Shootings and explosion in Paris

[Inseriousity.]

What conservative said makes perfect sense to me lmao. It's just dan twisting his words.

Charlie Hebdo posted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad which is regarded as blasphemy in Islam so yes I am not surprised a high percentage of Muslims disagree with the magazine but that does not mean that a high percentage of Muslims agree that you have the right to shoot and bomb the magazine offices. It's not standing up or apologising for terrorism, it's standing up for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who express their dislike for something in non-violent and constructive ways.

It goes without saying but seeing as Dan seems to think not saying it makes you point the finger of blame at France, I am perfectly content for anyone to publish cartoons/pictures of the Prophet Muhammad cos I'm not a Muslim and do not care.

[AgnesIO]

My example figure was bogus yes, the figures from the research show the percentages to be higher than 5%. Fool.

That's like saying 1% of British people like to drink urine, and then backing up your claim by using another statistic by saying 100% of British people urinate. They are two entirely different statistics...

I probably disagree with some of what Undertaker says, but he's the only one that's actually made some sense in in this thread. I'd rep him if I could but it seems I've already done so lately.

And for Conservative dismissing the polls and percentages Undertaker said, some statistics you've posted are even more shocking and worse than what what he's said, so you've done yourself no favour in my opinion. You said they had sympathy for the motives behind it and to me that is no better than having sympathy for those who actually carried the acts out.

I'm not much of a good debater, so don't expect much more from me lol

Wrong. There is nothing wrong with saying that Charlie Hebdo should not have published images mocking the Prophet Mohammed. BUT there is everything wrong with stating that they deserved to be killed as a result.

Inseriousity. has already said it on my behalf; read what I have actually read (not what Dan is implying I have said) and make a sensible (arguably non-UKIPesque) conclusion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When you say there's nothing wrong with saying that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have published those images mocking the Prophet what you really mean is that he shouldn't have published them not because it bothers you personally but because you both @conservative; @Inseriousity.; know what the reaction amongst many muslims is when their precious religion is subjected to criticism or mockery: they simply cannot take it and there's a radical section who will resort to violence to silence that criticism/mockery with backing or 'sympathy' from a substantial slice of the muslim population as the polling and research indicates. You both think or indicate that those cartoons shouldn't have been published because you are terrified of upsetting people who will turn violent against western society if they're upset. In short, you've already submitted and it makes you cowards in doing so.

In other words you both know there's serious problems in Islam (it's obvious) but you don't want to say it outright and don't want to upset the Religion of Peace.

[AgnesIO]

know what the reaction amongst many muslims is when their precious religion is subjected to criticism or mockery:

you are terrified of upsetting people who will turn violent against western society if they're upset.

you both know there's serious problems in Islam

*REMOVED*

Edited by Expling (Forum Moderator): Please respect other forum members!

[Inseriousity.]

No I don't think that at all. You're just assuming that. Yes I can bold words too. Magazine owners/newspapers have the freedom of speech/expression to post cartoon/pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, mock every other religion, mock politicians, mock celebrities etc and those that disagree have the freedom of speech/expression to disagree/protest/boycott/[insert other peaceful demonstration here]. The point was that the stats quoted show that the majority of Muslims disagree with the magazine for mocking their religion's Prophet (which both conservative and I are like WELL DUH) but the majority do not believe violence is an appropriate response.

If you're going to say what I think, please get it right.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh no you didn't say it @conservative; but that's really what you meant. It is just as when you brought up France being 'anti-Islam' for daring to uphold secular republican values by banning the burqa what you really meant was that if only France pandered to Islam and stood down on it's own values then these bad things wouldn't happen.

You're an absolute quisling. Thankfully though there's many out there like myself who believe we should always defend our values even in the face of violence.

but the majority do not believe violence is an appropriate response.

Didn't claim they did.

Why is it when arguing with Islamic terror apologists all they can repeat over and over is "not all muslims are terrorists" as though somebody ever stated all muslims were terrorists? Answer: because they'd rather take a PC moral high horse than confront the reality which is that there's a substantial amount of support even in western islamic sections of the population who are hostile to western values such as free expression and who support violence.

As I said earlier, even if 5% of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians you are allowing in are radicals that is enough to bring our countries to their knees. It just happened.

[Kyle]

In a word: sympathising with those against blasphemy =/= agreeing that murder is the correct response.

This is painful. I hope it doesn't affect those seeking safety in Europe too much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's been confirmed at least one of those lovely 'refugees' that @conservative; Angela Merkel and Benedict Cumberbatch wanted to let in is one of the suspects.

Suspected Paris attacker with Syrian passport passed through Greece last month, minister says https://t.co/XymnbqhBgM #ParisAttacks

— ITV News (@itvnews) November 14, 2015

[AgnesIO]

Oh no you didn't say it @conservative; but that's really what you meant. It is just as when you brought up France being 'anti-Islam' for daring to uphold secular republican values by banning the burqa what you really meant was that if only France pandered to Islam and stood down on it's own values then these bad things wouldn't happen.

As I said earlier, even if 5% of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians you are allowing in are radicals that is enough to bring our countries to their knees. It just happened.

Once again, 5% of Muslims (or refugees) are not radicals...

Ohh, of course, I get it. Because you know more about what I meant than I do. Right, move on.

Nobody is claiming that they won't have been one of the refugees, either. But that doesn't mean that every refugee is a **** radical (or even 5%...)..

Why would I be scared of Islam? I'm flying to one of stricter Islamic countries in a little over a month. Hardly the sign of someone whom is scared.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh take a hike. I wondered how long before people like you started getting the excuses in for the religion of peace. What is it about you which can't understand that even if only 1% of muslims are extreme (it is actually higher) then 1 in every 100 is enough to bring western civilisation to a standstill when you are allowing in millions? Why must people like me who didn't want any of this in Europe be blown up or shot dead on our way to work because of your absolute stupidity?

Don't give me your love and hate sixth form speech either son to dodge the issue here, heard all that before and it doesn't wash.

I haven't made excuses for anyone, I just said that this isn't the place for hatred of those who haven't done any wrong. By your shit and senseless reasoning all blacks are criminals, all gays have AIDS, all whites are paedophiles, all Scousers eat rats, etc. The fact that you keep having to say IN OTHER WORDS!!!!!!!!! to try making a point shows that all you're doing is twisting quotes and ignoring what's really happening... as always.

You said they had sympathy for the motives behind it and to me that is no better than having sympathy for those who actually carried the acts out.

The "sympathy" statistic is misleading in that all it really means is they understand why cartoons of Mohammed angered some people. It doesn't mean they're going around thinking "aww those poor little terrorists I do feel sorry for them", just that they know why it happened