Policeman and suspected gunman shot dead in Paris 'terror attack'

[PhillipBlunt]

14 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

The latter half is just an opinion by the author.  

 

When the person himself in question, Timothy McVeigh, says he doesn't believe in the Christian God and his last words were, "I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul," it doesn't sound very Christian.  Agnostic maybe, but not Christian.  

He is the source, no 2nd hand accounts or some interpretation by whoever.... McVeigh says he's not Christian and he should be taken at face value.  

 

So to tie him to some supposed extreme Christian movement to create some false equivalency to modern day Muslim Jihadist is just faulty.  

 

I don't believe for a second that the reason he did Oklahoma was anything more than politically and personally motivated. I think that Time is a valuable resource, and it does something to refute the claim that he wasn't religious at all. I agree that his comments put him in the agnostic camp more so than atheist though.

 

The Jihadist movement is obviously far more established and pronounced, without a doubt, but the Christian Identity movement does exist. I do think that plenty of the Jihadists are politically motivated in what they have done, and enshrine their actions in the religion.

 

I don't think any of my posts have tried to put the two on equal footing from a quantitative point of view, more so, I've been trying to counterbalance statements decrying the entire Muslim faith as violent. Based on some Muslim people I know, it isn't.

 

The Jihadist movement and ISIL are obviously much stronger and way larger as a reaction to wars/illegal occupations and invasions in the Middle East. I haven't seen Islamist extremism occur in cities where mosques were burnt to the ground in the United States. Wouldn't a direct attack on a house of worship be enough to rile the extremists to war? Yet it didn't.

 

[Mustapha]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

 

 I do think that plenty of the Jihadists are politically motivated in what they have done, and enshrine their actions in the religion.

 

I've been trying to counterbalance statements decrying the entire Muslim faith as violent. Based on some Muslim people I know, it isn't.

 

The Jihadist movement and ISIL are obviously much stronger and way larger as a reaction to wars/illegal occupations and invasions in the Middle East. I haven't seen Islamist extremism occur in cities where mosques were burnt to the ground in the United States. Wouldn't a direct attack on a house of worship be enough to rile the extremists to war? Yet it didn't.

 

Three points on this:

 

Wahabi Islam does have political goals, and this is exercised by active financial funding by the Saudis. Whether it's violence via Jihad, intimidation or indoctrination, there is an active push to increase the global influence of Wahabbism. 

 

Decrying 'the entire faith' as violent is a vague statement. By 'faith' do you mean the ideology or individual believers in the group?  I doubt anyone I have read here believes the latter, and it's a common tactic to confuse the criticism of Islamic ideology as a judgement of its adherents. This is not the case. Ideas are ideas. People are people. A criticism of one is not condemnation of the other.

 

As for jihad on the part of ISIL being 'reactionary' to previous interventions, I would simply ask why it is then that they are taking out their frustrations on other native peoples (most of which are Muslim). I would direct you back to my first point for the main reason. 

 

I know I probably won't change anyone's mind about these issues, but I really get tired of people dismissing these developments as 'no big deal' or accusing me of being hateful or 'islamophobic' simply for being critical of certain actions. ACTIONS. Not beliefs. 

 

We should just sit back and say nothing, and be tolerant...

 

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." -Aristotle

 

 

 

[taxi]

3 hours ago, Lancaster said:

The latter half is just an opinion by the author.  

 

When the person himself in question, Timothy McVeigh, says he doesn't believe in the Christian God and his last words were, "I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul," it doesn't sound very Christian.  Agnostic maybe, but not Christian.  

He is the source, no 2nd hand accounts or some interpretation by whoever.... McVeigh says he's not Christian and he should be taken at face value.  

 

So to tie him to some supposed extreme Christian movement to create some false equivalency to modern day Muslim Jihadist is just faulty.  

 

MvVeigh's motivations were clearly libertarian/anti-government. This is the exact opposite of jihadists, who wish to impose rigid Islamic rule. He was definitely a terrorist though.

[PhillipBlunt]

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

Three points on this:

 

Wahabi Islam does have political goals, and this is exercised by active financial funding by the Saudis. Whether it's violence via Jihad, intimidation or indoctrination, there is an active push to increase the global influence of Wahabbism. 

Fair enough.

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

Decrying 'the entire faith' as violent is a vague statement. By 'faith' do you mean the ideology or individual believers in the group?

Both. People who believe in Islam and follow it are affected. Like I said in a previous post, I have Muslim friends who have been accosted for being Muslim by people who accuse them of terrorism and violence, even though the people themselves are as peaceful as can be. They have been the victim of people who obviously can't see the forest from the trees, and I understand that it's not as easy or black and white an issue to deal with. However it has consequences that can affect people greatly.

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

I doubt anyone I have read here believes the latter, and it's a common tactic to confuse the criticism of Islamic ideology as a judgement of its adherents.

Clearly some folks do believe the latter or mosques wouldn't be burnt down or people of the Muslim faith attacked and intimidated. How is a person who is judged and attacked for their beliefs not going to correlate the two?

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

This is not the case. Ideas are ideas. People are people. A criticism of one is not condemnation of the other.

Again, it would be great if everyone could separate the two.

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

As for jihad on the part of ISIL being 'reactionary' to previous interventions, I would simply ask why it is then that they are taking out their frustrations on other native peoples (most of which are Muslim). I would direct you back to my first point for the main reason.

I would think that going after the more vulnerable target is the easier option, regarding ISIL. Going after foreign soldiers armed to the teeth with a sword?

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

I know I probably won't change anyone's mind about these issues, but I really get tired of people dismissing these developments as 'no big deal' or accusing me of being hateful or 'islamophobic' simply for being critical of certain actions. ACTIONS. Not beliefs. 

I've read what you've written and considered it, so don't dismiss it as being pointless.

 

The violence, war, death, and destabilization of these regions is very frightening. It's a very big deal.

 

Those committing these foul and horrid atrocities are dehumanizing countless lives and generations. It is wrong.  

 

I do believe that while that kind of hideousness is being fought, that those who do believe in the faith for their own personal reasons and have no want or need to spread the violence and hatred that these other groups have, aren't adversely affected by being beaten, killed, or having their places of worship burnt down by arson.

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

We should just sit back and say nothing, and be tolerant...

The various injustices around the world must be dealt with head on. However that doesn't seem to be the case, does it? Who got involved to stop the massacre in Rwanda? Darfur?

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." -Aristotle

 

It appears in a number of variants, such as "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society", but a thorough look in Google Books finds nothing even like it in any works of Aristotle.

The "tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society" version seems to be attributed to the modern evangelical minister D James Kennedy.

[CBH1926]

Problems in France are specific to that region, Canada and U.S. For that matter are in a way different position.

NA is able to select immigrants that they want, Europeans have to take all those that get there.

Who knows how many of those that claim to be Syrian are actually from there.