French teacher killed

ballysmate

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

I thought it was Abbott who pointed it out.

There were two Muslim women on that clip, so I don't know why only one is being held up as the voice of Islam.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

You realise that clip is five years old and nothing to do with the murder of the French teacher?

rick_chasey

If we find out she’s had an abortion too we’ll have a nick hatrick

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

You realise that clip is five years old and nothing to do with the murder of the French teacher?

Yep 5 years ago. They were discussing the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, which was carried because the perpetrators believed that any depiction of Muhammad was blasphemy and punishable by death.
The teacher used the images in a lesson on freedom of expression and was murdered for it.

I believe Nickice posted the second clip to show the Ramdani had a long held belief concerning the depiction of Muhammad and blasphemy laws.

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

kingstongraham said:

If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.

That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.

She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.

And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.

If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.

Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?

I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.

I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.

OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?

Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.

There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.

So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.

1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.

As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.

Such bad faith here on your part.

I'm not talking about divided loyalties at all. I think it's rather worrying that a majority (see the Channel 4 documentary) (by the way 'mainstream' and 'majority' don't have the same meaning) of followers of a religion believe their blasphemy laws should be legally enforced. Especially, and I want to highlight this point, when a small minority of them are prepared to use violence (or support the use of violence) as a means to enforce those blasphemy laws.

And (insert name) community is a common term. I'm obviously referring to the 'Muslim community' in the sense that they are united by their faith. I haven't ever see you complain about using community in this way before..

Talking about it is not blasphemy under Islam. Publishing the images is. Yes, you could probably get away with doing it on an anonymous forum but not, apparently, in a satirical magazine or history class.

Sorry if it comes across like that. I'm rather bemused by someone who appears to take a fairly absolutist approach to free speech seemingly so uncomfortable with that free speech in very specific circumstances. That's why I specifically said it "sounds like...".

I really don't see the problem with a minority of people holding the view that blasphemy laws should still exist. I really don't think that view is limited to Muslims. Where do you stand on people protesting outside clinics providing abortions? I would guess there is a strong religious presence in those groups and they very much want to change the law.

I think you are mistaken in attributing this murder to some form of vigilante enforcement. It's about grabbing attention, and generating an exaggerated sense of fear from relatively small (although tragic to those directly affected) events. It seems to be succeeding.

As for the term community, I think it is inaccurate when it is used to lump a whole group of otherwise unrelated people with a handful of criminals on the basis of the most general of classifications.

Since when did my being in favour of free speech (I'm not an absolutist by the way) mean that I can't complain? I simply find her comments distasteful considering the context. She has form for this (Michael Portillo really put her in her place-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T15Fz-4SwpY)

And I most certainly am not 'lumping people in' at least not in the sense that you mean. LIke it or not, these attacks have come from Muslims claiming to act in the name of Islam while attempting to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws upon non-Muslims. If someone were to say that in France Muslims disproportionately commit petty crime and claim that is something to do with the Muslim community, then they're an idiot. There is a clear difference.

Regarding the abortion clinic, if there is no harassment (objectively decided) I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. But, imagine someone bombed the abortion clinic killing everyone inside then one of the protesters was on the radio the next day calling it barbaric but then went on to talk about how abortion should be banned. Would that be the right time and place?

Yes, it's a bit tone deaf and as I've said, even as a devout Muslim, one should probably have much higher priorities. If all you are arguing is that it's distasteful then I would agree.

Just to return to the point about 'Communities' I think it would be unfair to talk about the Christian Community in relation to the terrorist group Army of God despite the latter claiming to be working in the name of their faith. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)

I wouldn't have a particular problem with that depending on the context. Plus, rules on abortion are much less clear in Christianity than depicting Mohamed seems to be, now at least, in Islam.

Look now at the protests about what Macron has said. You have to ask yourself where the protests were that a teacher was beheaded. It just doesn't look good.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

If we find out she’s had an abortion too we’ll have a nick hatrick

???????

nickice

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

I thought it was Abbott who pointed it out.

There were two Muslim women on that clip, so I don't know why only one is being held up as the voice of Islam.

She's not, but to say her views aren't mainstream or even the majority opinion wouldn't be true.

nickice

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

If we find out she’s had an abortion too we’ll have a nick hatrick

???????

I think Rick is referring to the fact that I'm anti abortion. It's funny because he can't get into debates due to his 'sore hand' but seems to be all over the forum.

nickice

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

You realise that clip is five years old and nothing to do with the murder of the French teacher?

It was to show that Nabila Ramdani has long-held this view and it wasn't the first time she tried to make Muslims the real victims.. She was one of the people involved in the 'what are the limits of free speech' debate, just after the Charlie Hebdo massacre

rjsterry

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

DeVlaeminck

swjohnsey said:

Would a cartoon of the prophet with a nine year old girl be offensive?

Probably. King John married a 12 year old so it's probably something that wasn't unique to Islam or quite so shocking to people at the time. Aren't there still states in
America where young girls (funny it's never boys) have been married to adults.

ballysmate

nickice said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

If we find out she’s had an abortion too we’ll have a nick hatrick

???????

I think Rick is referring to the fact that I'm anti abortion. It's funny because he can't get into debates due to his 'sore hand' but seems to be all over the forum.

Wasn't aware of your view, nor his poorly hand come to that.
Don't know why he thinks your views on abortion have anything to do with the price of fish.

ballysmate

DeVlaeminck said:

Whether any of these 15 people were knowingly involved in murder rather than just inadvertantly alerting the murderer to the teacher by protesting I don't know ?

What I have noticed reading the comments sections below reports on this is a lot of "it was wrong but..."

If someone had hacked cinema projectionists to death after screening "Life Of Brian" there would be no "but" after the condemnation .

I mean the guy used some cartoons in a discussion of freedom of speech - the people who feel that is wrong demonstrate exactly why it is important.

Life of Brian was comic genius and on Broadway, people can (virus permitting) go to see The Book of Mormon.

The Koran the musical, anyone?

rjsterry

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

You realise that clip is five years old and nothing to do with the murder of the French teacher?

It was to show that Nabila Ramdani has long-held this view and it wasn't the first time she tried to make Muslims the real victims.. She was one of the people involved in the 'what are the limits of free speech' debate, just after the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Yes, Bally seemed to think this was something new. I don't think it is. It's just the latest terrorist incident and the blasphemy/free speech angle is a convenient hook to fire up people on both sides of the 'clash of civilisations' narrative.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Did Andrew Neil not point out in the clip that it was once OK to depict Muhammad?
So this latest mock outrage at any depiction of Muhammad ( an ordinary bloke btw, not a deity) as blasphemy is just bullshit.

Credit to Ramdani though, she managed what I thought was impossible.
She made Diane Abbott sound reasonable.

You realise that clip is five years old and nothing to do with the murder of the French teacher?

It was to show that Nabila Ramdani has long-held this view and it wasn't the first time she tried to make Muslims the real victims.. She was one of the people involved in the 'what are the limits of free speech' debate, just after the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Yes, Bally seemed to think this was something new. I don't think it is. It's just the latest terrorist incident and the blasphemy/free speech angle is a convenient hook to fire up people on both sides of the 'clash of civilisations' narrative.

Why would I think it new? Abbott, Portillo and Neil?
They were discussing the Charlie Hebdo attack ffs.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

nickice

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

So we can agree that the terrorist incident was an Islamic terror incident?

He was a Chechen (therefore with no reasonable grievances against the West) and had been welcomed (with his family) by France. There really wasn't any reason for him to do it other than the reasons he gave. If he just wanted to commit an act of terror, there would be far easier ways (with far more casualties) to do it.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

So if the perpetrators of an outrage, or any crime come to that, say they did it because (insert reason), you will choose not to believe them?
What would they have to do to convince you? Go out do it again and turn round and say, "Told you so!" ?

pangolin

Didn't know you knew him so well Nick. Can't believe RJS is implying terrorists might lie about motives. If we're can't trust terrorists who can we trust?!

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

So if the perpetrators of an outrage, or any crime come to that, say they did it because (insert reason), you will choose not to believe them?
What would they have to do to convince you? Go out do it again and turn round and say, "Told you so!" ?

That's not what I wrote. Disagree if you like, but you don't need to misconstrue what I'm saying.

rjsterry

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

So we can agree that the terrorist incident was an Islamic terror incident?

He was a Chechen (therefore with no reasonable grievances against the West) and had been welcomed (with his family) by France. There really wasn't any reason for him to do it other than the reasons he gave. If he just wanted to commit an act of terror, there would be far easier ways (with far more casualties) to do it.

I think you are wasting your time if you are looking for a rational justification for terrorism.

bompington

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

So we can agree that the terrorist incident was an Islamic terror incident?

He was a Chechen (therefore with no reasonable grievances against the West) and had been welcomed (with his family) by France. There really wasn't any reason for him to do it other than the reasons he gave. If he just wanted to commit an act of terror, there would be far easier ways (with far more casualties) to do it.

I think you are wasting your time if you are looking for a rational justification for terrorism.

I think you are misunderstanding what "rational" means.

With the exception of severe mental illness, humans are all rational: we do what we think will achieve the outcomes we want, based on our knowledge and understanding of the situation.

So, for example, "honour culture" - in an honour culture most people would consider it rational to avenge an insult to their family, tribe or religion.

For the justification for terrorism to be irrational, the terrorist would have to be thinking something like "this action will not achieve what I want it to achieve but I will do it anyway".

Just because you do not consider it rational does not mean the protagonist is not rational - just that you disagree with them.

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.

I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.

So we can agree that the terrorist incident was an Islamic terror incident?

He was a Chechen (therefore with no reasonable grievances against the West) and had been welcomed (with his family) by France. There really wasn't any reason for him to do it other than the reasons he gave. If he just wanted to commit an act of terror, there would be far easier ways (with far more casualties) to do it.

I think you are wasting your time if you are looking for a rational justification for terrorism.

Why? The idea is that if you enforce Islamic blasphemy laws with extreme violence, nobody will dare break them. It seems like they've done a pretty good job in that respect. A further reason would be that if you die a martyr, you'll go to paradise. If you believe that, then dying a martyr makes sense.

Unfortunately, terrorism often works.

rjsterry

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part.

I do think argument's like Nick's - France has welcomed his family from Chechnya so why should he attack it? - are missing the point. I don't think anyone weighs up their situation objectively before deciding to embark on such a course of action. Not least because that action is riddled with contradictions.

nickice

rjsterry said:

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part.

I do think argument's like Nick's - France has welcomed his family from Chechnya so why should he attack it? - are missing the point.

It was to show there are no other reasons for it. If he had been a child in Iraq orphaned by American bombs and had subsequently joined ISIS, I think it'd be fair to say he was, at least partly, doing so to get back at Americans.

But, Chechnya? I just don't see any other reason other than what he gave us (which should be the default anyway)

rjsterry

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part.

I do think argument's like Nick's - France has welcomed his family from Chechnya so why should he attack it? - are missing the point.

It was to show there are no other reasons for it. If he had been a child in Iraq orphaned by American bombs and had subsequently joined ISIS, I think it'd be fair to say he was, at least partly, doing so to get back at Americans.

But, Chechnya? I just don't see any other reason other than what he gave us (which should be the default anyway)

You realise Islamist terrorism is tied up with Chechen separatism? Just swap Russia for America.

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part.

I do think argument's like Nick's - France has welcomed his family from Chechnya so why should he attack it? - are missing the point.

It was to show there are no other reasons for it. If he had been a child in Iraq orphaned by American bombs and had subsequently joined ISIS, I think it'd be fair to say he was, at least partly, doing so to get back at Americans.

But, Chechnya? I just don't see any other reason other than what he gave us (which should be the default anyway)

You realise Islamist terrorism is tied up with Chechen separatism? Just swap Russia for America.

Nothing to do with France.

rjsterry

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part.

I do think argument's like Nick's - France has welcomed his family from Chechnya so why should he attack it? - are missing the point.

It was to show there are no other reasons for it. If he had been a child in Iraq orphaned by American bombs and had subsequently joined ISIS, I think it'd be fair to say he was, at least partly, doing so to get back at Americans.

But, Chechnya? I just don't see any other reason other than what he gave us (which should be the default anyway)

You realise Islamist terrorism is tied up with Chechen separatism? Just swap Russia for America.

Nothing to do with France.

Neither is the American invasion of Iraq; France was conspicuous in staying out of the Iraq war. It's an extremist ideology: in their eyes *everyone* who isn't a follower is an enemy and a legitimate target.