What justification can there be for the Paris massacre?

[Drolefille]

Oh, come on. Surely you must have noticed that these lunatics have a penchant for screaming "Allahu Akbar" at the drop of a hat.
One must assume that somewhere Islam is involved in their thinking. To pretend that there is no connection to Islam worth noting is somewhat bizarre. To cast aspersions on folks who notice this penchant, as if there is something wrong with their taking note, is inane, if not outright dangerous thinking.

Besides, noting they yelled "God is great" while merrily rampaging the area adds a certain "je ne sais quoi" to the comment. In simpler terms, "A group of deranged fanatics stormed a building, killing many occupants, while yelling God is great."

You don't think the utter starkness of the contrast is worthy of note? Seriously?

I think it's worth noting if you want to note it. I think it's disingenuous to throw it in as an aside or to hint around at it. If anyone, wants to say "I think the justification was Islam." or believes that Islam is responsible for the actions, they should just say it rather than baiting and dancing around it.

 

[YmirGF]

I think it's worth noting if you want to note it. I think it's disingenuous to throw it in as an aside or to hint around at it. If anyone, wants to say "I think the justification was Islam." or believes that Islam is responsible for the actions, they should just say it rather than baiting and dancing around it.

Oy vey. I am rather confident saying that if we ever get to talk to these fellows they will be described as devout Muslims. You're response to this just seems odd. Where are you coming from on this? Are you bothered that Islam has been stained by yet another group of Muslims who misunderstand Islam? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sure there is. It's called "religion." It's a justification for all manner of deplorable behavior.

Still not interested in anti-religion trolling, thanks.

Actually it is true though.

Religions from the beginning have mistreated, and murdered people who believed - differently.

For instance Tanakh tells us the new ONE God Hebrew, committed genocide, - over and over, - against the Hebrew people that wanted to retain their Old God and Goddess. We have Christian history, and know they murdered people world wide, etc.

Now-a-days most try to get along, - at least on the surface.

*

 

[Drolefille]

Oy vey. I am rather confident saying that if we ever get to talk to these fellows they will be described as devout Muslims. You're response to this just seems odd. Where are you coming from on this? Are you bothered that Islam has been stained by yet another group of Muslims who misunderstand Islam? I'm genuinely curious.

No, I think that dogwhistling about Islam is an underhanded method of going about it. I think that if you talk about Islam, genuinely, then you can get somewhere. If you just want to slam it, then you play the game - by the way, please note, they said this. Not "They are part of X radical group, etc." Using coded language, or throwing it in as an aside rather than addressing it is a way to lead your responses to the point you want, rather than being the one to state it yourself (general you)

For example the way you phrase your last statement suggests you think that Islam itself is the problem, and that it isn't really being misinterpreted. I don't know whether that's your thought, but it reads that way to me. Had OP said "I think this is another example of radical Islam" or "I think all Islam is responsible for this." Whether I agree or not with the content, the method of conveying that content is at least honest.

Tl;dr: It's how things are said, not the content of them that I'm discussing.

 

[YmirGF]

No, I think that dogwhistling about Islam is an underhanded method of going about it. I think that if you talk about Islam, genuinely, then you can get somewhere. If you just want to slam it, then you play the game - by the way, please note, they said this. Not "They are part of X radical group, etc." Using coded language, or throwing it in as an aside rather than addressing it is a way to lead your responses to the point you want, rather than being the one to state it yourself (general you)

For example the way you phrase your last statement suggests you think that Islam itself is the problem, and that it isn't really being misinterpreted. I don't know whether that's your thought, but it reads that way to me. Had OP said "I think this is another example of radical Islam" or "I think all Islam is responsible for this." Whether I agree or not with the content, the method of conveying that content is at least honest.

Tl;dr: It's how things are said, not the content of them that I'm discussing.

Likewise, using such so-called "code words" like "dogwhistling" is also a discriminatory term and rarely used in a positive sense, if at all. What you are suggesting is no less offensive than how you deemed the OP.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Does it matter anymore?

You tell me. Here are your choices:

A. The restaurant in located in downtown Tehran.
B. The restaurant is located in downtown Little Rock.

A masked man in black barges in screaming in Arabic. Do you tackle him or hit him with a chair in both scenarios?

 

[Drolefille]

Likewise, using such so-called "code words" like "dogwhistling" is also a discriminatory term and rarely used in a positive sense, if at all. What you are suggesting is no less offensive than how you deemed the OP.

No, that isn't actually discriminatory at all. You may not like it, and that's your choice. You might also find it offensive, as is also your choice. But it fails to be discriminatory by any standard.

I did however start the conversation with a question, albeit a suspicious one, to OP about WHY it was mentioned as it was, and the response was "Oh dear I hate how people justify this terror." Weird, right, cause I didn't, haven't and wouldn't. It's like I was being accused of it though... without coming right out an saying it. Oh look, a dogwhistle.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Actually it is true though.

Religions from the beginning have mistreated, and murdered people who believed - differently.

For instance Tanakh tells us the new ONE God Hebrew, committed genocide, - over and over, - against the Hebrew people that wanted to retain their Old God and Goddess. We have Christian history, and know they murdered people world wide, etc.

Now-a-days most try to get along, - at least on the surface.

*

Nods head in affirmation ...

 

[Drolefille]

You tell me. Here are your choices:

A. The restaurant in located in downtown Tehran.
B. The restaurant is located in downtown Little Rock.

A masked man in black barges in screaming in Arabic. Do you tackle him or hit him with a chair in both scenarios?

A masked man in black barges in screaming in Spanish.
A masked man in black barges in screaming in English
A masked man in black barges in screaming in Chinese
A masked man in black barges in screaming in Tagalog.

Do you only attack the one screaming in Arabic?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

A masked man in black barges in screaming in Spanish.
A masked man in black barges in screaming in English
A masked man in black barges in screaming in Chinese
A masked man in black barges in screaming in Tagalog.

Do you only attack the one screaming in Arabic?

The original scenario was restricted to a man screaming in Arabic. Please try to stay focused, OK? No need to obfuscate things.

 

[Aquitaine]

Try shouting some anti semitic slogans in Paris cafes and see how quick they arrest you. See how much they respect your crucial rights. It's all bull****.

I'm willing to bet that no-one would be murdered for it though.

 

[nazz]

How can anyone justify what was done in Paris? There is no justification for killing innocent people. And the sad thing is that these terrorists are using religion as an excuse for their murderous ways. This puts a bad face on Islam and makes many people hesitate to accept the Muslim faith. I do think it is time, however, that moderate Muslims speak out against such savagery. Muslims who feel that was was done in Paris is wrong need to assert their feelings on the situation.

they are

Moderate Muslims Use #JeSuisCharlie To Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack In Paris

 

[Drolefille]

The original scenario was restricted to a man screaming in Arabic. Please try to stay focused, OK? No need to obfuscate things.

My point is that the phrase or the language isn't really the scary part. It's the guy acting or speaking erratically or threateningly. (Similarly a woman doing any of the above would be scary.) If your point is that Arabic is only scary if someone runs in to a restaurant screaming it, well then fine, lots of stuff is scary that way. If your point is that Arabic is scary, then I think you're wrong.

 

[Ingledsva]

The first person killed by them was a Muslim. In fact two of the 12 were Muslims. 1/6th of the victims were Muslims. I heard that they were radicalized over Abu Ghraib torturing by US soldiers. I suppose if US marines are wiring your genitals to the national grid you might get a bit upset over it and try to take some kind of revenge. There is also a lot of chatter about it coming days after France voting YES in the UN that made Netanyahu go crazy and demand an explanation and a payback for doing that. There was the 9/11 element where in all of it suddenly an ID turns up like the 9/11 passport in millions of tons of rubble. There is the part where the French revealed the names of suspects only to find one of them was at school at the time and found out about it on Twitter. These professional gunmen who apparently after the shooting travelled back home to their address. So many stories coming out. One thing is for certain though. Charlie Hebdo got the reaction they wanted. They don't do what they do not to get a reaction. It's just that they didn't like that reaction but it was a reaction all the same. People screaming about their rights to free speech. Funny that. Sarkozy didn't waste any time in arresting for anti semitism John Galliano in a Paris cafe when he exercised his rights to free speech. Who was outraged and burning candles for him? You see it's all so hypocritical. John Mc cain could have been the one who supplied these so called islamists when they were in Syria last year. It's confusing now isn't it for Westerners knowing what rebels are the good ones and what ones are the bad ones and who to arm and who not too. Gaddafi and Assad were right. The USA and it's allies were arming 'rats and cockroaches and Al Qaeda'. Their citizens fell in line with the Western media and now they seem to be realising that Gaddafi and Assad were right all along and the Americans and Israelis and French and British were stirring a hornets nest in backing insane salafist groups. they knew exactly what they were doing. The USA still refuse to back El Sisi in declaring the MB a terrorist group even though they know full well they are terrorists.

You may be correct on some of what you are saying, - however, - that does not - ever - justify terrorism.

If this continues, eventually one of these countries will ban Islam, then perhaps a domino effect, - and things will become even worse, as the religion feels isolated.

We need to figure out how to stop this terrorism, and quite frankly, - it is going to have to be the Imam's of the Islamic religion themselves, - proving the terrorist's ideology is wrong, and NOT in the Qur'an. A hard sell by the way, as all of the Holy books of the religions of Abraham, have followers "righteously" killing those who believe differently, - for their Gods.

Anyone have any ideas?

*

*

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If your point is that Arabic is scary, then I think you're wrong.

You'd need to ask the OP. It wasn't my point. If you want to know where I'm coming from, please recall that I was the one who was asking if location made any difference.

Context can be crucial. If you didn't speak English and you were in a restaurant in the USA and a dude burst in screaming unintelligibly, you might opt to hit him with a chair ... or you might check the calendar.

 

[Levite]

Actually it is true though.

Religions from the beginning have mistreated, and murdered people who believed - differently.

For instance Tanakh tells us the new ONE God Hebrew, committed genocide, - over and over, - against the Hebrew people that wanted to retain their Old God and Goddess. We have Christian history, and know they murdered people world wide, etc.

Now-a-days most try to get along, - at least on the surface.

*

"Religions" are not all of a piece, anymore than are religious people. Some have done those things to a great degree, others not at all.

I am not going to get into discussion of the Israelite wars surrounding the advancement of monotheism over monolatry, because it's irrelevant. It happened over 2500 years ago. Judaism has evolved, as, I trust, have other religions as well.

Plenty of non-religious philosophies, political causes, and plain old nuttiness have been used to justify terrorism also. The implication that it is "religion" that is the cause of terrorism or violence or war or whatever is idiotically reductivist and simplistic, and I believe you are too smart to believe that implication yourself.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Je Suis Charlie

 

[Drolefille]

You'd need to ask the OP. It wasn't my point. If you want to know where I'm coming from, please recall that I was the one who was asking if location made any difference.

Context can be crucial. If you didn't speak English and you were in a restaurant in the USA and a dude burst in screaming unintelligibly, you might opt to hit him with a chair ... or you might check the calendar.

Then we're really agreeing, in the sense that, context - including the HOW someone runs in, the volume at which they say something, etc - matters probably more than the language, IMO

I can't think of a reason to check the calendar though, nor do I think a chair would be an option regardless but that's another matter

 

[YmirGF]

No, that isn't actually discriminatory at all. You may not like it, and that's your choice. You might also find it offensive, as is also your choice. But it fails to be discriminatory by any standard.

I did however start the conversation with a question, albeit a suspicious one, to OP about WHY it was mentioned as it was, and the response was "Oh dear I hate how people justify this terror." Weird, right, cause I didn't, haven't and wouldn't. It's like I was being accused of it though... without coming right out an saying it. Oh look, a dogwhistle.

One thing, I meant it in the sense of "Able to recognize small differences or draw fine distinctions" not in its more commonly used sense. Admittedly, not the best phrasing, but I don't get paid a lot to write on RF. I see where you are coming from, but terms like "dogwhistle" are themselves code-words. What I meant was that you were using a dogwhistle to point out what you considered to be a dogwhistle. If that makes sense, lol.

You did surmise correctly the underlying intent of my phrasing about Islam. As RF member Woodrow Li pointed out recently, no one person speaks for Islam. It is all about the individual's interpretation. THAT is where problems can arise as who can really claim that another person's interpretation is wrong. It's just an opinion.

 

[Drolefille]

One thing, I meant it in the sense of "Able to recognize small differences or draw fine distinctions" not in its more commonly used sense. Admittedly, not the best phrasing, but I don't get paid a lot to write on RF. I see where you are coming from, but terms like "dogwhistle" are themselves code-words. What I meant was that you were using a dogwhistle to point out what you considered to be a dogwhistle. If that makes sense, lol.

No, it's jargon, admittedly, but it wasn't to lead someone to a particular answer nor to mislead anyone on my intentions.

You did surmise correctly the underlying intent of my phrasing about Islam. As RF member Woodrow Li pointed out recently, no one person speaks for Islam. It is all about the individual's interpretation. THAT is where problems can arise as who can really claim that another person's interpretation is wrong. It's just an opinion.

Sure and it makes so much more sense to just say that then to make the backwards sarcastic point.

Personally I think that is all the more reason not to presume that one person's interpretation of extremism is what Islam is all about either. The impression I have is that most people who dislike this aspect of Islam would dislike an Islamic "Pope" or a Caliph even more strongly, but I could be wrong about that. I don't think the differences between Christianity and Islam or "Islam" and "the West" or any other division that we have is so much about the religions themselves but far more about the cultural aspects.

I think it's not actually that difficult to understand why terrorism has risen in the Middle East and among those who culturally identify with it and that we really have to, as a global community, address those issues rather than focusing on the "us vs. them" narrative that I see posed so often. Of course solving the problem is FAR more difficult - and quite a bit above my pay grade - than identifying it. I simply personally believe that had the Middle East been Christian at the time, or Buddhist, or any other religion, the outcome would be incredibly similar. Pretty much any ideology can warp to accept whatever cultural pressures are put upon it, or it dies out anyway.