11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[alfred russel]

I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.

This just gets stranger and stranger. 

My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.

What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. 

Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..

So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.

You are well-known for your bigotry for French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.

My patience for you is at an end.

Great, so you are done with Turkey. Please now discuss Uzbekistan. 

[alfred russel]

They really don't. They kill far more Muslims than anyone else and not just for ease. Takfirism is a big feature of lots of current jihadi groups - and remember that before ISIS were releasing videos of them killing Western reporters they were releasing videos of them killing apostates and executing Shia truck drivers who answered incorrectly about how to pray. Many of the groups we know as jihadi are called takfiri in the region because that's their more defining feature.

I mean the description of it here really matches ISIS's approach:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/07/03takfirism

The elimination of the enemy within was a necessary preliminary to any showdown with outsiders.

You're right we don't know about these guys but if the reports mentioned in this thread that they've been to Syria and are associated with AQAP are true then it's very unlikely that they'd see a Muslim French policemen as anything but an apostate.

In the Westgate Attack in Kenya, Muslims were allowed to live. Those claiming to be a Muslim were given a pop quiz to validate their Mulsimness.

[Martinus]

It seems Nick Clegg has found his balls:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/nick-clegg-condemns-radio-caller-who-tries-to-justify-charlie-hebdo-shootings/

"Here's the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended. That fundamental principle of being free to offend people – and not saying somehow that you have a right not be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians. To even suggest that there is a rationale, an explanation, a motive that somehow absolves them or sheds greater light on such a horrific, cold-hearted, cowardly act, I find that outrageous."

[dps]

It seems Nick Clegg has found his balls:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/nick-clegg-condemns-radio-caller-who-tries-to-justify-charlie-hebdo-shootings/

"Here's the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended. That fundamental principle of being free to offend people – and not saying somehow that you have a right not be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians. To even suggest that there is a rationale, an explanation, a motive that somehow absolves them or sheds greater light on such a horrific, cold-hearted, cowardly act, I find that outrageous."

The bolded part of what you quoted it better worded than what's in your signature.  Less flowery, but much more clear put.

EDIT:  And speaking of poorly worded, the second sentence of my post is just terrible grammatically.  Screw it, gonna leave it as it is.

[Barrister]

Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting?

[DGuller]

Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting?

No.   

[Eddie Teach]

One would think a satirical magazine shooting would shed more of a negative light on the magazine industry.

[Admiral Yi]

One would think a satirical magazine shooting would shed more of a negative light on the magazine industry.

Or point out more of the humor inherent in acts of terrorism.

[Eddie Teach]

Perhaps a premature detonation joke in there somewhere.

[CountDeMoney]

How may Islamic fundies does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, because the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) didnt use them.  And the lamp got blown up by a carbomb anyway. 
WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA ACKBAR

[grumbler]

This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler.

Too busy popping and eating popcorn.  The thread is a hoot - it even forced The Brain to make a serious post!

Chin-chin!  Do carry on with your mud pies.

*pops more popcorn*

[derspiess]

Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting?

Nearly the half the time, sadly.

[Maximus]

Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting?

Yes

[Siege]

You all have been terrorized into giving away your freedoms.

This is why we have to keep on the offensive, invading their countries until Islam is militarily defeated, and only then, after such a catastrophic loss, Islam will reform and join the rest of humankind here in the 21st Century.

Had we kept the preassure on Iraq, and now invaded the territory controlled by ISIS and liberated Syria, they wouldn't have the resources to send trained jihadis to France or elsewhere.

Bottom line. They are not going to have their 30 years war among themselves, therefore we need to give them one.

[Martinus]

Meh, Siege, I think the West is strong with its "weakness". That's how we win. It may not be spectacular but it works. Just look what happened to Russia.