Islamic Terrorists France: 12 dead, police gunned down

[Selaphiel]

Not really. Religion has a pretty well documented history.

Religion is a useless umbrella term that really means very little unless further specified. So no, religion does not have a well documented history in that sense, because it is meaningless to throw together world views and doctrines that differ so wildly from each other in under one term and then refer to the history of what that term signifies.

The histories of the religions are not clear either, you can at best argue for ambiguity, which means that your statement of what religion does to people in this case is rather vacuous. You end up with the same nonsense as Hitchens, namely that religion "poisons everything", but to make that actually seem coherent he had to deny that for example Martin Luther King Jr. or Dietrich Bonhoeffer were actually Christians (which is borderline insane) as well as defining Stalin and Hitler as religious. So what he really did with that horrendous book, was to define religion as evil by defining evil as religion.

Belief in gods and adherence to religious doctrines and dogma.

Religion is an adherence to religious doctrines, that is a bit circular. That is like saying politics is adherence to political doctrines. It seems to me that it would matter what those doctrines actually are. The doctrines of Aztec human sacrifice does not have very much in common with the Buddhist doctrine of karma or reincarnation, with the doctrine of the trinity or the two natures of Christ or with the five pillars of Islam, to lump them together in under some umbrella term and then use that term as an explanation seems utterly meaningless to me.
I have to ask, what on earth do I as a Christian or a Buddhist monk have in common with these terrorists? That we all adhere to a set of doctrines? That is so vague that it is utterly meaningless. Doctrine simply means teaching, you adhere to doctrines as well (implicitly at least).

Never said they didn't.

It seems to be implicit when you explain these heinous actions with "It sucks what religion does to people.". Your explanation of terrorist acts is religion, whatever that means in this context.

Religion gives people one more reason to hate each other, which leads to acts like these. Take away the religion and I can't think of any reason why these guys would attack a satirical paper. Only through the lens of religion does it make any sense at all.

Then you do not have a very good understanding of geopolitics Im afraid. They did indeed attack these people because they mocked the prophet, but if you think that is the end of the explanation, then you are rather naive. Islam acts as a unifying cultural identifier for these people. They attack them because for them they symbolize what they see as western oppression of their culture and society. The origin of their hatred is not religion or even Islam per se, it is what they perceive as oppression.

 

[resodko]

Not really. Religion has a pretty well documented history..

like taking the lead on the abolitionist movement in america?

 

[Nazaroo]

This is an image taken from the 2013 edition of
al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine, showing that
Charb was on the terror group's 'most wanted' list


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...11329976/Paris-Charlie-Hebdo-attack-live.html

 

[TomO]

Because it didn't work against Charles Whitman either. You know, shooting back.

:chuckle:

 

[Selaphiel]

If I seem annoyed it is because I'm getting tired of getting, at least implicitly by your wording, lumped together cowardous murderors because of something as vague as "both are religious".

 

[Jose Fly]

Religion is a useless umbrella term that really means very little unless further specified.

Oh, well then I guess we should just not use the term.

So no, religion does not have a well documented history in that sense, because it is meaningless to throw together world views and doctrines that differ so wildly from each other in under one term and then refer to the history of what that term signifies.

I can see how those who are within one religion or another would see it that way. But to those of use who are not in any sort of religion, or don't subscribe to any sort of religious thought at all, the history of religiously motivated violence is patently obvious.

The histories of the religions are not clear either, you can at best argue for ambiguity, which means that your statement of what religion does to people in this case is rather vacuous. You end up with the same nonsense as Hitchens, namely that religion "poisons everything", but to make that actually seem coherent he had to deny that for example Martin Luther King Jr. or Dietrich Bonhoeffer were actually Christians (which is borderline insane) as well as defining Stalin and Hitler as religious. So what he really did with that horrendous book, was to define religion as evil by defining evil as religion.

I'm not Hitchens, nor am I saying that religion poisons everything.

Religion is an adherence to religious doctrines, that is a bit circular.

Ok fine, take "religious" out of what I said. Religion is belief in gods and adherence to doctrines and dogma.

It seems to me that it would matter what those doctrines actually are.

Take one step further back and ask yourself why religions promote faith, belief, and loyalty over critical thinking and objective thought.

I have to ask, what on earth do I as a Christian or a Buddhist monk have in common with these terrorists? That we all adhere to a set of doctrines? That is so vague that it is utterly meaningless. Doctrine simply means teaching, you adhere to doctrines as well (implicitly at least).

See above.

It seems to be implicit when you explain these heinous actions with "It sucks what religion does to people.". Your explanation of terrorist acts is religion, whatever that means in this context.

That's your error. Just because someone points out how one mode of thought causes some people to act violently, that doesn't mean he's saying that's the only thing that causes violence.

Then you do not have a very good understanding of geopolitics Im afraid. They did indeed attack these people because they mocked the prophet, but if you think that is the end of the explanation, then you are rather naive. Islam acts as a unifying cultural identifier for these people. They attack them because for them they symbolize what they see as western oppression of their culture and society. The origin of their hatred is not religion or even Islam per se, it is what they perceive as oppression.

That doesn't match up with history, which is also full of examples of religious authority being used to oppress.

 

[Jose Fly]

like taking the lead on the abolitionist movement in america?

Against their fellow Christians who justified slavery via their religion.

 

[Nazaroo]

There are reports of a car exploding outside a synagogue in Paris.

It is not yet clear whether there is any link to terror,
or the specific attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine's offices.

French Jewish news outlet JSS reported that an initial police assessment
concluded that the explosion was an accident.

However, JSS also pointed out that the car was parked by a roundabout
where “it is strictly forbidden to stop.” The paper also questioned whether
a mechanical fault could have caused such an intense explosion.

If thats an accident then 80,000 cars need to be recalled.
the last time a car exploded like that it was the Pinto.

 

[resodko]

Against those who enslaved other humans

yeah, those guys



got anything good to say about them?

 

[Jose Fly]

yeah, those guys



got anything good to say about them?

No, they justified their actions via religion too.

 

[Selaphiel]

Oh, well then I guess we should just not use the term.

Using the term casually and using it as an explanatory term for something like terrorism are wildly different things.

I can see how those who are within one religion or another would see it that way. But to those of use who are not in any sort of religion, or don't subscribe to any sort of religious thought at all, the history of religiously motivated violence is patently obvious.

The problem is that you want to extract a term religious from the historical context and use that as your explanation for violence occuring in those societies. My response is simply that reality is slightly more complex than that. To say that for example the crusades is "religious violence" is just overly simplistic, saying such things only testifies to historical ignorance. Was religious language used to justify them? Sure. Was religion, as in the teachings of the New Testament the cause of them? No, that is ridiculous. Just as there are cases of terrorism among Buddhists as well, but to claim that that terrorism is due to Buddhist teachings is patently absurd.

Ok fine, take "religious" out of what I said. Religion is belief in gods and adherence to doctrines and dogma.

So is all politics and any form of philosophy, be it ethical or political philosophy. The only unique thing in your definition is belief in gods, and that isn't very accurate since there are religions that do not believe in God or gods, at least as we westerners define that term. You could say they believe in a transcendent reality, but that is so vague that it ultimately must also enfathom things like nationalism and other political ideologies like communism, socialism and capitalism and certain other non-religious phenomena. So how this definition leads you being able to say "It sucks to see what religion does to people" in this context is beyond me. It seems more accurate to say "It sucks to see what ideology and hatred can do to people", but the appropriate response to that is simply "duh".

Take one step further back and ask yourself why religions promote faith, belief, and loyalty over critical thinking and objective thought.

They do not necessarily do that (that is to say, there are cases of uncritical religion, but it is not an essential part of any religion to not promote critical thought), that is your own bias speaking.

To say that there isn't promotion critical thinking or objective thought (whatever that is supposed to mean?) in what you call religion is simply false. From the perspective of classical Christian though, it is faith AND reason, not faith over reason. In Buddhist traditions, there is long tradition of critical thought and practice. In Judaism, there is plenty of critical thought (the very way they engage with their scriptures is dialogical and critical).

That doesn't match up with history, which is also full of examples of religious authority being used to oppress

And? History is full of authority being used to oppress, that is not something that is unique to religion, it part of human nature and history, which religious people sadly has participated in at times (in many cases in direct contradiction to the teachings of their own scriptures and teachers).

 

[resodko]

No, they justified their actions via religion too.

i'm wasting my time with a retard :doh:

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is that you want to extract a term religious from the historical context and use that as your explanation for violence occuring in those societies.

The perpetrators of the violence explain their actions exclusively via religion. You're trying to tell me they're wrong, and you know better than they do what motivates them.

My response is simply that reality is slightly more complex than that.

I agree that there are other factors at play here. But in these cases, it's clear that religion is the primary factor.

To say that for example the crusades is "religious violence" is just overly simplistic, saying such things only testifies to historical ignorance. Was religious language used to justify them? Sure. Was religion, as in the teachings of the New Testament the cause of them? No, that is ridiculous. Just as there are cases of terrorism among Buddhists as well, but to claim that that terrorism is due to Buddhist teachings is patently absurd.

I didn't say that.

So is all politics and any form of philosophy, be it ethical or political philosophy. The only unique thing in your definition is belief in gods, and that isn't very accurate since there are religions that do not believe in God or gods, at least as we westerners define that term. You could say they believe in a transcendent reality, but that is so vague that it ultimately must also enfathom things like nationalism and other political ideologies like communism, socialism and capitalism and certain other non-religious phenomena. So how this definition leads you being able to say "It sucks to see what religion does to people" in this context is beyond me. It seems more accurate to say "It sucks to see what ideology and hatred can do to people", but the appropriate response to that is simply "duh".

I guess if you don't know what the term "religion" means, that's your problem.

They do not necessarily do that (that is to say, there are cases of uncritical religion, but it is not an essential part of any religion to not promote critical thought), that is your own bias speaking.

What then explains young-earth creationism? Or the (at a minimum) 4 Christians here at ToL who believe the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the rest of the universe? Do you think they would believe such nonsense, were it not for Christianity?

To say that there isn't promotion critical thinking or objective thought (whatever that is supposed to mean?) in what you call religion is simply false. From the perspective of classical Christian though, it is faith AND reason, not faith over reason. In Buddhist traditions, there is long tradition of critical thought and practice. In Judaism, there is plenty of critical thought (the very way they engage with their scriptures is dialogical and critical).

Name one religion that places a higher value on critical thinking and objectivity, than faith, belief, and loyalty.

And? History is full of authority being used to oppress, that is not something that is unique to religion, it part of human nature and history, which religious people sadly has participated in at times (in many cases in direct contradiction to the teachings of their own scriptures and teachers).

It negates your explanation that the main factor at play isn't religion, but oppression. If that were so, then once the oppression went away so would the violence. But instead the opposite typically happens, as we're seeing in Iraq. The religiously oppressed become the religious oppressors.

 

[serpentdove]

It sucks what religion does to people.

What :CRASH: false religion does to people (Ge 16:12).

A closer look at Charlie Hebdo: The Paris attack targeted paper that mocked fundamentalists

 

[The Berean]

So it turns out that the attackers were all French citizens.

http://news.yahoo.com/suspected-isl...k-satirical-magazine-165024698--business.html

 

[resodko]

no surprise there - france's colonial history coming back to bite them

lemme guess - algerian?

 

[Alate_One]

The perpetrators of the violence explain their actions exclusively via religion. You're trying to tell me they're wrong, and you know better than they do what motivates them.

Religion is one motivator, it isn't the only one. It's tied in with a lot of other motivators, primarily it's a different value system. Different people can have different value systems within the same religion.

What then explains young-earth creationism? Or the (at a minimum) 4 Christians here at ToL who believe the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the rest of the universe? Do you think they would believe such nonsense, were it not for Christianity?

People believe plenty of nonsense sans religion. See therapeutic touch, and a variety of types of alternative medicine. See a family member of mine who chose vitamin C infusions to treat her cancer. You can guess how that one turned out.

Idiocy is not limited to the right wing or religion. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Nazaroo]

Just a few radical extremists? WRONG:

MUSLIMS around the world celebrate terrorist attack killing 12 in Paris Did you expect anything different? Muslims are dancing in the streets and passing out candies. MEMRI Participants on jihadi forums and social media praised the attackers, saying that the shooting was a legitimate act of revenge against the weekly for insulting Islam and against France for its crimes against Muslims. Members of the pro-ISIS forum Jihadi Media Platform (alplatformmedia.com) lashed out at France. A member called Al-Dia’ Al-Gharib wrote: “France was [once] part of the land of Islam and will return to be the land of Islam, in spite the worshippers of the Cross.” ​ Another, who goes by the name Muhib Al-Salihin, wrote: “France is one of the harshest enemies of Islam and of the Islamic State in particular.” ​ Forum member Abu Al-Qassem Al-Shawqi commented: “[This] is news that quenches the thirst for revenge. By Allah, beloved ones, let us not think lightly of prayers. By Allah, they [the attackers] are soldiers of Allah.” ​ And a member calling himself Abu Bakr Al-Zari’ni remarked: “Congratulations to France and to its people for reaping what their hands sowed. Did these evil cartoonists think that we were a nation that would remain silent in face of those who insult our Prophet…? Did [French President] Hollande and the governments that preceded him think that their interventions and despotism in the lands of the Muslims would not be met with retribution? No, by Allah, from now on the youths of Islam will no longer remain silent, especially since we have a state [ISIS] to mobilize armies if anybody insults the nation of Islam.” ​

 

[Nazaroo]

‘The Muslims Have Turned Paris Into a Battlefield:’
Islamists Celebrate Terror Attack Against Charlie Hebdo

January 7, 2015 5:01 pm

Share this Article


Charlie Hebdo's editor was included on an Al Qaeda "Most Wanted" poster in 2013. Image: MEMRI

Jihadi terrorists and their sympathizers have flocked to online forums in celebration of the attack earlier today against the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, in which twelve people were murdered.
The attack, denounced by French President Francois Hollande as an act of “exceptional barbarity,” drew enthusiastic praise from supporters of Islamic State (IS) and other jihadi terrorist groups.
A report from the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) quoted a number of jihadi sources expressing their approval of the attack. One contributor to the Jihadi Media platform, a pro-IS online forum, declared: “France is one of the harshest enemies of Islam and of the Islamic State in particular.” Another contributor wrote: “France was [once] part of the land of Islam and will return to be the land of Islam, in spite the worshippers of the Cross.”
Over the last several months, France has emerged as a top target for IS. In September 2014, IS spokesman Abu Muhammad Al Adanani urged IS supporters worldwide to mount attacks in their countries of residence against both military and civilian targets, using any means available. Al Adanani specifically identified France as a recommended target, a separate MEMRI dispatch reported at the time.
Similar themes were echoed by several jihadi sympathizers on Twitter. A user identified as Najam wrote: “#Paris Is Burning. Oh Allah slaughter them, Allah attack them. This newspaper insulted the Messenger of Allah and Islam.” Another user commented: “France turned the lands of the Muslims into battlefields, and now the Muslims have turned Paris into a battlefield. Allahu akhbar.”
In March 2013, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) placed Charlie Hebdo editor and cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier on a “most wanted” poster published in its English-language magazine Inspire. Charbonnier, who was murdered in today’s attack, declared in a 2012 interview, “Without freedom of speech we are dead. We can’t live in a country without freedom of speech. I prefer to die than live like a rat.” Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters had previously been firebombed in 2011 after the magazine published images of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb embedded in his turban.
The Long War Journal, a Washington, DC-based publication focused on the war on terror, underscored the professionalism of today’s attack, asserting that it“appears to have been executed by hardened and well-trained fighters who may have received instructions at a training facility overseas, or locally in France. The attackers may also be ex-military.”
Analyzing video of the attack, the Journal observed that“the two attackers move in side-by-side formation and fire deliberately while shooting at a French police officer who is four to five car lengths away. After the officer is shot and downed, the two gunmen move quickly towards the policemen. One shoots and executes the officer in stride. Both men move past the body, peer up the street for additional targets, then peel off and move back to the black car and leave the scene of the attack.”
The Journal concluded:“The tactic of using heavily armed gunmen to attack well defended military targets or lightly defended civilian targets is commonly used by jihadist groups, including al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the Taliban, and a host of allies in the war-torn countries of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Nigeria. But jihadist groups have also executed such attacks on civilians outside of war zones, including in Mumbai, India in 2008 and Nairobi, Kenya in 2013.”

 

[Nazaroo]

Arabic-speaking jihad supporters also celebrated the attack on Twitter, some using the Arabic hashtag “Paris Is Burning.” Many of them shared videos from the scene of the attack, calling the shooters “heroes” and praising them for avenging the honor of the Prophet and of Islam.

One, who calls himself Najam (@35njm), wrote:

“#Paris Is Burning. Oh Allah slaughter them, Allah attack them. This newspaper insulted the Messenger of Allah and Islam.”
​

ISIS supporter Hamel Al-Liwa’ (@blue964) tweeted:

“Fear prevails among the newspapers and journalists who hate Islam. There are demands for military protection of the paper headquarters. #Paris is turning into a military barracks.”
​

Another ISIS supporter, Al-Khilafa Hiya Al-Hal [“the Caliphate is the solution”] (@death4x), shared a video of the attack and commented:

“France turned the lands of the Muslims into battlefields, and now the Muslims have turned Paris into a battlefield. Allah akbar.”
​

The following are some reactions by French-speaking jihadists on Twitter. ISIS supporter Abou Hafs (@Ansar_Al_Ouma) tweeted:

“Oh Allah, the honor of your prophet has been cleansed.”
​

Another, Al Furat Wadijlah (@AlFuratWadijlah), commented on the character of the attack:

“An RPG7 with Kalashnikovs, it’s a well prepared assault.” “That dog Charb [Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief and cartoonist Stéphane Charbonnier, who is one of those killed in the attack] was supposed to publish this drawing on the first page this week:” “Still no terror attacks in France.” The jihadist comments: “Wait! We have until the end of January to give [you] our [new year’s] greetings.”