We could also ask why our leaders are on friendly terms with the people who actively support terrorism all over the world. In the end the vast majority of these jihadi's are nothing more than mere useful idiots. Who'd just as easily could have wound up in an ashram.
Congratulations America
If being entirely unrelated is your criterium, what about, say, the LRA? They claim to be Christian, but I don't expect every Christian to denounce them because I just assume they don't support them (I do recall Limbaugh erroneously supporting them, which AFAIK he hasn't even retracted). And do you expect every anti-islam politician in Europe to denounce Breivik publicly? Wilders did, but he was also 'offended' that this was asked from him, and that a terrorist with ideology based loosely on the same as his was even connected to him (curious considering he does do that all the time to Muslims), and some politicians have even publicly supported his ideology (I think that counts as your "he's bad, but...".
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Surprisingly the dictator of Egypt roughly gets it right : article
@flixy: the difference you should be aware is that jihadis assume they speak for all muslims.
Congratulations America
Aren't most victims of jihadists also muslim? Makes me doubt they think they speak for all. And I wouldn't be surprised if Breivik thought he did what he did for all of us (well, maybe not you). And didn't he write that he expected prominent anti islam figures would denounce him for PR reasons (with the obvious conclusion he thought they supported him)?
BTW, it's not that I necessarily disagree, but I honestly don't know enough about mosques and what is said in them, or in the Muslim community in general, to say anything useful here, but I find Lokis reply a bit simplistic.
On a side note, isn't the Egyptian state also regularly under attack from muslim extremists? Not really surprising they condemn it then
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I could write books on the relationship between muslims in general and jihadis and still not even scratch the surface. I do not believe that it is as simple as saying that 'jihadism is not islam' and thus be done with it.Originally Posted by Flixy
Aren't most victims of jihadists also muslim? Makes me doubt they think they speak for all. And I wouldn't be surprised if Breivik thought he did what he did for all of us (well, maybe not you
BTW, it's not that I necessarily disagree, but I honestly don't know enough about mosques and what is said in them, or in the Muslim community in general, to say anything useful here, but I find Lokis reply a bit simplistic.
On a side note, isn't the Egyptian state also regularly under attack from muslim extremists? Not really surprising they condemn it then
In the warped world vision of the jihadis they are speaking for all of Islam; whoever disagrees with them is simply not a muslim (not just a untrue muslim but simply no muslim). From the other side though we also have this ingrained notion that there is a gradation in how good a muslim somebody really is. And the 'good muslim' comes uncomfortably close to what the Jihadis call a muslim. Is it true that the woman in a headscarf is a better muslim than the woman without one? I seriously don't think so, but I am in a tiny minority. For most of the oft quoted 1.7bn muslims, the headscarf somehow stands for more muslim. Untill we rid ourselves from notions like that it is extremely difficult to keep ourselves distinct from the jihadis.
To do that we need to start seriously thinking about what it is with that crazy tradition that so many of us take to be at least as important as Koran itself. And that my dear flixy is already heretic talk for even moderate muslims.
P.S. it can all be summed up by the simple fact that to declare violent jihadis 'not muslim' you already violate a basic tenet of Islam.
Congratulations America
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6492054.html Apparently those people are not Muslims either...
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the priests in Uganda to condemn the behavior of the LRA. Of course it wouldn't be very useful considering that most LRA members have been kidnapped as children.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's why I said Europe has different laws (in each country) unlike US states and federal laws.
When others pointed out the difference between governmental vs private entity censorship, you said:
But that's not what "condones" means. Every US entity has the choice to host (or cancel) a controversial speaker. Just as every news outlet has the choice to print a controversial cartoon, or not. What would be worse is if the government had the power to force them to do something against their will.
AFAIK, mainstream Muslims and its leaders in the west ARE repeatedly condemning this terrorist bullshit. If anything, they say their faith has been distorted, perverted, and hijacked by a small number of opportunistic megalomaniacal crazies anywhere there's civil/social chaos, with an ineffective government, and a political/leadership vacuum.
1.7 billion Muslims aren't a monolithic group, and Islam has as many interpretations, factions or sects as Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. That said, I do agree with Hazir that Saudi Arabia is responsible for much of the funding and "education" for the Wahabbi/Salafi extremists (I just don't think it's being funneled to/through western mosques).
And we do have a foreign policy double-standard; we overlook human/civil rights abuses in certain countries -- if they have oil, or other valuable stuff we need/use/buy, even if it's child labor, or just cheaper labor. Our policies don't really reflect our principles or values. If they did, we would have stopped doing "business" with Saudi Arabia decades ago.
Why did they censor the news of the "third terrorist"?
The Charlie Hebdo Attack: Characteristics of a False Flag Operation?
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, January 14, 2015
The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of thecharacteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highlytrained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killedseemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.
Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in theattack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined toescape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly establishedby the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in thegetaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of theattack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among theruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of thealleged 9/11 hijackers.
It is a plausible inference that the ID left behindin the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies,later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not theID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact thatsupports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack,Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his namecirculating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in andquickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered bysecurity forces as a terrorist.
Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi. If so,this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have tosay that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachibrothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced or tortured into some sort ofconfession that supports the official story.
The American and European media have ignored thefact that Mourad turned himself in for protection from being killed as aterrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect hadturned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports.The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that thesuspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Not asingle US mainstream media source reported that the alleged suspect turnedhimself in because he has an ironclad alibi.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cha...ration/5424669
Police commissioner investigating Charlie Hebdo attack commitssuicide while writing report
January 11,2015
Police Commissioner likely ‘taken out’ upondiscovery of evidence not fitting to establishment narrative, some speculate
By Shepard Ambellas
PARIS (INTELLIHUB) — Shockingly Police CommissionerHelric Fredou, 45, reportedly killed himself with his own gun while preparing areport just after meeting with a family member of a victim who was shot duringthe recent attack which took place at the offices of the satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo.
Although reports claim that Helric Fredou sufferedfrom “depression” and “burn out” some, like myself, remain skeptical thatFredou was ‘suicided’, murdered, by a third-party in an attempt to quellinformation he gained after speaking with key individuals during hisinvestigation.
According to reports, the fatal blast took place inFredou’s office during the early hours of the morning for “unknown” reasons.
According to reports, everyone surrounding the Fredouwas “shocked”.
https://www.intellihub.com/police-co...riting-report/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote