• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

Loren: These guys are rejects. There is much that is wrong with western society and we do set them up for their failures. They may very well be having a hard time because of discrimination against them in a society with what they regard as alien values. You seem to think that anybody who is involved in violence...either the perpetrator or the victim are somehow inferior people with rotten brains.
 
It's curious, yes. Why is it okay to blame Christianity for turning Christians into sheep, but not okay to blame Islam for turning Muslims into people who approve of killing blasphemers? The obvious explanation is that western civilization is required by his ideology to be the root of all oppression. But perhaps he can produce an alternate explanation for the difference in his approaches to the two religions?
I tried to figure out what does "blame Christianity for turning Christians into sheep" even mean and I have failed at it. The rest of your post does not help much. Maybe a bit of clarification from your part would help.
 
most people are sheep, including myself in the past about certain topics and probably now about things that I actually think I have independent ideas about.

Christians have a particular way to be sheep, same as Japanese have their own way of being sheep.

I don't "blame" Xtianity for making them xtian type sheep, though it may be the cause. You can't blame a memetic framework of religion. It is like blaming a virus for a disease, it just does what it does automatically.

Islam is a more virulent religion at this point than Xtianity and IMO will always be. It is sending out tendrils in the form of Al Qaeda and IS.
 
I think the religion is simply the surface issue here. There are plenty of Muslims or Islamists who do not go around murdering people. I find it hard to believe that Islam alone motivated these assassins.

Even if true. That doesn't rule out there's some secret sauce within Islam for this.

Yeah, I'm just playing devils advocate
 
Religion may be the catalyst that pushes a certain type of individual over the edge. Someone who is angry at the world for the situation he happens to be in, frustrated, struggling psychologically, perhaps with sociopath tendencies to some degree, perhaps there are elements such as a nasty streak, vindictive and revengeful. Perhaps in a different environment these elements would not become developed, and ultimately expressed in the form of ''a righteous warrior of God.''
 
Agreed, although we don't see that they are rejects. Rather, we see that they are people whose lives are failures for personal reasons. They fall under the spell of a recruiter who gets them to believe that their failures are due to <x>.

These days the Islamists are the big problem because there are people pouring vast sums into causing this problem. They aren't inherently any worse, it's just they are the pot being stirred.

- - - Updated - - -

I know a number of Muslims who do not go around murdering people, threatening people who insult Islam or condoning violence, so I don't need to visit any forum to understand your observation is a triumph of ignorance over reality.

Well, you claim that I am ignorant, which is undeniably true, on a number of topics, not least this one. But I challenge anyone to spend a day reading through posts on ANY islamic forum and not come away with a deep suspicion that Islam does something terrible to the human brain.

I disagree. The boards attract those whose brains have already rotted.
Salman Rushdie:
Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless*disrespect
 
It's curious, yes. Why is it okay to blame Christianity for turning Christians into sheep, but not okay to blame Islam for turning Muslims into people who approve of killing blasphemers? The obvious explanation is that western civilization is required by his ideology to be the root of all oppression. But perhaps he can produce an alternate explanation for the difference in his approaches to the two religions?
I tried to figure out what does "blame Christianity for turning Christians into sheep" even mean and I have failed at it. The rest of your post does not help much. Maybe a bit of clarification from your part would help.
I just find the contrast between the way untermensche talks about Islam and the way he talks about Christianity remarkable.
 
Maybe it is a slanted representation of Islamic thought processes. Nevertheless, one cannot help but be struck by the ferocity an unanimity of the sentiment expressed in that and other forums. It is not quote mining. Every 'islamic' poster expresses a remarkably simolar viewpoint. Some are more articulate, certainly. Some are more caged. All demonstrate a complete lack of sympathy for the victims and moan about how they are being misrepresented by a hysterical press. Another notable observation is the Complete absence of any outright condemnation of the killing.

Need I remind you that you dragged this website into the discussion not as evidence that Islam leads people to misdirect, but to murder people in the name of their religion entirely on its own. Which it is not. From the top of that thread:

There is nothing in Islam that condones murder, nor vigilantism.

I see a lot of attempts to shift the discussion to the issue of mocking/satirizing Islam and not the murders themselves. I'm not seeing anything that can be accurately described as support for the killings, and that's certainly not the majority view, even though that's clearly what you're going there fishing for.

Compared to some of the things that were said by Christians when George Tiller was murdered in 2009, I don't find that particularly remarkable. Hardly the "striking ferocity" you expect us all to be stunned by when reading it.

As one of the Muslim posters noted:

You seem to be increasingly playing the role of the media, by homing in on particular statements then blowing them out of proportion. Your aim seems to be to pick out statements that can be misconstrued as supporting murder or killing. If people suggest that freedom must be used responsibly unless one is prepared to face negative consequences, that does not equate to supporting the acts of murder in Paris. There are plenty of clear statements condemning such actions - even though an automatic apology from every Muslim is unwarranted - but of course in the event that such condemnations are made they seem to go unnoticed.

I will also take your avoidance of my observation about the identical rhetoric in some of the posts there as an acknowledgment that you are, in fact, the poster trolling that particular thread. It says that you have over 2,700 posts on that forum.

So, if you're so convinced that forums such as that one are inhabited by extremists with whom no meaningful dialogue can occur, then why the fuck have you hung around there for so long and posted there thousands of times?

Why don't you go meet regular Muslims in the real world instead of seeking out the ones who reinforce your preconceived notions about them?

It would be wonderful if we were simply concerned over a radical fringe. I fear that it is not so, however.

What you fear and what is reality are entirely separate, as is becoming increasingly clear. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind with Muslims, and have invested far too much time into seeking out/needling the ones who most closely fit the caricatured idea you seem to have of them.

And you come here expecting us to accept your generalizations as an accurate representation of the entire religion.
 
Last edited:
most people are sheep, including myself in the past about certain topics and probably now about things that I actually think I have independent ideas about.

Christians have a particular way to be sheep, same as Japanese have their own way of being sheep.

I don't "blame" Xtianity for making them xtian type sheep, though it may be the cause. You can't blame a memetic framework of religion. It is like blaming a virus for a disease, it just does what it does automatically.

Islam is a more virulent religion at this point than Xtianity and IMO will always be.
How many civilians killed in religiousless drone attacks?
 
most people are sheep, including myself in the past about certain topics and probably now about things that I actually think I have independent ideas about.

Christians have a particular way to be sheep, same as Japanese have their own way of being sheep.

I don't "blame" Xtianity for making them xtian type sheep, though it may be the cause. You can't blame a memetic framework of religion. It is like blaming a virus for a disease, it just does what it does automatically.

Islam is a more virulent religion at this point than Xtianity and IMO will always be.
How many civilians killed in religiousless drone attacks?
Since those civilians were likely to be Muslims, they don't matter.
 
I don't think some people appreciate the whole families getting blown up by an American drone being used as effective anti-Western propaganda thing. It doesn't matter they weren't killed for a religious reason. They are dead. That sort of negative press in the propaganda world adds up way too quickly. The ridiculous attacks against a press company because of cartoons are in no way condonable. Killing over speech is unbelievably absurd and goes against the most basic of Human Rights.

But is must be remembered that collateral damage cuts both ways.
How many civilians killed in religiousless drone attacks?
Since those civilians were likely to be Muslims and likely near a terrorist which means they were also likely terrorists, they don't matter.
I fixed that for you.
 
I tried to figure out what does "blame Christianity for turning Christians into sheep" even mean and I have failed at it. The rest of your post does not help much. Maybe a bit of clarification from your part would help.
I just find the contrast between the way untermensche talks about Islam and the way he talks about Christianity remarkable.
OK, thanks. I did not catch the reference because I have missed the post you link to here.
 
Loren: These guys are rejects. There is much that is wrong with western society and we do set them up for their failures. They may very well be having a hard time because of discrimination against them in a society with what they regard as alien values. You seem to think that anybody who is involved in violence...either the perpetrator or the victim are somehow inferior people with rotten brains.

Except to outward appearances at least (we almost never get to see into their heads) they are not rejected by society, although they tend to be failures in the romantic department.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think some people appreciate the whole families getting blown up by an American drone being used as effective anti-Western propaganda thing. It doesn't matter they weren't killed for a religious reason. They are dead. That sort of negative press in the propaganda world adds up way too quickly. The ridiculous attacks against a press company because of cartoons are in no way condonable. Killing over speech is unbelievably absurd and goes against the most basic of Human Rights.

They were attacking us before we had drones.
 
Except to outward appearances at least (we almost never get to see into their heads) they are not rejected by society, although they tend to be failures in the romantic department.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think some people appreciate the whole families getting blown up by an American drone being used as effective anti-Western propaganda thing. It doesn't matter they weren't killed for a religious reason. They are dead. That sort of negative press in the propaganda world adds up way too quickly. The ridiculous attacks against a press company because of cartoons are in no way condonable. Killing over speech is unbelievably absurd and goes against the most basic of Human Rights.

They were attacking us before we had drones.

U.S. and other foreign and extractive industrial interests go into these countries and hollow out their economies, supporting dictators and stealing the resources of these people then we get mad when they attempt to take control of their own countries. We attacked them first, Loren and you know it. The first and most devastating attack on an undeveloped country is investment in extraction...of raw materials and sometimes labor at rates that produce poverty in those countries. We lose track of the fact that the world is FULL OF PEOPLE and there are no lands that are "empty and there for the taking." We need to become fair traders and mostly meet our own needs in our home countries. We need to stop supporting dictators and racist governments like Israel.

My point in the Charlie matter is that the terrorists attacked people who had no connection with the horrors French society has visited on Algeria. It was even more misdirected aggression than terrorism usually is.

In general, if we go back a ways into history, can there be any doubt that Mexico had a right to throw off the arbitrary rule of Spanish kings? We know it is the colonists who cast the first stones, committed the first murders and usurped the first nations. You know that don't you? Why should things be different in Algeria or Iran or Palestine or Vietnam? Only if you have racist attitude will you continue to support neo-colonialism.

Those who attacked Charlie were sorely misinformed as to the connection of the paper to any problem they were experiencing. The very desperation of their actions indicates they were sorely troubled. I cannot say by whom they were rejected, but France is flooded with refuges from its former colonies the middle east and northern Africa and is passing laws and making life harder for these people to retain any of their identity. I am certain there are economic conditions involved in these discriminative laws too.

I regard your remark about the romantic conditions of these terrorists as a cheap shot and even if they were unhappy romantically, it still could be related to overall French intolerance of Muslims. It is a sorry situation. My heart is still with Charlie, but the people who get caught up in these international squeeze plays have no place to turn and they are apt to do things that are irrational.
 
arkirk,

Do you think that if the immigrants were Filipino and/or Vietnamese that France would have half of the immigrant community problems it has now?
 
arkirk,

Do you think that if the immigrants were Filipino and/or Vietnamese that France would have half of the immigrant community problems it has now?

Possibly...possibly not. Whenever there are huge influxes of people there are adjustment problems. Vietnam was a French colony but they were driven out a long time ago. The similarity of various cultural aspects could slightly ease the problem of relocation. I think what has to happen is to ease restrictions on Muslims, not tighten them. People need to feel safe in their daily life to live as they have been living without being molested. The problem with the Muslims is that they are being pounded in their homeland today and some of the pounding is being done by the French.
 
what are sensible concessions to be made to them? What are concessions that would be insane to make?

As an example, a grocery store worker should not be allowed to not handle alcohol or pork in a wrapper.

A muslim taxicab driver should be forced to take a dog if a non-muslim of the same company also does.

Are lawsuits and protests by muslims making it scary to hire muslims and thus further making the situation worse?
 
U.S. and other foreign and extractive industrial interests go into these countries and hollow out their economies, supporting dictators and stealing the resources of these people then we get mad when they attempt to take control of their own countries. We attacked them first, Loren and you know it. The first and most devastating attack on an undeveloped country is investment in extraction...of raw materials and sometimes labor at rates that produce poverty in those countries. We lose track of the fact that the world is FULL OF PEOPLE and there are no lands that are "empty and there for the taking." We need to become fair traders and mostly meet our own needs in our home countries. We need to stop supporting dictators and racist governments like Israel.

1) Your understanding of the world is way off base. Extractive industries benefit the countries they are in, although if the local government is bad enough that benefit may be concentrated almost totally in a small group. When a country is capable of doing it's own extraction other nations don't come in--thus the choice is between a foreign company extracting and they get something vs nobody extracting and they get nothing.

2) I don't see the relevance of the lands being full--and note that "full" is based on technology. It wasn't that long ago the world was full with only a million people.

3) Israel is a total red herring here.

My point in the Charlie matter is that the terrorists attacked people who had no connection with the horrors French society has visited on Algeria. It was even more misdirected aggression than terrorism usually is.

Because it's always misdirected. The actual victims don't strike back at their supposed aggressors, losers are manipulated into attacking those that puppetmasters want attacked.

In general, if we go back a ways into history, can there be any doubt that Mexico had a right to throw off the arbitrary rule of Spanish kings? We know it is the colonists who cast the first stones, committed the first murders and usurped the first nations. You know that don't you? Why should things be different in Algeria or Iran or Palestine or Vietnam? Only if you have racist attitude will you continue to support neo-colonialism.

Colonialism has nothing to do with the current situation other than as a means for you to blame the west for everything.

Those who attacked Charlie were sorely misinformed as to the connection of the paper to any problem they were experiencing. The very desperation of their actions indicates they were sorely troubled. I cannot say by whom they were rejected, but France is flooded with refuges from its former colonies the middle east and northern Africa and is passing laws and making life harder for these people to retain any of their identity. I am certain there are economic conditions involved in these discriminative laws too.

You just assume it was because they were rejected.

I regard your remark about the romantic conditions of these terrorists as a cheap shot and even if they were unhappy romantically, it still could be related to overall French intolerance of Muslims. It is a sorry situation. My heart is still with Charlie, but the people who get caught up in these international squeeze plays have no place to turn and they are apt to do things that are irrational.

It's the truth. Most are single men with little prospect of finding a wife.

And even if you are right about French intolerance it has nothing to do with the situation--nothing would stop them from marrying other Muslims.
 
arkirk,

Do you think that if the immigrants were Filipino and/or Vietnamese that France would have half of the immigrant community problems it has now?

Possibly...possibly not. Whenever there are huge influxes of people there are adjustment problems. Vietnam was a French colony but they were driven out a long time ago. The similarity of various cultural aspects could slightly ease the problem of relocation. I think what has to happen is to ease restrictions on Muslims, not tighten them. People need to feel safe in their daily life to live as they have been living without being molested. The problem with the Muslims is that they are being pounded in their homeland today and some of the pounding is being done by the French.
Vietnamese immigrants were educated boat people fleeing the communist regime. Their socio economical level and their Confucius-influenced culture made them have their kids work hard and become productive members of society, whose kids now act like other French kids.

"Arabs" immigrants were imported labour to work in the steel and/or construction business. They had no experience of education to pass on to their kids, and the 70s crisis put them on the sidelines of society, where racism augmented by the resentments born from the Algerian independence war kept their kids. Their French kids now feel trapped in the housing projects where the lower class lives, with only a life of small jobs and unemployment ahead, as exemplified by their parents.
The only exit they see is in crime (drug trafficking), and the only source of pride in reclaiming their grandparents original culture, that their ignorance turns into a twisted caricature.
All generalities, of course, some do better, but they're not numerous enough to serve as role models.
 
Back
Top Bottom