quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I wonder if that matters to those whose loved ones died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I wonder if that matters to those whose loved ones died.

---

Oh I'd bet it does...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I wonder if that matters to those whose loved ones died.

---

Oh I'd bet it does...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I wonder if that matters to those whose loved ones died.

---

Oh I'd bet it does...

---

My point, if I can make it simple enough, is that politicising this is a fairly despicable first reaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I wonder if that matters to those whose loved ones died.

---

Oh I'd bet it does...

---

My point, if I can make it simple enough, is that politicising this is a fairly despicable first reaction.

---

Is not the attack itself political? Nothing said here has politicised it further.

---

Simple, but likely not simple enough.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Of course this is political. And while it may not matter to those who have died and those whose lives have been torn apart, it does matter who did this. The implications for all of us are huge. Just for starters, it's going to make things all the more difficult for immigrants and asylum seekers, not to mention all the Muslims already living in the West.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yes.

More than enough reason to pray. Come, Lord Jesus, come.


 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Just for starters, it's going to make things all the more difficult for immigrants and asylum seekers, not to mention all the Muslims already living in the West.

---

And it damned well should.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's a good thing I'd already started a thread in Hell. I wasn't expecting it would be needed for something posted here.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
At this point I don't know who is responsible, and agree that for the time being we need to wait and see.

But what I do know, is that if a similar number of people were killed in the Middle East, and someone's first reaction was,"I'll guarantee it was the Americans and their drones, or the Israelis", no-one would bat an eyelid, let alone moralise about rushing to judgement.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
As the twitter post put it, these are the people the refugees are fleeing from.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The world has been soaked in blood of innocent people since forever.
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Since France is still a member of NATO and all NATO members have said an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, do you think we will be called upon to get move involved in eliminating the source(s) of these attacks?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Online tributes are showing up. Amazon.com has the French flag and "Solidarite'" on its home page.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
San Francisco City Hall ...
 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
The world has grown too small and we are no longer safe in our own countries. I weep for the future of mankind. It seems that we are impotent to do anything to stop these atrocities. And yet we need to do something or evil triumphs. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've no doubt that these actions are provocative and co-ordinated. It seems very likely that there is deliberate intent to polarise people.

That in itself does not identify those responsible. It might be some kind of false flag operation. Also IS and Al Qaeda are not the only extreme jihadist movements about.

Some form of martial law is probably necessary to curb further retaliation. The midnight oil has been burning in government administrations throughout the Western World. This is a very dangerous escalation. Time will tell whether the action has been co-ordinated only in Paris.

I don't think the short time interval since 'Jihadi John' rules out a retaliatory response. There may have been contingent retaliatory plans in place, just needing a 'go'.
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Some form of martial law is probably necessary to curb further retaliation. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure what the legal scope of the national state of emergency is, under French law.

---

It means:

- movement of people can be prohibited at certain times and places as fixed by decree
- security areas with controlled access as fixed by decree
- anyone preventing the actions of law enforcement can be banned from a given territory;

The ability to order temporary closure of
- performance venues
- licenced premises/
- meeting venues of any nature

(source).

The state of emergency was last declared for Paris in 2005, this is the first time it's been declared for the entire nation.

If I was in Paris right now, I'd be wondering whether I'm going to be allowed to have church on Sunday.

It's too soon to process all the implications of this, but I fear domestic terrorism is likely to become the new normal. To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't seen anything like this sooner.

I grew up during the IRA's mainland terror campaign. That eventually ended through negotiation. Can/will this?

(I passed through Paris on Thursday and am still waiting for news of some friends living there. )
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Why Paris?

Apparently witnesses at the Bataclan concert hall said the attackers there shouted, “this is for Syria,”

But France isn't the only country with airstrikes on Syria......
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think (but am not sure) that due to the ethnic makeup of its population, France has a lot more people on its territory that have gone off to fight in Syria - and come back battle-hardened - than other neighbouring European countries. I strongly suspect the attacks will turn out to have been perpetrated by French nationals.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Well, that's not how I was expecting my Friday night to go...

Leave work last night, yay it's the weekend, and head round to my best friend's place where she is throwing a party. She lives on the Canal St Martin at République. We get there about 8:30.

A while later, we hear her housemate on the phone, saying "What do you mean a shooting? Are you ok?" and realise it's happened five minutes round the corner. Sometime after, another friend arrives at the party, a big very tough-looking Corsican dude who's actually a teddy bear on the inside. He's walked past the Casa Nostra pizzeria and seen the carnage inside. Get me a drink, he says, I'm trying not to think about it. He was very shaken.

Off and on, people are on their smartphones and starting to realise what's happening. The crunch comes at about 11:30 when are going to have to go home. Big debate. Are we going to go outside? Apparently the metro stations are closed. In the end we decide we are going to have to get home sooner or later and leave. Downstairs police are everywhere in full combat gear, bulletproof vests and helmets. Nonetheless when we go up to Robocop and ask where we can get a metro, they are helpful and polite and send us off up the road in the opposite direction from all the mayhem.

Getting home takes bloody ages because progressively more and more stations are being closed in the neighbourhood and we have to take a tour pretty much the entire way round the city. Made it in the end.

This morning I'm more angry than upset. This is the second time this has happened to us in less than a year. Parisians deserve better than this.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think (but am not sure) that due to the ethnic makeup of its population, France has a lot more people on its territory that have gone off to fight in Syria - and come back battle-hardened - than other neighbouring European countries. I strongly suspect the attacks will turn out to have been perpetrated by French nationals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
But for what reason? What do they hope to achieve?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
But for what reason? What do they hope to achieve?

---

The foot soldiers probably hope to achieve 15 minutes of fame and go out in a blaze of glory. I agree with mr cheesy that it is really hard to understand their thinking. Some of the people I meet in prison are in danger of being radicalised and it's one of my medium-term intellectual challenges to work out their worldview.

However I think it's a mistake to think the brains of the operation are mad. In all seriousness, some of them probably studied military strategy at Cambridge.

I think they are operating with a religiously inspired Middle Ages worldview but one that is pretty coherent. The depressing thing is that it is so far removed from the post-modern Western one that it's difficult to see how they can live alongside each other.

As I see it, their primary aim is to stop the West interfering with Ummah: territory they believe to be allotted to Muslims.

Thus anything that destabilises a country doing just that is a good thing in their eyes.

In terms of the timing, Paris is hosting the climate summit in just a few weeks, and the Euro 2016 soccer tournament next summer, so you can imagine the security nightmare all this must pose.

But perhaps more significantly, we have regional elections coming up with the first round in less than a month. The anti-immigration, pro-security far-right Front National is expected to do well and may even win control of a region. These attacks will polarise the debate and become the defining issue of the campaign. If the far right make big gains, immigrants will be further stigmatized and excluded, and be excellent recruits for jihad.

(Initial Facebook responses from some local Christians suggest they might vote along those lines )

[glad to hear from you LVER. You were indeed close to the action there]

[ 14. November 2015, 07:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What mr cheesy said.

My immediate reaction last night was that it was a radical jihadist attack and so it has proven.

Nevertheless, that didn't trigger the kind of response generated by romanlion and Kaplan Corday here.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think IS wish to do two things in the short to medium term.

1. Displace Al Qaeda as the main organisation for global militant responses on behalf of Islam

2. See militant Salafiism established as the dominant voice of Islam.

Destabilising, getting global publicity, creating fear and violent retaliatory responses, these are all grist to both mills. The clear intention is to recruit more to their cause and make sure that the recruits will come under the IS (rather than the Al Qaeda) umbrella.

Although not a formally recognised state or country, they appear to be intent on building a large army to enable their religious, political and global ambitions.

[ 14. November 2015, 07:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Agreed guys. So what will the infinitely more powerful West do in the face of such a rabies outbreak? We are slow to wrath, but my God, our wrath IS apocalyptic.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The problem is that bombs (thrown by either side) tend to reinforce ideologies rather than dismantle them, and secular states tend not to offer compelling ideological arguments.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
What may be of more immediate importance is how moderate Muslims in France respond. My big concern is whether there will be a backlash against mosques and individuals. I think that would play into IS hands.

I'm not sure how good Western intelligence is but if the locations of IS training camps are known, then I would have thought they would be immediate targets for drone attack.

But this isn't conventional war. There is no national government. no nation, no obvious uniformed military forces to be confronted. Dismantling the terror machine and its infrastructures looks to be a huge challenge.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Seven of the eight assailants blew themselves up!

It's an unreal situation.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure how good Western intelligence is but if the locations of IS training camps are known, then I would have thought they would be immediate targets for drone attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
But for what reason? What do they hope to achieve?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think they move the training centres around, precisely for that reason. GCHQ and others are listening to the "chatter", trying to pin-point. It's ongoing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Why Paris?

Apparently witnesses at the Bataclan concert hall said the attackers there shouted, “this is for Syria,”

But France isn't the only country with airstrikes on Syria......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would guess that if the Western Intelligence agencies knew the location of any ISIS trainig camps they would have already been attacked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

This 2012 article from the Guardian sums up the problem The Algerians still treated as 2nd class citizens

This in no way justifies massacres but provides some context as to why Islamist terrorist strikes might me more frequent in France than in other countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

This 2012 article from the Guardian sums up the problem The Algerians still treated as 2nd class citizens

This in no way justifies massacres but provides some context as to why Islamist terrorist strikes might me more frequent in France than in other countries.

---

There's another angle to this, in that it is possible that the terrorists targeted France precisely because these fault lines are known to exist in the hope that a much more extreme response is triggered, which leads to more alienation and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What may be of more immediate importance is how moderate Muslims in France respond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What may be of more immediate importance is how moderate Muslims in France respond.

---

I would say, rather, that it's more important how French people respond to moderate Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
rolyn. It's about proportionality. That's what 'we' do. Until 'they' cross the line and then the gloves come off. They've crossed it twice now. Raqqa's days are numbered. Putting my tin hat on, I'd use a Tu-160 to leaflet it at 05:00 giving a quarter of a million people a generous 12 hours to leave, followed by a maximum naval cruise missile strike on the dot at 17:00, Tu-95 carpet bombing at 17:10 and airborne landings to mop up and run down from the cauterized heart.

You only have to do it every 10 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


I think marginalised and relationally isolated people in desperate search of a moral compass drift towards fighting in Syria because they see it as a way of infusing meaning into their lives, a cause opposed to the system which has never done them any favours, with a vague (and for them, missing) spiritual dimension as a bonus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We also need to reduce the pool of "radicalisable" people. Which means we need to reduce those who feel marginalised, oppressed and hard done by. Which means we need to actively oppose those in our nations who would seek to define Muslims as an unwelcome "other", we need to fight racism, Islamophobia and all the other forces that seek to make the Muslims in our lands second class citizens. We need actively welcome people into our societies as equals. We need to actively campaign against actions that lead to increased inequality within our nations. And, we need to find better ways of dealing with international relationships than bombs and bullets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We also need to reduce the pool of "radicalisable" people. Which means we need to reduce those who feel marginalised, oppressed and hard done by. Which means we need to actively oppose those in our nations who would seek to define Muslims as an unwelcome "other", we need to fight racism, Islamophobia and all the other forces that seek to make the Muslims in our lands second class citizens. We need actively welcome people into our societies as equals. We need to actively campaign against actions that lead to increased inequality within our nations. And, we need to find better ways of dealing with international relationships than bombs and bullets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
An article here made a rather interesting point in relation to the Schengen agreement that hadn't occurred to me: "The free movement of people across multiple borders means Europe's security agencies have no idea who is actually in their country."

It also said this made it more difficult to track weapons.

I hadn't really thought about the significance of France closing its borders in that context. I mean, a country closing its borders in response is not surprising, but I'd forgotten that normally France's borders are wide open and there's no record of people moving from country to country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I get apocalyptic and end times thinking, and wonder where the next Sarajevo is. Bin Laden thought the Sept 11 attacks would create it. The Project for a New American Century thought it would too (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, other pre 2001 radical American neoconservatives wanted a Pearl Harbour like event so America could justify domination, which has certainly helped conspiracy theories). It does make me wonder if 150 or 4000 lives are Stalin's mere statistic, and an unstable Middle East merely an economic policy. Wars and rumours or wars, terror, drones - all are good for business. We are prepared via our governments and international organizations to use up people like any other commidity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Beyond a certain level of fanaticism, I don't think you can be talked down from the extreme position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
An article here made a rather interesting point in relation to the Schengen agreement that hadn't occurred to me: "The free movement of people across multiple borders means Europe's security agencies have no idea who is actually in their country."

It also said this made it more difficult to track weapons.

I hadn't really thought about the significance of France closing its borders in that context. I mean, a country closing its borders in response is not surprising, but I'd forgotten that normally France's borders are wide open and there's no record of people moving from country to country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Beyond a certain level of fanaticism, I don't think you can be talked down from the extreme position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Beyond a certain level of fanaticism, I don't think you can be talked down from the extreme position.

---

But the hope, is it not, is that people can be talked to BEFORE they get to that level. You can't get them out of the tower, but you can perhaps prevent them climbing the ladder in the first place. Or at least some of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
ISIS does not have an established HQ in one local.

---

quote:

---

Its leadership is spread out and they move in largely unpredictable patterns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

There will also need to be work on how to track those who are returning from the jihad in Syria and prevent the radicalization of disaffected Muslim youth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
ISIS does not have an established HQ in one local.

---

Yes, it does - in Raqqa.

quote:

---

Its leadership is spread out and they move in largely unpredictable patterns.

---

It has a clear leader - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was declared caliph last year. The leadership is not spread out in the way al-Qaeda's leadership is/was, because ISIS holds territory. If it's unpredictable, I think that's because we have failed to take them seriously and have poor intel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, I read it at the time and it was the first link in my first post on this page.

---

Great minds and all that!
 

---

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Well, that's not how I was expecting my Friday night to go...


This morning I'm more angry than upset. This is the second time this has happened to us in less than a year. Parisians deserve better than this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We also need to reduce the pool of "radicalisable" people. Which means we need to reduce those who feel marginalised, oppressed and hard done by. Which means we need to actively oppose those in our nations who would seek to define Muslims as an unwelcome "other", we need to fight racism, Islamophobia and all the other forces that seek to make the Muslims in our lands second class citizens. We need actively welcome people into our societies as equals. We need to actively campaign against actions that lead to increased inequality within our nations. And, we need to find better ways of dealing with international relationships than bombs and bullets.

---

You can pray for this. But will we actually do anything at all at all at all? Necessarily it would involve leaving lots of resource money in the countries where the resources are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And in fact I think efforts to identify the radicalisable would likely make things worse (racial profiling, suspension of human rights and so on).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
ISIS does not have an established HQ in one local.

---

Yes, it does - in Raqqa.

quote:

---

Its leadership is spread out and they move in largely unpredictable patterns.

---

It has a clear leader - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was declared caliph last year. The leadership is not spread out in the way al-Qaeda's leadership is/was, because ISIS holds territory. If it's unpredictable, I think that's because we have failed to take them seriously and have poor intel.

---

Yes Ruth, thinking IS is like Al Quaeda is a grave mistake & one that has led us to not take them seriously enough.


This article from The Atlantic, March 2015 offers interesting insights into ISIS What ISIS really want

---

quote:

---

Allan Cresswell
We need to pursue policies leading to raising equality and dignity, policies that raise the standards of living of the poor, that provide them opportunities to work and improve their own lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Nevertheless, that didn't trigger the kind of response generated by romanlion and Kaplan Corday here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
it must be pretty exhausting to the millions of Muslims who just want to get on with their everyday lives to be expected to comment on and condemn what was done by some random horrible person they've never met.

---

quote:

---

No other group experiences that as much right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The reports of British jihadis taking copies of Islam for Dummies to Syria would tend to confirm that among the foot soldiers religion is not the primary motivation. Article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re radicalization and deradicalization:

Back in January, NPR's "Fresh Air" had a long interview with Maajid Nawaz (article, transcript, and audio here), who grew up in Essex, England; became an Islamist recruiter: quit, returned to England, and founded the Quilliam Foundation "counter-extremism think tank". He is also the author of Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism.

IIRC, it was a really good, honest interview.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:

These men and women are unlikely to be the truly devout Muslim raised in a deep faith setting with a maturing and developing faith. They are the new convert, who is motivated as much by the loss of their old faith in the secular west as in their current faith in the Islamic World. We know this from these boards where we have seen the zeal of the recent convert so often.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:

These men and women are unlikely to be the truly devout Muslim raised in a deep faith setting with a maturing and developing faith. They are the new convert, who is motivated as much by the loss of their old faith in the secular west as in their current faith in the Islamic World. We know this from these boards where we have seen the zeal of the recent convert so often.

---

The idea that those who are attracted to IS are stupid recent converts to Islam is a load of old bollocks. People that have been known to have left to Syria are from various social groups and are of various ages.

Some of those we know about are recent converts because they were recruited into the propaganda publicity machine that IS spent so much effort on. But there are a fuckload of other people who we know little about who do not meet this profile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re radicalization and deradicalization:

Back in January, NPR's "Fresh Air" had a long interview with Maajid Nawaz (article, transcript, and audio here), who grew up in Essex, England; became an Islamist recruiter: quit, returned to England, and founded the Quilliam Foundation "counter-extremism think tank". He is also the author of Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism.

IIRC, it was a really good, honest interview.

---

<dons tin hat>
I've always thought that the narrative from Quilliam is a bit too neat and tidy and the whole thing sounds like a trying-too-hard propaganda counter-insurgency effort by the CIA/MI6.

The whole Tommy Robinson episode was particularly weird - particularly given what he has been doing/saying recently on the immigration crisis.

In his case, leaving one far-right group into the arms of our favourite de-brainwashing thinktank has not apparently prevented him from associating with other far-right racists.

</removes tin hat>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
an excess of Pu239 might help...

---

An excess of Pu239. Either that's to build more nuclear power stations using MOX fuel, or development of breeder reactors that use 239Pu and natural uranium. Or, it's a suggestion that a nuclear bomb is used.

I fail to see any relevant benefit for either approach in the circumstances facing us in the face of terrorist acts.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, peeps (I think).

Latest news is that France has flown off to Jolly Well Bash IS Up. No surprise there (and I can't honestly say I blame 'em).

Do we now refer to 9/11, 7/7, and 13/11?

I.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
deano! Where ya bin baby? You were on my mind last week. Think of the Devil and he appears!
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
RuthW

In June 2015 the US Air Force claimed it destroyed ISIS headquarters.

In October 2015 the Russian Air Force claimed it destroyed ISIS headquarters

Trying to destroy the headquarters of ISIS is like playing Wack O Mole. It keeps popping up.

Moreover according to the New York TimesThe Islamic State’s reclusive leader has empowered his inner circle of deputies as well as regional commanders in Syria and Iraq with wide-ranging authority, a plan to ensure that if he or other top figures are killed, the organization will quickly adapt and continue fighting, American and Iraqi intelligence officials say.

Yes, we have to go after the recognized leadership. However, it will take a long time to identify the various levels of leadership; but just killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will not make the threat go away overnight.

I stand by what I have said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Thanks, peeps (I think).

Latest news is that France has flown off to Jolly Well Bash IS Up. No surprise there (and I can't honestly say I blame 'em).

Do we now refer to 9/11, 7/7, and 13/11?

I.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
deano! Where ya bin baby? You were on my mind last week. Think of the Devil and he appears!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The reports of British jihadis taking copies of Islam for Dummies to Syria would tend to confirm that among the foot soldiers religion is not the primary motivation. Article.

---

That's an account of two who did. How widespread that is, is anybody's guess, but I'm guessing that it isn't that widespread given that many attended mosques regularly or became devout before they arrived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
RIP....

As helped along by the religion of "P"

an excess of Pu239 might help...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
RIP....

As helped along by the religion of "P"

an excess of Pu239 might help...

---

Against who and where?

---

• drones which accidentally kill people
• militants who pervert the name of Christianity - including the KKK
• nationalists who use the symbols of religion to promote hatred
• the IRA, ETA and other quote unquote "Christian" terrorists
• Christian militas in places like oh, South Sudan, who have been committing barbaric acts

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

---

More to the point, they are the primary victims in this. Even this weekend whilst the work of these barbaric murdering fools in Paris was plastered all over the TV, hundreds were killed in attacks in Lebanon. I don't doubt that tens or hundreds were killed in various other incidents throughout the Middle East, and it is fair to assume that the vast majority of victims were Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
molopata wrote:

Many of these terrorists are being created in the midst of normal, law-abiding Muslims, and as such, the very people who are better placed than anyone else in society to work against radicalisation. Admitting to and then addressing such problems in one's midst is of course a painful and arduous process. However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Of course said friend was more worried about that, considering there are fewer than 200 dead in Paris and thousands of Muslim refugees, that is an incredibly logical concern. Hell, there are enough people worried about the wounded, injured, and scared in Paris that I'm not wasting much worry on them either. They have richer and more useful people than I supporting them. The refugees on the other hand will be more attacked because of this and might actually be helped by the little tangible piece I can put my worry to.

---

Sorry Gwai, that was not his concern. He was concerned about Muslims in a general, abstract way - nothing to do with refugees.

And for the record, a sizeable proportion of the refugees are Christians anyhow.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Saying "Phelps is unchristian" doesn't necessarily mean "he is not our responsibility".
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I can see what you're getting at but what are the imans supposed to say?

If the Andres Breivik thing were to happen on a wider scale then you can be assured that Christian leaders of whatever stripe would be saying, 'It's got nothing to do with us, these actions are un-Christian ...'

I don't think that anyone who is saying that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with ISIS are also saying that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS at all ... what they are saying is that the jihadists have got hold of a twisted interpretation/application of Islam ...

The difficulty is that those who have gone down the route of saying that Islam shouldn't really be like that and that ISIS aren't representative have - inadvertently - played into the hands of the Islamophobes. I've seen lots of right-wing Americans (and others) having a go at Obama for apparently refusing to acknowledge a link between ISIS and Islam - as though Islam itself is really to blame and all Muslims are guilty - potentially or in actuality.

It's hard to think of a neat, soundbite-y way for politicians and religious leaders to say, 'We recognise that there are extremist elements within Islam just as there are in other religions - but this doesn't represent the mainstream or the majority view among Muslims as a whole.'

That's part of the difficulty.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Molopata,

You seem remarkably expert in these matters. Would it be worth volunteering your expertise to the security services instead of posting to a website read by a few hundred on a good day?

FWIW if we are going to eradicate radicalisation it will have to be a "hearts and minds" operation, and a vast community of second-class citizens such as the six million Muslims in Frances, mostly in crowded cities, is going to take some turning round. They certainly can't do it themselves.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
molopata wrote:

I didn't say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, however, radicalisation is occurring in their midst. They are therefore best placed, and as such responsible in a coherent society to fight it.

I'm curious how you know these things. Do you have evidence that radicalization is occurring 'in their midst'? I know that in London there were certain radical preachers, for example, at Finsbury Park mosque, who were later arrested.

But you seem to be suggesting that mosques in general have a radicalization strand going on. Any citations on this?

I think a lot of radicalization goes on via the internet, not in mosques.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quetzalcoatl, any reason why you've lost the ability to properly code the quotes of other posters? Any chance you can return to using the correct code, please?

[ 16. November 2015, 16:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
radicalisation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And more to the point, how often is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Coptic Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the pastor of the small Evangelical church down the street, the charismatic minister of that independent chapel or the average pew-dweller in any British church asked to apologise for

• drones which accidentally kill people
• militants who pervert the name of Christianity - including the KKK
• nationalists who use the symbols of religion to promote hatred
• the IRA, ETA and other quote unquote "Christian" terrorists
• Christian militas in places like oh, South Sudan, who have been committing barbaric acts

Let's say it is almost never. And why the fuck should they? Why should some white guy with a keyboard get to decide when other predominantly brown-skinned (with a history of social deprivation and antagonism by the majority community) have apologised and acting enough to stop murdering idiots that had nothing to do with them.

No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I can't think of a better working definition right now than "willing to actually start killing people more or less at random for reasons beyond my immediate ability to explain". Can anyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:


First of all the problems of the examples you name do not purport to have Christian goals (e.g. it is not the Church which is launching drones but a nation state, ETA is inherently a political organisation, IRA probably also, the Protestants in Ulster, yes, they purport to be speaking for my branch of Christianity against another and they are as such my responsibility as far as I can to work against, certainly as far as they appear in my vicinity).

---

quote:

---

Then secondly, as for your last paragraph, you unnecessarily turn a religious question into a racial one. I am also not sure whether you are equating me to the white guy with the keyboard. If so, that would be a serious allegation as you would be calling me a racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Molopata,

You seem remarkably expert in these matters. Would it be worth volunteering your expertise to the security services instead of posting to a website read by a few hundred on a good day?

FWIW if we are going to eradicate radicalisation it will have to be a "hearts and minds" operation, and a vast community of second-class citizens such as the six million Muslims in Frances, mostly in crowded cities, is going to take some turning round. They certainly can't do it themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW if we are going to eradicate radicalisation it will have to be a "hearts and minds" operation, and a vast community of second-class citizens such as the six million Muslims in Frances, mostly in crowded cities, is going to take some turning round. They certainly can't do it themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you seem to be suggesting that mosques in general have a radicalization strand going on. Any citations on this?

I think a lot of radicalization goes on via the internet, not in mosques.

---

No, I do not have a citation on this, because it is not what I am claiming. There are certainly plenty of media citations (and not just from the Torygraph) that it does occur quite frequently, but I cannot say what the balance between internet radicalisation is versus mosque radicalistion is, and I couldn't say in what percentage of mosques, but I don't think that is central to the argument. Certainly in Switzerland there have been a string of reports of radicalisation taking place in mosques (which don't have minarets, of course ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
radicalisation

---

I've decided this word is the latest to fall victim to what I call the curse of "sustainable development".

It's an amorphous term that means whatever it's expedient to mean at the time.

I can't think of a better working definition right now than "willing to actually start killing people more or less at random for reasons beyond my immediate ability to explain". Can anyone else?

---

quote:

---

No, I do not have a citation on this, because it is not what I am claiming. There are certainly plenty of media citations (and not just from the Torygraph) that it does occur quite frequently, but I cannot say what the balance between internet radicalisation is versus mosque radicalistion is, and I couldn't say in what percentage of mosques, but I don't think that is central to the argument. Certainly in Switzerland there have been a string of reports of radicalisation taking place in mosques (which don't have minarets, of course [Biased] ).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:


First of all the problems of the examples you name do not purport to have Christian goals (e.g. it is not the Church which is launching drones but a nation state, ETA is inherently a political organisation, IRA probably also, the Protestants in Ulster, yes, they purport to be speaking for my branch of Christianity against another and they are as such my responsibility as far as I can to work against, certainly as far as they appear in my vicinity).

---

Funny how you can list reasons why these people are nothing to do with you and yet Muslims are not allowed, according to you, to have similar reasons for thinking that the radicals have nothing to do with them. Goose and gander.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then secondly, as for your last paragraph, you unnecessarily turn a religious question into a racial one. I am also not sure whether you are equating me to the white guy with the keyboard. If so, that would be a serious allegation as you would be calling me a racist.

---

I guess this is only a problem if you are white and have a keyboard. As it happens, I was thinking in general of the many white keyboard warriors who seem to enjoy using casual racism about Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]I thought that large numbers of French people of N. African origin, are pretty secular, and quite a lot don't attend mosque. The interesting question is whether they will be allowed to be secular, or will lumped into the category of 'French Muslims', who of course, must be asked to repudiate Islamist violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Of course said friend was more worried about that, considering there are fewer than 200 dead in Paris and thousands of Muslim refugees, that is an incredibly logical concern. Hell, there are enough people worried about the wounded, injured, and scared in Paris that I'm not wasting much worry on them either. They have richer and more useful people than I supporting them. The refugees on the other hand will be more attacked because of this and might actually be helped by the little tangible piece I can put my worry to.

---

Sorry Gwai, that was not his concern. He was concerned about Muslims in a general, abstract way - nothing to do with refugees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
The category error is when you say "Muslims ought to ..." It would be good if Muslims did something about radicalisation in their midst, and they are already doing that. This is great, and it is very good to keep the dialogue about this with them, as is already happening.

But you have no fucking right at all to say that Muslims ought to do anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.
And it happens all the time in public and private discourse. In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.

---

quote:

---

molopata: No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.

---

quote:

---

molopata: In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
In many ways mosques and Muslim organisations are simply ducking all responsibility by repeating the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-and-therefore-these-attacks-are-nothing-to-do-with-Islam fallacy.

<snip>

However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
I didn't say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, however, radicalisation is occurring in their midst.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

molopata: No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.

---

Just because society places some responsibilities upon us in general doesn't give you the right to bestow responsibilities on anyone you want.

quote:

---

molopata: In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.

---

Stupid wordplay. "You don't have the right to do this" doesn't mean "I oblige you not to do this."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
In many ways mosques and Muslim organisations are simply ducking all responsibility by repeating the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-and-therefore-these-attacks-are-nothing-to-do-with-Islam fallacy.

<snip>

However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:
I didn't say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, however, radicalisation is occurring in their midst.

---

Can you make up your mind about this? Are ordinary Muslims trying to "pass the buck" and evade the consequences of things they're responsible for, or are are they actually not responsible for the things for which you claim they're "ducking all responsibility"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But no-one has a right to look at something that goes wrong in society that I personally have no part in, point at me, demand an answer, say what I ought to do about it, and hold me accountable if my response is not to their liking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Terror funding to be cut off, says Cameron.

This does read rather like there is such a thing as "Terror funding" and implies that we in the West do it. Still, we have a track record of it in the Middle East having supplied the Taliban plus various groups in Libya, Iraq and Syria, many of whom have turned out to be les friendly than was hoped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that's when it starts to overlap with guilt by association, as it suggests that because X is a Muslim that he has a moral responsibility to do do something about jihadism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by molopata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But no-one has a right to look at something that goes wrong in society that I personally have no part in, point at me, demand an answer, say what I ought to do about it, and hold me accountable if my response is not to their liking.

---

Hmmm. A statement like this would mean that is perfectly ok to walk past someone who has seriously injured herself falling off a bike and just shrug rather than provide first aid and call an ambulance.

But back to society - if I am best positioned to solve a problem, I don't think it is unreasonable that someone suggest that I take action. That is after all part of being a functioning part of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So all Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, even if they're not responsible for Islamist violence? Thanks for clearing that up!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's guilt by association, which is highly inflammatory in a situation like this. Very dangerous. Watch Marine Le Pen use it.

---

Now the two of you - compounding one another - are getting carried away. This is what happens when somebody misconstrues a complex statement and then tries to turn it into something as subtle as a Sun headline. And then someone takes that as a direct quote from the original source and restates it with an additional flourish.

No, Crœsos, I did NOT say that. If anything I am saying (using the text you provide as a frame as far as it goes) "Muslims [not all, but practically all] are NOT responsible for Islamist violence, but that they bear societal responsibility to work against it happening in their communities. This is grounded in the assumption that they are best placed to do so due to their relative proximity to those being 'radicalised' [for want of a better term, but used as it is widely used]. However, many Muslims and some official Muslim bodies [but not all, maybe not even most] make statements which deny any link between 'radicalised' Muslims [who may or may not be Muslims, depending on your particular position] and the religion of Islam."
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Saying "this is not Islam" may very well mean: "we won't tolerate this in our community".

For the umpteenth time, you don't understand this sentence.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's obvious why various Muslim authorities deny any link between jihadism and Islam, because there isn't one, except that asserted by the jihadis.

But there is no objective interpretation of religion, so it's reasonable of imams to say, this is not Islam, (according to their interpretation).

And of course, the right wing are itching to say that Islam is intrinsically violent or just bad, but of course, they have no evidence for that, it's just another interpretation.
 

---

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I agree that if Muslims see someone radicalising in their community up to the point of becoming violent, they have a moral duty to try to do something about it. This doesn't mean that this person completely becomes their responsibility, but at least they have some kind of duty, at least to report this, either to their own structures, or to secular authority.

I don't see that saying "this is not Islam" is a way of fleeing this responsibility. Rather to the contrary actually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
the national representative of the French Muslim Council admitted, in his post-attack declaration, that justification for violence could be found in the Koran if it was interpreted literally

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
The thing is: I can't speak for them. I'm not their spokesperson, I'm not even a Muslim.

If I may venture a guess, I feel that "It has nothing to do with Islam" means something like

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
deano! Where ya bin baby? You were on my mind last week. Think of the Devil and he appears!

---

Martin60, please apply your "love your enemies" stance to yourself, at least in terms of what you post here - or avail yourself of Hell.

/hosting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The interesting thing is that IS use the same logic - collective guilt. You are a Westerner, therefore you are responsible for various atrocities carried out by the West, and you are obliged to pay for this. I'm not sure why collective guilt is used so commonly in times of conflict, I suppose it helps to dehumanize and de-individualize people, who then can be manipulated in our narcissistic power-craving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Back from my interfaith meeting, one relevant insight I learned at it is that the national representative of the French Muslim Council admitted, in his post-attack declaration, that justification for violence could be found in the Koran if it was interpreted literally - and that was the problem of the jihadists.

This was taken as some degree of ownership of the problem by a Muslim representative, and an acknowledgement that the way out of the problem involved allowing the possibility of (re)interpretation of sacred texts: something Judaism and Christianity have long lived with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Since when has Christianity claimed to have a monopoly on good or moral behaviour?

---

quote:

---

Don't panic. Terrorism is a very small problem. And any western president or prime minister who thinks they'll severely damage ISIS by dropping bombs on its fighters is terribly mistaken...."The scale of the terrorism is tiny compared to its presence in the media,"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This article seems useful. Gwynne Dyer's opinion is worth considering, viz.,

quote:

---

Don't panic. Terrorism is a very small problem. And any western president or prime minister who thinks they'll severely damage ISIS by dropping bombs on its fighters is terribly mistaken...."The scale of the terrorism is tiny compared to its presence in the media,"

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes I know MT, but the article is not about them, it is about the scale of terror attacks against the western countries being perceived to be much more substantial than they truly are.d

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
They show a society that it is not able to secure itself against deadly attacks. And that is terrifying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[qb] The attacks are in large part symbolic, and to be successfully symbolic they do not need to be large. They show a society that it is not able to secure itself against deadly attacks. And that is terrifying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, it raised the question of why we did this for the French victims, but not for the victims of similar recent atrocities in places such as Nigeria and Lebanon.

Presumably it is because we identify more easily with people from Europe than from the ME or Africa - the old journalistic cliche that the death of one white person is more intersting than the deaths of a hundred black ones.

Or perhaps we subconsciously assume that catastrophes of some sort are always happening in the non-Western world and that therefore they are used to it!

Any other experiences of, or thoughts on, the current commemorations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
there is a prima facie case for violent jihad in the Quran but the vast majority of Muslims ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's too facile to say "Christianity is inherently peaceable and Islam is inherently violent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
That also depends on interpretation. Both Gulf wars caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. And both were led by US presidents who literally said they were doing this in the name of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ironically, the reaction against the radicalism (de-radicalisation) may be pushing some towards the extremes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
suspect, on the basis of history, that it's not too difficult to build a case for violence in the name of Christ from the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

We have been over all this before.

There is not a single verse in the NT which condones violence in the name of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There is not a single verse in the NT which condones violence in the name of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword
Matthew 10:34

---

quote:

---

if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:36

---

quote:

---

rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants
Romans 13:4

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
suspect, on the basis of history, that it's not too difficult to build a case for violence in the name of Christ from the NT.

---

It's not difficult, it's impossible.

We have been over all this before.

There is not a single verse in the NT which condones violence in the name of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
As a matter of interest, does the Qu'ran have anything equivalent to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry to have to raise this again but - most Muslims are decent people in the sense that most 'Constantinian' Christians are decent people; their decency is undermined by a belief in the possibility of a 'religious state', Muslim or Christian as the case may be, which they think can justify warfare, persecution etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Problem is that whereas Christianity emphatically does not teach the idea of a 'religious state/kingdom of this world' for Jesus, and therefore those who follow that tack are bad and disobedient Christians, however well-meaning, in Islam the idea of the 'religious state' is built in from square one in both the actions of Muhammad and the teaching of the Quran. IS are likely going to lengths that would worry Muhammad - but he sowed the wind to which they are the whirlwind. Suras 8 and 9 of the Quran are really problematic in this respect - even on a 'moderate' interpretation they assume the idea of an Islamic state and teach war on behalf of Islam and persecution/discrimination by the Islamic state against both pagans and 'people of the Book'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
my husband’s smartphone had geolocated him and broadcast to all and sundry via his facebook that he was in the danger zone. This is all quite new, I think.

---

quote:

---

It's too facile to say "Christianity is inherently peaceable and Islam is inherently violent", and I believe it would be unhelpful on French streets today to congratulate peaceable Muslims for being bad Muslims. I prefer to think of them more in terms of good God-fearers, like Cornelius.

At least some Muslim scholars appear to think a reinterpretation of the violent bits of the Koran is a legitimate stance. Do you wish to deny them that option?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I was interested to see, last night, on Eastenders, a programme I usually abjure, but I had a friend round who watches it, a piece including a character's favourite Surah. This was then quoted in Arabic, followed by a translation, which was about praying for and doing good first to those near you, and then to the stranger and the traveller - interpreted as treating kindly the whole world. The character explained that this, to him, summed up what Islam was about.

I don't know if Eastenders does the Archers thing of inserting short bits about topical matters at short notice, but it seemed most apposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I also agree that the media really do act as a distorting mirror in all this, but this in and of itself frames the debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I also agree that the media really do act as a distorting mirror in all this, but this in and of itself frames the debate.

---

To me, the greatest distortion of the media isn't the message of loss and tragedy, to the families and friends of those who died, were seriously injured or have been traumatised it is a great tragedy. It is natural, human, to share in the grief of others.

The biggest issue is that the media message is "something needs to be done". Well, yes. But, the need to do something is no greater today than it was on Thursday. The push from the media to do something results in governments doing something, anything as long as it's something. Doing something inorder to do something is not likely to result in that something being the best thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
my husband’s smartphone had geolocated him and broadcast to all and sundry via his facebook that he was in the danger zone. This is all quite new, I think.

---

It was during the LA riots that I first noticed the phenomenon that the further away one is from a disaster, the closer contacts in the vicinity appear to be. The first message of sympathy I had, hundreds of kilometres away, was from Australia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think it's a coincidence either that the Russians have come out today and announced that the Sharm plane crash was a terrorist act. The heat it now on, and any justification for action is fair game. No media required....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
But surely the government would be inclined to "do something" even if the Daily Mail or the Sun just reported the factual number of deaths and left it at that.

I don't think the media is responsible for the government's urge to do something. The need to do something is more urgent than last week as far as they are concerned because it's all come a lot closer to home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
To be fair, we were *very* close to the drama. We were about 300m away from the restaurant/bar shootings. One was on the corner of the street we were on and other two were in the street parallel. We passed right in front of the pizzeria less than an hour before the attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think it's a coincidence either that the Russians have come out today and announced that the Sharm plane crash was a terrorist act. The heat it now on, and any justification for action is fair game. No media required....

---

Your comment kind of proves my point.

Saying the Russians "came out" and "announced" the news implies you think they knew already. And where have they "announced" it if not in the media? And in what way is the "heat now on" in this respect in a way it wasn't before if not because of the media?

The media is part of the process, not least because of its propaganda potential. You only have to look at how events like this are portrayed in the media of different countries to become aware of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I Just don't get what FB was trying to do.

---

That's easy: drive traffic to their site and become an unavoidable part of social interchange for revenue purposes.

lowlands_boy, I suspect we read the same aviation forum and very good it is too (just not quite as well moderated as this one ). I'm all in favour of reading a breadth of information to make an informed opinion. The trouble is, few people can or do. And none of what you write disproves my point that your assertion that "the heat is (now) on" involves the media as more than a neutral reporting instrument.
 

---

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

<snip>

I'm now going to do something that goes against the core of my being. I admire the fact that David Cameron has not taken the opportunity to rush a motion through Parliament to authorise an increase in UK military action in Syria. We all know he wants to, and he could have even got away with it on Monday morning. But, he showed wisdom not to put that to the House when the anger and disgust over what happened on Friday would make a reasoned debate much harder. I feel I need to wash my hands after typing that ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Perhaps you could console yourself with the thought that he's just waiting for Corbyn to hang himself (or be hung, depending on your persuasion) for being soft on all this. Depending which media you read, there were various levels of disquiet in a Labour party meeting of MPs last night regarding Corbyn's position on "shoot to kill" policies.

Cameron might not have dived in with a parliamentary motion just yet, but he was sticking the boot into Corbyn about "needing to live in this world" in a speech last night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mmmm ... might be a pedantic point but mr cheesy's point about French Huguenots coming to this country at the same time as other Protestants were being forced out is a tad anachronistic.

My impression is that the main period of Huguenot migration to London came after the various Acts of Toleration and the end of outright persecution of Dissenters. We're talking from the 1680s onwards - to the early 1700s.

The only time that there was any significant movement of Protestant Dissenters out of this country was in 1620 with the Pilgrim Fathers - and how many of them were there - 120 or so?

There were individuals who fled to the Netherlands or elsewhere for conscientious reasons but we're not talking about mass migrations.

Sure, there were the ejections of 'non-conforming' clergy in the 1660s (up to a third of all the clergy) and Dissenters - including Baptists, Quakers, Independents and Presbyterians - had a hard time of it during Charles II's reign ... particularly in Scotland - but we're not talking about hundreds or thousands of people being forced out of the country.

Just sayin', these things need to be kept in perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I Just don't get what FB was trying to do.

---

That's easy: drive traffic to their site and become an unavoidable part of social interchange for revenue purposes.

lowlands_boy, I suspect we read the same aviation forum and very good it is too (just not quite as well moderated as this one ). I'm all in favour of reading a breadth of information to make an informed opinion. The trouble is, few people can or do. And none of what you write disproves my point that your assertion that "the heat is (now) on" involves the media as more than a neutral reporting instrument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Perhaps you could console yourself with the thought that he's just waiting for Corbyn to hang himself (or be hung, depending on your persuasion) for being soft on all this. Depending which media you read, there were various levels of disquiet in a Labour party meeting of MPs last night regarding Corbyn's position on "shoot to kill" policies.

Cameron might not have dived in with a parliamentary motion just yet, but he was sticking the boot into Corbyn about "needing to live in this world" in a speech last night.

---

Yet more loathsome individuals seeking cheap political capital out of tragedy. It's not just the Americans who do that.

Corbyn is not committed to a "shoot to kill" policy. Well, whoop-de-do. The UK doesn't have such a policy, that is a decision that is retained by the officer on the ground to determine whether the only way to protect the public is a lethal shot. We rely on the judgement of our police officers and the quality of their training to assess the situation as it is. Guess what, that's exactly the same position as Cameron has clearly stated recently. If Corbyn is soft on that, so is Cameron.

As for his reluctance to endorse military action, Corbyn is just maintaining the position he has always held. Which is the position anyone of intelligence living in this world would adopt. Yes, Daesh is an organisation, with leaders we can kill, with assets we can destroy. But, ultimately they are a manifestation of an idea. You can't destroy an idea with bombs, especially so when one of the central tenets of the idea is that infidels will seek to destroy you. Even if we managed to destroy Daesh, that will only leave room for a different jihadist group to rise up and fill the space we formed for them, more likely for several such groups to rise up. And, if they avoid the mutual in-fighting that exists between Al-qaida and Daesh and work together the world is in for another round of bad times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Really?

I'm a North Korean government news outlet reporting that the victorious, brave, honourable security services have foiled some dastardly terrorists seeking mayhem in Pyongyang. 8 terrorists were killed in a fierce gun-battle with some civilians being injured.

"Terrorists will never win," said our glorious leader as he visited the sick in hospital.

Hence the need for a free press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
We discussed Corbyn at great length on the threads we had when we was elected, but I think his difficulty here is that he now gets infinitely more media attention than he's been used to, and isn't very effective at using it. When asked about the "shoot to kill" policy he said

"I think you have to have security that prevents people from firing off weapons where you can"

If we can avoid getting into what is surely dead horse territory about US gun laws, then at least in Europe, that position is completely taken for granted, so it's not very valuable use of his exposure. He might have been much better to say

"I think it's important for the police to be able to maintain their operational independence to use that force when necessary, but I find it very unpleasant as an individual".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is the appropriate response to the Paris attacks to be upswing in war against the organization which sponsored them? Is it wise?

---

I don't think it is, but I think it is perhaps the only realistically viable political option available to Hollande right now. Anything that looks like a weak response would be a gift to Le Pen. I'm glad I'm not a politician and I can see why we're enjoined to pray for them
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Interesting that with all the talk about shooting people on the street, no-one has mentioned Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes as an example what can happen if dealing with someone who is not currently actively engaged with an attack.
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Er, what the heck is a "Constantinian Christian"?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Don't ask, Siegfried ...

Meanwhile, I didn't say that the ejection of non-conforming ministers was historically insignificant, mr cheesy. Far from it. Historically, it was very significant.

What I was saying was that they were ejecyed from the CofE not forced to leave the country. Aa far as I am aware, no Protestants of whatever stripe were being forced out of this country at the time that the Huguenots sought refuge here.

That doesn't mean that all was hunky-dory for Dissenters at that time.

All I'm saying is that whilst there was some migration for conacience sake we aren't talking about mass deportations or anything of that kind.

As it happens, I've got a lot of time for the 17th century Dissenters but some were clearly nuts - and some of the Scottish Covenanters would have made Ian Paisley look positively cuddly.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's clearly not impossible if you look dispassionately at history, as has been pointed out above.

you can't look back on its spiritual ancestry and say nobody in it believed that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

What I was saying was that they were ejecyed from the CofE not forced to leave the country. Aa far as I am aware, no Protestants of whatever stripe were being forced out of this country at the time that the Huguenots sought refuge here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if all of those haven't been used at some point to justify the use of violent action in the name of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's not hard to guess the exam results of a Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101 student who used the verses which you adduce to demonstrate that the NT teaches the use of violence to defend and spread Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would struggle to make such an argument.

I don't believe a word of that argument

The people thus arguing are, IMO, completely nuts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
the arguments can and have been made, but it is impossible to take them seriously as valid interpretations of the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't accept the basic worldview that we can have a "Christian nation" with laws derived from the Bible, a nation in which deviation from Christian belief (as defined by the nation) is a form of treason against the state, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it doesn't require much imagination. Which is probably part of why it was the normal way of thinking about the nation state for most of Christian history. Which doesn't, of course, necessarily make it right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that Daesh, and jihadist Islam in general, has brought into the nation state = kingdom of God thing in a big way. And, they have scriptures which from that position can easily be interpreted as advocating violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you really suggesting that everybody back in the day was merely deploying such "impossible" interpretations for expedient and cynical ends (or were plain stupid) and that nobody was making an honest and intelligent stab at understanding what the text meant to them?

---

quote:

---

And are you in the mean time reversing the argument exactly when it comes to Muslims and claiming that the only valid interpretation of the Koran that anyone can take seriously is one that enjoins violence?

---

Nope.

Simply pointing out that an interpretation of the Koran as endorsing religious violence is, and always has been, recognised as an at least, and probably lot more, valid handling of its text as the alternative.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My point was a pernickety and pedantic one, most certainly, mr cheesy.

Ok, 2 years isn't a long time, but my point was that the mass Huguenot migration to England (and subsequently Ireland too it seems) as well as other parts of Europe post-dated the Quaker migrations to Pennsylvania.

That's not to minimise the level of both high and low level pressure upon Quakers and other Dissenters. And whilst persecution/lack of religious tolerance was a major factor in the Pennsylvania experiment there were other factors involved too - as the article you linked to acknowledges ... William Penn saw it as a money-making enterprise to pay off his debts for one thing and there was also that utopian idea - common to many radical religious groups - of starting all over again from scratch and creating some form of alternative society ... in this case based on Quaker principles.

I'm not knocking that, all I'm saying is that the pressure/persecution facing Protestant dissenters in England was a lot less intense than that facing Huguenots in France ... all Huguenot pastors were exiled, many Huguenots were executed or sent to the galleys as slaves.

The Church of England didn't actually execute any Quakers - although Puritans in New England did.

The last person to be burnt at the stake for heresy in England was Edward Wightman in 1612. Sure, the authorities killed and executed Covenanters in Scotland in the 1670s and '80s - including the two women drowned at Wigtown in 1685 for refusing to swear an oath acknowledging James VII/II as head of the Kirk.



On t'other side of the coin we have the Taliban-esque behaviour of extreme Covenanters - who murdered the Archbishop of St Andrews in 1679 and the Fifth Monarchy Men who went on the rampage across London in January 1661 provoking a crack-down on Dissenters by the authorities.

I'm not excusing the pressure/persecution of Protestant Dissenters during the reigns of Charles II and James II - but you can understand why the royalist authorities were jumpy - after all, as far as they were concerned the 'sectaries' had murdered both the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury and been responsible for the Civil Wars.

As far as the Quakers go, Cromwell seems to have taken a fairly lenient view of them but you've only got to read the writings of John Bunyan to see how the Friends were regarded by even the other independent dissenting groups - as misguided heretics at best and a threat to the very fabric of society at worst.

I've come across Friends today who regard George Fox as being somewhat mentally unbalanced - although I doubt that many of his antics would earn him a place in the Ship's Fruitcake Zone these days ...

Anyhow, those are all pernickety points and your essential point holds, that French Protestant refugees were largely welcomed and tolerated here at the same time as other forms of indigeneous Protestant were pressurised or even persecuted.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's equally a problem for all those who don't believe that the NT endorses the coercive enforcement and adoption of Christianity, which I imagine includes everyone on the Ship, including yourself.

---

quote:

---

an interpretation of the Koran as endorsing religious violence is, and always has been, recognised as an at least, and probably lot more, valid handling of its text as the alternative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it doesn't require much imagination. Which is probably part of why it was the normal way of thinking about the nation state for most of Christian history. Which doesn't, of course, necessarily make it right.

---

I didn't say anything about it being right - just some above seem unable to believe that anyone could read the bible and get that from it.

That is a failure of imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
As a matter of interest, does the Qu'ran have anything equivalent to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you?"

---

Good and evil [conduct] are not equal. Repel [evil] with what is best. [If you do so,] behold, he between whom and you was enmity, will be as though he were a sympathetic friend. But none is granted it except those who are patient, and none is granted it except the greatly endowed. (Surah 41:34-35)

---

quote:

---

Good and evil [conduct] are not equal. Repel [evil] with what is best. [If you do so,] behold, he between whom and you was enmity, will be as though he were a sympathetic friend

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Boogie? I've read that three times now and I'm none the wiser. Any chance of a paraphrase or a bit of commentary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
And are you in the mean time reversing the argument exactly when it comes to Muslims and claiming that the only valid interpretation of the Koran that anyone can take seriously is one that enjoins violence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Here's the Guardian's take on the Eastenders' pre-recorded episode with the passage from the Qur'an.

A Muslim's take on the meaning of Islam.

As usual, the comments section is full of not-at-all typical-lefty-yogurt-knitting-sandal-wearing-naive-idiots who have come over from the Daily Mail to spread their version of the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
You don´t see any muslim nation with total religious freedom. Even the most "secular" islamic nations, like Turkey or Indonesia, would be considered terribly opressive in terms of religion by western standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, no violent interpretation of the Quran or the TaNaKh is necessary. They are full of 'redemptive' violence.

Jesus ISN'T. He's full of non-violent redemption.

It's not a matter of interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You'll have to clarify just what you think the "problem" is

---

quote:

---

On what basis do you discount the Muslim scholars referenced earlier that say otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, no violent interpretation of the Quran or the TaNaKh is necessary. They are full of 'redemptive' violence.

Jesus ISN'T. He's full of non-violent redemption.

It's not a matter of interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
YOU are stuck with what you outlined as the problem of previous Christians who thought it did - a problem which cannot be wriggled out of by attempting to cite different hermeneutics.

---

quote:

---

If a succeeeding generation of Christians adopts yet another hermeneutic and decides that the NT does in fact require them to practise holy war, is that going to retrospectively invalidate your present position?

---

quote:

---

The issue is whether Islam, in contrast to the NT, countenances religious violence, and in fact no branch of Islam, not even the relatively pacifist Sufis, has ever totally eschewed holy war.

As Molopata points out, it was practised by Islam's founder, which has to count for something.

Your "Muslim scholars" at no point renounce jihad per se, but simply discuss the circumstances and manner in which it can be fought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, er, what's the TaNaKh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Boogie? I've read that three times now and I'm none the wiser. Any chance of a paraphrase or a bit of commentary?

---

The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel (the evil) with one which is better (the good). Then he, between whom and you there was enmity (the enemy), will become as though he was a close friend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Secondly, you and Kaplan Corday keep skipping lightly over the Old Testament, unsurprisingly because it's chock-full of violence in God's name. Of course you can argue, and I think rightly so, that "things are different now", but Christianity is a history of applying new hermeneutics onto old texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, er, what's the TaNaKh? Jesus came in to a culture of extreme redemptive violence and ... redeemed it of VIOLENCE.

---

quote:

---

And well done for tacitly acknowledging the fundamental, integral violence of the Quran and therefore Islam.

---

quote:

---

What Islam needs is Jesus (...)
You, of all people, cannot hear?

---

I'm playing a long game .

First off, I don't think Islam needs Jesus, I think people need Jesus: all of us, as you say.

The question to my mind is: starting from where we are now, what is the best way of giving people (particularly Muslims, if you like) an opportunity to encounter Jesus?

My answer to this, from where I'm sitting, is:

(i) to pray and act for the peace of the city - which translates into lobbying and acting in favour of multi-faith secularity instead of secularism (the other alternatives as I seem them are either to attempt to proscribe religion altogether, or I suppose try for a "Christian" state again...).

Yes that means giving Islam a place along with everyone else, but I honestly think that's the best option on the table right now, and it's one for which I can produce what I feel to be a coherent theological argument.

I would rather a few "God-fearers" of any stripe than a whole horde of rabid secularists. And it gives lots more of room for the Church to demonstrate God's love and preach the Gospel.

Islam might have a challenge on its hands to modernize: in the meantime, let's see if the Church can rise to the challenge of "walking in God's love and giving it away".

(ii) trying my best to exemplify the values of the Kingdom of God at the most basic, day-to-day level of my life with the pepole I meet.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As so often, Eutychus reflects the voice of common sense.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re interpreting scriptures:

ISTM that goes with any revealed religion, scripture, tradition--you're stuck with the revelation, and have to make some sort of sense of it.

And it's not just "People of the Book" religions. Gandhi had that problem regarding a violent passage in his scriptures.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye. Gracious too. Most.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
You don´t see any muslim nation with total religious freedom. Even the most "secular" islamic nations, like Turkey or Indonesia, would be considered terribly opressive in terms of religion by western standards.

---

You find very few nations with "total religious freedom" - at the extremes no nation would permit religion that involved human sacrifice, even animal sacrifice would be too far for most.

I know a couple of Christians from Indonesia working here. From what I gather, major religions enjoy protection under Indonesian law, though minority and sectarian religions are not generally tolerated. So, you're OK in Indonesia as a Lutheran, Methodist or Catholic. But, Mormons or JWs can find themselves in trouble. Indonesian law prohibits "questioning a major religion" with potential lengthy imprisonment, which generally works as a universal blasphemy law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is a really odd argument - which seems to amount to "Islam is violence and Christianity is peace, therefore the solution is for Muslims to become Christians".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
YOU are stuck with what you outlined as the problem of previous Christians who thought it did - a problem which cannot be wriggled out of by attempting to cite different hermeneutics.

---

Why is this more of a problem for me than it is for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Because your hermeneutical relativism requires you to believe one thing, but simultaneously hold that other Christians in the past were right to believe(and that possibly Christians in the future will be justified in believing) something which you know to be manifestly untrue

---

quote:

---

Sometimes hermeneutical considerations are relevant, and sometimes they are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

We - and by that I mean youse guys - Eutychus, Sioni and Gamaliel I reckon for a start; are dabbling in pragmatism, are at the edge, as Eutychus said about an implicitly 'eirenic' hermeneutic not applying in all circumstances. Jesus runs out for us all. We are ALL left feeling, 'Surely not THAT far, THIS far. There are limits!'. No there aren't. Not in Jesus' life.

And Justin, Andrew and George have ALL failed way before them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
... (In matters unrelated to current events, I have been reading about how Islam's desert roots result, according to some, to it having difficulty in makng sense of the sea). ...

---

quote:

---

According to a book I'm reading,* until the 18 century, writers did not associate the character of Hamlet with indecision. This seems so alien to the common narrative we learn about Shakespeare's prince that it is hard to understand. Apparently before an influential critic of the time wrote about Ham's "irresolution", which it was said "formed so marked a part" of his (H's) character, the normal way of reading the play was that he (H) was a bold, reasonable man making hard choices in a totally unreasonable situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This academic essay suggests that the above is not just a late-Friday idea dreamed up by a lazy journalist

---

quote:

---

Islam came from the desert and (...) its entire relationship with the environment is characterized by its origins

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
For the first time in 1700 Constantinian years.

It conquered the most powerful empire the Earth had ever seen at the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
one has to take part. Scary as it is.

---

I might be tempted to take that as my sig, if I may.

You attribute much agonizing to me, probably accurately so, but wasn't it you talking about projection just now? Don't tell me you're not agonizing too.

I think part of the, er, Christian way through is

a) recognizing that on the engagement/separation scale, different Christians legitimately put the cursor at different places. This fact is both our great strength and our Achilles' heel. The more we recognize it, the more it becomes a strength.

b) taking a stand out there in the world which is consistent both with our individual conscience and our recognized role.

At an utterly basic, individual level, we are called to love our neighbour and our enemy and the outcomes should be pretty self-evident (which is not to say easy).

The more one has a public role engaging a constituency, the more complicated it gets.

I'm signatory to a declaration to be read out tonight at an inter-faith gathering. I thought carefully about the capacity/ies in which I signed it, and those in which I didn't sign it, if that makes sense.

(For instance, I did not sign it in any capacity representing evangelical leaders in the city, which I could have done pretty legitimately, becaue I know many of them disagree deeply with ecumenical, let alone inter-faith initiatives).

[ 21. November 2015, 10:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Could we hear what the Statement says, please? It could be helpful. (PM me if you prefer).

And I share your agonising - as my congregation well know.

[ 21. November 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm VERY moved mate. Most. God bless you again. It would be an honour and if you could respond as Baptist says, ... stone me weeping ... please do.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Long Mars.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Not sure where's the best place for this, but:

"Saudi Arabia creates Islamic bloc to fight terror groups" (Yahoo). It's a long article, and I've only skimmed it, but might be worth discussion.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Not sure where's the best place for this, but:

"Saudi Arabia creates Islamic bloc to fight terror groups" (Yahoo). It's a long article, and I've only skimmed it, but might be worth discussion.

---

This simply adds to the mess, as do our warplanes.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In theory, a military alliance of islmaic nations to counter islamic terrorists makes a lot of sense. But, whether it works in practice is another question. And, since I can't see how conventional military action can counter terrorism another conventional military force on the table will make very little difference.

What is needed is non-military (or, minimal military) actions - intelligence sharing, identifying and closing funding routes and arms supplies, an ideological offensive. This alliance should allow improved intelligence sharing. But, whether other aspects of the required actions will be forthcoming is questionable.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's just sectarianism. A clash of fundamentalisms, of eschatologies.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re eschatologies (from whatever religion), apocalypses, and possibilities that go bump in the night:

Maybe we can just skip them? As Joshua, the computer, said in "War Games": "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 


The reality is, we have to play nicely with those who don't. Starting with the majority of Christian, who don't.

Christianity was a puritanical doomsday cult for its first century after all. Whence the Crusades. Including our current one.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Vladimir Putin professes himself to be a Christian.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
But like the vast majority of those who do, he fundamentally, definitively, isn't.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Depending on the formula you accept, he definitely is. All you do is ask, and you get your ticket to heaven.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And bomb who you please.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0