French church attacked by terrorists

[trustbutverify]

You disagree. I get it. The bitchy last sentence amuses me

Now we're both amused. Or bemused.

 

[Craig B]

They are from birth to death in different cultures.

The german of turk origin with their family and friends and neighbors are vastly different in culture than the french of algerian origin with friends and neighbors. As people tend to aggregate and congregate within their culture, there will be an influence from the culture of origin and the local culture.

That is why that "EU muslim" is utterly misleading.

What then are Muslim citizens of EU countries, and how should they be treated? Like Jews before they were emancipated in the USA and then France in the late eighteenth century, or like these Catholics in Britain before Catholic Emancipation?

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.​

That's certainly what ISIS, that implacable enemy of the Enlightenment, is trying to achieve.

 

[McHrozni]

They are from birth to death in different cultures.

The german of turk origin with their family and friends and neighbors are vastly different in culture than the french of algerian origin with friends and neighbors. As people tend to aggregate and congregate within their culture, there will be an influence from the culture of origin and the local culture.

That is why that "EU muslim" is utterly misleading.

Brazil has a larger population of Arabs than France does, yet it doesn't suffer from terrorist attacks (a foiled plot to bomb Olympics aside). A typical Islamic apologist will jump with joy, showing it's Europe that's at fault.
Realistically though, the difference is probably mostly due to the fact a vast majority of those Arabs are Christians. Muslims number in tens of thousands a most.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Brazil#Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Brazilians

It could be that "EU Muslim" is misleading, but "EU Arab" is far, far worse. Arab culture is an aggravating factor which worsens the problems initially caused by Islam, but it doesn't appear to increase the risk of terrorism or other unacceptable behavior in the absence of Islam.

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

There are several potential solutions. The trouble is that most of them are politically and/or morally unpalatable.

That's a more pithy version of my post.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/aishap/gfhduttxaueh0crpgmnwna_zpsb9vietj5.gif[/qimg]

How strange. Apparently this means that Muslims are more decent human beigns than anybody else.

 

[Belz...]

The question is not what muslim believe. The question is what french muslim believe versus the rest of the french population.

With the migrant crisis, that first question might not be irrelevant.

 

[Craig B]

... A typical Islamic apologist will jump with joy, showing it's Europe that's at fault.

Tony Blair must be unchallenged World Champion Islamic Apologist then, because he believes that not merely Europe, but himself personally, is to blame. He must be jumping with joy, but if so, he has been successful in concealing his mirthfulness.

"EU Arab" is far, far worse. Arab culture is an aggravating factor which worsens the problems initially caused by Islam, but it doesn't appear to increase the risk of terrorism or other unacceptable behavior in the absence of Islam.

Aye. We need racial as well as religious scapegoats, don't we?

 

[McHrozni]

Aye. We need racial as well as religious scapegoats, don't we?

You probably need to check what the term "scapegoat" means. It's probably something other than what you think it is.

McHrozni

 

[Degeneve]

So we've given up attributing any strategy to the Islamist extremists. The purpose of slaughtering a priest in his own church during a service, at the inevitable cost of the lives of the two perpetrators, was simply to kill a single "infidel". You believe that?

Of course it was not.

They hope to generate enough anger to provoke civil troubles, e.g. French people (most probably far right wingers) to attack Muslims or mosques.

They already succeeded in having French right wing politicians, including former president Sarkozy, advocating measures which would restrict human rights or even change the French constitution.

They also do not want the Western powers to soften their military action in Syria and Iraq. On the contrary they hope that they will go to a ground war. In their mythology hey believe that they will beat the Romans (viewed as a symbol of the West) in a great battle in Dabiq (Syria). The fact that one of their propaganda online magazines is named Dabiq is not a coincidence.

 

[McHrozni]

Tony Blair must be unchallenged World Champion Islamic Apologist then, because he believes that not merely Europe, but himself personally, is to blame. He must be jumping with joy, but if so, he has been successful in concealing his mirthfulness.

To allude to my earlier post, scapegoating is what you and people like you do to European and American leaders in regards to Islamic extremism and terrorism.

There is an element of truth in that the invasion of Iraq led to the chain of events that caused the rise of ISIS, true. If that didn't happen, ISIS would likely arise elsewhere and call itself differently.

A rise of a group like ISIS was, however, a certainty. ISIS is not a problem, it's a symptom of a much larger problem of the rise of fundamentalist Islamists in the Arab world and beyond. It's also a symptom of stern refusal of a large percentage of Islamic minorities in the West to accept Western cultural norms. The element of truth Tony Blair mentions is that the invasion of Iraq likely made (a group like) ISIS to rise sooner than it otherwise would have, but that's the extent of his guilt.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

To allude to my earlier post, scapegoating is what you and people like you do to European and American leaders in regards to Islamic extremism and terrorism.

There is an element of truth in that the invasion of Iraq led to the chain of events that caused the rise of ISIS, true. If that didn't happen, ISIS would likely arise elsewhere and call itself differently.

A rise of a group like ISIS was, however, a certainty. ISIS is not a problem, it's a symptom of a much larger problem of the rise of fundamentalist Islamists in the Arab world and beyond. It's also a symptom of stern refusal of a large percentage of Islamic minorities in the West to accept Western cultural norms. The element of truth Tony Blair mentions is that the invasion of Iraq likely made (a group like) ISIS to rise sooner than it otherwise would have, but that's the extent of his guilt.

McHrozni

That's hearsay

 

[McHrozni]

That's hearsay

What is? That ISIS would arise elsewhere otherwise?

Have you ever heard of Boko Haram? Same thing, but in a different part of world and without an excuse of a Western intervention.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

What is? That ISIS would arise elsewhere otherwise?

Have you ever heard of Boko Haram? Same thing, but in a different part of world and without an excuse of a Western intervention.

McHrozni

ISIS are arguably a direct result of an illegal war.

Their methods are sick as.

But the coalition brought it on themselves

 

[McHrozni]

ISIS are arguably a direct result of an illegal war.

Their methods are sick as.

But the coalition brought it on themselves

Neither France nor Germany were not a part of that coalition. Both were trying hard to stop the war from happening. It's slightly disingenuous for you to claim they "brought it on themselves".

That notion aside, how do you explain Boko Haram? That group is essentially identical to ISIS in methodology, justifications and goals, and swore loyalty to ISIS. If ISIS is a product of an illegal war and nothing else, how did Boko Haram arose?

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

They aren't ISIS

 

[Craig B]

You probably need to check what the term "scapegoat" means. It's probably something other than what you think it is.

McHrozni

Here it is.

 

[Dr.Sid]

There are several potential solutions. The trouble is that most of them are politically and/or morally unpalatable.

Ok, let me rephrase the question .. WHAT are the potential solutions ?

 

[Craig B]

That's hearsay

It's not even hearsay. It's a statement sustained only by the requirements of the speaker's ideology.

 

[McHrozni]

They aren't ISIS

So in other words, you agree with me on this:

There is an element of truth in that the invasion of Iraq led to the chain of events that caused the rise of ISIS, true. If that didn't happen, ISIS would likely arise elsewhere and call itself differently.

I fail to see how that rest would significantly differ from what we see now.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

So in other words, you agree with me on this:

There is an element of truth in that the invasion of Iraq led to the chain of events that caused the rise of ISIS, true. If that didn't happen, ISIS would likely arise elsewhere and call itself differently.

I fail to see how that rest would significantly differ from what we see now.

McHrozni

No. Your second conclusion is hearsay.

What evidence do you have it would have started anyway?