• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

French Terror Attack

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
gourimoko said:
As I said upthread, France has the largest Muslim population in Europe; excluding Turkey obviously.

These men were French nationals. But your question speaks to Pick6's question; how do you assimilate into a country that you were born in when they will never consider you a first class citizen no matter what you do?

Here's an honest question: would you have asked "where are they from, how did they get in the country," had these men been White? Even considering how integrated (nationally) mainland European nations are with one another -- it's just an odd thing, ya know?
Click to expand...

That is a good question. To answer it honestly If they were white then my question would be what the heck is wrong with them only cos I would not expect ordinary citizens from a "modern" society to involve themselves in a calculated murder rampage of this sort.

A Bigger question that pop up in my mind is - Is this a stray attack or are there deeper issues in France?
 
brownindian said:
That is a good question. To answer it honestly If they were white then my question would be what the heck is wrong with them only cos I would not expect ordinary citizens from a "modern" society to involve themselves in a calculated murder rampage of this sort.

A Bigger question that pop up in my mind is - Is this a stray attack or are there deeper issues in France?
Click to expand...

That depends on what the issue is. France has had issues with their minority population for a while. It is the general malaise caused by marginalization. In the last decade it has also assumed the character of, in some quarters, of Jihadism.

The other issue is if it is a concerted campaign of terror against France directed by outside elements such as AQ or ISIS. That would be something new; but not surprising considering the greatly expanded scope of French activities in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq since 2011.
 
France initially stayed out of the middle East, but started taking a more active role after the iraq war. There were accusations made that their chemical industry was shipping components to Iraq and Libya that were used to make sarin and other chemical weapons. (Germans too)

There is a long history of french involvement in north africa, such as Tunisia, Libya, and Morroco. So there current involvement is really not a change of policy so much as ramping up the current policy.

In any case the jihadists are selling the narrative that this is all payback for the crusades. Which is a load of crap. The last french government to crusade not only got thier asses kicked, but some centuries later were pretty much fed to the guillotine by the french people. The current government is the french people, not the crusading knights of fuedal france.

The Jihadis are simply putting a name to the suffering of the poor in the middle east in the same way that hitler hung the post WWI disaster on Jews. Its a strategy to control the uneducated and poor masses while the head guys get away with literal murder, rape and robbery. You want to live like a king, scare the shit out of everybody and blame it on the boogeyman.

America was founded on the principle that kings suck, and to me whether they are called kings or dictator for life our policy ought to be ( though it is not always) f*ck em..
 
brownindian said:
That is a good question. To answer it honestly If they were white then my question would be what the heck is wrong with them only cos I would not expect ordinary citizens from a "modern" society to involve themselves in a calculated murder rampage of this sort.

A Bigger question that pop up in my mind is - Is this a stray attack or are there deeper issues in France?
Click to expand...

Not all white folk are from Europe. Nor are all Arabs white. Arabian is not a race. Arabs can be either white or black.

As for killers in "modern" society: In the U.S., a mass killing (4 or more killed) happens every two weeks. Check out the slide show (two or three slides in under the frequency tab) :


While not every killing listed were by "whites" an exceedingly high number were. Also, have you forgotten about the school killings? But, perhaps the U.S. is not modern? Perhaps the killings were not calculated? Or of "this sort", but of a "different sort"?

Look at the list of Murder Rampage killings in Europe.

How about terrorist groups like ETA, the IRA, and GRAPO? Or the Red Brigades? No point in pretending that white Europeans are immune to being terrorists.

And what of the 2011 Norway Attacks?

And so on. It is not an us versus them. It is everyone. The entire human race is shit. No use in pretending that modern white anglo-saxons are above such acts. Did you honestly believe they were?
 
Last edited:
King Stannis said:
That depends on what the issue is. France has had issues with their minority population for a while. It is the general malaise caused by marginalization. In the last decade it has also assumed the character of, in some quarters, of Jihadism.

The other issue is if it is a concerted campaign of terror against France directed by outside elements such as AQ or ISIS. That would be something new; but not surprising considering the greatly expanded scope of French activities in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq since 2011.
Click to expand...

The bolded is what worries me as that means that they are now not only having the money and influence power to carry out these kind of attacks but also the success of this will only encourage them to do more. And these kind of attacks will be harder to stop.
 
Sumac13 said:
Do you realize that the vast majority of people from Middle East/Persia are white? White you say?! Yeah, not all white folk are from Europe. Nor are all Arabs white. Arabian is not a race. Arabs can be either white or black.

Actually middle eastern is a unique skin tone in itself and not black or white.

As for killers in "modern" society: In the U.S., a mass killing (4 or more killed) happens every two weeks. Check out the slide show (two or three slides in under the frequency tab) :

Very true - But how many of them had a terrorist organization at the helm of the attack? When these lone attackers go on a serial killing spree, they often get caught or end up dead stopping the attack. Attacks initiated by terrorist organizations seem to keep on coming and never stops. Killing the individual does not end the attack as such.

While not every killing listed were by "whites" an exceedingly high number were. Also, have you forgotten about the school killings? But, perhaps the U.S. is not modern? Perhaps the killings were not calculated? Or of "this sort", but of a "different sort"?

Are the civil rights in the US, German the same as the civil rights in say Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan? Modern does not mean problem free or no killing. The killings in school shooting were not calculated and, It was who ever was in the school in the bullets path. The killings in France was different cos the news reports that these people asked for the victims by name. And I dont remember any terrorist organizations taking credits for the school killings. It is often a disgruntled mental person who stops caring about anything and everything.

Look at the list of Murder Rampage killings in Europe.

How about terrorist groups like ETA, the IRA, and GRAPO? Or the Red Brigades? No point in pretending that white Europeans are immune to being terrorists.

And what of the 2011 Norway Attacks?

How many of these terrorist groups are fighting over territory as opposed to religion? And how many of these terrorists act in multiple regions across the globe as opposed to a limited region? If this is a economic related terrorism or something local then it is very different but Al Quaeda staying in middle east is able to orchestrate an attack like this then this is very different.

And so on. It is not an us versus them. It is everyone. The entire human race is shit. No use in pretending that modern white anglo-saxons are above such acts. Did you honestly believe they were?

Mankind has come a long way in becoming more civilized- We have gone from a state where murder and rape and pillage were common place and everyday occurrence all through human civilization to one where most of these crimes are curtailed a lot. We have gone from being a society where the weak have no rights and perishes to one where we have laws protecting everyone's civil rights. Are we perfect? No. But do we really want to go back to those days? I don't.

And there are people who would like to be in those days as they feel that anything they dont understand and are not comfortable with is an insult to their faith and would want to eliminate what they perceive as a threat for them. I don't want them anywhere near me or my country.
Click to expand...
 
Mass shootings and serial killers in the US are almost exclusively white people as an interesting sidenote.

All ages and walks of life, but almost all white.
 
brownindian said:
Actually middle eastern is a unique skin tone in itself and not black or white.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. You were talking about race, not skin tone in your initial comment. The last time I checked, "unique skin tone" is not a race, unless it is code speak for something else you want to say. People from the Middle East/Persia are by a vast majority predominately white, light skinned or not. If you were to look at me (half arab/half german-english-{and-who-knows-what-else}), you wouldn’t think I’m not white. My skin tone is no less lighter (or just slightly) than was my pop’s, who was full Lebanese. Well, next time the census comes about, I will enter "unique skin tone" under Other. *shaking head in disbelief*

brownindian said:
Very true - But how many of them had a terrorist organization at the helm of the attack? When these lone attackers go on a serial killing spree, they often get caught or end up dead stopping the attack. Attacks initiated by terrorist organizations seem to keep on coming and never stops. Killing the individual does not end the attack as such.
Click to expand...

The U.S. is not immune to organized terrorism. (I'm ignoring the multiple region qualification that you so conveniently imposed.) To name a few (the list is longer):
  • Other attacks with ties to White Supremecy:
    • 1979 - Greensboro massacre: "The Greensboro massacre occurred on November 3, 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina, United States. Five protest marchers were shot and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party at a rally organized by communists intended to demonstrate radical, even violent, opposition to the Klan."
    • 2011 Spokane Bombing Attempt: On March 9, 2011, the FBI arrested Kevin William Harpham, 36, of Addy, Washington, in connection with the bombing attempt. Harpham allegedly had ties to the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization.
    • 2012 August 5: Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting: Six people were killed and three others were injured, including a police officer who was tending to victims at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The gunman, 40-year-old Wade Michael Page, killed himself after being shot by police.[68] The shooting is being treated by authorities as an act of domestic terrorism. While a motive has not been clearly defined Page had been active in white supremacist groups
    • 2013 November 1: 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting: Paul Anthony Ciancia entered the checkpoint at the Los Angeles International Airport and fired his rifle, killing one Transportation Security Administration officer and injuring six others. The motivation behind the attack was Paul's inspiration of the anti-government agenda, such as believing in the New World Order conspiracy theory, and stating that he "wanted to kill TSA" and described them as "pigs".
    • 2014, Overland Park Jewish Community Center – "On April 13, 2014, a pair of shootings committed by a lone gunman occurred at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and Village Shalom, a Jewish retirement community, both located in Overland Park, Kansas. A total of three people were killed in both shootings. The suspected gunman, described as a man in his seventies, was taken into custody. The suspect was later identified as 73-year-old Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. of Aurora, Missouri, originally from North Carolina. He was a Neo-Nazi and former political candidate."
This list doesn’t include an government sanction attacks (which avoids the terrorist label). Look up what the U.S. did in Cambodia.

That said, I certainly would never label Americans as Christian terrorists. Far, far from it. To be would be absurd. Likewise I would not label most muslims as Islamic terrorists. Anyone can pervert religion and use it as justification for attacks, when in reality religion is not the root case of the attacks, but rather a political agenda. If religion was not present, a different justification would be used. It isn't as if most of the attacks would not have occurred if religion wasn't present.

brownindian said:
Are the civil rights in the US, German the same as the civil rights in say Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan? Modern does not mean problem free or no killing. The killings in school shooting were not calculated and, It was who ever was in the school in the bullets path. The killings in France was different cos the news reports that these People asked for the victims by name. And I dont remember any terrorist organizations taking credits for the school killings. It is often a disgruntled mental person who stops caring about anything and everything.
Click to expand...

Perhaps right. So the killers in the U.S. are either just psychotic or sociopaths. What does that say about Yanks? I don’t recall and school shooting in Saudi Arabia. So they must have fewer psychotics and sociopaths. Nevertheless, such actions still occur in 'modern' societies. It isn't like 'modern' societies are immune from violence. But, hey, they at least we (Americans) do not have terrorists… *looks at above*.

brownindian said:
How many of these terrorist groups are fighting over territory as opposed to religion?
Click to expand...

First off, terrorist attacks are not about religion. They may be done in the name of religion, but the religion is not the basis of the attacks. THEY ARE POLITICAL. The attacks are much more about the West’s involvement in Middle East than over religious differences. Blaming Islam is faulty causal reductionist reasoning. People only want to look at religion as the root source of the attacks, when in reality a number of factors are behind the attacks, almost all of which are non-religious. If religion were the sole basis, the number of attacks would be much higher. To frame the attacks as Islam versus Christianity (or the world) is naive.

brownindian said:
And how many of these terrorists act in multiple regions across the globe as opposed to a limited region? If this is a economic related terrorism or something local then it is very different but Al Quaeda staying in middle east is able to orchestrate an attack like this then this is very different.
Click to expand...

Multiple regions?! What difference does that make? If limited to one region, it is somehow less... what? I suppose you can limit domain of discourse to include only terrorist attacks that occur in multiple regions so only the terrorist groups you are targeting qualify. “See, look-y there, Al Quaeda and the like are the ONLY groups doing this.”
 
Last edited:
Sumac13 said:
Oh, please. You were talking about race, not skin tone in your initial comment. The last time I checked, "unique skin tone" is not a race, unless it is code speak for something else you want to say. People from the Middle East/Persia are by a vast majority predominately white, light skinned or not. If you were to look at me (half arab/half german-english-{and-who-knows-what-else}), you wouldn’t think I’m not white. My skin tone is no less lighter (or just slightly) than was my pop’s, who was full Lebanese. Well, next time the census comes about, I will enter "unique skin tone" under Other. *shaking head in disbelief*



The U.S. is not immune to organized terrorism. (I'm ignoring the multiple region qualification that you so conveniently imposed.) To name a few (the list is longer):
  • Other attacks with ties to White Supremecy:
    • 1979 - Greensboro massacre: "The Greensboro massacre occurred on November 3, 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina, United States. Five protest marchers were shot and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party at a rally organized by communists intended to demonstrate radical, even violent, opposition to the Klan."
    • 2011 Spokane Bombing Attempt: On March 9, 2011, the FBI arrested Kevin William Harpham, 36, of Addy, Washington, in connection with the bombing attempt. Harpham allegedly had ties to the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization.
    • 2012 August 5: Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting: Six people were killed and three others were injured, including a police officer who was tending to victims at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The gunman, 40-year-old Wade Michael Page, killed himself after being shot by police.[68] The shooting is being treated by authorities as an act of domestic terrorism. While a motive has not been clearly defined Page had been active in white supremacist groups
    • 2013 November 1: 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting: Paul Anthony Ciancia entered the checkpoint at the Los Angeles International Airport and fired his rifle, killing one Transportation Security Administration officer and injuring six others. The motivation behind the attack was Paul's inspiration of the anti-government agenda, such as believing in the New World Order conspiracy theory, and stating that he "wanted to kill TSA" and described them as "pigs".
    • 2014, Overland Park Jewish Community Center – "On April 13, 2014, a pair of shootings committed by a lone gunman occurred at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and Village Shalom, a Jewish retirement community, both located in Overland Park, Kansas. A total of three people were killed in both shootings. The suspected gunman, described as a man in his seventies, was taken into custody. The suspect was later identified as 73-year-old Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. of Aurora, Missouri, originally from North Carolina. He was a Neo-Nazi and former political candidate."
This list doesn’t include an government sanction attacks (which avoids the terrorist label). Look up what the U.S. did in Cambodia.

That said, I certainly would never label Americans as Christian terrorists. Far, far from it. To be would be absurd. Likewise I would not label most muslims as Islamic terrorists. Anyone can pervert religion and use it as justification for attacks, when in reality religion is not the root case of the attacks, but rather a political agenda. If religion was not present, a different justification would be used. It isn't as if most of the attacks would not have occurred if religion wasn't present.



Perhaps right. So the killers in the U.S. are either just psychotic or sociopaths. What does that say about Yanks? I don’t recall and school shooting in Saudi Arabia. So they must have fewer psychotics and sociopaths. Nevertheless, such actions still occur in 'modern' societies. It isn't like 'modern' societies are immune from violence. But, hey, they at least we (Americans) do not have terrorists… *looks at above*.



First off, terrorist attacks are not about religion. They may be done in the name of religion, but the religion is not the basis of the attacks. THEY ARE POLITICAL. The attacks are much more about the West’s involvement in Middle East than over religious differences. Blaming Islam is faulty causal reductionist reasoning. People only want to look at religion as the root source of the attacks, when in reality a number of factors are behind the attacks, almost all of which are non-religious. If religion were the sole basis, the number of attacks would be much higher. To frame the attacks as Islam versus Christianity (or the world) is naive.



Multiple regions?! What difference does that make? If limited to one region, it is somehow less... what? I suppose you can limit domain of discourse to include only terrorist attacks that occur in multiple regions so only the terrorist groups you are targeting qualify. “See, look-y there, Al Quaeda and the like are the ONLY groups doing this.”
Click to expand...

Fun fact: ELF (Environmental Liberation Front) is the most prolific terrorist group in the US.
 
gourimoko said:
What are you trying to debate now? Whether or not, Charlie Hebdo was racist, prejudiced or bigoted?? It's been done, by people who actually read the publication. Why redo it?
Click to expand...

I don't think its remotely relevant to the underlying issue period. But then, I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. As I said upthread, I think it's a complete red herring given that the bombing was expressly motivated by the alleged "blasphemy" of Muhammed. And I believe the reason race was brought in the first place was precisely to shift the discussion to something other than the core underlying issue. I just didn't think the claim that Charlie Hebdo is "no doubt" racist should be left hanging without anyone questioning it. I've read enough on it to think that's an unjustified expansion of the meaning of the term.

In any case, the underlying context in which "racism" was raised was the reprinting of the cartoon at issue. That reprinting idea was responded to with a classic "attack the messenger" response of calling Charlie Hebod racist, as if that somehow invalidated everything else they may have said or done.

I personally think there is an extremely important issue at stake, which is why I support the reprinting of the cartoon in question. The principle that free speech -- especially political/social/religious commentary of public interest -- should not be barred simply because someone else deems it offensive is too important to be left undefended.

I think it is particularly important because Islamic radicals have attempted to force people in other contexts to abide by their rules of religious propriety, or face violence or even death. the point needs to be made -- repeatedly -- that membership in civilized society requires recognition of the rights of others to engage in behavior that offends you. That is particularly true where you have some self=professed adherents of a religious minority attempting to impose its beliefs upon a majority.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
I don't think its remotely relevant to the underlying issue period.
Click to expand...

Charlie Hebdo being a racist, bigoted and prejudiced publication is not relevant to why they were attacked?

Are you serious?

The Human Q-Tip said:
But then, I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place.
Click to expand...

Brought what up?

The Human Q-Tip said:
As I said upthread, I think it's a complete red herring given that the bombing was expressly motivated by the alleged "blasphemy" of Muhammed.
Click to expand...

Where has this been "expressed??" You're straight up lying with your "quote" because the attackers made no public statement.

The CIA has publicly stated they believe this was motivated by insulting and mocking the religion of Islam.

No one said this was retribution for "blasphemy."

Mocking a religion is indeed a discriminatory and prejudiced action.

greedy-jewish-person-cartoon.jpg


This is commonly considered racist. But it doesn't depict a "race" of people does it?

Is this guy Polish? Is he Russian? Is German? Is he FRENCH?

What is his race? Who knows... All we know is, he is Jewish. "Jews" are not a race, it's a religion.

Some might say well, it's antisemitic then, if not racist; but again, that's more than likely not true. The person depicted historically would have been of Ashkenazi descent (European) and thus not Semites.

Now, would you say the above picture is not racist??

The problem with Charlie Hebdo is they routinely depicted Muslims as savages and barbarians. Yes, they also ridiculed the prophet Muhammad. Dehumanizing Muslims is the exact same form of racism as dehumanizing Jews. That's the point.

Call it prejudice, call it bigotry, both terms I used to begin with, which are surely more accurate terms - but at least be consistent; and personally, I don't give a shit which term you decide, but the point is that if someone were to say "that's racist," you know what they're referring to...

And who might say it's racist? Well Der Spiegel, the Register, the New York Times, Al Jazeera have all referred to Charlie Hebdo's cartoons as racist, especially with respect to their depictions of Arabs and Muslims.

The Human Q-Tip said:
And I believe the reason race was brought in the first place was precisely to shift the discussion to something other than the core underlying issue. I just didn't think the claim that Charlie Hebdo is "no doubt" racist should be left hanging without anyone questioning it. I've read enough on it to think that's an unjustified expansion of the meaning of the term.
Click to expand...

Q-Tip, I don't give two flying fucks if you want to defend Charlie Hebdo and claim that they aren't racist.. I don't care. Nate posted their cartoons, and I'm quite sure (even in the thread) many others perceive their work as racist and offensive.

I mean, is this one of those asinine conversations about the scope of the definition of the term "racism?" As in, is 'antisemitism' or bigotry towards Jews racist or not? Because if it is, I'm not interested.

And with that; I really don't get your point.

The Human Q-Tip said:
In any case, the underlying context in which "racism" was raised was the reprinting of the cartoon at issue. That reprinting idea was responded to with a classic "attack the messenger" response of calling Charlie Hebod racist, as if that somehow invalidated everything else they may have said or done.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about.... This has nothing to do with me or any point I've made in this thread.

It's a strawman.

Reprinting? WTF??

The Human Q-Tip said:
I personally think there is an extremely important issue at stake, which is why I support the reprinting of the cartoon in question.
Click to expand...

WHEN DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REPRINTING THE CARTOONS?!!?!

The Human Q-Tip said:
The principle that free speech -- especially political/social/religious commentary of public interest -- should not be barred simply because someone else deems it offensive is too important to be left undefended.
Click to expand...

Strawman much?

Who the fuck said they should be censored??? Me?!

Why are you quoting me, implying that I'm against their rights to publication??

But, with that said, their publication is indeed illegal under French law (laws that I do not support btw), and speaks to the racist second-class stature of non-Whites in France; but that's another matter entirely.

The Human Q-Tip said:
I think it is particularly important because Islamic radicals have attempted to force people in other contexts to abide by their rules of religious propriety, or face violence or even death. the point needs to be made -- repeatedly -- that membership in civilized society requires recognition of the rights of others to engage in behavior that offends you. That is particularly true where you have some self=professed adherents of a religious minority attempting to impose its beliefs upon a majority.
Click to expand...

What is the point of any of this?

Who is saying that Charlie Hebdo should be prevented from doing what they are doing?

Has anyone in this thread suggested printing their cartoons should be "banned?"

You're arguing with no one as far as I can tell....

No one is going to backup these murders.
 
Sumac13 said:
Oh, please. You were talking about race, not skin tone in your initial comment. The last time I checked, "unique skin tone" is not a race, unless it is code speak for something else you want to say. People from the Middle East/Persia are by a vast majority predominately white, light skinned or not. If you were to look at me (half arab/half german-english-{and-who-knows-what-else}), you wouldn’t think I’m not white. My skin tone is no less lighter (or just slightly) than was my pop’s, who was full Lebanese. Well, next time the census comes about, I will enter "unique skin tone" under Other. *shaking head in disbelief*

" No way!!! No country is prepared for a guerella attack like this - This is going to increase the anti islamic sentiments of the French people. Sadly the good natured islamic people too will be an indirect victims of this. Also hopefully France does fix their immigration issue and put a tab on how many hardcore islamic people they let in. "

- That was my initial post on this thread - I think the 3rd post on page 1 ... How exactly di you derive race from that? I did not even mention skin color/race in that post? Can you please explain? And to explain the skin tone - Kim Kardashians skin tone has an ethinic tone to it as opposed to say Paris Hilton. Or do you only see the world as Black and White?

The U.S. is not immune to organized terrorism. (I'm ignoring the multiple region qualification that you so conveniently imposed.) To name a few (the list is longer):
  • Other attacks with ties to White Supremecy:
    • 1979 - Greensboro massacre: "The Greensboro massacre occurred on November 3, 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina, United States. Five protest marchers were shot and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party at a rally organized by communists intended to demonstrate radical, even violent, opposition to the Klan."
    • 2011 Spokane Bombing Attempt: On March 9, 2011, the FBI arrested Kevin William Harpham, 36, of Addy, Washington, in connection with the bombing attempt. Harpham allegedly had ties to the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization.
    • 2012 August 5: Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting: Six people were killed and three others were injured, including a police officer who was tending to victims at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The gunman, 40-year-old Wade Michael Page, killed himself after being shot by police.[68] The shooting is being treated by authorities as an act of domestic terrorism. While a motive has not been clearly defined Page had been active in white supremacist groups
    • 2013 November 1: 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting: Paul Anthony Ciancia entered the checkpoint at the Los Angeles International Airport and fired his rifle, killing one Transportation Security Administration officer and injuring six others. The motivation behind the attack was Paul's inspiration of the anti-government agenda, such as believing in the New World Order conspiracy theory, and stating that he "wanted to kill TSA" and described them as "pigs".
    • 2014, Overland Park Jewish Community Center – "On April 13, 2014, a pair of shootings committed by a lone gunman occurred at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and Village Shalom, a Jewish retirement community, both located in Overland Park, Kansas. A total of three people were killed in both shootings. The suspected gunman, described as a man in his seventies, was taken into custody. The suspect was later identified as 73-year-old Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. of Aurora, Missouri, originally from North Carolina. He was a Neo-Nazi and former political candidate."
This list doesn’t include an government sanction attacks (which avoids the terrorist label). Look up what the U.S. did in Cambodia.

That said, I certainly would never label Americans as Christian terrorists. Far, far from it. To be would be absurd. Likewise I would not label most muslims as Islamic terrorists. Anyone can pervert religion and use it as justification for attacks, when in reality religion is not the root case of the attacks, but rather a political agenda. If religion was not present, a different justification would be used. It isn't as if most of the attacks would not have occurred if religion wasn't present.

Interestingly neither did the ones who commit the crimes call themselves Christian martyrs. So if you want to call them that then you are the one who is wrong. Also nobody in their right minds is calling all muslims as Islamic terrorsits. They are calling the terrorists who commit the terror in the name of religion as Islamic Terrorists. How do you that without religion there will still be the same amount of terrorism? Was any research done on this - Cos I would be interested to read that.

Perhaps right. So the killers in the U.S. are either just psychotic or sociopaths. What does that say about Yanks? I don’t recall and school shooting in Saudi Arabia. So they must have fewer psychotics and sociopaths. Nevertheless, such actions still occur in 'modern' societies. It isn't like 'modern' societies are immune from violence. But, hey, they at least we (Americans) do not have terrorists… *looks at above*.

It could very well be the case that there are less psychotics and sociopaths in Saudi Arabia and hence there is less school killings. Why is that possibility so hard to believe ? How many of the school shootings were cause of a religious lunatic? Most are attributed to mentally unstable people who somehow have easy access to hand guns. And after a school shooting you don't have a terrorist organization claiming responsibility.

First off, terrorist attacks are not about religion. They may be done in the name of religion, but the religion is not the basis of the attacks. THEY ARE POLITICAL. The attacks are much more about the West’s involvement in Middle East than over religious differences. Blaming Islam is faulty causal reductionist reasoning. People only want to look at religion as the root source of the attacks, when in reality a number of factors are behind the attacks, almost all of which are non-religious. If religion were the sole basis, the number of attacks would be much higher. To frame the attacks as Islam versus Christianity (or the world) is naive.

You are the only one who bought Islam Vs Christianity into the discussion, Not me. Also no one is blaming Islam- They are blaming Islamic Terrorist Organization which is what AlQuaeda , Boko Haram etc are. I think there is a difference between the two, Do you?

Multiple regions?! What difference does that make? If limited to one region, it is somehow less... what? I suppose you can limit domain of discourse to include only terrorist attacks that occur in multiple regions so only the terrorist groups you are targeting qualify. “See, look-y there, Al Quaeda and the like are the ONLY groups doing this.”

The regions matter in this instance cos we are trying to establish if this was Al Queda orchestrated attack that used these killers as guinea pig or was it more that these killers were in an economic/societal/mental stress that caused them to react like this.

If this was Al Queda - then it shows that they are expanding their influence to brainwash these people into perpetrating these crimes. Which means the world needs to try and find ways of how Al Queda is able to get funds for these sort of activities and able to send it to France to carry out these acts. If this was a local act then there is not much that the rest of the world can do and it is more for France to introspect on their policies and see how they can improve on their internal policies to prevent/reduce these sort of attacks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top