More about Europe not being serious about the threat of Islamists

[Bomb#20]

... 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.

That's not benefit of the doubt. Benefit of the doubt is about fairness, not about about predictive accuracy. The vast majority of left-wingers are tribalistic intellectually dishonest authoritarian religious kooks; but if all you know about someone is she's a left-winger, assuming she's a tribalistic intellectually dishonest authoritarian religious kook merely because it's statistically probable is unfair to the minority who aren't. It's the same reason each defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty even though most defendants are guilty.

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.

I don't know how one would collect evidence for that hypothesis; and whether it's true no doubt depends on which elements of the faith you define as "core". But I suspect you are seriously underestimating the power of the human mind to compartmentalize. As far as I can tell, most of the people in the west who identify culturally as Christians and are on board with democracy, civil rights, and personal liberty still believe there's a God who sent Jesus to die for our sins. Likewise, I'd bet on most of the people in the west who identify culturally as Muslims and are on board with democracy, civil rights, and personal liberty still believing there's no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet. That all such people need to choose not to make inferences from half the stuff their respective preachers and scriptures tell them is neither here nor there. When it's emotionally comfortable to believe contradictions, people believe contradictions.

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.

So which of the tenets of Christianity and Islam do you consider core tenets?

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.

Yes, in the media "moderate" appears to be commonly applied to Christians and Muslims according to a double standard; but I don't think it's because of different ways of comparing them either with modernism or with Abrahamic religion. I think reporters and public officials are simply grading people on the curve. The double standard arises automatically and unconsciously, due to the different statistical distribution of mentalities among the respective populations individuals are being compared with.

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.

Hence the need for a word that has not yet lost its meaning. Perhaps we should be speaking of tolerant Christians and tolerant Muslims instead of moderate ones. Of course if that becomes the common practice, then it will only be a matter of time until western countries' talking heads start describing the Muslims who want people jailed for drawing Muhammad cartoons instead of murdered as "tolerant" Muslims. But at least for a while we could retain a common standard for tolerance.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

First there needs to be sufficient evidence this took could have taken place. Autopsy reports etc should show this.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Bullshit.

The ME before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003 looked nothing like it looks today.

That terrorism changed the region and lit fires of violence that are still burning bright even into Western Europe and Orlando.

All this violence we see today is blowback from a massive act of US terrorism.

To not see it is to just let the US do the same thing again someday.

And it is hard to see how serial killers want peace. What they want is violence and pain and suffering.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

The level of chaos that we see now started with the US led invasion of Iraq and has continued until this day. Were things worse after the invasion or better?

 

[Will Wiley]

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

Torture at Bataclan.

Here is one man who sees three possible scenariois
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/U4mOMlCanrA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Will Wiley]

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

Before the invasion of Iraq there was no Isis.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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?

What happened to the bodies? I mean wouldn't testicles be found detached and eyes gouged out?

WHO IS COVERING THIS UP!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Or, none of that actually happened.

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

Snopes is part of the Zionist Occupation Governmental Ministry of Propaganda. Wake up!


(Sarcasm folks!)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

No one blowing anything but you, smoke. How did the French government stop several hundred people from reporting this. More importantly, when would this have even been possible in the timeline of the attack?

 

[iolo]

People who love to hate and bully always want to be 'tough' without any understanding. To understand 'terrorism', follow the history of the IRA. Ireland was ill-treated by invaders, Irish who went elsewhere were bullied. Naturally, rage broke out, and the National Liberation movement gave up real history for propaganda, believing the fantasies of their ignorant parents. Just bullying them was a total waste of time, so we worked hard to reach an agreement. The terrorist case was based on false history, but real history justified it, and the obsessive Popery of so many of the killers was irrelevant. Same with ISIS and Islam.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

What motivation does the French Government for covering up what would be obvious torture that easily verifiable?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

First there needs to be sufficient evidence this took could have taken place. Autopsy reports etc should show this.

Yeah, I would accept autopsy reports as evidence one way or the other.

I won't accept a government saying there's no coverup as evidence there's no coverup, though.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Bullshit.

The ME before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003 looked nothing like it looks today.

That terrorism changed the region and lit fires of violence that are still burning bright even into Western Europe and Orlando.

All this violence we see today is blowback from a massive act of US terrorism.

To not see it is to just let the US do the same thing again someday.

And it is hard to see how serial killers want peace. What they want is violence and pain and suffering.

You're just blind to any evils you can't blame on the US. Things have been bad over there for a long, long time.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No one blowing anything but you, smoke. How did the French government stop several hundred people from reporting this. More importantly, when would this have even been possible in the timeline of the attack?

We've seen plenty of cases of governments over there covering up things they didn't want reported.

As always, in time they leak.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

What motivation does the French Government for covering up what would be obvious torture that easily verifiable?

It's easier to sweep the problem under the rug than to confront the reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First there needs to be sufficient evidence this took could have taken place. Autopsy reports etc should show this.

Yeah, I would accept autopsy reports as evidence one way or the other.

I won't accept a government saying there's no coverup as evidence there's no coverup, though.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Bullshit.

The ME before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003 looked nothing like it looks today.

That terrorism changed the region and lit fires of violence that are still burning bright even into Western Europe and Orlando.

All this violence we see today is blowback from a massive act of US terrorism.

To not see it is to just let the US do the same thing again someday.

And it is hard to see how serial killers want peace. What they want is violence and pain and suffering.

You're just blind to any evils you can't blame on the US. Things have been bad over there for a long, long time.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No one blowing anything but you, smoke. How did the French government stop several hundred people from reporting this. More importantly, when would this have even been possible in the timeline of the attack?

We've seen plenty of cases of governments over there covering up things they didn't want reported.

As always, in time they leak.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

What motivation does the French Government for covering up what would be obvious torture that easily verifiable?

It's easier to sweep the problem under the rug than to confront the reality.

LP, you didn't answer either question of mine. When could that have happened during the attack and how could several hundred people be kept quiet.

You can't address those because neither is really possible.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

The ME before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003 looked nothing like it looks today.

That terrorism changed the region and lit fires of violence that are still burning bright even into Western Europe and Orlando.

All this violence we see today is blowback from a massive act of US terrorism.

To not see it is to just let the US do the same thing again someday.

And it is hard to see how serial killers want peace. What they want is violence and pain and suffering.

You're just blind to any evils you can't blame on the US. Things have been bad over there for a long, long time.

You're just blind to clear acts of terrorism. And justify them.

You have double standards and nothing else.

To you terrorism is only when Muslims commit violence, even when it is the response to decades of Israeli oppression.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

What a dilemma - who is more credible Snopes or Loren Pechtel?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

What motivation does the French Government for covering up what would be obvious torture that easily verifiable?

It's easier to sweep the problem under the rug than to confront the reality.

So it is easier to systematically suppress all physical evidence of what would be horrific acts, than it is to announce them?

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

As the only radical/reactionary moderate on this board I have to disagree with you that word "moderate" is ambiguous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

What a dilemma - who is more credible Snopes or Loren Pechtel?

Just look at the Snopes article--their source to rebut it is the French government.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

What motivation does the French Government for covering up what would be obvious torture that easily verifiable?

It's easier to sweep the problem under the rug than to confront the reality.

So it is easier to systematically suppress all physical evidence of what would be horrific acts, than it is to announce them?

No--as we have seen, the sweeping doesn't work. Look at all the reports of sex crimes that keep coming to light.

 

[Toni]

I don't understand. Europe has had experience with how to contain threats from undesirables with funny languages and weird religion. I mean, some of those camps are now museums, and tha Nazis left very detailed records...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't understand. Europe has had experience with how to contain threats from undesirables with funny languages and weird religion. I mean, some of those camps are now museums, and tha Nazis left very detailed records...

Yeah, their strategy has been to ignore them so long as they didn't do their dirty deeds locally. That strategy is coming home to roost.