More about Europe not being serious about the threat of Islamists

[Loren Pechtel]

http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/

Torture at Bataclan.

 

[barbos]

Overwhelming majority of islamic terrorists are moderate, they never torture people. So stop your attack on moderate terrorists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Overwhelming majority of islamic terrorists are moderate, they never torture people. So stop your attack on moderate terrorists.

The overwhelming majority of Islamic citizens are moderate, they never torture people. However the incidents of atrocities need to be investigated and the findings and evaluations made public in a transparent manner.

 

[repoman]

How is it that these crazy websites are the first ones to publish this TRUTH? When will the mainline news sites be dragged into telling this story?

 

[ronburgundy]

Overwhelming majority of islamic terrorists are moderate, they never torture people. So stop your attack on moderate terrorists.

The overwhelming majority of Islamic citizens are moderate, they never torture people. However the incidents of atrocities need to be investigated and the findings and evaluations made public in a transparent manner.

,
You're missing the point of his sarcasm. He is mocking the very type of statement you made by pointing out that "moderate" is relative and does not mean acceptable, reasonable, or not dangerous, just less extreme than the group used as the most extreme comparison. Most terrorists don't torture in this way either. Those acts are extreme even for terrorists, thus there are "moderate" terrorists. Yet no reasonable person would say those moderate terrorists are not dangerous and extreme in terms of their views, values, and actions relative to modern western culture. The same can be said of "moderate Islamic citizens", whose moderation is only relative to terrorists, but not the western cultures into which they are flooding.

 

[Bomb#20]

Those acts are extreme even for terrorists, thus there are "moderate" terrorists. Yet no reasonable person would say those moderate terrorists are not dangerous and extreme in terms of their views, values, and actions relative to modern western culture. The same can be said of "moderate Islamic citizens", whose moderation is only relative to terrorists, but not the western cultures into which they are flooding.

Not all moderate Islamic citizens are moderate only relative to terrorists. Some moderate Islamic citizens are moderate even relative to the western cultures into which moderate Islamic citizens (of both relative moderation standard relativities) are flooding. Therefore, whenever a moderate Islamic citizen is described by a westerner as "moderate", we should be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and recognize, barring contrary evidence, that he might well be one of the ones who are moderate relative to western culture, even when the westerner who called him "moderate" has a proven track record of using the word "moderate" to describe moderate Islamic citizens whose moderation is only relative to terrorists.

The English language appears to be in need of a new adjective that has not yet followed "moderate" onto the ambiguity treadmill.

 

[ronburgundy]

Those acts are extreme even for terrorists, thus there are "moderate" terrorists. Yet no reasonable person would say those moderate terrorists are not dangerous and extreme in terms of their views, values, and actions relative to modern western culture. The same can be said of "moderate Islamic citizens", whose moderation is only relative to terrorists, but not the western cultures into which they are flooding.

Not all moderate Islamic citizens are moderate only relative to terrorists. Some moderate Islamic citizens are moderate even relative to the western cultures into which moderate Islamic citizens (of both relative moderation standard relativities) are flooding. Therefore, whenever a moderate Islamic citizen is described by a westerner as "moderate", we should be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and recognize, barring contrary evidence, that he might well be one of the ones who are moderate relative to western culture, even when the westerner who called him "moderate" has a proven track record of using the word "moderate" to describe moderate Islamic citizens whose moderation is only relative to terrorists.

The vast majority of citizens in Islamic countries who are "moderate" relative to acting terrorists are still extremists relative to western culture. They are far closer to the most extreme Christian fundamentalists who are a minority in the US. Thus, the benefit of the doubt should go to the statistically most probable situation, which is that "moderate islamic citizen" is still an extremist in many critical ways relative to western culture.

Most of the people in Islamic countries that are "moderate" relative to western culture are not actually adherents or believers in Islam, much like "moderate Christians" in the west are mostly "Christian" in name only rather than in actually believing the core elements of the faith.


,

The English language appears to be in need of a new adjective that has not yet followed "moderate" onto the ambiguity treadmill.

I think the bigger problem is that we need to recognize that relative to modern western thought and values, all Abrahamic religions are extremist in their core defining values and assumptions.
Any person who sincerely believes in the tenets of such religions is an extremist relative to the modern west. Islam is not more extreme than Christianity, but rather far more people label as "Christian" without accepting its core tenets than is true of Islam, due to Christians living in the context of post-Enlightenment secularism.
Thus, a "moderate Christian" is likely not even Christian and thus moderate relative to modernism. In contrast, a "moderate Muslim" is likely still a sincere believer in the extremist tenets of Islam similar to the most extreme Christians in the US, but they just don't agree with the terrorist methods of violence used by some within their religion.

We need to realize that ideological extremism is distinct from use of terrorist military/political methods and not think that just because a person doesn't endorse such methods that they are "moderate" in their ideology.

 

[untermensche]

I think the bigger problem is that we need to recognize that relative to modern western thought and values...

What values are these?

Millions in the West cheered an unprovoked terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the bigger problem is that we need to recognize that relative to modern western thought and values...

What values are these?

Democracy, civil-rights, personal liberty, and the rejection of faith or religious beliefs as a valid basis for laws.
The very concept of a creator God imbued with moral authority is inherently at odds with all of these.
They are the values that keep you more comfortable and free than 99.99% of all humans that have ever lived, and making zero effort to leave the west that you free to complain about and pretend is not infinitely superior to Islamic countries.

Millions in the West cheered an unprovoked terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

First, no one said that people in the West don't often act in violation of these values. However, they are principles that serve as the basis for our Constitutions and our court's decisions on whether laws conform to those constitutions. They are values far more present in modern western societies than any other large civilizations today or in history. This is why many many many times more people seek to immigrate into the west than out of the west.

Second, which attack by the west are you referring to? I'm betting it doesn't remotely qualify as "unprovoked terrorist".

 

[untermensche]

What values are these?

Democracy, civil-rights, personal liberty, and the rejection of faith or religious beliefs as a valid basis for laws.
The very concept of a creator God imbued with moral authority is inherently at odds with all of these.
They are the values that keep you more comfortable and free than 99.99% of all humans that have ever lived, and making zero effort to leave the west that you free to complain about and pretend is not infinitely superior to Islamic countries.

Civil rights?

You can't launch an unprovoked terrorist attack of millions based on lies and claim you care about human rights.

The West pays lip service to these rights when it suits their desires and violates them at will when that suits their desires.

Millions in the West cheered an unprovoked terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

First, no one said that people in the West don't often act in violation of these values. However, they are principles that serve as the basis for our Constitutions and our court's decisions on whether laws conform to those constitutions. They are values far more present in modern western societies than any other large civilizations today or in history. This is why many many many times more people seek to immigrate into the west than out of the west.

Second, which attack by the west are you referring to? I'm betting it doesn't remotely qualify as "unprovoked terrorist".

The US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003.

Pure terrorism. Violence against mostly innocents, and probably a few guilty, to alter a political situation.

 

[JonA]

Overwhelming majority of islamic terrorists are moderate, they never torture people. So stop your attack on moderate terrorists.

The overwhelming majority of Islamic citizens are moderate, they never torture people. However the incidents of atrocities need to be investigated and the findings and evaluations made public in a transparent manner.

Stop. Calling someone moderate just because they've never tortured anyone is itself torture - of the definition of the word "moderate".

 

[untermensche]

The overwhelming majority of Islamic citizens are moderate, they never torture people. However the incidents of atrocities need to be investigated and the findings and evaluations made public in a transparent manner.

Stop. Calling someone moderate just because they've never tortured anyone is itself torture - of the definition of the word "moderate".

Yes it is far more mild than moderate.

The vast majority of Muslims want what all humans want. Peace and security and food and opportunity and a reason to live.

But there is chaos in the ME right now. At least in Syria and Iraq. Displaced and damaged people everywhere. And the fires of useless war started in 2003.

Throw in the delusions of Islam and the chaos has an insane bite.

 

[Caligula]

Or, none of that actually happened.

http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up-bataclan-victims/

 

[JonA]

Stop. Calling someone moderate just because they've never tortured anyone is itself torture - of the definition of the word "moderate".

Yes it is far more mild than moderate.

The vast majority of Muslims want what all humans want. Peace and security and food and opportunity and a reason to live.

Well yeah. But serial killers typically want that too. Calling a desire for basic human needs 'moderate' is just more word torture.

But there is chaos in the ME right now.

There has been chaos in the Middle East ever since Mohammad died and no one could agree on who should succeed him as the next all-amazing child-raping warlord with the super-duper umbilical spirit connection to sky-mommy Allah.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The overwhelming majority of Islamic citizens are moderate, they never torture people. However the incidents of atrocities need to be investigated and the findings and evaluations made public in a transparent manner.

Stop. Calling someone moderate just because they've never tortured anyone is itself torture - of the definition of the word "moderate".

One form of torture by moderates would be to sit in a 2 hour church service at a local parish in the UK countryside.

 

[Will Wiley]

Second, which attack by the west are you referring to? I'm betting it doesn't remotely qualify as "unprovoked terrorist".

Here is the problem in a nutshell. Islamic terrorists are recruited on the basis the unprovoked attacks on Islamic people. The recruitment videos have Muslims asking why others muslims won't come and help. Other muslims feel guilty and join Isis.

then people in the west say...."what unprovoked attacks?"

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suj9bTVR6BQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[whichphilosophy]

Democracy, civil-rights, personal liberty, and the rejection of faith or religious beliefs as a valid basis for laws.
The very concept of a creator God imbued with moral authority is inherently at odds with all of these.
They are the values that keep you more comfortable and free than 99.99% of all humans that have ever lived, and making zero effort to leave the west that you free to complain about and pretend is not infinitely superior to Islamic countries.

Civil rights?

You can't launch an unprovoked terrorist attack of millions based on lies and claim you care about human rights.

The West pays lip service to these rights when it suits their desires and violates them at will when that suits their desires.

Millions in the West cheered an unprovoked terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

First, no one said that people in the West don't often act in violation of these values. However, they are principles that serve as the basis for our Constitutions and our court's decisions on whether laws conform to those constitutions. They are values far more present in modern western societies than any other large civilizations today or in history. This is why many many many times more people seek to immigrate into the west than out of the west.

Second, which attack by the west are you referring to? I'm betting it doesn't remotely qualify as "unprovoked terrorist".

The US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003.

Pure terrorism. Violence against mostly innocents, and probably a few guilty, to alter a political situation.

And the impact of those events is still reverberating in the region. Further to what I mentioned earlier, Britain has two options for its own war criminals; they either get a knighthood or elevation to the House of Lords.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Second, which attack by the west are you referring to? I'm betting it doesn't remotely qualify as "unprovoked terrorist".

Here is the problem in a nutshell. Islamic terrorists are recruited on the basis the unprovoked attacks on Islamic people. The recruitment videos have Muslims asking why others muslims won't come and help. Other muslims feel guilty and join Isis.

then people in the west say...."what unprovoked attacks?"

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suj9bTVR6BQ[/YOUTUBE]

You are seeing the effects of earlier unprovoked attacks or sponsorship of regime change. As these regimes lost power, the local violent sex cults stepped in, extorted money and sex from the local people

 

[JonA]

Second, which attack by the west are you referring to? I'm betting it doesn't remotely qualify as "unprovoked terrorist".

Here is the problem in a nutshell. Islamic terrorists are recruited on the basis the unprovoked attacks on Islamic people. The recruitment videos have Muslims asking why others muslims won't come and help. Other muslims feel guilty and join Isis.

then people in the west say...."what unprovoked attacks?"

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suj9bTVR6BQ[/YOUTUBE]

That didn't seem to answer the question...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or, none of that actually happened.

http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up-bataclan-victims/

Snopes really blew it on that one!!!

Look more carefully at their crap: They're basically taking the word of the French government that the French government isn't covering something up.