Interesting that it’s not limited to Morocco. They have great surf down there, seems very safe to visit!
Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
Interesting that it’s not limited to Morocco. They have great surf down there, seems very safe to visit!
Where did I justify it? You were the one who said you'd have to be an idiot to think Islam in Europe wasn't a concern. I'm just using your admittedly weak and flawed logic to highlight how redundant it was.
But now that I've seen you make the leap you've made, I should have just let you wallow in your ignorance.
Sorry, I was prompted by the back and forth between @Dante and @calodo2003, but also just thinking out loud a bit. It's been on my mind lately, especially after just reading a history of the Crusades, which while excellent suffers a bit from the author's painful efforts to try to distinguish between the different spheres of motivation which prompted those conflicts - were they primarily motivated by their faith, or by politics, or by economic incentive, etc. It seemed to me to be missing the point that this effort to categorise along these lines might not have made much if any sense to those involved. It also - unfairly IMO - implies a cynicism on the part of those involved whenever the supposedly purely spiritual mission became tainted by the prospect of material gain. Whereas I would suggest that such material gain would have been understood as forming a crucial element of God's plan and reward for those fighting on his behalf. I believe much the same could be said of those jihadi movements who defy the "religious/political" categorization.
I was also prompted by re-reading Talal Asad lately, who argues that the very category of religion - and by extension politics, secularism, etc. - is a concept born in the West in the post-Reformation era, and then projected on to - and perhaps adopted by to a certain degree - the non-Western world:
The "insistence that religion has an autonomous essence…invites us to define religion (like any essence) as a transhistorical and transcultural phenomenon…Yet this separation of religion from power is a modern Western norm, the product of a unique post-Reformation history. The attempt to understand Muslim traditions by insisting that in them religion and politics (two essences modern society tries to keep conceptually and practically apart) are coupled must, in my view, lead to failure. At its most dubious, such attempts encourage us to take up an a priori position in which religious discourse in the political arena is seen as a disguise for political power."
I'm aware there are critiques of Asad on this, and I wouldn't fight over this. I'm also skeptical over how far the supposed distinction between religion and politics in the modern West has actually gone, and I suspect the legacy of the Christian past continues to underlie much of what we'd understand to be secular politics in the West today. But that is just speculation on my part, with nothing much to back it up.
2cents it's the same isn't it? Everywhere from India to Sri Lanka to USA and the Muslim countries. Religion is the most important aspect. I mean even the national anthem of UK is God save the Queen. Muslim countries still don't know how to do their PR on this.
Yeah, France did support the overthrow of two dictators. Yes, they also did a pretty shitty job of it. As for 'no right' I don't recognize the right of dictators to play the 'no meddling in our domestic politics' card I'm afraid.
Why not? It's non of france's business. They have destroyed one of the most developed countries in Africa. They didn't just support the overthrow. They destroyed the country for generations to come.
Haha the Islamophobes crack me up.
What a bunch of keyboard internet pussies
What a bunch of keyboard internet pussies
1990s to now: As for 'no right' I don't recognize the right of dictators to play the 'no meddling in our domestic politics' card I'm afraid.
1950s to 1980s: As for 'no right' I don't recognize the right of communists to play the 'no meddling in our domestic politics' card I'm afraid.
1800s to 1940s: As for 'no right' I don't recognize the right of savages to play the 'no meddling in our domestic politics' card I'm afraid.
Just another buzzword for imperialists to continue their agenda of expanding their economic interests.
Funny enough the word 'savages' is back out as the historical dog whistle.
feck French business, people got the right to boycott what they want.
feck French business, people got the right to boycott what they want.
This is the problem. France is demanding that this boycott should be stopped. That is pouring fuel into the fire. From a tragic and horrific incident of the murder of a poor teacher this has now becoming a different issue. Marcon has fallen into Erdogan's trap.
Hypocrites can't help themselves
A good little intro to the cluster feck that is the situation in France
Ah get fecked with that shite, so it's imperialist now to not want to leave millions of people living under oppression, torture and arbitrary murder? Because gosh yeah I'm sure they'd be sitting there feeling totally patronized by our western sense of superiority if we acted to stop some cnut from pulling out their fingernails in a dungeon and raping their female relatives.
It is worse now. The Intervention made it worse. At least under Gaddafi if you do not deal in politics you are left alone and have a reasonably good life. Basic necessities were free including staple food. Education was free. There was religious freedom too. Now it is a hell hole for everyone. It has nothing to do with oppression. It has all to do with oil.
I don't want to waddle into this thread, but I can't believe that this needs to be said
. I mean how thick are you to think that any Western countries interfere into ME and Africa other than natural resourcesI don't want to waddle into this thread, but I can't believe that this needs to be said
It's not me who is saying this. It's the op I replied who is saying that it's to free them from oppression.
I know, I'm agreeing with you. I just think it's ridiculous that the op even consider that line of thought that you need to mentioned it
Must feel fn great to just know the answer and dismiss everything other than your own opinion as stupid, evil, etc
I was reading the way the religion is preached means it’s tightly controlled by the government to reduce the risk of extremist material? I remember the murders, awful. I haven’t watched a beheading video since I was younger, grim and best avoided!
Why do you bring that up? Crimes happen to tourists as well.
Tbf it’s not just any crime is it? It’s brutal murder of innocent people in the name of Islam.
Oh, come on... it was rather bad luck (wrong place at the wrong time) than anything else. It is a random attack (as random as it gets) by some lunatics who claim following some kind of Islamic preachings. They were just some poor souls (okay, ISIS wannabes that could not get to Syria) with nothing else to live for in their lives. One week later, and they might have gotten bored and called the whole thing off.
I didn’t defend how the French intervened, nor would I defend how the UK or US have done so in various countries. What I do defend however is the right to intervene against dictatorships and refuse to accept some blanket right against domestic interference for rulers that oppress their subjects. Obviously to date interventions have been done for self interest not for humanitarian reasons, and that’s been true going right back to the world wars.
It was pre meditated murder where they actively went to look for victims. I’m not going to reduce the severity of murder in the name of Islam to some nutty poor souls that had nothing to live for.
Yes, murder.
Because I guess he was talking about terroism in morocco and I found the incident related to the matter. in all 24 people were arrrested on this incident. It wasn't to paint to Morocco as some sort of terrorist spawning ground.
Also so much for "they come from anywhere". This dude's sister (or sister in law) was in ISIS and had several charges against him. Why can't this just be a failure of french intelligence?
I guess it's just incredibly difficult to keep track of people like this even when they're known about. The resources to track the many 1000s of people on some sort of terrorist list 24 hours a day just isn't available I suppose.
Sorry, the thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent. Do you mean Abdullakh Anzorov? To be fair, French intelligence didn't cut off anybody's head over some drawings they found offensive.
Is that his name? The chechen who did this. I'm saying people talk like your average Muslim can at any time "lose it" but with almost all these cases the perpetrator has strong links to terrorist orgs and past crimes.
I had to go looking for it but I think that's his name, yeah. I don't think your garden variety muslim would do this sort of thing. Indeed, most people find murder abhorrent no matter if they are religious or not.
While it appears there are some decent links that suggest he was somewhat dangerous, Mon. Paty was an infinitely small target so that decreases the likelihood of any kind of intervention from authorities.
Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups? And they exist across continents, either part of a larger collective or splintered.
Sorry if it comes across as too simplistic a question
Sorry if it comes across as too simplistic a question
This isn’t the Paris attack, but...is profiling right? Yes is what I think (obviously! 
)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54695580
)https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54695580
The nerve you have. You know fully well this forum is full of people who you say should be profiled, with a stupid smiley.This isn’t the Paris attack, but...is profiling right? Yes is what I think (obviously!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54695580
I know very few people off this forum to be honest. I often think this internet crap is exactly that and it would be great to meet up with people.
In the early 50s and 60s when the Arab countries became independent countries, some of them were artificially created by The British. Eg. Saudi Arabai, Kuwait, Iraq and the Gulf countries, Syria etc. Some of them like Iraq and Syria were taken over by coups and dictators took over. In Egypt they had a monarchy who was so corrupt they over threw him and a military junta was formed. Saudi Arabia was not Saudi Arabia earlier. It was called Hijaz. When Ibn Saud took the country by force, he made a pact with Mohamed Ibn Wahab a religious zealot. Ibn Saud to rule politically while Mohamed Ibn Wahab to rule religiously. This was the pact that formed Saudi Arabia.
Egypt used to be the centre of Islamic learning at the Al Azhar University. Gamal Abdul Nasser who took over after the overthrow of the King was against the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia. In fact he fought a war against the Saudis.
The Saudis then made a pact with the Americans for petrodollar. That was when they started getting powerful as the money flowed in. They wanted to spread their version of Islam. They started funding scholarships and Imams to Muslim countries. These scholarships were normally not sourced through the governments but privately. Most of the young children were sent to Pakistan to study at the Madrassas. These were during the days of the Muhajideen in Afghanistan where the notorious Osama was being supported by the Americans. The Mujahideen became the Taliban. Many of these students went back to their countries and started implementing what they studied there, which is an extreme form of Islam. This is the start. The Saudis didn't care if they did those violent stuff outside of their country. If you notice that most of these terrorist activities are caused by Sunnis and not Shias. It shows the political nature of this.
Now there are lots of these independent groups who officially have no connection but in name. Look at the bombs in Sri Lanka on Easter where they blew up a church and also a hotel. yes both Al Queda and Isis have recruits in almost every Muslim country. So long they do not cause a problem in those countries the governments turn a blind eye to them. Why care if they go to Syria and die on the battle? This the governments attitude. Anyway they die as cannon fodder while the leaders lead a good life with women and money. It is all politics to the people and countries who sponsor them while the poor idiots go and get themselves killed for no good reason.
So mostly they are splintered individual groups but combine and wanted to Jihad so go and get themselves killed.
Ladies and gentleman, the turkish deputy minister of Culture and Tourism. Do you guys really need a translation?
Sorry but so much of this is bad history.
Egypt has been independent since the 20s, Iraq and Saudi Arabia since the 30s (although Saudi Arabia was independent under divided kingdoms since the 20s and even before), Syria and Lebanon since the 40s. British influence was maintained in Egypt and Iraq by treaties backed by military force and local elite alliances, but was effectively ended in 1952 and 1958 respectively when the monarchies were both overthrown. Syria and Lebanon were the responsibility of France until they were granted independence after WW2. It is true, however, that the UAE (formerly known as the Trucial States), Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait only achieved real independence from the British in the 60s and early 70s.
Although Britain had a hand in the creation of the modern borders of these countries, none of them can be said to be wholly artificial. They weren’t dreamed up by British officials out of thin air, and a range of factors contributed to their modern existence. Of the states in today’s Middle East, the country that comes closest to the type of artificiality suggested is probably Jordan.
Saudi Arabia was not called the Hijaz. The Hijaz is the region along the middle of the Red Sea coastal plain of the Arabian Peninsula and its hinterland, including the holy cities. The Saudis’ origin is in Najd, the north-central desert region of the peninsula where the first Saudi state rose in the 18th century, during the time when the Saudi-Wahhabi arrangement was made. That state conquered the Hijaz in the early 19th century, but was ended a few years later by an Egyptian force ostensibly acting on behalf of the Ottoman Empire. A second Saudi state rose in the middle of the 19th century in Najd, but never took the Hijaz, and was defeated by its Rashidi rivals. The third Saudi state - which survives to this day - rose at the start of the 20th century, and only conquered and annexed the Hijaz in 1924/25. It then united Najd with the Hijaz and a bunch of other regions and declared the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the early 30s. The Hijaz had previously been an autonomous Ottoman province run by the Hashimites which had declared independence and proclaimed itself a kingdom during WW1.
Nasser never fought a war directly against the Saudis. At times he opposed them and at other times he was forced to ally to them. The closest they came to actual conflict was when he sent Egyptian troops to North Yemen in 1962 to support the Republican coup there, while the Saudis supported the overthrown monarchy.
Sorry, what children are you talking about here? Saudis? Or Afghans?
There’s no real evidence the Americans directly supported bin Laden, although there is some debate over whether he was an indirect recipient of funds before the founding of al Qaeda. Certainly American dollars supported plenty of other unsavory characters during the war, and the American effort definitely helped create the conditions in which al Qaeda could form and operate.
Only a few obscure mujahidin went on to form the Taliban in the 90s. The vast majority who continued fighting after the Soviet withdrawal - including nearly all the famous commanders/warlords who survived the 80s - went on to fight against the Taliban during the civil war of the 90s (and since 9/11 some, such as Hekmatyar and Haqqani, have allied with them).
It may seem like this now, but it was Shi’i groups who actually pioneered the use of suicide bombings and massive car and truck bombings in the Middle East in the 80s and early 90s. Closer to the actual topic of this thread, it was Khomeini who prompted the first such blasphemy controversy in the West.
More generally, your post betrays a singular focus on Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism as the root cause of the extremism you’re trying to explain. As such, it neglects a range of other equally important factors - not just other active parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood, revolutionary Iran, or various regional movements, but also longer term trends in Islam, the impact of the West, the failure of so-called ‘secular’ authoritarian regimes to provide dignified lives for their subjects, and a host of other material factors.
*(edit): Haqqani actually joined the Taliban well before 9/11.
Egypt has been independent since the 20s, Iraq and Saudi Arabia since the 30s (although Saudi Arabia was independent under divided kingdoms since the 20s and even before), Syria and Lebanon since the 40s. British influence was maintained in Egypt and Iraq by treaties backed by military force and local elite alliances, but was effectively ended in 1952 and 1958 respectively when the monarchies were both overthrown. Syria and Lebanon were the responsibility of France until they were granted independence after WW2. It is true, however, that the UAE (formerly known as the Trucial States), Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait only achieved real independence from the British in the 60s and early 70s.
Although Britain had a hand in the creation of the modern borders of these countries, none of them can be said to be wholly artificial. They weren’t dreamed up by British officials out of thin air, and a range of factors contributed to their modern existence. Of the states in today’s Middle East, the country that comes closest to the type of artificiality suggested is probably Jordan.
Saudi Arabia was not called the Hijaz. The Hijaz is the region along the middle of the Red Sea coastal plain of the Arabian Peninsula and its hinterland, including the holy cities. The Saudis’ origin is in Najd, the north-central desert region of the peninsula where the first Saudi state rose in the 18th century, during the time when the Saudi-Wahhabi arrangement was made. That state conquered the Hijaz in the early 19th century, but was ended a few years later by an Egyptian force ostensibly acting on behalf of the Ottoman Empire. A second Saudi state rose in the middle of the 19th century in Najd, but never took the Hijaz, and was defeated by its Rashidi rivals. The third Saudi state - which survives to this day - rose at the start of the 20th century, and only conquered and annexed the Hijaz in 1924/25. It then united Najd with the Hijaz and a bunch of other regions and declared the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the early 30s. The Hijaz had previously been an autonomous Ottoman province run by the Hashimites which had declared independence and proclaimed itself a kingdom during WW1.
Nasser never fought a war directly against the Saudis. At times he opposed them and at other times he was forced to ally to them. The closest they came to actual conflict was when he sent Egyptian troops to North Yemen in 1962 to support the Republican coup there, while the Saudis supported the overthrown monarchy.
Sorry, what children are you talking about here? Saudis? Or Afghans?
There’s no real evidence the Americans directly supported bin Laden, although there is some debate over whether he was an indirect recipient of funds before the founding of al Qaeda. Certainly American dollars supported plenty of other unsavory characters during the war, and the American effort definitely helped create the conditions in which al Qaeda could form and operate.
Only a few obscure mujahidin went on to form the Taliban in the 90s. The vast majority who continued fighting after the Soviet withdrawal - including nearly all the famous commanders/warlords who survived the 80s - went on to fight against the Taliban during the civil war of the 90s (and since 9/11 some, such as Hekmatyar and Haqqani, have allied with them).
It may seem like this now, but it was Shi’i groups who actually pioneered the use of suicide bombings and massive car and truck bombings in the Middle East in the 80s and early 90s. Closer to the actual topic of this thread, it was Khomeini who prompted the first such blasphemy controversy in the West.
More generally, your post betrays a singular focus on Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism as the root cause of the extremism you’re trying to explain. As such, it neglects a range of other equally important factors - not just other active parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood, revolutionary Iran, or various regional movements, but also longer term trends in Islam, the impact of the West, the failure of so-called ‘secular’ authoritarian regimes to provide dignified lives for their subjects, and a host of other material factors.
*(edit): Haqqani actually joined the Taliban well before 9/11.
Last edited:
No time to post all you wrote. The Egyptians had over 50, 0000 regular forces fighting against Saudi Regular forces in Yemen.
Yes Egypt was independent in name with the British running the country. Just like Malaya too who had a sultan but the British advisors were running it.
You should listen to the news of that time. Maybe you are too young to have seen that period. I have and saw the news from those days. Had family living in Egypt too during that period. Nasser hated the Saudi Royal family.
You should also look at the history of what happened in Afghanistan. A Saudi prince and a Saudi funded international organization was involved in all of this. Yes Pakistan too with the isi being the parent. Bin Laden certainly was supported by the US as he was the one who was involved in building the tunnel which was cia funded too. The Mujahideen was cia funded thru the isi and directly too. You should learn about Casey the CIA director and the support he gave to the Mujahideen. They had no idea that putting all these people together and radicalising them would be a terrible idea. Everyone had their own agenda. The communist had to be crushed.
Iran may have been funding anti american activities but they never have been involved in these kind of terrorism activities against innocent civilians like Al Queda affiliated groups or Daesh affiliated groups.
The whole thing was supported by the Saudis and conducted in Pakistan. Take out wahabism and things may get better but now the Saudi government has no control over them anymore.
But where is the money coming from? Why do the salafists still have so much money? Who is funding them? The Americans certainly believe that either the government or private entities are still funding them.
Yes Egypt was independent in name with the British running the country. Just like Malaya too who had a sultan but the British advisors were running it.
You should listen to the news of that time. Maybe you are too young to have seen that period. I have and saw the news from those days. Had family living in Egypt too during that period. Nasser hated the Saudi Royal family.
You should also look at the history of what happened in Afghanistan. A Saudi prince and a Saudi funded international organization was involved in all of this. Yes Pakistan too with the isi being the parent. Bin Laden certainly was supported by the US as he was the one who was involved in building the tunnel which was cia funded too. The Mujahideen was cia funded thru the isi and directly too. You should learn about Casey the CIA director and the support he gave to the Mujahideen. They had no idea that putting all these people together and radicalising them would be a terrible idea. Everyone had their own agenda. The communist had to be crushed.
Iran may have been funding anti american activities but they never have been involved in these kind of terrorism activities against innocent civilians like Al Queda affiliated groups or Daesh affiliated groups.
The whole thing was supported by the Saudis and conducted in Pakistan. Take out wahabism and things may get better but now the Saudi government has no control over them anymore.
But where is the money coming from? Why do the salafists still have so much money? Who is funding them? The Americans certainly believe that either the government or private entities are still funding them.
Have to agree with this bit, most of the mujaheddin were anti-Taliban for sure.