Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

You mean the lifestyle that the terrorists often join by attending our universities and flying schools and by working here and living here, often for years, and that the bury themselves in by taking a more western approach to their dress and grooming before they carry out their heinous, murderous intent?

You've got to be joking...

 

I'm glad that The French have adopted The US policy of killing the terrorists instead of putting them to trial.

 

Totally the same thing. Good comparison.

 

The idea that these terrorists are not "Islamic" is a joke, and what's funnier is that we have people who believe it, and repeat it.

We get Howard Dean going on TV and proclaiming these terrorists to not be Muslims. He calls Al Qaeda a cult, but not an Islamic cult.

And by pretending these terrorists are not Muslims, we let Islam off the hook. No one has to acknowledge that there is a problem within Islam. If these folks are not Muslim, then there's no need to reform Islam.

Imagine any other group trying -- let alone getting away with -- this tactic.

The Catholic Church should have just declared that the pedophile priests were not in fact Catholic, and thus there was no need for the Catholic Church to reexamine itself.

Problem with rape on college campuses? Just declare that the rapists are not true college students.

Fuck, Rolling Stone wants us to believe that there is a rape problem within college fraternities. Would they acknowledge a terrorist problem within Islam?

And, some here demanded not just reforms within the Greek system, but the abolition of it.

Islam will never need to reform if the problems are dismissed as having nothing to do with the religion, and the religious teachings of Islam.

 

About what? Surely you wouldn't have wanted the French to employ enhanced interrogation techniques, if they had captured any of the terrorists, even if they thought they were in a ticking-time-bomb situation.

 

Yes, I mean exactly this lifestyle. Just because they adopt it doesn't mean they don't find it decadent.

In fact, they often do feel enticed by it's decadence, and feel obliged to fight it.

 

We don't agree on much, but we agree on this.

 

Do you deny that there is a history of leaders in the Muslim world saying one thing to Western audiences, and another to their audiences at home?

http://www.danielpipes.org/271/two-faced-yasir

What do the textbooks in state run schools in the member nations of the Arab League teach about Jews, about blasphemy, about free speech?

What does their state run media say? What do the prominent Islam scholars in these states say?

Beyond strongly condemning the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris, what else did the "chief" of the Arab League say?

Did he speak out in favor of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion? Did he speak in favor of multicultural, democratic institutions?

Nearly every "condemnation" coming from the Muslim world has also come with justifications for the actions taken.

 

Edited for inappropriate comment -- Error Code 7

 

David Brooks is not Charlie:

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html

 

But, at least his column is not as embarrassing as Maggie Gallagher's column, with the same headline:

The people of Paris and the civilized world, looking for a way to express solidarity after the heinous murders of twelve editors and illustrators, have leapt upon the phrase “I am Charlie Hebdo,” or sometimes, “Noussommes Charlie!”

The instinct was and is understandable — noble, even — but, alas, it is one I cannot share.

I am not Charlie Hebdo because, well, while I can admire it, I cannot personally imagine dying for the cause of printing juvenile and occasionally borderline pornographic cartoons that mock religion (all religions, he and his colleagues insisted). I could die for my faith, I hope, and my family, certainly, but not for naked cartoons.

I am not Charlie Hebdo because I cannot agree with David Harsanyi that Islam is “not mocked enough” and the answer is to mock more. Respect for the idea of the sacred, and the way people attempt to find God, forbids that pathway to me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396071/i-am-not-charlie-hebdo-maggie-gallagher

 

provocateur is really a fancy word for troll