Mass shooting in France at magazine that published Mohammed cartoons

[LogikAndReazon]

Three more dead illiterate, tempermental jihadist pussies offed to paradise...
Allah Ak.....well, good riddance

 

[Derideo_Te]

There are millions of fundamentalist Christians who supported Eric Rudolph and his ilk. But somehow there is a distinction between them and fundamentalist Muslims? Please explain this difference in your own words and yes, you can use both sides of the page.

My own words? Who's words do you think I was using? I'm not aware of millions of Christians supporting him, you can use somebody else's words to back it up if there are some facts involved.

How many fundamentalist Christians in your area are cutting noses off of women, beheading non believers, warring with other factions of Christianity and terrorizing the population that allows criticisms to flourish? You can use your own words.

Read and learn!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

That isn't just the work of a few individuals.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No, sorry, guy.

The days of people accepting excuses for the misbehaviors of Islam seems to be quickly coming to an end.

9-11 cured America-at-large of any such shyness about naming Islam as the Enemy.

The London Tube Bombings began that process for the UK, but they (and the rest of Europe) have not yet suffered enough.

But, as we can see unfolding, their time is coming.

Your boy George W. tried to launch a Crusade for Jesus. People tired of it pretty quickly.

Hey, here's a whacky idea. Why don't we get a volunteer legion of all you guys who think Islam is the Enemy, and you can all go off crusading against them. You can have Bill Kristol as your Colonel, and lead this great fight against the "enemy".

So the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about a Christian crusade ?
I sure missed that little fact somewhere along the way.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are seriously deranged in your perceptions, if you believe that.

Muslims disagree with the texts that are being misused by Kondor to smear Islam and the 1.5 billion faithful but according to you they don't count.

No, the 1.5 billion are not being faithful to the Koran. The Koran makes specific statements, it IS their NT. The interpretations are what the peaceful Muslims follow. The adherents to the Koran are those that are creating problems.

No, the 1.5 billion are not being faithful to the Koran.

Prove it!


Quran 002.191 - 193:

(191)And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them;such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
(192)But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(193) And fight with them until there is no persecution,and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

The Koran makes specific statements, it IS their NT.

So what? Your bible makes specific statements too. Without the OT your NT is meaningless. You don't get to cherry pick your bible while imposing a blanket on the Koran.

It isn't my Bible and you missed my earlier point. The NT is what Christians follow, it supercedes the OT. Instead of stoning adulterers to death Christians are to forgive them. The fact that you think it's cherry picking demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

The interpretations are what the peaceful Muslims follow. The adherents to the Koran are those that are creating problems.

A distinction without a difference. Are you identical to Eric Rudolph? Would you take his place? Should you be held accountable for his actions?

Let's see, a handful of Christian nuts commit crimes, that are not supported by the Bible or the Christian community and you see that as being similar to the millions of Muslims that justify murdering non believers? You have no ability to discern one thing from the other.

There are millions of fundamentalist Christians who supported Eric Rudolph and his ilk. But somehow there is a distinction between them and fundamentalist Muslims? Please explain this difference in your own words and yes, you can use both sides of the page.

Here are the facts;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

 

[RandomVariable]

If these terrorists keep it up, Marine Le Pen will eventually be the French President: Le Pen May Gain as Magazine Attack Strains French Divide - Businessweek

Marine Le Pen is getting out in front of this killing at Charlie Hebdo. She pushing for the return of the death penalty for France. Quelle surprise.

Le Pen would most likely have shut down Hebdo or exiled them if she took over

Right Wingers DO NOT support free speech, except when it is their own

Its a shame you think that nationalists, not islamists are the enemy. Whereas we value free speech, they don't. No matter how much you espouse tolerance towards them, or offer them the olive branch of multiculturalism, Islam does not respect your right as an infidel to exist.

Radical extremists are the enemy. Nationalist fall into that category. I would offer no olive branch to radical jihadists -- except maybe if it were tinged with ebola

Radical jihadists are nationalists who want to overthrow any regime that doesn't follow strict Shariah law, and establish Islamic Caliphates across the world. The West is an obstacle for achieving this goal.

Caliphate. There can be only one. It is the adversaries great gladiator battle for the ages. Winner gets a pat on the head and discarded.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Their underlying religious dogma promotes medievalism and barbarity to an extent unknown to other present-day mainstream religious belief systems.

Your bible promotes killing children!

Leviticus 20 9 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother their blood will be on their own head.

Exodus 21 17 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

How is that not just as barbarous?

Let us know when armies of Christians begin carrying out these verses.

 

[Roudy]

Wrong again d-bag, the crusades started because of Muslim invasions into Christian Europe. Muslims drew first blood. Had there been no Muslim invasions, there wouldn't have been any crusades.

Um, no, they didn't. In fact, the expansion into Spain (which is like on the other side of Europe from where the Crusades happened) had been halted hundreds of years before. The Crusades happened because even though Muslims had taken over the "Holy Land" centuries before, Some Pope decided he needed to up his street cred by declaring a "Crusade" to take them back.

Of course, at the time of the Crusades, the Islamic world had science and medicine and Christian Europe was burning cats and Jews every time there was a plague. (I kind of feel bad about the cats.)

^^^^^
Spoken like a true "Muslim".

Had the Muslims not initially invaded the holy land and Western Europe, the crusades would have never occurred.

History of the Crusades

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, theSeljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.


Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

"

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

There are millions of fundamentalist Christians who supported Eric Rudolph and his ilk. But somehow there is a distinction between them and fundamentalist Muslims? Please explain this difference in your own words and yes, you can use both sides of the page.

My own words? Who's words do you think I was using? I'm not aware of millions of Christians supporting him, you can use somebody else's words to back it up if there are some facts involved.

How many fundamentalist Christians in your area are cutting noses off of women, beheading non believers, warring with other factions of Christianity and terrorizing the population that allows criticisms to flourish? You can use your own words.

Read and learn!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

That isn't just the work of a few individuals.

How about read and answer, Derideo or is that a novel idea for you?

He asked you a question. Answer it. And while you are at it provide a link for your fictional claim that millions of Christians supported Eric Rudolph. From a valid source - not a hate Christians website - thanks.

Here are his questions - try answering them rather than doling out condescending replies like Read and learn!
He says:
My own words? Who's words do you think I was using? I'm not aware of millions of Christians supporting him, you can use somebody else's words to back it up if there are some facts involved.

How many fundamentalist Christians in your area are cutting noses off of women, beheading non believers, warring with other factions of Christianity and terrorizing the population that allows criticisms to flourish? You can use your own words.[/QUOTE]

You replied Read and learn. Try Read and reply now....... the change will do you good.

 

[RandomVariable]

This seems about a representative reaction/explanation from the Muslim community as I have seen.

 

[Roudy]

Wow 92 pages and still no one was killed because they posted a picture of Mohammed. I posted one yesterday and have been waiting for my inevitable whacking yet I am still alive.

Even if a Muslim fanatic living close by gets hold of your location?

You are extremely naive.

 

[Roudy]

Sure thing.

Come get me.

Cut it out!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You are seriously deranged in your perceptions, if you believe that.

No, the 1.5 billion are not being faithful to the Koran. The Koran makes specific statements, it IS their NT. The interpretations are what the peaceful Muslims follow. The adherents to the Koran are those that are creating problems.

No, the 1.5 billion are not being faithful to the Koran.

Prove it!


Quran 002.191 - 193:

(191)And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them;such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
(192)But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(193) And fight with them until there is no persecution,and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

The Koran makes specific statements, it IS their NT.

So what? Your bible makes specific statements too. Without the OT your NT is meaningless. You don't get to cherry pick your bible while imposing a blanket on the Koran.

It isn't my Bible and you missed my earlier point. The NT is what Christians follow, it supercedes the OT. Instead of stoning adulterers to death Christians are to forgive them. The fact that you think it's cherry picking demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

The interpretations are what the peaceful Muslims follow. The adherents to the Koran are those that are creating problems.

A distinction without a difference. Are you identical to Eric Rudolph? Would you take his place? Should you be held accountable for his actions?

Let's see, a handful of Christian nuts commit crimes, that are not supported by the Bible or the Christian community and you see that as being similar to the millions of Muslims that justify murdering non believers? You have no ability to discern one thing from the other.

There are millions of fundamentalist Christians who supported Eric Rudolph and his ilk. But somehow there is a distinction between them and fundamentalist Muslims? Please explain this difference in your own words and yes, you can use both sides of the page.

Here are the facts;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Facts from Atheists, Agnostics, New agers, Wiccans ( witches), Buddhists and other cult religions? You must be kidding me! ha! ha! This is a bunch of nonsense - a Canadian built website spewing lies, Derideo. Put down the kool aid.

Statement of beliefs of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance OCRT

OCRT Statement of Belief:
We are a multi-faith group. As of late-2012, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccanand Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such asbelief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.

No thanks!

NEXT?!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

No, sorry, guy.

The days of people accepting excuses for the misbehaviors of Islam seems to be quickly coming to an end.

9-11 cured America-at-large of any such shyness about naming Islam as the Enemy.

The London Tube Bombings began that process for the UK, but they (and the rest of Europe) have not yet suffered enough.

But, as we can see unfolding, their time is coming.

Your boy George W. tried to launch a Crusade for Jesus. People tired of it pretty quickly.

Hey, here's a whacky idea. Why don't we get a volunteer legion of all you guys who think Islam is the Enemy, and you can all go off crusading against them. You can have Bill Kristol as your Colonel, and lead this great fight against the "enemy".

So the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about a Christian crusade ?
I sure missed that little fact somewhere along the way.

So did I.

 

[Roudy]

Of course it wouldn't stop it. But by not calling it what it is you're saying you're not serious about it. Jihadists knows they're being pleased and keep pushing. When they come to our doorstep, who would care how they're called.

Okay, that takes the cake....

I would expect a Fox news viewer to believe Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously.

This s a great example of how Fox News creates false and misleading impressions, and you guys believe them.

Haven't you noticed that every news story Fox covers eventually winds back into some type of criticism of Obama?

Not every negative news story is Obama's fault.

Obama takes terrorism "seriously". He refuses to call it ISLAMIC terrorism, and it's always someone elses fault. The terrorists did what they did because they had no choice, they were made to do it, someone didn't comply or submit to their requests, etc.

There is more than one kind of terrorism in the world today.

...And all the left has to point to is Timothy Mc Veigh, who didn't do it in the name of Jesus. Fail.

So does that mean that McVeigh was not a terrorist according to Lord High Roudy?

How about Eric Rudolph? He committed terrorist acts in the name of Jesus. Or do you have an excuse for him too? And it didn't stop with him either. What are your excuses for William Pierce and Francis Gerald Grady?

Care to explain away the Hutaree militia? Are they also excused from your definition of terrorists?

Mc Veigh did not kill in the name of Jesus.

If you want to be delusional about the linkage between Islam and terrorism by using these false comparisons and isolated events, go ahead. You're only fooling yourself.

 

[Roudy]

Their underlying religious dogma promotes medievalism and barbarity to an extent unknown to other present-day mainstream religious belief systems.

Your bible promotes killing children!

Leviticus 20 9 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother their blood will be on their own head.

Exodus 21 17 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

How is that not just as barbarous?

Maybe because Jews and Christians don't agree with you. Jews do not carry out Mosaic Law and Christians have an addition called The New Testament. It's been out for a while now, not exactly a secret.

Muslims disagree with the texts that are being misused by Kondor to smear Islam and the 1.5 billion faithful but according to you they don't count.

It's the "moderate" (misleading term invented by the West) peaceful Muslims that are violating the teachings of Islam. The terrorists we see today are simply following true Islam, and Shariah law. Shariah law commands that you slaughter those who defame the prophet.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Okay, that takes the cake....

I would expect a Fox news viewer to believe Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously.

This s a great example of how Fox News creates false and misleading impressions, and you guys believe them.

Haven't you noticed that every news story Fox covers eventually winds back into some type of criticism of Obama?

Not every negative news story is Obama's fault.

Obama takes terrorism "seriously". He refuses to call it ISLAMIC terrorism, and it's always someone elses fault. The terrorists did what they did because they had no choice, they were made to do it, someone didn't comply or submit to their requests, etc.

There is more than one kind of terrorism in the world today.

...And all the left has to point to is Timothy Mc Veigh, who didn't do it in the name of Jesus. Fail.

So does that mean that McVeigh was not a terrorist according to Lord High Roudy?

How about Eric Rudolph? He committed terrorist acts in the name of Jesus. Or do you have an excuse for him too? And it didn't stop with him either. What are your excuses for William Pierce and Francis Gerald Grady?

Care to explain away the Hutaree militia? Are they also excused from your definition of terrorists?

Mc Veigh did not kill in the name of Jesus.

If you want to be delusional about the linkage between Islam and terrorism by using these false comparisons and isolated events, go ahead. You're only fooling yourself.

That's true. Tim McVeigh was trained by an Iraqi Muslim. He was definitely not a Christian. I'd say he was more along the lines of Bill Ayers. Perhaps he thought he'd get the same treatment as Bill Ayers? Enemy of the govt and all that?

 

[Roudy]

Muslims disagree with the texts that are being misused by Kondor to smear Islam and the 1.5 billion faithful but according to you they don't count.

No, the 1.5 billion are not being faithful to the Koran. The Koran makes specific statements, it IS their NT. The interpretations are what the peaceful Muslims follow. The adherents to the Koran are those that are creating problems.

No, the 1.5 billion are not being faithful to the Koran.

Prove it!


Quran 002.191 - 193:

(191)And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them;such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
(192)But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(193) And fight with them until there is no persecution,and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

The Koran makes specific statements, it IS their NT.

So what? Your bible makes specific statements too. Without the OT your NT is meaningless. You don't get to cherry pick your bible while imposing a blanket on the Koran.

It isn't my Bible and you missed my earlier point. The NT is what Christians follow, it supercedes the OT. Instead of stoning adulterers to death Christians are to forgive them. The fact that you think it's cherry picking demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

The interpretations are what the peaceful Muslims follow. The adherents to the Koran are those that are creating problems.

A distinction without a difference. Are you identical to Eric Rudolph? Would you take his place? Should you be held accountable for his actions?

Let's see, a handful of Christian nuts commit crimes, that are not supported by the Bible or the Christian community and you see that as being similar to the millions of Muslims that justify murdering non believers? You have no ability to discern one thing from the other.

There are millions of fundamentalist Christians who supported Eric Rudolph and his ilk. But somehow there is a distinction between them and fundamentalist Muslims? Please explain this difference in your own words and yes, you can use both sides of the page.

Bullshit!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Their underlying religious dogma promotes medievalism and barbarity to an extent unknown to other present-day mainstream religious belief systems.

Your bible promotes killing children!

Leviticus 20 9 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother their blood will be on their own head.

Exodus 21 17 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

How is that not just as barbarous?

Maybe because Jews and Christians don't agree with you. Jews do not carry out Mosaic Law and Christians have an addition called The New Testament. It's been out for a while now, not exactly a secret.

Muslims disagree with the texts that are being misused by Kondor to smear Islam and the 1.5 billion faithful but according to you they don't count.

It's the "moderate" (misleading term invented by the West) peaceful Muslims that are violating the teachings of Islam. The terrorists we see today are simply following true Islam, and Shariah law. Shariah law commands that you slaughter those who defame the prophet.

That is true. There is no such thing as Moderate Islam. There are muslims who are moderate in their approach to Islam and its teachings but there is no moderate Islam. There is a pseudo Islam taught in Islamic learning centers throughout American universities where the Saudi's finance the buildings, the staff payroll - they have their own Islamic professors - they make them available to teach Math, Science, other subjects - for further indoctrination - the Marxists would rather hand America over to the Islamists, Roudy, then to admit God exists and the foolishness of their own error in judgment - they reject all sound reason - to return to the foundation of this nation - Judeo - Christian principles - this is the root cause of much of what is going on with the USA today. it starts in the education system - and contaminates our families - the fabric of our nation with lies.

 

[Roudy]

Marine Le Pen is getting out in front of this killing at Charlie Hebdo. She pushing for the return of the death penalty for France. Quelle surprise.

Le Pen would most likely have shut down Hebdo or exiled them if she took over

Right Wingers DO NOT support free speech, except when it is their own

Its a shame you think that nationalists, not islamists are the enemy. Whereas we value free speech, they don't. No matter how much you espouse tolerance towards them, or offer them the olive branch of multiculturalism, Islam does not respect your right as an infidel to exist.

Radical extremists are the enemy. Nationalist fall into that category. I would offer no olive branch to radical jihadists -- except maybe if it were tinged with ebola

Radical jihadists are nationalists who want to overthrow any regime that doesn't follow strict Shariah law, and establish Islamic Caliphates across the world. The West is an obstacle for achieving this goal.

Caliphate. There can be only one. It is the adversaries great gladiator battle for the ages. Winner gets a pat on the head and discarded.

The goal is to establish many individual Caliphates who work in conjunction with each other. Winner gets to play a full 90 minutes of World Cup soccer with the German team, using the opponent's decapitated head.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Wow 92 pages and still no one was killed because they posted a picture of Mohammed. I posted one yesterday and have been waiting for my inevitable whacking yet I am still alive.

Even if a Muslim fanatic living close by gets hold of your location?

You are extremely naive.

If he is armed they probably won't bother. They look for soft targets. Which is why they are so adamant about Americans being disarmed - losing their second amendment rights before the day of jihad.