ADVERTISEMENT

It sure is a good thing France imported Diversity

G

GMM

All-American
Oct 29, 2001
7,850
0
36
More blessings, vibrancy, and enrichment.



Twelve people have been shot dead at the headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, say police.

Two masked gunmen are reported to have stormed the offices of the controversial publication, which has previously been attacked over its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.

They were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and are also believed to have had a rocket-propelled grenade.




According to the AFP news agency, the attackers shouted: "We have avenged the prophet."

Yes, I corrected the headline in the linked news story. Note that the article repeatedly refers to "gunmen". At the same time, it respectfully uses the term "the Prophet Mohammed". This is media bias in action.


This post was edited on 1/7 8:37 AM by GMM

Jihadists Hunted After 12 Killed At Paris Magazine
 
Originally posted by GMM:
More blessings, vibrancy, and enrichment.



Twelve people have been shot dead at the headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, say police.

Two masked gunmen are reported to have stormed the offices of the controversial publication, which has previously been attacked over its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.

They were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and are also believed to have had a rocket-propelled grenade.




According to the AFP news agency, the attackers shouted: "We have avenged the prophet."

Yes, I corrected the headline in the linked news story. Note that the article repeatedly refers to "gunmen". At the same time, it respectfully uses the term "the Prophet Mohammed". This is media bias in action.


This post was edited on 1/7 8:37 AM by GMM
Click to expand...

Look, this whole shooting is bullshit. This kind of assault on expression is abhorrent. That said, part of the issue is that Muslims in Europe aren't really allowed the same benefits as those in the US. There are no excuses for shootings like this. However, we can help prevent people from acting like this by treating everyone who comes into our borders as human beings with real rights.

I'm posting this to counter your lunacy.
 
This is literally the dumbest post.

1. You're linking to a British news source as you're subject has to do with France importing diversity.

2. Is gunmen not accurate? Last time I checked they both had guns and shot people. Sounds like a gunman. Who literally cares if you call someone a gunman or terrorist? Pretty sure both are equally bad.

3. The Prophet Mohammed is what the basis of their cartoons that al Qaeda was pissed about. What do you want them to say instead? That's not "super respectful", that's the name of what was depicted.
 
1. You're linking to a British news source as you're subject has to do with France importing diversity.

So the news that a British paper reported didn't happen in France? Only French papers can report on this? WTF is your point?

In the meantime tell us how France is better off because there are so many Muslims living there now.

2. Is gunmen not accurate? Last time I checked they both had guns and shot people. Sounds like a gunman.

Its certainly not fully accurate. These were Islamic gunmen waging Islamic jihad shouting "Allah Akbar!". To leave out the motivation and ideology of the terrorists is to intentionally protect Islam.

Who literally cares if you call someone a gunman or terrorist? Pretty sure both are equally bad.

Really? A gunman is always bad? A gunman intentionally attacks innocent civilians just like a terrorist does?

3. The Prophet Mohammed is what the basis of their cartoons that al Qaeda was pissed about. What do you want them to say instead? That's not "super respectful", that's the name of what was depicted.

Since you're OK with them dumbing down their terminology to "gunmen" why isn't it OK to simply say "Mohammed"? Or that the cartoons were making fun of "a Muslim person"? The fact that they used the term "Prophet Mohammed" shows how they'll go out of their way to defer to Islam.




This post was edited on 1/8 11:43 AM by GMM
 
when Charles Whitman

killed 16 people and wounded 32 others from a tower at UT-Austin, they called him a gunman.

When Seung Hui-Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Va Tech, they called him a gunman.

When Harris and Kleibold killed 12 people at Columbine, they called them gunmen.

And to answer your other idiotic post, yes mass shooting happen in America, they even happen with no Muslims involved at all.
 
Re: when Charles Whitman

killed 16 people and wounded 32 others from a tower at UT-Austin, they called him a gunman.

When Seung Hui-Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Va Tech, they called him a gunman.

When Harris and Kleibold killed 12 people at Columbine, they called them gunmen.

Because there was no overarching political/religious motive. If any of those men did what they did in the name of Islam then it would've been entirely appropriate to call them jihadists. If there is a pattern of Muslims doing this in the name of Islam then.......yep, call them jihadists. If Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror then.......yep, identify them as "Muslim".

But doing so would violate the tenets of all holy and sacred Equality so we have to dumb it down to "gunmen" or pretend there are no patterns to recognize, i.e. "mass shootings happen in other places too".

And to answer your other idiotic post, yes mass shooting happen in America, they even happen with no Muslims involved at all.

Really? Wow, thanks. I didn't know there were mass shootings here.

And you still haven't answered my questions. I think we all know why.
 
most of us know why

no one "answers your questions."
 
Re: when Charles Whitman

Originally posted by GMM:
killed 16 people and wounded 32 others from a tower at UT-Austin, they called him a gunman.

When Seung Hui-Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Va Tech, they called him a gunman.

When Harris and Kleibold killed 12 people at Columbine, they called them gunmen.

Because there was no overarching political/religious motive. If any of those men did what they did in the name of Islam then it would've been entirely appropriate to call them jihadists. If there is a pattern of Muslims doing this in the name of Islam then.......yep, call them jihadists. If Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror then.......yep, identify them as "Muslim".

But doing so would violate the tenets of all holy and sacred Equality so we have to dumb it down to "gunmen" or pretend there are no patterns to recognize, i.e. "mass shootings happen in other places too".

And to answer your other idiotic post, yes mass shooting happen in America, they even happen with no Muslims involved at all.

Really? Wow, thanks. I didn't know there were mass shootings here.

And you still haven't answered my questions. I think we all know why.
Click to expand...
Should the Columbine shooters have been called "Marilyn Manson listening gunmen"? The theory at the time was that they were influenced by violent music and games.
 
Re: when Charles Whitman

Should the Columbine shooters have been called "Marilyn Manson listening gunmen"? The theory at the time was that they were influenced by violent music and games.

If that's an accurate explanation for why they did what they did then yes.

Next.
 
lol

thank goodness you don't work for newspapers.

there's two parts to a story, the headline, which is supposed to be succinct, and a body where all the details go.

see how that works?
 
Re: when Charles Whitman

Originally posted by qazplm:

mass shooting happen in America, they even happen with no Muslims involved at all.
Click to expand...
confused0018.r191677.gif


MIND

BLOWN
 
Re: lol

Didn't read the article, I see. All throughout it refers to "gunmen". Not once does it refer to the fact they did it on behalf of Islam. The arcticle does, of course, find an imam so he can offer soothing words of taqiya to people like you.

But you keep your head in the sand. Makes it easier to prop up your false worldviews that way.
 
Re: when Charles Whitman

Originally posted by GMM:
Should the Columbine shooters have been called "Marilyn Manson listening gunmen"? The theory at the time was that they were influenced by violent music and games.

If that's an accurate explanation for why they did what they did then yes.

Next.
Click to expand...
Really? Have you ever written anything? How many details do you need?
 
Re: when Charles Whitman

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by GMM:
Should the Columbine shooters have been called "Marilyn Manson listening gunmen"? The theory at the time was that they were influenced by violent music and games.

If that's an accurate explanation for why they did what they did then yes.

Next.
Click to expand...
Really? Have you ever written anything? How many details do you need?
Click to expand...
How many accurate details do I need? Enough for the public to know what happened and why it happened. Do you seriously think that refusing to call these people Muslims or jihadists tells the WHOLE story?

Please tell me you've heard the term "the sin of omission" before.
 
yes

how could anyone reading that suss out that they were Islamic terrorists in that story without the words "on behalf of Islam."

Yes, clearly the Imam must be lying, because he's a Muslim, and they all lie right?
 
Meanwhile in Nigeria

Islamic savagery rolls on:

More than 2,000 people are unaccounted for after radical Islamist sect
Boko Haram torched more than 10 towns and villages in Nigeria, a local
lawmaker told NBC News. Ahmed Zanna, a senator for Borno state where the
attack happened, said the militants razed the town of Baga as well as
"10-to-20" other communities in the country's rural northeast over the
past five days. "These towns are just gone, burned down," he told NBC
News via telephone. "The whole area is covered in bodies."


Boko Haram Torches Nigerian Town of Baga
 
if only the whole world

were White Christians...the world would be a paradise.
 
Ah, yes.....

.....the people the left despises the most: White Christians.

Would it be a paradise if the whole world were White Christians? Much of the world seems to think so. What kind of countries does the rest of the world emigrate to? Ones founded by White Christians. So, you do have a point.
 
yes

no deaths, no killings, no hate, no poverty, just love and goodness.
 
Re: Ah, yes.....

Originally posted by GMM:
.....the people the left despises the most: White Christians.

Would it be a paradise if the whole world were White Christians? Much of the world seems to think so. What kind of countries does the rest of the world emigrate to? Ones founded by White Christians. So, you do have a point.
Click to expand...
Germany, France and England were founded by white Christians? News to me. I could have sworn the original people there were pagan who were conquered by . . pagans.
 
Re: Ah, yes.....

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by GMM:
.....the people the left despises the most: White Christians.

Would it be a paradise if the whole world were White Christians? Much of the world seems to think so. What kind of countries does the rest of the world emigrate to? Ones founded by White Christians. So, you do have a point.
Click to expand...
Germany, France and England were founded by white Christians? News to me. I could have sworn the original people there were pagan who were conquered by . . pagans.
Click to expand...
Really, those countries listed were founded thousands of years ago?

Mass immigration from the rest of the world to those countries began in the latter half of the 20th century. You are aware of this, right Mr. History Nerd?
 
lol

1. Not a lot of mass immigration to England. And given the fact that they had a pretty large empire for awhile, what immigration that does happen is more from one part of an empire to another.

2. What happened in the 20th Century that might contribute to immigration? Think on it...wait no, waste of time, never mind, ignore this question, it's only going to hurt you.

3. I know you think history started in the 20th Century...but really, there's like minimum 7-10K years before that.
 
Re: Ah, yes.....

Originally posted by GMM:
Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by GMM:
.....the people the left despises the most: White Christians.

Would it be a paradise if the whole world were White Christians? Much of the world seems to think so. What kind of countries does the rest of the world emigrate to? Ones founded by White Christians. So, you do have a point.
Click to expand...
Germany, France and England were founded by white Christians? News to me. I could have sworn the original people there were pagan who were conquered by . . pagans.
Click to expand...
Really, those countries listed were founded thousands of years ago?

Mass immigration from the rest of the world to those countries began in the latter half of the 20th century. You are aware of this, right Mr. History Nerd?
Click to expand...
Oh. We're just talking about their current forms? They aren't analogous to the US, which has mass immigration that founded the new nation. Those nations were founded in their current forms by the same people who had been there for thousands of years. So . . . . yeah . . . the nations in the non-governmental sense were founded thousands of years ago. The peoples are the same.
 
Re: lol

1. Not a lot of mass immigration to England. And given the fact that they had a pretty large empire for awhile, what immigration that does happen is more from one part of an empire to another.

As if all the parts are the same. No, people moved from the less White Christian parts to the more White Christian parts and not the other way around.

It must really bother to hear these facts. Much more comforting for you to denounce White Christians than non-White Muslims.
 
Re: Ah, yes.....

Oh. We're just talking about their current forms? They aren't analogous to the US, which has mass immigration [by White Christians] that founded the new nation. Those nations were founded in their current forms by the same people who had been there for thousands of years. So . . . . yeah . . . the nations in the non-governmental sense were founded thousands of years ago.

But only started experiencing large amounts of non-White, non-Christian immigration in the latter half of the 20th century. Only after White Christians made their countries such nice places to live.
 
This isn't a response to GMM rather a question posed to others, specifically those that identify with liberal principles.

Why are you so afraid of tagging the past week in Paris as Islamic terrorism?

I get the feeling that the left is being crippled by correctness. An extensive movement is being waged in Europe against not only western values, but against everything liberals claim as cherished, Why are so many liberals afraid to call a spade a spade? Rudimentary Islam, what we are seeing in France, runs opposed to liberal values.

What gives?
 
It is Islamic terrorism. Most people who call themselves liberals aren't really in favor of liberal values, they just think they are supposed to be nice or something equally childish. PC is at the heart of that. I had something much longer typed up, but the app crashed and my stop is coming up. Maybe later.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by ecouch:

Why are you so afraid of tagging the past week in Paris as Islamic terrorism?
Click to expand...
It's absolutely Islamic terrorism. I think most people issue with GMM and buygreekbonds, etc., is that they want to stop short of "terrorism" and just call it "Islam." As in, "the past week in Paris was caused by Islam."
 
Would you consider what Mohammed did Islamic or Islamic terrorism? Remember, he's The Perfect Muslim. He's the man all Muslims must pattern their lives after.
 
Yes, you answered his question correctly. But it made you so uncomfortable to do so that you had to take a shot a me. I understand why.

You certainly didn't answer my questions.
 
Well, wasn't this past week caused by Islam? Doesn't Islam have rather strict texts with regard to blasphemy and insulting the prophet?

As an example, SA issued a statement condemning the attacks while simultaneously putting a man in jail for 10 years as well as issuing 50 lashes in the public square for 20 straight weeks for insulting the prophet. Like I said, punishment for blasphemy is rather well understood by a pedestrian reading of the Quran and Hadith. You really don't have to twist and contort the texts to arrive at a position that the terrorists in Paris pursued. Turkey is jailing folks tweets that insult the prophet.

This reminds me of the recent Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Ben Affleck, and Reza Aslan exchange. There are a lot of really bad ideas ingrained in Islam that don't take an extremist approach at which to arrive. Religion is a catchall term like sports. The NFL and badminton are both sports like Islam and Jainism are both religions. The more extreme a Jain becomes, the less of threat to civilized society he poses. Thus, I don't understand the liberal position on Islam as a whole. Pedestrian Islam, simply put, seems to be at odds with a free society and liberal - both in the classical and modern definition - constructs.
 
The actual Islamic authorities and largest Islamic groups in France sued Charlie claiming "racism," and they lost the case. They let it go after that. So, while Islam is responsible for the disagreement, Islam is not responsible for the actions of these individuals or groups of individuals any more than Christianity is responsible for David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, and the KKK.

Now, I would largely agree that many Muslim communities seem bent on some form of subjugation rather than integration and don't seem to understand the meaning of "secular", and many of them pursue that subjugation via legal and political means, as in France, but I contend and always will that Islamic terrorism is based on a minority that possesses warped sense of what the religion teaches. Unfortunately, we've got a few on this message board who share that warped view. I'd argue that "pedestrian Islam" can exist - and does exist - in any society, but "extreme" or "fundamentalist" or "fascist" Islam cannot. "Extreme", "Fundamentalist", and "Fascist" anything struggle in most cultures, though most religions stray to the pacifist side when they go extreme (thus pretty much the opposite of fascist). The majority of Muslims, just like the majority of Christians, practice "pedestrian Islam."

I've walked the streets of Muslim countries such as Bahrain, Pakistan, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, very obviously not from "around there," and no one's come after my Infidel head, but if I were to believe some on this board, I would not be allowed to do such things in a real Muslim country.

This post was edited on 1/10 9:22 PM by gr8indoorsman
 
Originally posted by GMM:
Yes, you answered his question correctly. But it made you so uncomfortable to do so that you had to take a shot a me. I understand why.

You certainly didn't answer my questions.
Click to expand...
How was it a "shot"? It was an accurate statement, was it not? You do not differentiate between "Islam" and "Islamic terrorism." They are one in the same in your opinion, true? I mean, why else would you ask your follow-on question about Muhammed other than to make the assertion that Islam fosters, encourages, and teaches terrorism. If I'm wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure I've got this nailed.

I'm also not sure how it made me "uncomfortable." I don't recall any discomfort in answering his question. I don't recall any unease. It was pretty clearly Islamic terrorism, jihadism, whatever you want to call it.

If you're trying to call me "politically correct" or "liberal", I'll just laugh at your ignorance now and be on my merry way.

This post was edited on 1/10 9:25 PM by gr8indoorsman
 
So, while Islam is responsible for the disagreement, Islam is not responsible for the actions of these individuals or groups of individuals any more than Christianity is responsible for David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, and the KKK.

For the billionth time, McVeigh was an atheist. Neither Koresh or the KKK could cite examples from Jesus' life to justify their actions.

Numerous Islamic authorities promote the idea that blasphemy deserves harsh punishment including death. But, you're right, the real victim of all these Islamic terrorist attacks is Islam. Strange that so many adherents of Islam, compared to other belief systems, are "fascists".

I've walked the streets of Muslim countries such as Bahrain, Pakistan,
Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, very obviously not from
"around there," and no one's come after my Infidel head, but if I were
to believe some on this board, I would not be allowed to do such things
in a real Muslim country.

No, that's just your fevered imagination. If you walked around Nazi Germany during WWII the overwhelming majority of Germans wouldn't try to kill you. Just because a majority of Muslims are not devout Muslims does not deny the truth of Islam and its commandments. But there certainly are things you're not allowed to do in a "real" Muslim country. You know, like insulting Mohammed. Which you're also not allowed to do in a growing number of Western countries. Thanks to the combination of the left (political correctness) and Muslim immigration.
 
How was it a "shot"?..........I'm also not sure how it made me "uncomfortable." I don't recall any
discomfort in answering his question. I don't recall any unease. It was
pretty clearly Islamic terrorism, jihadism, whatever you want to call
it.

Why not answer his question and leave it at that? Because you fear disapproval from the left. You fear the term "Islamophobe" being applied to you so you have to make sure everyone knows you're not agreeing with me. Hence, the discomfort.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure I've got this nailed.

It'll be much easier to know if you're wrong if you would actually answer the questions about Mohammed.

If you're trying to call me "politically correct"......

When it comes to this issue you do a good job of toeing the PC line. Don't like being called politically correct? Then stop enforcing it.
 
Let us know what you think of this link


Part
Four

The judgements concerning those who think


the Prophet imperfect or curse him



Section
Two

The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who

curses the Prophet or finds fault with him


The Qur'an says
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G

It sure is a good thing Australia imported Diversity

Replies
0
Views
249
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
GMM
G
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back