France terrorist atrocity.

[Intrinsic_Value]

And yet wasn't it religion that gave us our basic western principles and laws.

In recent times maybe as a species we have 'evolved'.

And yet I cant help but think, just like they said in the matrix, human beings (because of our intelligence) need a higher calling.

Currently we are floundering. Where is that higher calling?
If religion has no purpose, then what else can one hold to? What is the long term pillar?
What is the meaning of life?

What is the purpose of individual sacrifice for the common good?
If there is no purpose, then each individual should act in his/her own common good.

This is a traditional market based approach, and yet think through time, the step up that have happened through time, because an individual has not acted purely in an individual's best interest, but in the interest of serving the 'higher calling'.

I lack the intelligence/foresight/wisdom to answer these questions.

 

[The Fence]

However, that doesn't negate the fact that religion breeds intolerance. This thread reeks of it. For instance, TC seems like a good dude, at least based on his posts, I don't know him IRL, so can't say for sure if he actually is or not.

But when it comes to Islam/Muslims, holy moly (no pun intended)! Let the hate flow through you my son. Come to the Dark Side of The Force. It's crazy.

That's rubbish!

I do know TC and he is indeed a good bloke.

He has never said he hates Islam/Muslims. He, and I don't like the extremists.
You have said the same and yet accusing TC of hatred and intolerance towards Islam in general ?
I'd suggest You read people's posts properly and don't take them out of context, unless you simply want to stir the pot that is.

 

[Perp]

Have a read of the article I linked to. The radical Islamists can actually justify their actions through interpretations of the Quoran. Christians would be hard pressed to find suitable quotes from the New Testament to achieve similar justifications for violent actions.

I gave you a kudos for doing the hard yards on this issue - drawing out a perspective that is not popular. It seems many are prepared to ascribe internal motivations of terrorists other than the obvious, what they profess through their own lips - "Allahu Akbar"!

Why limit yourselves to the New Testament?

The Old Testament remains part of the body of teachings of Christianity (Matthew 5:17-19, 2 Timothy 3:16, and others). Thus the genocide of Deutoronomy 20:10 remains part of Christian scripture, and is at least as bloodthirsty as anything in the Quran.

 

[vbplease]

Thus the genocide of Deutoronomy 20:10 remains part of Christian scripture, and is at least as bloodthirsty as anything in the Quran.

and this has been the Christian's justification for all their latest terrorist attacks? The genocide of the Canaanites?

 

[Perp]

and this has been the Christian's justification for all their latest terrorist attacks? The genocide of the Canaanites?

They haven't, that I'm aware of, but cu@thetop suggested Christians would "be hard pressed" to find anything in their texts supporting violent acts. I'm merely suggesting they wouldn't be hard pressed at all, if they were so inclined.

 

[vbplease]

I think you've misinterpreted his post.. Yes there are many violent acts in the Bible, but the point is you will be very hard pressed to find an example of even an 'extremist Christian' using a passage of the Bible as justification for committing an act of terror or even forcing a conversion in recent history? Happening every day of the week with Muslim extremists..

 

[Perp]

I think you've misinterpreted his post.. Yes there are many violent acts in the Bible, but the point is you will be very hard pressed to find an example of even an 'extremist Christian' using a passage of the Bible as justification for committing an act of terror or even forcing a conversion in recent history? Happening every day of the week with Muslim extremists..

I agree with that, but both have extreme violence in their texts, so the difference in behaviour must be due to some other factor than the violence in their texts, don't you think?

I think it's far more to do with the frustration and powerlessness of people. The people who are presently most frustrated and powerless in the world happen to be from countries that are predominantly Muslim.

When the people of Northern Ireland were some of the most frustrated and powerless in the world, most terrorism was committed under the guise of inter-Christian struggles.

It's never really about religion; it's about feeling disempowered. When you feel extremely disempowered, you're driven to extremes and do terrible things.

When you do terrible things, it sounds much less honourable to say "I'm so angry and frustrated and disempowered that I want to just kill everybody" than to say "I'm doing it for God" (a higher purpose).

Which variety of "God told me to do it" the perpetrator happens to follow is largely irrelevant.

The IRA and UVC weren't really motivated by religion. Nor are these terrorists. Nor will the next ones be.

 

[kathryn d]

3 terrorists killed and 4 hostages on Friday

 

[property_girl]

All because of some cartoons? Cartoonists who also made fun of every other religion, but of course there is one religion who takes offence.

These religious nutters are truly in a different league. There is a youtube that shows one walking up to an injured policeman, putting the gun to his head and finishing him off.

TC, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm pretty sure you are talking about the radical Muslims and not the moderate Muslims. imho, radicalism can't exist in/with a western democracy. I don't have a problem at all with moderate Muslims who can live peaceably in a western country and I'm pretty sure TC has no problem with them either.

At the heart of radical Islam is the notion that the west must be brought down because of its evil ways. They will kill moderate Muslims to do it, as was the case when an innocent Muslim policeman pleading for his life was shot at point blank range.

We have the privilege of freedom of speech, albeit with limits. Charlie Hebdo was not breaking any laws, there was no hate speech, no distributuion of paedophilia, nothing that incited violence. I was taken aback at some of its cartoons and I can understand that someone would take offence. But that is what satire is--it's taking the ****-- and Charlie Hebdo did it cleverly.

People use 'free speech' as an excuse to harass, intimidate and do/say some pretty vile things. And while everyone has a right to hold any opinion of their choice, do they have the right to have that opinion taken seriously in a debate when evidence is to the contrary?

 

[redwing]

Christians and Muslims fighting goes all the way back to the crusades doesn't it?

 

[Gendry]

I don't usually read this sort of thing, but I must say I found this article quite compelling:

Get it? In the face of a medieval ideology that only understands the language of the gun, the West - the heroic, Enlightenment-inspired West - responds by reaffirming its commitment to resist barbarism with the weapons of ideas and freedom of expression.

Knight's cartoon made the point exceptionally clear, but every image that invoked the idea that Western culture could and would defend itself from Islamist extremism by waging a battle of ideas demonstrated the same historical and political amnesia.

Reality could not be more at odds with this ludicrous narrative.

For the last decade and a half the United States, backed to varying degrees by the governments of other Western countries, has rained violence and destruction on the Arab and Muslim world with a ferocity that has few parallels in the history of modern warfare.

It was not pencils and pens - let alone ideas - that left Iraq, Gaza and Afghanistan shattered and hundreds of thousands of human beings dead. Not twelve. Hundreds of thousands. All with stories, with lives, with families. Tens of millions who have lost friends, family, homes and watched their country be torn apart.

To the victims of military occupation; to the people in the houses that bore the brunt of "shock and awe" bombing in Iraq; to those whose bodies were disfigured by white phosphorous and depleted uranium; to the parents of children who disappeared into the torture cells of Abu Ghraib; to all of them - what but cruel mockery is the contention that Western civilisation fights its wars with the pen and not the sword?

...

Meanwhile, Muslims in the West will, if they dare to walk the streets, do so in fear of the inevitable reprisals. And pencils aren't what they will be afraid of.

http://redflag.org.au/node/4373

 

[Gendry]

It's just tragic how atrocities get used for political purposes. For example, around 2000 people were recently murdered in Nigeria in one of the biggest massacres of late, and there was almost no mention of it in the media.

2000, not 12. The difference is, one happened in a Western country vs an African one, and also one can be use for political points to justify wars etc. Any loss of life is tragic, but I must say I found that quite disturbing.

 

[geoffw]

It's just tragic how atrocities get used for political purposes. For example, around 2000 people were recently murdered in Nigeria in one of the biggest massacres of late, and there was almost no mention of it in the media.

2000, not 12. The difference is, one happened in a Western country vs an African one, and also one can be use for political points to justify wars etc. Any loss of life is tragic, but I must say I found that quite disturbing.

While things are not quite as overt in Australia, this is illustrative of the sort of manipulation which can occur.

While in Mexico, the siege in Sydney featured prominently on the TV news- well before the shootings. However, the disappearance of 43 students some months before did not rate a mention anywhere on the mainstram media. Some of the media is state controlled, but the rest of the media have to be careful of both the government and of the criminals- many journalists themselves have been killed or made to disappear.

The media was being manipulated to raise awareness of overseas issues, to help take attention away from local problems.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard much of federal politics lately.

 

[D_One]

It's just tragic how atrocities get used for political purposes. For example, around 2000 people were recently murdered in Nigeria in one of the biggest massacres of late, and there was almost no mention of it in the media.

2000, not 12. The difference is, one happened in a Western country vs an African one, and also one can be use for political points to justify wars etc. Any loss of life is tragic, but I must say I found that quite disturbing.

Kudos Gendry. Couldn't have said it better. Not to mention, the atrocities in Nigeria were committed by a terrorist group.

 

[datto]

Has anyone mentioned the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior? or best leave that alone?

 

[willair]

I just like the quote by Stephane Charbonnier the Charlie Hebdo's editor may he rest in peace..

"but I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.?

 

[Strannik]

the irony is that while in France all the european leaders were marching along against violence, with ukrainian president being in their ranks, just 3000km to the east ukrainian government forces breached ceasefire and started heavy shelling of the Donetsk city, with civilian casualties. no one said a word.

 

[dex]

It's just tragic how atrocities get used for political purposes. For example, around 2000 people were recently murdered in Nigeria in one of the biggest massacres of late, and there was almost no mention of it in the media.

2000, not 12. The difference is, one happened in a Western country vs an African one, and also one can be use for political points to justify wars etc. Any loss of life is tragic, but I must say I found that quite disturbing.

Nigeria is essentially fighting a civil war and for all intents and purposes is now two countries; the Muslim north and the Christian South. I know and do business with some good folk from Nigeria in the south and they mostly don't care about the North. The south is becoming a bubble on its own, generating GDP of 8% on average, services, communication, construction, and cheap labour from the north when needed. The far North is poor, illiterate, backwards, and Islamized pretty heavily. The people that have it the worst are the moderate middle class northeners who enjoy a brew, a blowjob, and some security. They don't care about a religious war.

People in the south vote for their own people, do their own thing, and generally don't consider what's happening in the north to be their own problem. To people in the south, the Boko Haram problem is what people in the US consider the drug cartel problem in Mexico. Close, yet very distant, someone else's problem.

Boko Haram will continue to do this until GoodLuck Johnathan has finished his term. They started it because they don't have a Northerner in a prominent political rank. Some have said if the government was under a militant guy like Babangida or Segun, they wouldn't be able to operate the same way because those military guys would oust them with brutal gunpower.

 

[Angel]

the irony is that while in France all the european leaders were marching along against violence, with ukrainian president being in their ranks, just 3000km to the east ukrainian government forces breached ceasefire and started heavy shelling of the Donetsk city, with civilian casualties. no one said a word.

Also Mr Putin was noticeably absent from the TV this past week.

 

[cu@thetop]

Nigeria is essentially fighting a civil war and for all intents and purposes is now two countries; the Muslim north and the Christian South. I know and do business with some good folk from Nigeria in the south and they mostly don't care about the North. The south is becoming a bubble on its own, generating GDP of 8% on average, services, communication, construction, and cheap labour from the north when needed. The far North is poor, illiterate, backwards, and Islamized pretty heavily. The people that have it the worst are the moderate middle class northeners who enjoy a brew, a blowjob, and some security. They don't care about a religious war.

People in the south vote for their own people, do their own thing, and generally don't consider what's happening in the north to be their own problem. To people in the south, the Boko Haram problem is what people in the US consider the drug cartel problem in Mexico. Close, yet very distant, someone else's problem.

Boko Haram will continue to do this until GoodLuck Johnathan has finished his term. They started it because they don't have a Northerner in a prominent political rank. Some have said if the government was under a militant guy like Babangida or Segun, they wouldn't be able to operate the same way because those military guys would oust them with brutal gunpower.

Is that a tautology?