maqroll

As would I. What I wouldn't struggle to take seriously is the idea that the attack against a newspaper critical of Islamic extremism is in fact an attack against the West's concept of freedom of expression.

But if these "fictional or non-fictional events from a thousand years ago" play a contemporary role in informing the collective mentality of a large number of people, you are refusing to discuss what is often rudimentary to many of these conflicts and massacres. Few rational people would argue against your point that all religions throughout history have been used as a reason to slaughter and subject. But the topic of the day due to events in Paris happens to be Islamic extremism. Very few on here are singling Islam out for excessive ridicule.

Nothing. Unless they are proven to be agents of a state. But individual Muslims shouldn't be under any obligation to condemn the attacks. It's like demanding that conservative European Christians condemn the Anders Breivik shootings. However, groups like the Arab League should condemn the Paris shooting, just as the government of Japan should. Or the government of Bolivia. Most Muslims living in the western world will condemn the attacks. That's what you don't seem to understand. They just get drowned out. That's what I don't seem to understand, eh? There's definitely a way of debating that doesn't resort to belittling others. Erm, not sure if this was directed at me?

He kinda did though, once he had the numbers. Islam was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Arab Bedouin who the Sheikhs wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible. A glimpse at modern Saudi Arabia reveals that little has changed in that regard. Don't mistake me as being anti-Muslim, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. Cartoons are what they are. Cartoons. There is no death penalty for non-muslims for drawing a cartoon. Your depiction of history has nothing to do with it. I hate it when attacks like today is used to attack Islams and Muslims as a religion and group. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what you wrote. It has as little to do with today's attacks as your veiled attack on Muslims as a group. Christianity was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Englishmen who the Kings wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible. A glimpse at modern USA reveals that little has changed in that regard. Don't mistake me as being anti-Christian, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. I am not sure what you're objecting at? The historical reality is that Mohammed was able to use a monotheistic idea to create a "supertribe" from his ummah that was capable militarily of conquering his neighbours. "Strive, O Prophet against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal with them firmly. Their final abode is Hell; And what a wretched destination". A strong message, which was violently executed with some aplomb. This is what AWOL is rightly pointing out, that it is a religion spread through violence. Mohammed's ummah and the supertribe brought together carried this out literally as did the successors. The Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon in 637, Persepolis in 648, Nishapur in 651, Kabul in 664, Samarkand in 710, in the Eastern Empire, Damascus and Antioch in 635, Alexandria 642, Carthage 698. That is the historical reality. I won't stoop down to your level. What level is that? Maintaining a courteous tone whilst debating a topical issue?

Nothing. Unless they are proven to be agents of a state. But individual Muslims shouldn't be under any obligation to condemn the attacks. It's like demanding that conservative European Christians condemn the Anders Breivik shootings. However, groups like the Arab League should condemn the Paris shooting, just as the government of Japan should. Or the government of Bolivia. Most Muslims living in the western world will condemn the attacks. That's what you don't seem to understand. They just get drowned out. That's what I don't seem to understand, eh?

You lost me at that disgusting term 'over educated'. Drop the book bag Hippie, and get a job!

Nothing. Unless they are proven to be agents of a state. But individual Muslims shouldn't be under any obligation to condemn the attacks. It's like demanding that conservative European Christians condemn the Anders Breivik shootings. However, groups like the Arab League should condemn the Paris shooting, just as the government of Japan should. Or the government of Bolivia.

Bashar Assad looks more "white" than say Christiano Ronaldo, so skin color (sorry Tony) means **** all. How could you tell they were "white" under those balaclavas, by the way?

Just curious, what poster or which post(s) is this directed at?

How many football forums also have this kind of political discourse? I love VT.

It may or may nor be controversial, but it's an opinion that will not be censored in the West, even in the US.

The US government is terrifying for a number of reasons, but religious hysteria is not one of them.

Sadly, the knock on effect of these terrorist attacks are too often a suppression of civil rights in the secular west by our secular governments. More cameras, more intrusive laws being passed, self-censorship by intimidated media outlets, etc. The Islamists see this and know that they can essentially wreak havoc beyond just the immediate horror of a shooting or a bombing.

LOL

The attackers reportedly shouted "God is Great" as they slaughtered satirists who regularly lampoon Islamic fanaticism. I think it has everything to do with religion (or at least the religious hypersensitivity of the killers).

Except he wasn't talking about Christianity. I'm sure if you look at the religion thread, Christianity is dragged through the proverbial mud. I think most people who comment on religion here have roughly the same level of disdain for all religion, and all the barbarism committed in it's name down the centuries.

Yep the Le Pen gang are licking their lips right now.

A dramatic change in uniform next season for Cleveland apparently. I'm guessing the all orange helmet is gonna get scrapped for some kind of logo. Not sure what else to expect. I'll miss the very plain orange thing.

#nextgeorgebest

I'd love it if he beats Man Utd in the Europa League next year!

Sad, he'll now rot on the bench if he signs with Bayern or Madrid.

Sunderland 1 v 1 Liverpool Burnley 1 v 1 QPR Chelsea 3 v 1 Newcastle Leicester 1 v 1 Aston Villa Swansea 1 v 1 West Ham West Brom 0 v 0 Hull Crystal Palace 1 v 2 Tottenham Arsenal 2 v 0 Stoke Man United 2 v 1 Southampton Everton 1 v 2 Man City