ForumGarden

I note the observation by French President Francois Hollande: "We knew we were threatened because we are a country of freedom".

Would it were so. The French government, along with that of Britain and the US, has blood on its hands. Had the Western government responses to the criminal acts of 9/11 been criminal investigation, apprehension and prosecution, today's form of asymmetric criminal backlash would never have started at all.

The deliberate long-term destruction of society in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria by those governments which chose to participate - which includes the French - is the prime cause of the radicalization which is now expressed in uncompromising criminal outrages like that of today.

To merely blame the criminal radicals is to entirely miss the point. This degree of backlash was predictable and inevitable. I'm quite sure that, for many of the chief instigators on both sides, it was the intended outcome.

Obviously those who carried and used the rifles today must be found and prosecuted. Those who stirred up the hornet nest for their own benefit in the first place are equally blameworthy. France can scarcely call itself a country of freedom after tearing the heart out of so many functioning Middle-Eastern countries. Freely joining in this mayhem was a pact made by choice.

It is interesting that the countries who most loudly cry of "Freedom" and "Human Rights" are the ones who have historically been most guilty of denying both to most of the world.

The 20th century problems in the Mideast were only the culmination of centuries of such behavior.

And now the Piper is coming for his pay.

Will "Western Civilization" survive the 21st century?

Or, are we sliding to a new Dark Age of theocratic revolution?

Frightening times indeed.

I know I say this often , but it reminds me of the 'Riding a Tiger' metaphor, and the joke about asking an Irish man directions.

The Irish man replies......"If I were going there.......I wouldn't start from here"

And of course, we all got on this tiger's back, this constant playing with fire, stirring up the hornets nest etc.etc. (I do like a metaphor) the question now is "How do we get off......safely?"

The Tiger's back I mean.

Bruv: ""How do we get off......safely?

The Tiger's back I mean."

What do you mean by safely? Violence begets violence, no matter who started it. I don't see 'safely' in the future, although I'm not as morose as Lars.

The attack was not In revenge for what followed 9/11. That Is sheer hogwash. It was against Charlie Hebdo for lampooning the Prophet Mohammed among many other leaders around the world. Let's at least get the facts right here and not drag the US Into the old 9/11 get out.

This was an attack on the freedom of speech and democracy In a country that welcomed It's assailants when they chose to migrate there.

AnneBoleyn;1470975 wrote: What do you mean by safely? Violence begets violence, no matter who started it. I don't see 'safely' in the future, although I'm not as morose as Lars.


I'd like to see offensive (as opposed to defensive) killing for any reason, by anyone, regardless of what organization they belong to, made illegal by treaty obligation, and all this hogwash about it being defensive because at some indeterminate time in the future he might have attacked me should be laughed out of court. That would be an excellent start to isolating those who continue to kill, apprehending them and those who gave them their orders, and rehabilitating everyone in the chain.

Oscar Namechange;1470976 wrote: The attack was not In revenge for what followed 9/11.
I never said it was, oscar. I never said it was. Neither would I.

Oscar Namechange;1470976 wrote: The attack was not In revenge for what followed 9/11. That Is sheer hogwash. It was against Charlie Hebdo for lampooning the Prophet Mohammed among many other leaders around the world. Let's at least get the facts right here and not drag the US Into the old 9/11 get out.

This was an attack on the freedom of speech and democracy In a country that welcomed It's assailants when they chose to migrate there.


How did 9/11 get into this conversation?

LarsMac;1470979 wrote: How did 9/11 get into this conversation?


Posted by FG

The French government, along with that of Britain and the US, has blood on its hands. Had the Western government responses to the criminal acts of 9/11 been criminal investigation, apprehension and prosecution, today's form of asymmetric criminal backlash would never have started at all.

Oscar Namechange;1470980 wrote: Posted by FG

The French government, along with that of Britain and the US, has blood on its hands. Had the Western government responses to the criminal acts of 9/11 been criminal investigation, apprehension and prosecution, today's form of asymmetric criminal backlash would never have started at all.


Ah, yes. Sorry. I missed that, or rather kinda blew by it.

Of course all of this started up long before 9/11.

LarsMac;1470981 wrote: Of course all of this started up long before 9/11.
I agree with that entirely. The current extent of extremism has been greatly affected by the Western reaction to it though.

FG;1470982 wrote: I agree with that entirely. The current extent of extremism has been greatly affected by the Western reaction to it though.


Yet the ttack In Paris has nothing to do with pre- 9/11 nor post 9/11.

It's reminiscent of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy In a Danish newspaper. The attacks are led by Aniconism not 9/11.

Oscar Namechange;1470984 wrote: Yet the ttack In Paris has nothing to do with pre- 9/11 nor post 9/11.

It's reminiscent of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy In a Danish newspaper. The attacks are led by Aniconism not 9/11.


I'm delighted to say I understood none of that at all.

FG;1470977 wrote: I'd like to see offensive (as opposed to defensive) killing for any reason, by anyone, regardless of what organization they belong to, made illegal by treaty obligation, and all this hogwash about it being defensive because at some indeterminate time in the future he might have attacked me should be laughed out of court. That would be an excellent start to isolating those who continue to kill, apprehending them and those who gave them their orders, and rehabilitating everyone in the chain.


I agree.

AnneBoleyn;1470975 wrote: Bruv: ""How do we get off......safely?

The Tiger's back I mean."

What do you mean by safely? Violence begets violence, no matter who started it. I don't see 'safely' in the future, although I'm not as morose as Lars.


That is the point.

We, the Christian West, have put ourselves into this position by creating a section of people with a just reason to feel aggrieved.

A people loosely pulled together by a religious belief, this belief is strengthened by outside attack, creating it's own momentum.

We are watching the creation of yet another persecuted people like the Jews, we can only make them stronger and more extreme with our current solutions.

Relevant quote time? Fergal Keane's a voice worth listening to. I bolded the relevant bit, and it's from today's rolling BBC news...BBC correspondent Fergal Keane reports that tensions over the role of Islam have "sharpened" in France over recent years.

He adds: "Along with that there is resentment over French policy in the Arab world which has radicalised many youth."

Charlie Hebdo attack - latest - BBC News





You'll find I refer to "French policy in the Arab world" earlier in the thread, near to "radicalised".





(eta as a passing aside: from the same link... "'France has never seen terror like this'". The shades of Danton and Robespierre might just raise an eyebrow at that.)

FG;1470985 wrote: I'm delighted to say I understood none of that at all.


The Tramadol at work, I fear.

LarsMac;1471024 wrote: The Tramadol at work, I fear.


Or maybe you and FG should do some research on other outrages where the Prophet Mohammed has been lampooned.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oscar Namechange;1470976 wrote: In a country that welcomed It's assailants when they chose to migrate there.


Let's keep this quote for tomorrow, shall we?

Oscar Namechange;1471027 wrote: Or maybe you and FG should do some research on other outrages where the Prophet Mohammed has been lampooned.Go on then, if you insist. What does "The attacks are led by Aniconism not 9/11" mean?

Attached files

You forget sunni is busy slaughtering shia with even more enthusiasm do you blame that on anaconism as well? How about the deliberate slaughter and enslavement of different ethnis and religious groups.

Being tolerant does not mean you have to tolerate intolerant people and pander to their prejudices be they islamic, christian or ukip and the bnp.

Oh well, I tried to delete my post, but I have to do this instead ! :rolleyes:

gmc;1471046 wrote: You forget sunni is busy slaughtering shia with even more enthusiasm do you blame that on anaconism as well? How about the deliberate slaughter and enslavement of different ethnis and religious groups.

Being tolerant does not mean you have to tolerate intolerant people and pander to their prejudices be they islamic, christian or ukip and the bnp.


You had no problem understanding what I said then ? Just FG.

As It happens, If Islam prohibits the creation of Images of the Prophet Mohammed, then I believe It should be respected. It's a very emotive subject. I would not like to see Christ lampooned either. There Is a large Muslim population In France that they are already experiencing problems with. It's not pandering, It's about respect for another religion and culture. We can't expect any culture to Integrate and assimilate If the host country Is taking the piss.

Oscar Namechange;1471050 wrote: You had no problem understanding what I said then ? Just FG.

As It happens, If Islam prohibits the creation of Images of the Prophet Mohammed, then I believe It should be respected. It's a very emotive subject. I would not like to see Christ lampooned either. There Is a large Muslim population In France that they are already experiencing problems with. It's not pandering, It's about respect for another religion and culture. We can't expect any culture to Integrate and assimilate If the host country Is taking the piss.


The problem, as usual, is that people of a religious bent are seldom of a mind to simply live and let live. They feel that all of those around them should adhere to their brand of life.

The simple idea of "If you feel that something is wrong, don't do it." evades them. They want no one doing what their personal religion prohibits.

In a mixed society, that attitude becomes the Evil that must be dealt with.

Christians who insist that no woman may use birth control are, IMHO, just as evil as Muslims who insist that no one may draw a picture of "The Prophet"

Oscar Namechange;1471050 wrote: You had no problem understanding what I said then ? Just FG.


To get the words straight, iconism is the worship of objects or images which depict living things and aniconism is the worship of objects or images which depict abstract things. Anti-iconism is being against the worship of objects or images which depict living things and Anti-aniconism is being against the worship of objects or images which depict abstract things.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all totally, completely and permanently anti the worship of any objects or images at all, regardless of what they depict. For all I know, so are the Mormons if they have any consistency.

What you need is a word related to depicting, not worship. Then you can adjust it to anti-depicting. Some adherents of Islam are anti the depicting of all human forms. A wider group of adherents of Islam are anti the depicting of the Prophets and Messengers of Allah, wider still are those Muslims anti the depicting of the Prophet Mohammed. I expect there's Muslims out there who couldn't care less who or what gets depicted and think all this anti stuff is equivalent to counting angels on the head of a pin.

No word which includes "iconism" is appropriate in what you're attempting to convey.

I've always found that the whole thing about iconism in Christianity to be somewhat hypocritical, as in "Thou shalt not make any graven images of me", yet there is Michelanelgo's depiction of The Creation in the Sistine Chapel. Furthermore, Churches are filled with images & statues of Jesus, Mary, assorted angels naked boys (cherubs - questionable), as well as the image of the crucifix itself. For a religion that forbids Idolatry, it uses a hell of a lot of them.

FourPart;1471057 wrote: I've always found that the whole thing about iconism in Christianity to be somewhat hypocritical, as in "Thou shalt not make any graven images of me", yet there is Michelanelgo's depiction of The Creation in the Sistine Chapel. Furthermore, Churches are filled with images & statues of Jesus, Mary, assorted angels naked boys (cherubs - questionable), as well as the image of the crucifix itself. For a religion that forbids Idolatry, it uses a hell of a lot of them.


Actually, it was "Graven Images" that were not to be worshipped. Regardless of what the images were.

But yes, I remember the first time I was in one of those types of churches (Anglican, I believe) and saw all of the imagery, my first thought was "Idolatry"

Being from a humble Presbyterian church in the Appalachian highlands, where a simple cross was the only adornment, this all seemed a bit over the top.

The argument is that these are images to remind us of Him, rather than something to actually be worshipped.

I guess that works for some people. But walk up to one of those things with a magic marker in your hand, and see what happens.

Any religion that cannot be held up for criticism is suspect.

Any ideology, theory, government policy, constitution, amendment to a constitution, add whatever you like................should be open to criticism, nothing should be untouchable, or they are suspect too.

Christianity has been ridiculed for generations, only the fanatical factions broach no critique in any organisation.

Bruv;1471069 wrote: Any religion that cannot be held up for criticism is suspect.

Any ideology, theory, government policy, constitution, amendment to a constitution, add whatever you like................should be open to criticism, nothing should be untouchable, or they are suspect too.

Christianity has been ridiculed for generations, only the fanatical factions broach no critique in any organisation.
Ironic how many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity (and Religion in general), when one of his primary teachings was to turn the other cheek.

Most wars were about power or land and resources.

Sometimes religion was used to drum up the masses.

Of course there were the reformation years. You Brits sure made the best of those years.

posted by fg

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all totally, completely and permanently anti the worship of any objects or images at all, regardless of what they depict. For all I know, so are the Mormons if they have any consistency.


Actually one of the main points of contention and differences between catholicism and protestantism is the worship of images and veneration of saints in the catholic church. Nor do they venerate the virgin mary.

posted by fourpart

Ironic how many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity (and Religion in general), when one of his primary teachings was to turn the other cheek.


If you alwo teach that rthere is 0nly 0ne god and everyone else is going to hell it's not too big a jump to believing non-believers are inferior.

gmc;1471083 wrote: Actually one of the main points of contention and differences between catholicism and protestantism is the worship of images and veneration of saints in the catholic church. Nor do they venerate the virgin mary.
I do wish people would be careful what they write. Venerating isn't worshiping, and the Roman Catholics don't worship images. Protestant church leaders often claim that Roman Catholics worship images. That's an entirely different thing, it's called intransigent Protestant bigotry. No Roman Catholic doctrine allows the worship of images, or of saints, or of statues, or of any created thing whatever.

Oscar Namechange;1471050 wrote: As It happens, If Islam prohibits the creation of Images of the Prophet Mohammed, then I believe It should be respected.I bring to your attention the extremely famous larger-than-lifesize carving of the Prophet Mohammed, complete with scimitar and Koran, on permanent display inside the United States Supreme Court Building - in the courtroom itself - since its construction in 1935.

LarsMac;1471079 wrote: You Brits sure made the best of those years.


You betcha Linky

Oscar Namechange;1470976 wrote: In a country that welcomed It's assailants when they chose to migrate there.
It's always pleasing to find one's expectations confirmed - here it is...Born in the 10th Arrondissement, they came from secular backgrounds and initially drifted into petty delinquencies, not religious fanaticism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/world ... .html?_r=0



You were, perhaps, making a stereotyped assumption. The country hadn't "welcomed It's assailants", as you put it. The country raised them from birth. They didn't choose to migrate anywhere, they're French. Assuming, of course, that the only existing suspects turn out to be in fact the assailants.

FG;1471084 wrote: I do wish people would be careful what they write. Venerating isn't worshiping, and the Roman Catholics don't worship images. Protestant church leaders often claim that Roman Catholics worship images. That's an entirely different thing, it's called intransigent Protestant bigotry. No Roman Catholic doctrine allows the worship of images, or of saints, or of statues, or of any created thing whatever.


Yeah right. I'm not religious so I'm not going to bother going in to all the arguments.

Bigot: wonderful word what has reason to do with religious hatred?

gmc;1471132 wrote: Bigot: wonderful word what has reason to do with religious hatred?I offered it as a reason why this lie that Roman Catholics worship idols is so entrenched in the Protestant community, whether among believers or atheists. It's been told for centuries, it's used both as a blinker to avoid seeing what's really there and as an excuse not to look.

Oscar Namechange;1470976 wrote: The attack was not In revenge for what followed 9/11. That Is sheer hogwash. It was against Charlie Hebdo for lampooning the Prophet Mohammed among many other leaders around the world. Let's at least get the facts right here and not drag the US Into the old 9/11 get out.

This was an attack on the freedom of speech and democracy In a country that welcomed It's assailants when they chose to migrate there.


Well put.

FG;1471135 wrote: I offered it as a reason why this lie that Roman Catholics worship idols is so entrenched in the Protestant community, whether among believers or atheists. It's been told for centuries, it's used both as a blinker to avoid seeing what's really there and as an excuse not to look.


That is your opinion and while I could take you through all the arguments I'm not going to since it's an argument about something i don't believe in (religion that is or indeed the existence of god ) and I have little tolerance for either side in the sectarian divide or at least for those who take it seriously.

gmc;1471154 wrote: That is your opinionIt is, actually, the stated position of the Roman Catholic Church itself. I'd be quite happy to dig out an appropriately authoritative statement by them if that would placate you. Intransigent Protestants (as opposed to reasonable Protestants) say ah yes but the damned Romish Catholics are inveterate liars so what they say makes no difference, and that's the bit I referred to as bigoted.

I think we can pretty much move on and see these murderous nitwits who used the image of Mohammad as an excuse.

The slaughter didn't end at the magazine, but continues as I write.

Gunman kills two, takes others hostage at Paris kosher supermarket



At least two people were killed and several others were taken hostage Friday when a gunman opened fire at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris, French security sources said.

President Francois Hollande ordered the country's top security official to the scene, an official in the presidency told The Associated Press. The police official declined to be named when discussing the unfolding situation, which occurred on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath, when the supermarket was likely to have been packed with shoppers preparing for Shabbat.

Gunman kills two, takes others hostage at Paris kosher supermarket


Up date.

There are two hostage situations going on.

Charlie Hebdo Attack: French Police Face Off With Gunmen in Two Places

PARIS—French police faced off with gunmen on two fronts Friday, as the suspects behind the attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo holed up with a hostage in a printing facility north of Paris and prosecutors said another gunman took captives in a kosher grocery store on the eastern edge of the capital.

The incidents escalated a three-day spree of violence in France and raised fears that officials are dealing with a broader militant network. Police believe the gunman in the kosher store is connected to the brothers who allegedly carried out the shooting at the magazine.

The same man is also suspected of killing a policewoman near Paris on Thursday. He is linked to the same Paris-based jihadist recruitment ring that one of the magazine-shooting suspects was convicted of being a member of, a police officer familiar with the matter said.

Police Face Off With Gunmen in Two Places


Random terrorism. No doubt if the French police manage to kill the Islamic terrorists, some will see those pinheads as martyrs.

tude dog;1471159 wrote: I think we can pretty much move on and see these murderous nitwits who used the image of Mohammad as an excuse.

Random terrorism. No doubt if the French police manage to kill the Islamic terrorists, some will see those pinheads as martyrs.


Murderous nitwits ?

Is that wise ? Dismissing them as nitwits ?

And.........how can 'Terrorism' be random ?

And finally......I suspect the French will bide their time in an attempt to capture these people alive, live jailed terrorists are better value than dead martyrs.

Bruv;1471186 wrote: Murderous nitwits ?

Is that wise ? Dismissing them as nitwits ?




Just curious, Bruv. What words, in brief, would you use to describe them?

Bruv;1471186 wrote: Murderous nitwits ?

Is that wise ? Dismissing them as nitwits ?

And.........how can 'Terrorism' be random ?

And finally......I suspect the French will bide their time in an attempt to capture these people alive, live jailed terrorists are better value than dead martyrs.


Seems I am wrong, police have ended the siege. HERE

AnneBoleyn;1471189 wrote: Just curious, Bruv. What words, in brief, would you use to describe them?


Nitwit is a term of derision for a fool, these people are fanatics, extreme single minded and with with a cause.

Bruv;1471191 wrote: Nitwit is a term of derision for a fool, these people are fanatics, extreme single minded and with with a cause.
Let the French bring back the Guillotine (which was used until fairly recently), and then bury the bodies wrapped in pigskins, facing West. That might make them (terrorists) think twice

next time.

The gendarmerie seems to have forgotten Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, or they'd have kept a large net nearby just in case. The BBC says they had 80,000 officers deployed at the two sites of interest today.

FourPart;1471195 wrote: Let the French bring back the Guillotine (which was used until fairly recently), and then bury the bodies wrapped in pigskins, facing West. That might make them (terrorists) think twice

next time.


They will have put up recruitment tenfold

Bruv;1471191 wrote: Nitwit is a term of derision for a fool, these people are fanatics, extreme single minded and with with a cause.


Your description is better, I think.

Bruv;1471186 wrote: Murderous nitwits ?

Is that wise ? Dismissing them as nitwits ?


Geeze, what a nitpick.

They are 'nitwits' because in the real world they accomplished nothing. So much effort only to splash that cartoon all over the world. Sent to people who would neither care or have no idea of what it is.

Bruv;1471186 wrote: And.........how can 'Terrorism' be random ?


The attack on Charlie Hebdo was a planned target. What happened afterwords, murder of a police woman, taking hostage at printing factory and kosher market had no special significance.

Bruv;1471186 wrote: And finally......I suspect the French will bide their time in an attempt to capture these people alive, live jailed terrorists are better value than dead martyrs.


I don't buy that. They took a path to be killed and I am more than happy to oblige.

All that said, in all this the NUMBER ONE concern must be the hostages.