It was shortly after 8am on a leafy street in a quiet suburb of Toulouse and children were being dropped off at the gates of the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school.
Posted on 03/20/2012 10:40:20 PM PDT by Milagros
Toulouse shooting: little girl cornered in school and shot in head
It was shortly after 8am on a leafy street in a quiet suburb of Toulouse and children were being dropped off at the gates of the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
No I didn’t. I asked if you were a muslim, had muslim family or were a member of CAIR.
Are you? Do you? Simple question. Relevant question. Unanswered question.
Now you also skipped addressing the plain language of the Koran I mentioned. It says “Kill the infidel”. Now whether there are 1000 or 1 Trillion, people who follow a theology that says you should be killed “wherever you are found” are an existential danger to people not following that Book.
Common sense says that you do not give a stated enemy the opportunity to carry out their beliefs and their STATED INTENT.
Perhaps in your fantasy, there are unicorns and rainbows called ‘moderate’ muslims, but not i reality.
Now answer the questions.
Fascinating information! I will indeed read that paper with great interest.
Non-Muslim, no Muslim family, although one of my best friends converted to Sufism 30 years ago because he thought Presbyterians were too war-mongering. (He recognizes now this was pretty much an out of kettle into fire move.)
I am not a member of CAIR. In fact, I despise the group.
Actually, the Koran does not say “kill the infidel.” It says, “kill the infidel unless he submits to the rule of Allah.” A minor detail, perhaps, but let’s be accurate.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that you have some sort of authority by which you have the right to order people to follow your directions. I disagree, but am answering your questions to see where you are headed.
I know moderate Muslims exist, because my friend is one. He is one of the kindest, gentlest, most decent people I have ever met. I would certainly trust him long before I would trust you.
Now it can be reasonably argued that he and others like him are not “moderate Muslims,” they are just bad Muslims. My friend would beg to differ, of course. In his opinion, those who kill in the name of Islam are the bad Muslims.
My whole point is that we should not insist on lumping John in with the Islamists and treating them the same. Divide and conquer is always a good strategy when it can be used.
As I suspected, you indeed are ;to close to the problem’. You have a friend who is/was/whatever a muslim and that colors your thinking.
Indeed I do have authority. That authority is the inherent need for self preservation. Most Americans are born with it, but some have had it propagandized into dormancy.
Do I have authority in the sense of commanding armies and leading crusades? No and yes. I can use whatever platform I can speak from to help deprogram any who will listen. There are thousands like me who refuse to be cowed by PC.
If PC alone can make a person cower, what will happen when scores of your peaceful non-’islamist’ muslims suddenly get religion like all these recorded occurrences of ‘spontaneous jihadi syndrome’ we have already experienced? Ft. Hood ring any bells?
Your life, your choice.
Well, firstly we don't know their religion, we know their ethnicity -- I think two were North Africans and one was West AFrican (I'm unsure about the last).
Secondly, we don't know if they were like many Algerians in France -- moslems in name only.
they were killed by this Moslem guy as he thought they were abetting France in it's 'war against Moslems'
islam is a civilizational virus that should be banned because every civilization it touches, whether the great ones of Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, yemen etc. turns to dust. The mentality perpetuated by Islam leads to this destruction.
The shooter is dead.
Dead works for me.
Good point SL, it is dangerous to give a democratically elected government that power. however, I do believe that Islam should be banned due to the dangers it poses, but I don’t know how that can be achieved
say what you will about the French, but they will ensure that this guys dies in pain...
there is no such thing as an islamist — there are believing moslems and unbelieving. To follow islam means to condone something like this perpetrated on infidels.
your analogy to Germans is incorrect. We're talking an ideology here, not an ethnicity. Arabs or Pakis who are not Muslims -- they may be Christians, Hindus, Sabateans or athiests are not the problem, but the philosophy of Islam IS the problem.
We should not rile against "ragheads" -- but against the philosophy that is Islam, just as we waged war against the philosophy of Naziism.
Norm — Sherm is no rat. He does pose opinions that we don’t like, but these are logically put together (like for instance, we don’t want to give a government the power to decide which religion to ban or not, do we?) — we are handicapped by our legal precedence, sense of justice and democracy —> but we can ban the philosophy of Islam on ground of violence.
Sufiism is the gentler form of Islam, yes, as it merged with Hindu Bhakti beliefs and practices, but do note that it does not repudiate the injuncts of the Koran to kill those who do not submit. that is the stumbling block. And even the best sufi communities lead to those who kill the infidels as part of their religion. The problem is islam. If we take the Bhakti form of hinduism, it does not have that baggage
Dead cauterizes the wound, it does not attack the root cause (Islam)
Looks like it turned out for the best.
Sufism is incredibly diverse. Various sects incorporated Hindu, Buddhist (most common), Manichean and even Zoroastrian attitudes and practices.
I do think it is relevant that the Koran orders Moslems to subdue everyone, not kill everyone. This is perhaps a fine point, but I think it is an important one.
Under sharia, conquered People of the Book (Christians and Jews) who are unwilling to convert are to be given freedom of religion on payment of tribute. Pagans who don’t convert are to be killed. In practice, Zoroastrians and even Hindus have been given People of the Book status for most of Moslem history.
It is equally relevant that the dhimmi status given to “protected” peoples is most easily compared to the status of American blacks under the worst of Jim Crow. They’re left alone most of the time, except when the masters get excited or in an ugly mood, as long as they “know their place.”
If they get uppity, bad things happen so they can be taught their place.
As under Jim Crow, crimes against dhimmi are seldom punished, certainly not equally to crimes against Muslims.
You are also partially correct about the point of subduing - but that is only in one part of the Koran. Another part says "Kill the infidel if they do not submit to Allah". The Koran is a highly contradictory book.
Dhimmi status is somewhat related to what you compared it to with the exception that the aim was for Dhimmis to convert. In fact the prophet mandated at the end of his days that Arabia was to be cleared of infidels.
I agree the Koran says to kill the infidel IF he doesn’t submit. Those who submit are (supposed) to be treated as I said. In practice this treatment has varied from near equality with Muslims to pre-Holocaust Nazi treatment of Jews (ghettos, special clothing, limitations on occupations, etc.)
I would submit that near-equality with Moslems has not happened except if the ruler has been near apostate as in the case of Akbar. The norm has been treatment as second-class citizens.
Agreed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.