French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

Michael Hardner · February 8, 2015

Ok - why is that religion different then ?

GostHacked · February 9, 2015

.There are of course rules in war. They are called the Geneva conventions. Terrorists do not follow them but hey in Big Guy's world because terrorists do not follow the Geneva conventions he's decided there are none.

Another day another pronouncement from someone who thinks he is in the position to dictate to all his selective world of whatever suits his fantasy at any given moment.

In Big Guy's world terrorists and soldiers engage in the exact same actions and are morally equivalent.

There are really no rules for war. It's not like a referee can get on the field and make a call against one of the teams. If there was, Iraq would not have been invaded. Afghanistan would not have been invaded. Ukraine/Crimea would not have been invaded.

The world powers do not give a damn about so called rules of war. Their actions prove it.

Big Guy · February 9, 2015

Unfortunately, those who often refer to the Geneva Conventions have never read them. I have. There is no country, since the adoption of those Conventions, that has ever adhered to them. It is a wish list that does not reflect the reality of war.

Don't believe that? - take the time to read them.

Wilber · February 9, 2015

Unfortunately, those who often refer to the Geneva Conventions have never read them. I have. There is no country, since the adoption of those Conventions, that has ever adhered to them. It is a wish list that does not reflect the reality of war.

Don't believe that? - take the time to read them.

When it comes to prisoners of war, many countries have adhered to them. Even NAZI Germany complied with the conventions when dealing with the prisoners of other countries which signed and abided by them in their dealings with German prisoners. The problem with terrorism is you are not dealing with the armed forces of countries which signed the conventions.

GostHacked · February 9, 2015

When it comes to prisoners of war, many countries have adhered to them. Even NAZI Germany complied with the conventions when dealing with the prisoners of other countries which signed and abided by them in their dealings with German prisoners. The problem with terrorism is you are not dealing with the armed forces of countries which signed the conventions.

This is true, so how do you apply conventions of war to a group that does not wear a uniform or is not restricted to just one geographical area? This has been a problem with the mentality of brute force via a recognized nation's army to combat terrorism elsehwere.

Big Guy · February 9, 2015

To Wilber - I do not want to begin another discussion on WWII but the stories of how Germans treated Russian prisoners and vice versa do not indicate any adherence to any convention.

Wilber · February 9, 2015

To Wilber - I do not want to begin another discussion on WWII but the stories of how Germans treated Russian prisoners and vice versa do not indicate any adherence to any convention.

The Soviets were not signatories and were just as abusive as the Germans. Japan did sign but didn't ratify. While Germany abuse the prisoners ofcdefeated nations, France Poland etc, the fact is, the signatories who were still fighting adhered to the Conventions when it came to the treatment of each others prisoners.

Rue · February 9, 2015

Ok - why is that religion different then ?

I do not understand the above question. Please clarify if it was directed at me. If it was not, no problem.

Myself, I think all religions have the potential to be used by humans in a negative way.

I myself would say at the present time, the lack of centralized structure or hierarchy in Islam makes it different to say the Catholic churchs structure but I dont think its what you are asking...

I think at the present time there are extremists in all religious groups yes. In that sense I suppose they are the same.

Speaking of the Islamic world, I think the wide spread lack of literacy is a huge obstacle to a knowledge that will be required before critical thinking can arise. Until people can read for themselves and as long as they are dependent on clergy to interpret and read for them, critical thinking required to question and curtail extremism will be delayed.

As it is even when people do learn to read and write as they have in say the Christian and Jewish faiths, extremism still exists, I guess the difference though is a dialogue can be more than one way it can be two way, and by that I mean not from clergy to parishioner one way, but from parioshioner back to clergy.

That is my stab at answering your question. In my case I believe the level of literacy of any of a religions followers is a huge factor in whether that congregation can develop critical thinking to offset blind faith obedience the fuel of extremism. That is about as far of a generalization as I care to go.

Its clearly also not the only factor. We have of course examples of people who read but do not question what they read, or simply see one literal interpretation which may not lend itself to critical thought, but at least being able to read sets the stage to give more things to read and consider instead of hearing just one view chanted back.

Rue · February 9, 2015

There are really no rules for war. It's not like a referee can get on the field and make a call against one of the teams. If there was, Iraq would not have been invaded. Afghanistan would not have been invaded. Ukraine/Crimea would not have been invaded.

The world powers do not give a damn about so called rules of war. Their actions prove it.

I do concede that enforcing or even attempting to enforce war conventions and treaties can be compromised by political

intervention but I believe that is a seperate issue and would not establish an argument that terrorism is no different than conventional war or that terrorists are no different than soldiers.

I then defer to Wilburs comments as rto why I hold the above position.

Rue · February 9, 2015

Unfortunately, those who often refer to the Geneva Conventions have never read them. I have. There is no country, since the adoption of those Conventions, that has ever adhered to them. It is a wish list that does not reflect the reality of war.

Don't believe that? - take the time to read them.

Again another sweeping subjective allegation lacking in any logic.

Reading the the Geneva Conventions does not in itself provide any proof that NO country since the adoption of these conventions has adhered to them. It may lead you to believe you can read these conventions and assume this, but it does not prove it.

What it does show once again however is you assume because you make an assumption, its gospel and universal truth.

Stop posing as a source of divine truth. You offer no basis for your conclusion, just a subjective assumption that the conventions cant be followed.

Its what you do-assume the entire world functions based on the thoughts you project on it. You can not differentiate between your own subjective assumptions and how the rest of the world might function.

This again displays your continuing narcissistic defect in reasoning as yet again you demonstrate the I and WE in your world are one and the same.

In the real world many countries have followed the Geneva conventions and the proof is public domain.

Your statement is past idiotic suggesting you were and are capable of taking every war since the conventions were written and then determining no nation involved in those wars followed any or all of the conventions.

Here we go again with you now posing as an expert only in this case of the Gevena Convention (no longer the Jewish religion) and making sweeping allegations with no methodology to back up your conclusions.

Its what you do, pose your subjective opinions as gospel when in fact they are based on nothing, absolutely nothing.

Another day another lecture from the messiah.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Rue

Rue · February 9, 2015

To Wilber - I do not want to begin another discussion on WWII but the stories of how Germans treated Russian prisoners and vice versa do not indicate any adherence to any convention.

You again show defect in your reasoning processes. The fact that Germany did not follow all the Geneva conventions at all times, does not mean they did not follow the Geneva conventions. Wait you might need time to figure that out.

You might also want to at least make an effort to find out how many soldiers were court martialed for violating the conventions. Of course you wont do that. In your world its all simple black and white.

Michael Hardner · February 9, 2015

I do not understand the above question. Please clarify if it was directed at me. If it was not, no problem.

Sure. My quote was this:

Religion's influence diminishes in a modern open society, that's just how it goes. There's no reason to believe this religion will progress any differently than others - it just may be the last one to do so. It seems to me that because Christianity is the first religion to arrive at that point we assign a special virtue to it, I guess to make ourselves feel better.

You replied with a longish post ... equating Muslims with Hitler and Stalin, ie. saying to me...

I also think you sound no different than many people in Europe did when they denied the extent and nature of the agndae of Hitler and Stalin and now with Putin.

I asked you why this particular religion is different than the others.

That is my stab at answering your question.

But it doesn't answer my question. You seem to pin it on illiteracy but your long post basically painted this religion as inhumane and equal to Stalinism and Naziism. You're back-peddling when you pin it on illiteracy. Did anybody blame Naziism on illiteracy ?

Rue · February 10, 2015

No I am not back pedalling at all. In fact your question posed to me had nothing to do with what I originally asserted. I never equated Muslims to Stalin and Hitler I equated people who deny extremism including Muslim extremism as engaging in the same appeasement exercise as others did in the past with Stalin and Hitler.

Don't misrepresent what I said.

Don't misrepresent I stated Muslims are the same as Nazis and Stalinists. That is absolutely false.

Also don't misrepresent me as suggesting Islam is different than other religions. I never stated such a thing.

What I have criticized and challenged you about directly is your approach to Muslim EXTREMISM. You have now tried to misrepresent that as me questioning Islam.

As well it is absolutely ridiculous to ask anyone how is Islam is different than other religions. For me that is a stupid question. It in fact makes the statement that Islam is no different than any other religion and asks me to disprove it.

It was not the point of the responses I made to what I felt was your naïve approach to Muslim extremism. Not even close.

We done?

You really need to ask what is the difference between Islam and Satanism?

Really?

Michael Hardner · February 10, 2015

I never equated Muslims to Stalin and Hitler I equated people who deny extremism including Muslim extremism as engaging in the same appeasement exercise as others did in the past with Stalin and Hitler.

That's pretty thin. How can you equate one without the other ? The point of appeasement is denying a threat, so the assumption is that the threads are similar at least.

guyser · February 10, 2015

Don't misrepresent what I said.

Um... :blink:

Edited February 10, 2015 by Guyser2

GostHacked · February 11, 2015

Um...

I've tried to think of anything else to add to this. I simply cannot.

Rue · February 11, 2015

That's pretty thin. How can you equate one without the other ? The point of appeasement is denying a threat, so the assumption is that the threads are similar at least.

Hello? Equate what? I am not equating religions you are. I just finished saying that is a pointless exercise.

Now are you in fact talking about equating religious extremism in different religions or the religions themselves? Do you even know? You are all over the place. What is it you are equating, religuous doctrine or extremists who use religious doctrine...you clearly do not make that clear, in fact it appeaers to suggess both are the same concept which to me makes no logical sense.

What I stated and will state again is that the exercise of appeasment is the exercise of downplaying extremist behaviour as being less dangerous than it is in conjuction with placating the persons engaged in extremism with concessions that enable them to continue engaging in extremism. That is in fact what I stated.

What that concept has to do with comparing Islam to any other religion is beyond me unless you are making the statement that all religions have extremists which I have not claimed nor Argus claimed. However I suggest if you have issues with how Argus defines Islamic extremism you talk to him. I can only explain my own opinions.

If its extremism you are talking about and how to deal with it, then I believe the methods required to deal with extremism and in particular terrorism are not dependent on the motives of the terrorist. A terrorist makes it clear they are not interested in dialogue. To me it is illogical to dialogue with a terrorist. This notion you sit with a terrorist and talk is for me idiotic. No I do not talk to people with a gun pointed to my head that is loaded. I kill them before they unload the gun and no I do not think you and your pseuto psycho theological comparisons are going to unload his gun.

The only thing thin, is you trying to pose terrorism and extremism as something measurable let alone comparative.

I dont give a damn what someone's motive is for committing terrorism and engaging in violence, the moment they choose terrorism there is no point of return and it has to be contained.

Like I said if you want to engage in some pseuto-theological discussion on what motivates terrorists, go ahead travel to Iraq and meet up with ISIS and see how long it takes for them to burn you alive.

Your attempt to drag me into a pissing match about whether Islam is different than other religions is pointless. Extremism is the point.

The point I made is that at this point in time Islamic society is gripped by extremism fueling terrorism. The issue never was are there terrorists or extremists who have used or use other religions as their pretext.

Its not relevant. Any terrorist represents a threat to democracy. You can save the Justin Trudeau lets get to the root of terrorism line of dialogue. I think he is a prize idiot. Why? Because I have witnessed terrorists and terrorism. The last thing I need to do is get in their head, the only thing required is to take off their head.

Sound mean? What it triggers Liberal guilt feelings?

Tell that to the Palestinians whose children are taken from them by Hamas and Fatah. Tell that to their mothers. My perspective on terrorism is not based on academia. Its based on site, smell, sound. No one forgets the smell of death once they smell it. No one.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Rue

Rue · February 11, 2015

Um...

Yes or "duh".

Rue · February 11, 2015

I've tried to think of anything else to add to this. I simply cannot.

Try the word "duh".

guyser · February 11, 2015

Yes or "duh".

Considering your penchance for putting other words in peoples mouths I thought it apropos.

Hell, go read post 742 of yours, you did it again.

Damn dude, learn english FFS . :blink:

Rue · February 11, 2015

Considering your penchance for putting other words in peoples mouths I thought it apropos.

Hell, go read post 742 of yours, you did it again.

Damn dude, learn english FFS .

Um

jacee · February 12, 2015

Um

Can't even follow your own posts.

Rue · February 13, 2015

Jacee how about you and Guyser, or whoever feels the need to come on a thread where issues are being discussed and make comments like duh and uh simply stay out of it. You have nothing to contribute to what was being debated, so save the duhs, the uhs. I should not have responded earlier back to Gusyer and just ignored him. I will now with you and Gusyer because you clearly do not want to debate the issues I was debating just engage me personally. Move on.

Getting back to the point you and Gusyer have tried to derail, I responded to Michael Hardner and stated I do not believe it logical or sensical to get into theological comparisons when we are discussing terrorists. I personally dont care what religion they use to justify the terrorism whether it be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, any religion. If they choose terrorism, I dont think I need to question them. I think I need to kill them before they can kill someone innocent.

As for you Jacee if you want to come on this board and call Israelis or Jews or myself terrorists because we believe in living in our own state, knock yourself out.

guyser · February 13, 2015

Jacee how about you and Guyser, or whoever feels the need to come on a thread where issues are being discussed and make comments like duh and uh simply stay out of it.

How about you NOT putting words in others mouths (like post 742) and then we can see where it goes.

I should not have responded earlier back to Gusyer and just ignored him.

Ya gots that right ! Had you responded after you read the post in question mentioned, your reply wouold have been..."oh I see where I made the mistake"

But you didnt....and then went opn some silly stupid diatribe trying to weasel out of it.

Well done rue...again.

Michael Hardner · February 14, 2015

Hello? Equate what?

Equate the reaction to the Muslim scourge (or whatever you're calling it) to the reaction to Naziism, and yet try to say that you're not saying Islamism is like Naziism ? I am not equating religions you are. I just finished saying that is a pointless exercise.