Charlie Hebdo

pblakeney

Tangled Metal wrote:

These attackers were dropouts involved in drugs and the edge of mainstream culture.

Proof please?

mamba80

The costs involved in providing jobs, training etc to the Muslim disaffected youth would cost a fortune and we ve not the money, even if we wanted too, and how would that improve social cohesion for everyone else, who would see further cuts in health, education, adult social care etc?

this problem in europe is "easy" to solve, the Muslim community need to offer total co operation to the Police and we need to be absolte in our resolve to prevent these people leaving for Syria etc and not to allow any to return or if they do, face extreme prison sentences.

tangled_metal

Nothing can justify violence but ask people from other religions if they think it is right to publish caricatures with a key component to generate offence? Imagine a bible belt satirist printing a front page of Jesus carrying out what appears to be a homosexual act on God for example (IIRC one of Hebdo's cartoons). I am sure that would go down well too.

I don't condone violence and do agree that Islam has major problems with growing up (it is a young religion and kind of at the beginnings of the adolescent stage like Christianity was in the medieval times IMHO). I just think we in the west should not provoke response by being deliberately offensive in the way the prophet caricatures and others too were. IMHO freedoms come with responsibility.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

The costs involved in providing jobs, training etc to the Muslim disaffected youth would cost a fortune and we ve not the money, even if we wanted too, and how would that improve social cohesion for everyone else, who would see further cuts in health, education, adult social care etc?

this problem in europe is "easy" to solve, the Muslim community need to offer total co operation to the Police and we need to be absolte in our resolve to prevent these people leaving for Syria etc and not to allow any to return or if they do, face extreme prison sentences.

Quite correct.
Favouring muslims to stop them becoming disaffected would not stir up the right wing.
Oh no, never. :roll:

DeVlaeminck

Tangled Metal wrote:

Nothing can justify violence but ask people from other religions if they think it is right to publish caricatures with a key component to generate offence? Imagine a bible belt satirist printing a front page of Jesus carrying out what appears to be a homosexual act on God for example (IIRC one of Hebdo's cartoons). I am sure that would go down well too.

I don't condone violence and do agree that Islam has major problems with growing up (it is a young religion and kind of at the beginnings of the adolescent stage like Christianity was in the medieval times IMHO). I just think we in the west should not provoke response by being deliberately offensive in the way the prophet caricatures and others too were. IMHO freedoms come with responsibility.

And Christians would be equally at fault if they started campaigning to have those images banned. We are talking about fairy stories here - it's like saying it should be illegal to tell a kid Santa doesn't exist - except Santa doesn't tell people that homosexuality is a sin, it's ok to keep slaves, kill people of other religions and various other things these holy books do. Religious belief should have no special status that is the wole point - because religions are also political and you can't have a free society where political ideology is beyond criticism.

bernithebiker

PBlakeney wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

These attackers were dropouts involved in drugs and the edge of mainstream culture.

Proof please?

They were featured in a French documentary in 2005 showing them into such activities.

BelgianBeerGeek

You will always have disaffected youth. Have you noticed that these extremists aren't in their 50's? They are open to suggestion, and easily persuaded by a warped history for justification of their acts. For these guys it is the west killing their Muslim brothers in various conflicts etc. Just as the IRA used to recruit using 800 years of English oppression. And so on.
These youths think what they are doing is cool. They become heroes in their "community". They acquire status. Beats delivering pizzas on a moped or getting a boring job in a factory, doesn't it?

ddraver

To change the subject a bit...

What are peoples opinions on the Free Speech angle. Many journos are decrying this as an attack on free speech and freedom of expression, which I would agree with. The common response in the debates I ve seen is that Freedom of speech IS limited in the majority of countries and the examples given are usually the incitement to religious hatred laws(which makes me very uneasy) and the laws against denial of the holocaust.

Now, I accept that I disagree with a large number of people, judges and law here, but personally I think it should be legal to deny the holocaust for no other reason that if a person does so then it is clear that they are eitehr to ignorant to learn or unwilling to learn and I judge them and their opinions accordingly.

In short you should have the right to say/draw what ever you like, but you have no right to be respected after you ve said it...

tangled_metal

PBlakeney wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

These attackers were dropouts involved in drugs and the edge of mainstream culture.

Proof please?

From the top of my head I think the two brothers involved in the Hebdo attack fit this bill. Then there was the shoe bomber too. What about the two brothers in the Boston attack, I read or heard some news piece saying similar. I'm sure it is not all of them and I'm also sure there will be doctors and engineers in there too but most of the recent western attacks and foiled plots seem to involve not very successful individuals. In this case they were drugs, in the case of at least one of the two who carried out the horrendous attack on Lee Rigby drugs formed part of his life before he became radicalised. Not conclusive I know but I do not have the recollection of every perpetrator or muslim terrorist attacks in the west. The above are only the ones I recall right now.

Not proof but my statement you wanted proof for was the kind of thing I've heard said by experts on UK news programmes before now. I'm a particular fan of various R4 current affairs / news shows (Today and pm etc). It could have come from an expert on one of those. If you need anything further I can not provide it. Can you provide proof against it? Those going to Syria are a different mix so I doubt you can include them. There are cases of doctors going out there to help and become radicalised but that is a bit of a different prospect to radicalisation in western countries IMHO.

pblakeney

Tangled Metal wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

These attackers were dropouts involved in drugs and the edge of mainstream culture.

Proof please?

From the top of my head I think the two brothers involved in the Hebdo attack fit this bill. Then there was the shoe bomber too. What about the two brothers in the Boston attack, I read or heard some news piece saying similar. I'm sure it is not all of them and I'm also sure there will be doctors and engineers in there too but most of the recent western attacks and foiled plots seem to involve not very successful individuals. In this case they were drugs, in the case of at least one of the two who carried out the horrendous attack on Lee Rigby drugs formed part of his life before he became radicalised. Not conclusive I know but I do not have the recollection of every perpetrator or muslim terrorist attacks in the west. The above are only the ones I recall right now.

Not proof but my statement you wanted proof for was the kind of thing I've heard said by experts on UK news programmes before now. I'm a particular fan of various R4 current affairs / news shows (Today and pm etc). It could have come from an expert on one of those. If you need anything further I can not provide it. Can you provide proof against it? Those going to Syria are a different mix so I doubt you can include them. There are cases of doctors going out there to help and become radicalised but that is a bit of a different prospect to radicalisation in western countries IMHO.

I do not have enough information to argue either way either.
From what you say, it sounds as if they were drugged out losers before becoming radicalised.
Is it a better option that they were clear headed when they carried out their attacks?
Maybe they would have been more peaceful if they were chilled out on dope?

ballysmate

ddraver wrote:

To change the subject a bit...

What are peoples opinions on the Free Speech angle. Many journos are decrying this as an attack on free speech and freedom of expression, which I would agree with. The common response in the debates I ve seen is that Freedom of speech IS limited in the majority of countries and the examples given are usually the incitement to religious hatred laws(which makes me very uneasy) and the laws against denial of the holocaust.

Now, I accept that I disagree with a large number of people, judges and law here, but personally I think it should be legal to deny the holocaust for no other reason that if a person does so then it is clear that they are eitehr to ignorant to learn or unwilling to learn and I judge them and their opinions accordingly.

In short you should have the right to say/draw what ever you like, but you have no right to be respected after you ve said it...

You should be able to publish whatever you want, short of inciting violence or other criminality.You should obviously not be able to publish depiction of criminal acts, such as kiddie porn and snuff movies.Otherwise, if people are offended, so be it.
Why do religious groups feel they have the monopoly on being offended?
Are you not offended by the idea of treating women as second class people, of homosexuality being deemed a sin warranting the death penalty, a fatwa being passed on an author of books and honour killings?

I would suggest that these and the other barbaric acts carried out in the name of religion are much more offensive than any cartoon.

ballysmate

bernithebiker wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A lot of islamophobia and hatred going on with this thread. hysteria that will die down sooner or later. As terrible as the attack on Hebdo was (and others too) they are the work of extremists within a very small sector of the population of France. It is not the mainstream Islam that does these but usually disaffected outsiders created by the country they are attacking. They are dropouts who want to belong somewhere and that is what those who radicalized them look for. I have no answers for all this just like this thread evidently shows you lot have no answers that have a realist chance of succeeding. I do have one question, what would happen if we changed the lot of those disaffected, disenfranchised people such that they had a future they are happy with? Would the extremists be able to recruit cannon fodder for their petty wars to claim power. That is what is happening, a grasp for power by those at the head or heart of extremist islam. They want power and control and use misinterpretation of the Quran to get it. With these cannon fodder going to fight with IS/ISIS it is about giving them purpose, the same with those terrorists carrying out attacks in the west.

These attackers were dropouts involved in drugs and the edge of mainstream culture. They were weak in many ways and were exploited. I am not justifying them I think they should be hunted down and the full extent of the law applied (not into death penalty but fully expect at least one to die). I do however have an interest in understanding them. Perhaps with a view to the west finding a long term solution. In the UK the security services and police are into re-radicalisation within the young muslim sections of our society. They are working with moderate muslims and former jihadis who have been de-radcalised. This could work if moved forward with social changes perhaps and a better lot for those at the peripheries or bottom of oucr society. Jeez! I sound like a socialist, I'll be advocating distribution of wealth next!!!

Seriously though, does anyone else think that demonising one of the biggest, most established and fastest growing religions is likely to end well? The majority are not the problem only the minority. That and the western created and backed arabic nations with questionable support for islamic groups.

Is it really such a minority though?

If you polled the citizens of Saudi, Iran, Yemen, etc. as to; 'Do you feel the Charlie attacks were justified?", what response do you think you would have?

I would suggest that a large proportion would be in favour of the attacks, or at least not condemn them, because the Islam in those countries is somewhat extreme.

Whilst such extreme Islam is being practised COUNTRY wide, then for me Islam is indeed part of the problem, as these countries are nurturing extremists bent on attacking us.

IMO Islam needs to modernise and become less extreme, which is happening to an extent in Europe, but not elsewhere.

Mr Nail could I introduce you to Mr Hammer

laurentian

Tangled Metal wrote:

I don't condone violence . . . . I just think we in the west should not provoke response by being deliberately offensive in the way the prophet caricatures and others too were. IMHO freedoms come with responsibility.

My thoughts too.

It's fine (and right) to extol and defend free speech but I really do not understand the motivation behind publishing a cartoon in the full knowledge that it will upset about 1.6 billion people.

Because you can? Because "it's free speech innit"? I can only guess it was to illicit some kind of response from someone.

The level of that offence will be anything from an "oh dear" to some gun toting mentalist. With, I guess the vast majority being upset, possibly a bit vocal, but no more.

But why do it? It's just not polite or courteous to your fellow man. The very best outcome is that it pours fuel onto an already volatile fire and the worst? Well, unfortunately, we're all too aware of what the worst could be.

There is zero justification for the murders in Paris or any other act of terror but can someone explain to me why anyone with the scantest regard for people's feelings would want to publish something that they know would upset so many people?

mamba80

laurentian wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I don't condone violence . . . . I just think we in the west should not provoke response by being deliberately offensive in the way the prophet caricatures and others too were. IMHO freedoms come with responsibility.

My thoughts too.

It's fine (and right) to extol and defend free speech but I really do not understand the motivation behind publishing a cartoon in the full knowledge that it will upset about 1.6 billion people.

Because you can? Because "it's free speech innit"? I can only guess it was to illicit some kind of response from someone.

The level of that offence will be anything from an "oh dear" to some gun toting mentalist. With, I guess the vast majority being upset, possibly a bit vocal, but no more.

But why do it? It's just not polite or courteous to your fellow man. The very best outcome is that it pours fuel onto an already volatile fire and the worst? Well, unfortunately, we're all too aware of what the worst could be.

There is zero justification for the murders in Paris or any other act of terror but can someone explain to me why anyone with the scantest regard for people's feelings would want to publish something that they know would upset so many people?

we live in a democracy, there are laws and there is a process to change them, satire is in our culture, my brother who lives and works in the middle east, has to respect the laws of these countries, he can go back to the UK if he doesnt like it.
these publications are very small and the vast majority would never have heard of these magazines, Muslims do not have to read them.
if the threat/carrying out of violence can curtail lawful activities then there is nothing to stop these people from furthering their aims, say they start attacking civil gay maariages because they take great offence at them? so we ban gay marriage do we? maybe bomb an all girls school because they find the education of women offensive?

anyhow looks like they ve got their just deserts and the hostage live and well, not good for the 2nd situation in Paris.

pblakeney

laurentian wrote:

ere is zero justification for the murders in Paris or any other act of terror but can someone explain to me why anyone with the scantest regard for people's feelings would want to publish something that they know would upset so many people?

Satire has been used for centuries, and it will continue to be used.
Some things are worthy of satire and in my view, religion is one of them.
A cartoon is not worth 12 lives, there is no justification for the deaths. That is just an excuse to push the agenda.

finchy

Mohammed cartoons were originally published in a Danish newspaper. Following violent demonstrations, Charlie Hebdo published the occasional cartoon to show support for the freedom of speech and to say that the press would not be cowed by threats.

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

laurentian wrote:

ere is zero justification for the murders in Paris or any other act of terror but can someone explain to me why anyone with the scantest regard for people's feelings would want to publish something that they know would upset so many people?

Satire has been used for centuries, and it will continue to be used.
Some things are worthy of satire and in my view, religion is one of them.
A cartoon is not worth 12 lives, there is no justification for the deaths. That is just an excuse to push the agenda.

Perhaps more to the point, when the leader of Hezbollah in the Lebanon condemns these actions as not those of iislam we should see it for what it is, extremism in its worst state that does not represent the religions involved.

However, I,worry that the lack of clear condemnation by Muslim leaders here is playing into the hands of Farridge etc. quite unnecessarily.

pinno

We have had racial conflict in the UK and the relationship between the public, the state and ethnic minorities has not always been a harmonious one.
What I fail to understand is the ease that the Muslims seemingly turn to fundamentalism and violence.
If we look at the various ethnic groups resident in the UK, none have turned to terrorism. A young unemployed, British Born Muslim who receives all the umbrellas of the state, still feels that he has to turn to extreme violence under a warped banner of religion!?
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't bomb hospital wards where blood transfusions are taking place, the Mormons don't throw stones at the sinners who shag outside of wedlock, the Presbyterian's don't attack patrons of public houses and the strict orthodox Sikh's don't burn down corner shops who sell cigarettes.
Whilst some can somehow explain why the disenfranchised turn to Muslim fundamentalism as the reasons, no-one can justify their means. If they took to peaceful protest in their 000's, people would probably sit up and take notice. Instead they go on Holy Wars, indulge in violence and post insidious and threatening videos.
There is no place for the barbaric, medieval protagonists and orchestrator's of this violence that they meter out on innocent civilians and in no way should they influence our culture of freedom and freedom of speech, our evolution in terms of equality and our value of life.
We should protect these values with fervour.

slowmart

No doubt the jihadists have took in the propaganda of their God sqaud and are looking to attain their place is paradise with lots of virgins.


I don't believe any other group offer this or indeed Holy war as a enabler for shagging? Good advertising that's all.

pinno

Slowmart wrote:

No doubt the jihadists have took in the propaganda of their God sqaud and are looking to attain their place is paradise with lots of virgins.


I don't believe any other group offer this or indeed Holy war as a enabler for shagging? Good advertising that's all.

Some translators of the original Quran believe the word Virgins to actually be 'grapes'. Going to heaven for 70 grapes. maybe it's deeply philosophical or maybe the Jihadists will be in heaven and end up f*ckin hungry.

imposter2.0

pinarello001 wrote:

Some translators of the original Quran believe the word Virgins to actually be 'grapes'. Going to heaven for 70 grapes. maybe it's deeply philosophical or maybe the Jihadists will be in heaven and end up f*ckin hungry.

Grapes of wrath*, hopefully...

* euphemism for piles, for those that aren't aware

Finesilver24

As a committed atheist, I respect the right of any individual to be hoodwinked by religious leaders, assisted by their own families and communities, to continue to blindly follow the 'rules and regulations' translated from 'historical documents' to facilitate and perpetuate a social construct (usually where women are sidelined) and the 'church' gets legitimacy by propping up the Govt*. I respect this right up to the point where fundamentalists harm others in the name of their made up religion. At this point, the religion has a responsibility to self-police and the religious leaders need to lead to ensure the rights and responsibilities of all are respected. If they don't, there will be an inevitable backlash. Senior Muslim figures need to say, and be seen to say, that these attacks were anti-Muslim and unacceptable otherwise the idiotic beliefs of these fundamentalist idiots will be allowed to perpetuate.

Religions can't even co-exist with themselves (Protestants vs Catholics, Sunni vs Shia), and the backlash is always serious violence. People killing people over a bunch of made-up stories. I am utterly baffled that people are prepared to kill and die for a 'story'.

* I respect their rights so long as they respect my right to consider them a bit stupid to believe in a God at all.

rick_chasey

pinarello001 wrote:

We have had racial conflict in the UK and the relationship between the public, the state and ethnic minorities has not always been a harmonious one.
What I fail to understand is the ease that the Muslims seemingly turn to fundamentalism and violence.
If we look at the various ethnic groups resident in the UK, none have turned to terrorism. A young unemployed, British Born Muslim who receives all the umbrellas of the state, still feels that he has to turn to extreme violence under a warped banner of religion!?
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't bomb hospital wards where blood transfusions are taking place, the Mormons don't throw stones at the sinners who shag outside of wedlock, the Presbyterian's don't attack patrons of public houses and the strict orthodox Sikh's don't burn down corner shops who sell cigarettes.
Whilst some can somehow explain why the disenfranchised turn to Muslim fundamentalism as the reasons, no-one can justify their means. If they took to peaceful protest in their 000's, people would probably sit up and take notice. Instead they go on Holy Wars, indulge in violence and post insidious and threatening videos.
There is no place for the barbaric, medieval protagonists and orchestrator's of this violence that they meter out on innocent civilians and in no way should they influence our culture of freedom and freedom of speech, our evolution in terms of equality and our value of life.
We should protect these values with fervour.

OK. For the last time, violent religious fundamentalism isn't exclusive to Islam.

Let's take a few Christian examples that are comparable.

1 - Central African Republic conflict under Djotodia administration. anti-balaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-balaka) - Christian militias, get accused of having genocidal tendencies versus muslims by the UN ( in 2013)

2 - Anti-Hindu violence in North India: National Liberation Front of Tripura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... of_Tripura

In early 2000, 16 Bengali Hindus were killed by the NLFT at Gourangatilla. On May 20, 2000, the NLFT killed 25 Bengali Hindus at the Bagber refugee camp.[16] In August 2000, a tribal Hindu spiritual leader, Shanti Kali, was shot dead by about ten NLFT guerrillas who said it wanted to convert all people in the state to Christianity.[17] In December 2000, Labh Kumar Jamatia, a religious leader of the state's second largest Hindu group, was kidnapped by the NLFT, and found dead in a forest in Dalak village in southern Tripura. According to police, rebels from the NLFT wanted Jamatia to convert to Christianity, but he refused.[18] A local Marxist tribal leader, Kishore Debbarma, was clubbed to death in Tripura's Sadar by militants from the Biswamohan faction of the NLFT in May 2005.[19]

In 2001, there were 826 reported terrorist attacks in Tripura, in which 405 people lost their lives and 481 kidnappings were made by the NLFT and related organizations such as the Christian All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTP).[20] Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested for and confessed, under torture from police, to providing munitions and financial aid to the NLFT from 1998 until 2000.[6]

The BBC reported in 2005 that independent investigations as well as confessions from surrendered members showed that the NLFT had been making and selling pornography to finance their activities. This includes DVDs of pornographic films made by the group with tribal men and women kidnapped and forced to participate in sex acts while being filmed. The movies are dubbed into various languages and sold illegally throughout the region for a profit. Statements from former members and one report state that the NLFT has a history of sexually abusing tribal women.[21]

According to the Institute for Conflict Management, approximately 90% of the NLFT's administration are Christians.[8]

3 - Brevik - Killed 77 people in the name of Western Christian secularism against Islam in Norway in 2011.

4. USA: Non- Muslims carry out 90% of terrorism on US soil (unsurprisingly really, given how few Muslims are there) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/ ... -2012.html


Now let's have a look at some Buddhism:

1. Myanmar - Ethnic and religious violence there, with Buddhist militants attacking mainly muslim but also christian minorities. http://time.com/3090990/how-an-extremis ... ross-asia/

2. Japan - the Tokyo Sarin Gas attack - apparently the attacks were justified by drawing on a Buddhist rhetoric, and the attackers all considered themselves Buddhist extremists. http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/pub ... nglish.pdf

3. Sri Lanka - big sectarian civil war there - where Buddhists regularly commit acts of terror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

I could go on.

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

.............
I could go on.

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

But it is exclusive to religion.
That is the problem. Men writing books, men stupid enough to believe in them and to take them to the extreme.

If the gods are as powerful as claimed, then why do they need man to fight their battles?
Maybe it is not their battles, or maybe they don't exist.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

No, the real point is that Islamic terrorism is what is effecting the west and that makes it very news worthy, plus, in the main, these conflicts you ve sighted had a political aim, the Islamic version hasnt really got one, other than the destruction of western civilisation.
Also, those that link the Charlie incident to cartoons/lack of respect, should remember that no such sought provocation existed before 9/11 and it never stopped them killing 1000's there.
these guys dont need an excuse, they ll invent one.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

We have hadvideos...fervour.

OK. For the last time, violent religious fundamentalism isn't exclusive to Islam.

Let's take a few Christian examples that are comparable.

1 - Central African Republic conflict under Djotodia administration. anti-balaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-balaka) - Christian militias, get accused of having genocidal tendencies versus muslims by the UN ( in 2013)

2 - Anti-Hindu violence in North India: National Liberation Front of Tripura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... of_Tripura

In early 2000, 16 Bengali Hindus were killed by the NLFT at Gourangatilla. On May 20, 2000, the NLFT killed 25 Bengali Hindus at the Bagber refugee camp.[16] In August 2000, a tribal Hindu spiritual leader, Shanti Kali, was shot dead by about ten NLFT guerrillas who said it wanted to convert all people in the state to Christianity.[17] In December 2000, Labh Kumar Jamatia, a religious leader of the state's second largest Hindu group, was kidnapped by the NLFT, and found dead in a forest in Dalak village in southern Tripura. According to police, rebels from the NLFT wanted Jamatia to convert to Christianity, but he refused.[18] A local Marxist tribal leader, Kishore Debbarma, was clubbed to death in Tripura's Sadar by militants from the Biswamohan faction of the NLFT in May 2005.[19]

In 2001, there were 826 reported terrorist attacks in Tripura, in which 405 people lost their lives and 481 kidnappings were made by the NLFT and related organizations such as the Christian All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTP).[20] Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested for and confessed, under torture from police, to providing munitions and financial aid to the NLFT from 1998 until 2000.[6]

The BBC reported in 2005 that independent investigations as well as confessions from surrendered members showed that the NLFT had been making and selling pornography to finance their activities. This includes DVDs of pornographic films made by the group with tribal men and women kidnapped and forced to participate in sex acts while being filmed. The movies are dubbed into various languages and sold illegally throughout the region for a profit. Statements from former members and one report state that the NLFT has a history of sexually abusing tribal women.[21]

According to the Institute for Conflict Management, approximately 90% of the NLFT's administration are Christians.[8]

3 - Brevik - Killed 77 people in the name of Western Christian secularism against Islam in Norway in 2011.

4. USA: Non- Muslims carry out 90% of terrorism on US soil (unsurprisingly really, given how few Muslims are there) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/ ... -2012.html


Now let's have a look at some Buddhism:

1. Myanmar - Ethnic and religious violence there, with Buddhist militants attacking mainly muslim but also christian minorities. http://time.com/3090990/how-an-extremis ... ross-asia/

2. Japan - the Tokyo Sarin Gas attack - apparently the attacks were justified by drawing on a Buddhist rhetoric, and the attackers all considered themselves Buddhist extremists. http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/pub ... nglish.pdf

3. Sri Lanka - big sectarian civil war there - where Buddhists regularly commit acts of terror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

I could go on.

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

None of that is happening in Britain and Europe and the Brevik incident was unique. Name me one sect other than fundamentalist Muslims that are actively carrying out terror attacks in Europe for religious reasons.

mr_goo

Going to throw this out into the ether.
Those responsible for the atrocities this week, were known to the intelligence agencies as being active in Islamic terror related activity. Plus there are many thousands across Europe that are also on the 'radar' of the Western intelligence services.

Should the West now be looking to use internment as a measure to help decrease Islamic terrorist activity?

This would weed out many of the extremists. Decrease the terrorist attack potential. And remove the element that the majority of the peaceful moderates wish to disassociate themselves from.

joelsim

We could just find an island someone with no boats on it and stick all the fundamentalists there from all religions and creeds and let the BNP fight it out with the Muslims away from normal society.

Job done.

pinno

Mr Goo wrote:

Going to throw this out into the ether.
Those responsible for the atrocities this week, were known to the intelligence agencies as being active in Islamic terror related activity. Plus there are many thousands across Europe that are also on the 'radar' of the Western intelligence services.

Should the West now be looking to use internment as a measure to help decrease Islamic terrorist activity?

This would weed out many of the extremists. Decrease the terrorist attack potential. And remove the element that the majority of the peaceful moderates wish to disassociate themselves from.

Hmm... How long do you intern them for legally/morally? Will internment not make them more anti-state? How do you differentiate between those intent on acts and those who just talk the talk?

mr_goo

pinarello001 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Going to throw this out into the ether.
Those responsible for the atrocities this week, were known to the intelligence agencies as being active in Islamic terror related activity. Plus there are many thousands across Europe that are also on the 'radar' of the Western intelligence services.

Should the West now be looking to use internment as a measure to help decrease Islamic terrorist activity?

This would weed out many of the extremists. Decrease the terrorist attack potential. And remove the element that the majority of the peaceful moderates wish to disassociate themselves from.

Hmm... How long do you intern them for legally/morally? Will internment not make them more anti-state? How do you differentiate between those intent on acts and those who just talk the talk?

Cogent remarks, and that is why I asked. However surely the internment process could be used for all those returning or attempting to join ISIS, terror training camps. Plus most of the preachers that spout off should be interned. Also the likes of Anjem Choudery and his ilk could do with being removed for the time being.