldom right but never in doubt."

tbeard

I think they feel no need to let something as inconsequential as the truth get in the way of their feelings.

Tim, what are you talking about? It appears that you're blaming the US for an attack made by self-identified Muslim terrorists that murdered over 150 French civilians.

Is that really what you meant to say?

George Takei could give you all a few comments on when what so many are alluding to was actually done before.

George Takei is your ideological poster-boy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…HA…HA.

Blackhorse--

Here's why I can't take them (those who claim moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity) seriously:

1. Christians who murder (say) homosexuals for being homosexual violate the commands of Christ.

2. Muslims who murder homosexuals for being homosexual are following the commands of Muhammad.

Therefore, Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent.

Uh…really? Sounds more like Sir Bedevere's logical proof that if a woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is a witch. (Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

Actually, that's an exaggeration. Sir Bedevere's argument is far more logical…

i suggest you go back and read those again, but with your eyes open instead of seeking the points that justify your point of view.

Meanwhile I remain horrified and disgusted with the attempt to turn the actions of terrorists 'in the name of' into global religious discrimination, intolerance and bigotry.

Geoff, assuming you are responding to me…

I'm disappointed that, in response to very specific factual statements and logical arguments your only rebuttal is to call me a bigot.

<sigh>

Really? That's how you have a serious discussion?

And unlike you, apparently, I actually have read the Koran and Hadiths. In their entirety. I'm confident that I am accurately relating their contents.

At the risk of being called liberal and other insults.

I am sorry to say that those screaming for blood are doing what the terrorists want.

The West has shown kindness taking in those fleeing violence. Imams have claimed this is only as the west wants cheap labour. So if they can make the west react and bring in harsh anti Islamic laws the terrorist wins.

Yes security must be prime consideration, but do noir let the nature of democracy be changed.

Before anyone says it is easy for me to say that. I do have skin in this game. I have family in Paris and I am going back there in a few weeks.

We will need to stand together to defeat this not argue like children. This is a big problem for adult minds to solve.

You remain taking the actions of a small minority group of militants as proof that all Muslims are valid targets

gunnerphil--

First, best wishes to your family in France. And to you as well; I imagine the last 18 hours was rough.

Second, while your exhortation is fine as far as it goes, I'd like to point out that the "children" are the ones who resort to ad hominem attacks ("you're a racist") to rebut specific factual assertions and logical arguments.

Geoff--

At this point, you are now mischaracterizing my statements. Please stop.

What I am seeing is you vocalising that the Quran demands that all Muslims must be violent, and therefore must be subject to attack… Or at the very least attempting (intentionally or unintentionally) to incite it. Please stop.

Curious what the reaction would be had they turned out to be Catholics trying to blow up Protestants, or one of the many Christian sects

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it does seem that most terrorists are Muslim

Here in the US, outside of 9/11, more civilians have been killed by right wing christian terrorists than by muslim terrorists. Thousands of black American were murdered by fellow Christian Americans up to and during the civil rights era and black churches are still being burned by right wing christian terrorists to this day. We Christian americans have used our bible to justify slavery too.

In Pakistan, a country with which we are not at war, drone strikes from Christian nations have killed thousands of innocent civilians. They suffer the sort of attacks that Paris did last night on an ongoing basis.

And governments of western Christian nations routinely support brutal dictatorships who terrorize civilians in the name of corporate profits. If there's a land dispute between a company from a western christian nation and local peasants guess who wins.

In fact, the US, a Christian nation, recently changed Malaysia's designation with respect to civilian workers so we could trade with them. The governemnt there still engages in murder and sex slavery, but we really like the cheap, terrorized labor pool.

So terror is an equal opportunity affair regardless of religion. Remember, Sadam Hussein and his pscho sons were friends of the Christian US while terrorizing and raping and murdering civilians. And we're friends now with psycho terrorists like the guy running Kazakstan. China and Saudi Arabia terrorizes their citizens and their both close trading partners of the Christian west.

Unless and until we Christians start living up to our beliefs, even when inconvenient for our bank accounts, we are in no position to paint entire other religions and cultures as "terrorists". We Christians wrote the book on the use of violence, torture, and terror. And I admit that as a former Christian seminarian who also recognizes the reality of history and current public policy.

At this point, you are now mischaracterizing my statements. Please stop.

tbeard…he can't stop, he's "horrified and disgusted" by your "global religious discrimination, intolerance and bigotry."

Maybe you should repent and have a talk with George Takei and get your mind right. Then all would be well.

Geoff, you could try to rebut the arguments or factual assertions I made. Instead, you call me a bigot, flatly mischaracterize what I said and draw unwarranted and unreasonable inferences from my statements.

I think your tactics eloquently demonstrate the strength of your reasoning.

<shrug>

That's too bad. I expected better from you.

I don't recall naming anyone, so perhaps if you feel it was directed at you the. You should ask yourself why you felt that cap fitted?

Vlad…

I mean the Russians.

The West (NATO?) needs to stop arguing with the Russians about Syria and – between us – find some kind of common ground and develop a unified strategy for dealing with this dreadful mess.

Finger pointing is irrelevant: how we got here and whose 'fault' it is that we are in the situation we are in is not as important as what is done about it.

I was simply saying that, in some way, we need to remember what was done three quarters of a century ago, realise that – in some way – we are indeed "at war", and use that as a guide line to where we go from here.

As I've long said, I suspect that we are all likely to experience changes in the way we live our lives (both on and off line): something must be done.

John T

I do not rebut that the Quran has statements that promote some of the items you have mentioned.

So does the Old Testament

But taking the actions of a few terrorists who have selectively chosen certain statements as justification for their cause as being the views of all Muslims?

I expected better of you too

I wonder if I would be more excited if the pink unicorn beat the purple unicorn at the Kentucky Derby….

The fact is there is an enemy waging unconditional war on the Western world, and we continue to only treat at them like a camel seats at flies with its tail. We should not sacrifice any more liberty at home, we should take the fight to the enemy without conditions and with all the might, short of nukes (although the day will come if we don't wipe this enemy from the face of the planet that some sort of nuclear device will be used on a Western city), to obliterate this enemy from the face of the Earth.

French president has said this will mean war on ISIS.

Will this trigger the NATO alliance?

Does 11/13/2015 = 9/11/2015?

In my mind yes.

The only difference is scale, but yeah, it's the same thing. But I don't think it should be a furious/mindless thrust into Syria/Iraq. It, hopefully, should be the catalyst that will start a serious talk on taking serious measures to crush ISIS

Visceral Impact Studios--

The US is not a "Christian" nation as its Constitution forbids the government from establishing a religion. Our Supreme Court has interpreted this to provide extremely robust protections for all faiths. Protections that are notably absent in self-identified Muslim nations, by the way.

I also find your reasoning weak. You seem to be arguing that because Christians are imperfect, they cannot criticize any other ideology. This seems absurd to me. And I wonder if you've really considered the implications of such a position:

"Christians cannot criticize racism because some Christians were racists." Or because some Christians are adulterers.

"Christians cannot criticize homophobia because some Christians are homophobes."

Seriously?

Or did I misunderstand your argument?

Tbeard1999

Thank you for the best wishes. Will say best thing about social media is the ease of finding family.

Guess emotions are running hot. So I think I will just repeat that by turning on ourselves we do the terrorist job.

I hope this does not turn into one of those mass dawghouse threads.

We all share a common interest, and if we can not talk about itwithout both side being upset what chance of government doing it.

Yes terrorists must be stopped, yes not all Moslems are terrorists. If we start from there might help.

Geoff--

Before bidding you adieu, I will do you a courtesy that you refused me and answer your question.

If a Christian murdered someone because they are non-Christian, I would respond that they are flatly violating Jesus' commands. And it would be trivially easy to quote scriptures proving that assertion, along with numerous examples of writings by mainstream Christian theologians supporting this point.

If someone claimed that those acts proved that Christianity is a violent and intolerant faith, I would rebut that argument with (again) scriptures and writings from mainstream Christian theologians that prove that Christ does not endorse such acts and therefore the absurdity of that argument. I would acknowledge that *if* Christ had told us to kill non-Christians then Christianity would obviously be a violent ideology. I would also acknowledge that I (as a Christian) would not deserve a pass merely because I claimed to not follow that particular teaching or because I had not personally advocated killing non-Christians.

I would not accuse them of being bigots, refuse to address their arguments, misrepresent their statements or draw unreasonable inferences from their statements. And I'd not resort to sophistry to avoid being called out for such tactics,

Gunnerphil-- THANK YOU for finally identifying something useful about social media. I just knew it had to be good for something…

The NT calls for women to dress modestly to not tempt men, and speaks only as a parable of cutting of one's own hand if it is causing you to sin.

Tgunner--

I hope that the French political class is serious about "declaring war". I worry that this won't happen because the European elites (and many of the American elites for that matter) are deeply invested in a bizarre belief that anyone who attacks the West is automatically justified in doing so. Such a belief is not only ridiculous and a moral inversion, but it also opens the door for far worse extremism. If the common people decide that their elites are not interested in preventing such acts, then they will naturally take things into their own hands.

Tbeard1999, I was amazed to find there is am"I am safe" button on Facebook, so my wife quickly found my niece and nephew were fine. If for nothing else is useful.

To a lot of others I am of the generation of British soldiers that spent time trying not to get killed by Christians, and have lived in the Golan heights avoiding Moslems. Blame enough for everyone.

Well said that man.

The problem we have is not a specific religion but religious, ideological or cultural fundamentalism.

The views I would take issue with include all this talk of crusades and nuking the hell out of people. Also there are large groups of integrated Muslims in western Europe (in the UK for example) as well as Eastern Europe (I.e. Bosniaks). Its simply not a case of closing the borders then sending the troops in.

Ditto/Tim--

So….are you blaming the US for the massacre in Paris yesterday?

willlucv--

You state (as others have) that the problem is not with any particular religion. I disagree; it appears blindingly obvious to me that we have a recurring problem with one particular religion. But no matter.

Let me ask you a simple question--

Assume hypothetically that a religion -- Bobism -- clearly commands its adherents to murder (say) homosexuals.

Assume then that Bobists murder homosexuals and claim to be following their religion's commandments.

In this hypothetical case, isn't it reasonable to condemn Bobism as intolerant and violent? If not, why not?

Ditto/Tim--

Please show me the scriptures where Jesus tells us to murder or enslave non-Christians and provides elaborate rules to govern when we can enslave them, rape their women, etc

I missed that part of the New Testament,

Ditto/Tim--

Do you really see no difference between an "abstinence pledge" and a legal/religious system that treats women as property and that specifically endorses beating them, genital mutilation, etc.?

Really?

Which system would you prefer your daughter or mother to live in?

What I have fear of are people who refuse to understand the lessons of history. That's what I meant by the George Takei remark, but obviously Black Horse has demonstrated no knowledge of that.

Ditto,

I acknowledge that I misunderstood your remark about George Takei, I admit I don't spend much time studying his views on life. From what I do know about him it seems he and you hold may pretty similar views on things which resulted in my still valid response.

As far as not understanding history and it's lessons due to not knowing obscure George Takei trivia…I don't think so.

Gunnerphil--

I'll be the first to admit that Christians often fail to follow Christ's commands. But I submit that there is a very great moral difference between a faith that flatly prohibits murdering unbelievers and a faith that explicitly endorses murdering/enslaving unbelievers.