- #1
StevieTNZ
- 1,886
- 861
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/30093213/fatalities-reported-in-paris-restaurant-shooting/
At least 26 people have been killed and several others wounded after a shooting and several explosions in Paris on Friday night.
It's believed at least 60 people have been taken hostage inside Bataclan Concert Hall.
#BREAKING Attacker in Paris concert hall shouted 'Allahu akbar', fired into crowd, witness says
CNN has already 149.118 confirmed dead. How does this change France and or Europe?
That sucks. Maybe Europeans, mostly the French, could gain something by studying the US case, where Muslims seem to have successfully integrated into society to a greater degree than in Europe.
153 dead according to CNN ,maybe the ISIS(or other terrorist organizations) managed to send some of their terrorists into Europe under the guise of refugees ?
That may well be the case. It's too soon to tell. However, it doesn't have to be, it's more likely that the terrorists were European born. Thousands of French and European born muslims have traveled to the middle east to join ISIS. The Charlie Hebdo attackers as well as 3 of the 4 7/7 bombings terrorists were born in Europe (the fourth was a Jamaican born convert). As far as ISIS is concerned, it's far easier to recruit among radicalised European muslims than go through the trouble of sending a group from the ME.maybe the ISIS(or other terrorist organizations) managed to send some of their terrorists into Europe under the guise of refugees ?
It is a general statement. How do you suggest one do the parsing between groups? I admit I am not that knowledgeable on the ethnic distribution of Muslims and its implications. Still, something seems to have worked better in the US, hasn't it?Muslim is a pretty broad religious category. I think it might be beneficial to not look at Muslims as a whole, but certain ethnic groups.
The US may have done a slightly better job, but I doubt that they have the situation under control either. I believe the Fort Hood shootings were also similarly motivated. As for whether or not the US have done a good job integrating Muslims, I feel that they have integrated better since they make up a less significant amount of the population, and they come from a variety of places.It is a general statement. How do you suggest one do the parsing between groups? I admit I am not that knowledgeable on the ethnic distribution of Muslims and its implications. Still, something seems to have worked better in the US, hasn't it?
There is clearly room for improvement, and yes, it is easier to absorb 5 million people into a population of 320 million than to absorb those 5 million into a population 1/5 that size, 64 million.The US may have done a slightly better job, but I doubt that they have the situation under control either. I believe the Fort Hood shootings were also similarly motivated. As for whether or not the US have done a good job integrating Muslims, I feel that they have integrated better since they make up a less significant amount of the population, and they come from a variety of places.
The problem isn't Islam, and never was.
It again has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam.
I respectfully disagree. This debate of whether it's Islam or the geo-political situation in the middle east, exemplified by the Sam Harris/Ben Affleck shouting match a few months ago, always comes up after terrorist attacks. I'm reluctant to get involved since emotions are running high (understandably), but I decided to share a few thoughts.
Islam does have a unique emphasis on martyrdom, Jihad, violence, and war in a way that's different from any other religion including Christianity. There is no shortage of evidence to support this. Whether it's vague and ambiguous verses in the Quran or more explicit and clear sayings in the Hadith. The early history of Islam, as we learn from the earliest biographies of the prophet of Islam, is full with examples of the prophet and his "rightly guided successors" using war to advance the religion, advocating for the death penalty for people who leave Islam, taking women slaves as booty of war, and stoning people who commit adultery (there are also stories of compassion and peace treaties).
Now the relevance of all that to modern day muslims of course depends on interpretations and to what extent the text is seen in historical context or as a religious creed. But more importantly it also depends on the interpretation of current political events. For instance, the majority of muslims believe in martyrdom for someone who dies during Jihad, but only the terrorists would argue that blowing yourself up in a stadium in Paris is a form of rightful Jihad, whereas the majority would just see it as a terrorist attack.
It's perfectly possible not to blame Muslims in general for these terrorist attacks, since the vast majority do not condone them, without claiming that Islam has NOTHING to do with them, which IMO is contrary to the evidence.
And look at all these Christian cults in the U.S where the leader has sex with 12- 13- year olds.Christianity is still having ugly days: AIDS in africa, death penalties in African countries. All the result from christian missionaries. What about pedophilic priests? So, if you (not you WWGD) say there is something intrinsically wrong with islam, then don't chicken out by saying these christian atrocities are the work of certain disturbed individuals.
There was a time when I wouldn't have hesitated to say that Christianity is a problem. It's less so now, mainly because most Christians today don't take the text too seriously. I hope there will come a day when that's the same for Islam.Christianity has had its ugly days too, with crusades, the inquisition, it was used as an excuse to enslave people and colonize and exploit countries
I'm not saying there aren't other factors. This is clear from the fact there are many differences between different muslim communities. However, Islamic history wasn't that rosy. Islam did have its crusades and slave trade.I think if one takes a longer-term view of Islam and history, this reveals that recent behavior is not so much intrinsic to Islam, but more a result of a culture that is currently broken down.
I have no doubt that is the case, and I always stress that people should see muslims as individuals, like any other group, who mostly have the same inspirations in life as anyone else. That's why we're fortunately dealing with 10s of thousands ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq (with probably less than that scattered in other places) rather than 10 million.I doubt there are many people in daily modern life who base their actions on reading the Koran. Your average person wants to raise their kids in peace, provide them with a quality education, make a good living , etc., when given a chance.
There is, but which way does it go? If someone approach a text wanting to find a justification for murder, chances are they'll be able to find it. That success tells us more about the person than the text.There is a direct link between their actions and the text.
I believe it tells us about both. Apart from the Quran, the text isn't really that ambiguous. I can go into details but I don't want to derail the topic so I'll just give one example. There are a few narrations of a Hadith that tells you very clearly that a muslim who leaves Islam should be killed. The language is very straightforward and the Hadith is narrated in more than one compilation that is regarded authentic by many muslims. It is not a coincidence that Saudi Arabia along with a few other muslim countries (never mind ISIS) do prescribe the death penalty for leaving Islam. Now the reason why most muslims in the world don't go around and kill anyone who left Islam is not because they don't believe in the Hadith, or because the language is vague, but rather because as most of them are sensible people they would try and contextualise the text or put it in a historical perspective that means they don't have to do it now.There is, but which way does it go? If someone approach a text wanting to find a justification for murder, chances are they'll be able to find it. That success tells us more about the person than the text.
Yes. Isis has. Hollande also directly blamed them for the attack.has anyone claimed responsibility ?
Do you have any opinion on what could be a good strategy to deal with this garbage? It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.Yes. Isis has.
http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-paris-attacks-105251415.htmlFrench President Francois Hollande said the violence was organized from abroad by UnIslamic State with internal help.
The attacks at a stadium, concert hall and cafes and restaurants in northern and eastern Paris were "an act of war committed by Daesh that was prepared, organized and planned from outside (of France)" with help from inside France, Hollande said, using the Arabic acronym for UnIslamic State.
I think we have to wait for the French government to identify the attackers and from that see if their movements can be traced.Where the attacker residents of France/EU or did they come from ISIS directly? the article doesn't say anything.
Foreign fighters who join Islamic State, the group which controls large swathes of Iraq and Syria, are seen as especially dangerous because Western passports enable them to live in and travel to Western countries undetected.
I wouldn't have suspected it was a trick question. Though I'm afraid I don't have any intelligent answers. However, I can share some incoherent ramblings.Do you have any opinion on what could be a good strategy to deal with this garbage? It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.