Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'

[Owlswing]

Hope

Possibly off topic, but I have to ask "Are you OK".

You are not one for typos and tour last two posts are full of them. I hope and truest that your condition has not started to deteriorate, that the cause is just you typing in a hurry!

This not a piss-take! It is a genuinely concerned enquiry.

Hi Matt, I'm on the mend, but didn't sleep very well last night, and I may well have been a bit dozy earlier as a result.

At the risk of being insulting - Thanks the Goddess for that!

[floo]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I agree, inflicting religion/philosophies on kids before they are old enough to question their veracity is a very bad idea!

[Owlswing]

Terrible. I understand machine guns and shot guns were involved. This seems to be happening regularly in France despite it's strict gun laws. If people want to kill, they will.

Still trying to justify America's stance on gun control?

Cheap shot!

[OH MY WORLD!]

Not true matty. I have always said that the USA needs more gun laws. What I get disgusted with is that when there is a mass shooting in that nation, certain people here put up a thread to bash America and there isn't much outpouring of sympathy for victims and families. When it happens in France a totally different reaction.

[Owlswing]

Not true matty. I have always said that the USA needs more gun laws. What I get disgusted with is that when there is a mass shooting in that nation, certain people here put up a thread to bash America and there isn't much outpouring of sympathy for victims and families. When it happens in France a totally different reaction.

There is a huge difference - how many mass shootings by Isamic terrorists have there been in America?

The outcry is because they are random shootings by Americans - usually either nutcases of American nationality or by cops; there is nothing to connect them with a co-ordinated plan of attck.

There is nothing to show that the perpetrators of the Paris atrocity were French! They were appantly armed with AK47 assualt rifles - the terrorist weapon of choice and were speaking Arabic.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Matty,
There are thousands of Arabic speaking Canadians. And even more Arabic speaking Brits I would betcha. French citizens of Arab lineage makes up the second largest minority in that nation Matty.  And obviously you are not current. There have been several gun attacks through out the USA by Muslim extremists who are Americans. I understand that shot guns were also used yesterday. Thousands of westerners have flocked to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS.

[Owlswing]

Matty,
There are thousands of Arabic speaking Canadians. And even more Arabic speaking Brits I would betcha. French citizens of Arab lineage makes up the second largest minority in that nation Matty.  And obviously you are not current. There have been several gun attacks through out the USA by Muslim extremists who are Americans. I understand that shot guns were also used yesterday. Thousands of westerners have flocked to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS.

Of all the listed attacks carried out in America by either Muslims or Muslim sympatisers, excluding, obviously, 9/11, there have been only one that has had victims counted in double figures, 13; the entire total since 1972 killed by Muslims in 70 attacks in the US is 121 - since 1972! Less than those killed YESTERDAY.

Stop trying to justify American stupidity by comparing it to incomparable places in the world.

Get current!

[ippy]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy
 

[ippy]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.

I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.

ippy

The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.

Say you're right, why have either of them religion or politics taught to vulnerable young children, undoubtedly both religion and politics cause conflict.

I still think mixing the children of religious parents at schools will contribute to reducing some of the differences the religions have with each other and of course it's not the whole answer but if Ali the child of Muslim parents grows up at school with simon the child of jewish parents and the both hang out with Fred the child of christian parents, this must be lead to a better understanding of each other.

By the way try to not do the Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot completely misunderstood connection as atheist trouble makers, they were not being wicked buggers in the name of atheism, they just happened to be wicked buggers.

ippy

[ad_orientem]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.

I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.

ippy

The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.

Say you're right, why have either of them religion or politics taught to vulnerable young children, undoubtedly both religion and politics cause conflict.

I still think mixing the children of religious parents at schools will contribute to reducing some of the differences the religions have with each other and of course it's not the whole answer but if Ali the child of Muslim parents grows up at school with simon the child of jewish parents and the both hang out with Fred the child of christian parents, this must be lead to a better understanding of each other.

Sounded good on first reading but naturally morphs into ignorant bilge
that presupposes that religious people are natural terrorists.
.....What's your opinion of Tarquin, the child of stock brokers not growing up with Wayne, the child of people on zero hours contracts? That seems quite acceptable to many secular humanists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.

I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.

ippy

The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.

Say you're right, why have either of them religion or politics taught to vulnerable young children, undoubtedly both religion and politics cause conflict.

I still think mixing the children of religious parents at schools will contribute to reducing some of the differences the religions have with each other and of course it's not the whole answer but if Ali the child of Muslim parents grows up at school with simon the child of jewish parents and the both hang out with Fred the child of christian parents, this must be lead to a better understanding of each other.

By the way try to not do the Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot completely misunderstood connection as atheist trouble makers, they were not being wicked buggers in the name of atheism, they just happened to be wicked buggers.

ippy

That's bollocks.

[ippy]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

Go on bring out your bile have a really good go.

ippy

[Owlswing]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

It is a shame that the Muslims who oppose the ban on the burkha didn't think of that before that moved there. That kind of action encourages the extremeists to target French muslims for radicalisation or to expect that they will find aid and succour after one of these atrocities.

[jeremyp]

Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.

They  don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam  from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.

ippy  is just wrong.

Don't they say there's nobody more fanatical than a convert?

[Owlswing]

Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.

They  don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam  from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.

ippy  is just wrong.

Don't they say there's nobody more fanatical than a convert?

If people who have given up smoking are anything to go by . . .

[OH MY WORLD!]

Matty,
Again you fail. Injured ARE victims and there have been over 1000 of these victims not including 9/11 in the USA. Made victims by Muslim extremists. Which has nothing to do with the fact your type jump on the opportunity to bash America when there are mass shootings and offer no sympathies to victims. But you have made it clear your bigotry against the American people so it's not a shocker.

[JP]

How easy is it to convince a person who has been indoctrinated from birth with God, Mohammed and how great he was, the Islamic state and that they must struggle and be ruthless in the defence and procreation of Islam (in the way of Mohammed the perfect example). There are examples in the Quran which tells of how to deal with the "others" ruthlessly. How hard would it be to convince someone who is convinced they are a victim and oppressed like Muslims around the world that they must fight in the way of Mohammed.

For anyone to say such things have nothing to do with Islam, I would disagree

As an aside is there any doctrine in Christianity for a "Christian" state and was there any example of a figurehead to facilitate this by any means.

[Owlswing]

Matty,
Again you fail. Injured ARE victims and there have been over 1000 of these victims not including 9/11 in the USA. Made victims by Muslim extremists. Which has nothing to do with the fact your type jump on the opportunity to bash America when there are mass shootings and offer no sympathies to victims. But you have made it clear your bigotry against the American people so it's not a shocker.

Maybe I should get a list of the injured and maimed in Muslim attacks - you really are a case - you will do and say anything to protect your horrendously biased view of the US. Are you sure you live on the right side of the border?

In fact the fact of the closeness of the two countries makes it almost incestuous! Especially the way in which you compare your Prime Minister with the American President.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.

I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.

[Owlswing]

Even jihadi John seemed to have a relatively secular upbringing, it sounds the opposite of a narrow religious upbringing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11438545/Jihadi-John-From-ordinary-schoolboy-to-worlds-most-wanted-man.html

IMO this shows Ippy is wrong in his claim that a religious upbringing causes this.

You wanna bet he can't come up wth a reason why he is not and we are!

[Owlswing]

Thoughts of an ex Muslim on twitter tackling people who blame those who finance the murderers (nothing to do with Islam).

To those who are asking who is financing terrorism

You have been raising children on tales of prophets avenging, on celebrating great massacres, on praising heroes beheading enemies, on religious role models killing infidels, on stories of the hell that awaits those on the other side, on exalting martyrdom for murderer and murdered equally (f**k this whole concept by the way), on Armageddon and its war and blood.

And when those you bred start living up to you, your role models, your religion and your God you begin to wonder who is financing them! Who gives a f**k who gives them the money.

You are the one mentally financing them, they just found a source of income to make your tales reality.

Nice one!

[ippy]

Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.

They  don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam  from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.

ippy  is just wrong.

A lot of the recruits have had a secular upbringing, as this article discusses.

Part of the problem seems to be secularism doesn't give some people a sense of identity.

Isis preys on that.

https://www.summit.org/blogs/summit-announcements/murderous-mirages-why-are-western-teens-joining-isis/

Don't forget the geographical position of France figures considerably, by the way I didn't agree with their burka ban, most of the rest of French secularism has got it about right so I don't think you've got it right if you're thinking it's mainly down to the burka ban there's far more to it than that.

I know the burka business isn't all, their history figures largely, where do you start, a thesis, not for the mo I don't think.

ippy

 
 



 

[ProfessorDavey]

Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.

They  don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam  from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.

ippy  is just wrong.

A lot of the recruits have had a secular upbringing, as this article discusses.

Part of the problem seems to be secularism doesn't give some people a sense of identity.

Isis preys on that.

https://www.summit.org/blogs/summit-announcements/murderous-mirages-why-are-western-teens-joining-isis/

I think it depends what you mean by 'secular upbringing'.

It may be the case that many of those that have become extremists weren't brought up in the most extreme of islamic upbringings but that doesn't mean their upbringing was secular. To my mind that would mean a non religious upbringing. As far as I am aware most were brought up in islamic religious households and were brought up to be muslims, attending mosque etc etc. That isn't secular.

I wonder how many, if any, were brought up in non religious households.

[ippy]

Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.

Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.

I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.

Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.

What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.

Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.

ippy