The people who attacked "Charlie Hebdo" were supposedly Muslim...but who is really to blame?

[Ken Burch]

The attack as barbaric and insane, and all decent people-including Muslims from all over the world-have condemned it.

But how far can we fairly spread the blame?

Do we just blame these killers themselves(obviously, they did it)?

Do we spread the blame to ALL Muslims globally, on the assumption that they are all supposedly part of some sort of murderous Jihadi hivemind(even though there is nothing in the Koran that would actually condone what the killers did)?

Do we blame everyone, Muslim or not, who hasn't out-condemned all the other condemners?

Do we demonize everyone who hasn't been an unquestioning supporter of Western militarism in the Middle East?

It's right to say that this attack should never have happened.

But, for the love of anyone's God, it can't really be right to use this act to try to incite global religious war. An all-out war between the Islamic and Christian worlds would be unwinnable, unendable, and produce a world that would be unliveable.

Condemn the killings, but please, please, be sane about it.

[hrmjustin]

1. Agreed! the people responsible for this are the men who did this, not the whole religion.

I bet many of our Muslim posters did not feel welcome here today.

May the victims rest in peace.

[msanthrope]

2. Looks like this is AQAP. We blame them.

Anyone who looks the other way, or soft sells these actions, or tries to mitigate them? We look at them in askance and remember who they are. They are despicable.

We don't blame people just quietly going on with their lives and their faiths.

And we rethink why Abrahamic religions are necessary at all.

[MADem]

3. Howard Dean said they were not "Muslim" terrorists. I agree with him.

Unfortunately, many here on DU do not.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/howard-dean-dont-call-paris-attackers-muslim-terrorists/

“I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists,” Dean said on Morning Joe. ”They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

He also said he does not believe ISIS is an “Islamic cult” and thinks it would be unwise to “accord (the gunmen) any religious respect.”

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

29. Again, the "No True Scotsman" argument

Which is almost always rejected here at DU when it comes to talking about Christo-Fascists.

Pick a side.

[MADem]

34. No--the point is that just because someone says they are something, doesn't mean they are.

I can tell you I'm a champion tennis player, but saying that doesn't make it so. The proof is in the pudding, I need to get up off my ass and win a few matches, get my name in the paper, walk off with a few cups and silver plates and prize purses.

People who don't practice the tenets of Islam are no more Muslim than Howard Dean is. And, without being an Imam, I can pretty much tell you that running around slaughtering people over drawings that they don't like is a Bozo No No in most masjids around the world.

Scotsmen --- true or not -- have nothing to do with this. If you can't get up on your tippie toes, you ain't a ballet dancer. Even if you wave a gun and scream "I'm the lead in SWAN LAKE!" as you speed away in your getaway car.

[brooklynite]

31. Sorry, they were muslim terrorists if THEY think of themselves as muslim terrorists...

[MADem]

32. Hmm. So, you're saying if I think I'm British Royalty, I AM British Royalty....? nt

[brooklynite]

33. Depends on whether the Royal Family lets anybody in...

They chose to join the muslim faith, and chose to take from that faith it's most fundamentalist elements...just as abortion clinic bombers do in Christianity, and zionist assassins who believe the Jewish God has granted them all of "the promised land" do in Judaism.

[MADem]

35. No, that's not a valid measure. Anyone can get into a masjid if they know how to behave.

Getting into a masjid and going through the motions of prayer doesn't make one a Muslim. Getting an "upcheck" from an Imam doesn't make one a Muslim. It's easy to fake it, but if one isn't living the life, one is not making it.

The Muslim faith is rather personal, but being a Muslim is all about following the pillars of Islam, and, to simplify it to an absurd degree, doing right, eschewing wrong-- and running around shooting people because they drew pictures that these guys didn't like isn't doing right and it sure as heck isn't following the religion of peace. By their actions they disqualified themselves, even if they're so stupid that they don't realize it. If you put their "Muslim-ish-ness" to a vote of the billion and a half plus Muslims in the world, they'd be kicked outta the club, just like the British Royal Family would slam the door on my big old toe if I tried to get my foot in the door!

[brooklynite]

36. You have espoused -one- interpretation of Islam...

...the fact that there are both Shia and Sunni, and that largely peaceful adherents disagree on elements such as women's clothes, marital rights and penalties for apostasy reflect the fact that there are multiple variations...just as there are thousands of different Protestant sects all convinced that the other guys are mistaken about something.

[MADem]

39. Sunni are 90 percent of the bunch, Shi'a make up the rest (that's a sloppy

split, and of course there are little mini-sects here and there, but that's the division, basically). I can pretty much guar-an-TEE that these guys were Sunnis. They scampered off to Yemen to train with AQ in the Yemen--that's a Sunni club, not a shi'a one. They're violence-preaching assholes, and most Imams would turn their back on 'em like a NYC cop to poor old Mayor DeBlasio, to use a current expression.

People don't appreciate that there's no sense of "separation of church and state" in Islam, and that's another reason why most Muslims would want to shun these jerks. They aren't HELPING. They certainly aren't making life easy for the enormous number of Muslims living in France, and they aren't making life easy for Muslims living throughout Europe. Their 'brand' of faith is a loser.

This is a issue that transcends the whole hijab thing--people who disagree bitterly on hijab, arranged marriage, women in public life, and things like that can agree that these guys are jerks and need to be taken out quickly before they do more harm. They're giving Muslims a bad name!

[NewDeal_Dem]

45. or maybe they're just political provocateurs. you don't know who or what they are.

maybe they're paid agents of western powers.

[brooklynite]

55. I believe the conspiracy theory forum is elsewhere...

[Marr]

38. Was the Inquisition Catholic? Were the Crusaders Christian?

Of course they were.

By Dean's logic, religious people have never committed a single violent act. They simply weren't representative of their faith at the instant of their crimes.

It's absurd, and let's religion off the hook.

[MADem]

40. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. Islam is not--you can't compare the two.

The Inquisition and Crusades were prosecuted by a religious institution that had a top down leadership style. That's not the case with Islam. Islam is an individual faith. You don't need a house of worship, you don't need a priest/minister/rabbi, you don't need anything but yourself to practice the religion. No trappings, no toys, no buildings, and no one telling you what to do. All of the physical trappings--the masjids, the rugs, the Imams--they are ENTIRELY superfluous.

I don't think you can speak for Dean's theological opinions. That said, I agree with his very specific and particular pronouncement with regard to these three murderers in France.

[Marr]

41. Fine, are Fandamenalist Christian abortion clinic bombers Christian?

Of course they are. Their faith is what motivates their actions. In their minds, they aren't just Christians-- they are better Christians than the sorts who think abortion is murder but do not bomb clinics.

[MADem]

42. I don't think they are--they certainly don't seem to be following the tenets of their faith.

Assuming that being a "Christ"-ian is following the teachings of The Christ, I don't recall anything written where he enjoined his followers to go out and bomb abortion clinics--I don't recall any quote attributed to him about abortion at all, in fact.

I do seem to remember some stuff about suffering the little children to come unto him, and feeding the poor, healing the sick, throwing moneychangers out of the temple, stuff like that--but no teachings at all about shooting abortion doctors or blowing up clinics.

[Marr]

43. Then how do you explain this?

http://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html

In particular:

Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder.

That's a Christian making an intrinsically religious argument about why it's morally justifiable to murder doctors.

That person's entire identity is wrapped up in Christianity-- their reasoning never leaves the orbit of the Bible. Whatever else they may be, they are most certainly Christian.

[MADem]

44. Exodus predates Jesus.

You're quoting Old Testament and Jesus wasn't even around then.

If someone is following the teachings of the Christ, that's what they need to do, follow his specific teachings--not rely on a book that talks about things that happened before the dude was born. That book doesn't say that the Christ said anything of the sort!

There are no comments from that guy named Jesus about abortion or killing people. He was all about peace, love and understanding. He was a socialist, too, I suspect. He certainly wasn't shirty about distributing those loaves and fishes, or changing that water into wine--he liked everyone to eat and party. He made the lame walk, he made the blind see--he was clearly a proponent of single payer. But abortion? I don't think there's one quote from him on the topic, no matter how much people might try to drag out that old book and pull an excuse out of it.

[Marr]

50. If Chrisitianity was only about the teachings of Jesus, the Bible would be a lot shorter.

The Christian Bible contains a lot more than the words of Jesus, and Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the word of God-- all of it. They are unambiguous on this point.

It makes no sense to claim that a self-described Christian, quoting the Christian bible, is not arguing as a Christian. You may consider certain parts to be invalid and only printed out of... I don't know, some sense of nostalgia? But they do not.

[MADem]

56. Sure, but if one is a follower of CHRIST, and not some club that has formed

around him, that calls itself (insert name of church), then all that other crap is superfluous and only the teachings of the man himself are controlling. King James, for all his earnestness in putting out a Bible, isn't Christ! There really is no objective measure, no litmus test, and for everyone who makes a declaration of their faith, there's someone who will wag that finger and say 'Unh unh!"

And all those churches that call themselves "Christian," well they don't all agree with one another AT ALL, many of them. I know there's one set of Lutherans that don't even let their ministers participate in Interfaith worship services--that's how "I'm RIGHT, you're WRONG" they are. There are those that insist that Mormons aren't Christian because they think they're from outer space, or something. Some people say the Catholics are a "cult," and aren't Christians at all.

So, for every person that screams "I'm a Christian" there's another who says "Oh, no you ain't!" There's no one desk you can go to and pay your dues and get your "XTIAN" card stamped, because even if you throw money at a church and get their hierarchy to "endorse" you, at the end of the day, there's another hierarchy that will tut-tut and roll their eyes and call you well meaning but misguided. They might whisper it amongst themselves, but they establish their pecking order and THEIR club is always The Way and The Light, and the rest of those pretenders just have it wrong. In a way, the Christians are less organized than the Muslims--they have better regional rules, but they're just as fractured as the Muslims when it comes to who is a club member, and who is not!

[Marr]

64. You're making my point.

Your claims that some self-described Christians are not truly Christian is no more valid that their doubtless insistence that you are not one, because you refuse to bomb abortion clinics or shun gays or whatever.

If someone claims to be a Christian, or a Mormon, or a Scientologist, or a Muslim, or a member of any other faith, they are. You may consider them a bad Christian, or a bad Mormon, etc., but they still are one.

[MADem]

66. No, not really--but if you want to think so, knock yourself out.

If you want to be a ballet dancer, you have to be able to get up on your tippie toes. Just saying you're a ballet dancer doesn't make you one.

[NewDeal_Dem]

46. ....

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


Except that the passage has nothing to do with an abortion chosen by a woman; it has to do with people fighting and injuring a pregnant woman seriously enough that she miscarries.

[Marr]

51. Hey, I never said these loons made logical arguments.

Only that they argue from a position of faith, and cite scripture while doing so. The Bible (and other religious texts) can be interpreted to say just about anything-- that's the problem.

[NewDeal_Dem]

59. anything can be interpreted to mean anything of that's what people choose to do.

[Marr]

61. Most texts don't claim to be a guide to the universe and how to behave in it. /nt

[MADem]

57. Ooopsie!

We don't generally like it when people misquote our favorite politicians, or cut the tape to make it look like the demonstrators are saying something other than what they actually said...it's not a good move, that kind of misrepresentation, and I thank you for bringing the source material to the conversation!

[greyl]

4. I think some blame may be shared by all who champion an absence of religious criticism.

By all who think it's never OK to question any religion, faith, or belief, whether their own or not.

[Ken Burch]

6. The issue was never criticism.

The issue was criticism-as-Western-chauvinism.

[MicaelS]

18. So Westerners can't criticize Islam?

Is that what you're saying?

[Ken Burch]

21. If you read my last post, you'd know that wasn't what I was saying at all.

We can criticize it, but not in the service of an argument about the "superiority of western civilization&quot remember, "the West" is only liberal or tolerant in any sense at all because centuries of anti-clerical and anti-monarchical dissidents FORCED it to be somewhat liberal and tolerant by struggle from below-"The West" was never naturally predisposed to pluralism or to protecting any freedoms at all beyond the rich man's freedom to own property) or to call for either an all-out war against Islam or the abolition of the entire Islamic faith tradition.

We must do it with respect and without chauvinism.

Remember, nothing would be better in the world if Islam were somehow crushed. Those who believed in it would not voluntarily give up that belief, none of them would be happy to see it happen, and they would hate us for causing it to be destroyed.

They would also organize to seek revenge.

[jberryhill]

11. Well perhaps we will see a revival of religious criticism in Europe

Different religion this time around, though.

[Warpy]

7. Well, the French police seem to be blaming these two guys

Let's hope they're put into cages before they kill again.

[treestar]

8. Theres always Obama

[SidDithers]

10. You know it's coming...nt

Sid

[Segami]

9. Juan Cole's article 'Sharpening Contradictions' is worth a read....

~snip~

"..Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.

This tactic is similar to the one used by Stalinists in the early 20th century. Decades ago I read an account by the philosopher Karl Popper of how he flirted with Marxism for about 6 months in 1919 when he was auditing classes at the University of Vienna. He left the group in disgust when he discovered that they were attempting to use false flag operations to provoke militant confrontations. In one of them police killed 8 socialist youth at Hörlgasse on 15 June 1919. For the unscrupulous among Bolsheviks–who would later be Stalinists– the fact that most students and workers don’t want to overthrow the business class is inconvenient, and so it seemed desirable to some of them to “sharpen the contradictions” between labor and capital.

Juan Cole went on to say:


“Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.


~snip~

The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals. For those who require unrelated people to take responsibility for those who claim to be their co-religionists (not a demand ever made of Christians), the al-Azhar Seminary, seat of Sunni Muslim learning and fatwas, condemned the attack, as did the Arab League that comprises 22 Muslim-majority states.


We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values.

cont'

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[malaise]

14. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft

But then Marie Le Pen would not benefit as she clearly benefits from yesterday -divide and rule is the meme

[Segami]

16. The scene is set

to tear a page from the Bush/Cheney doctrine......'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.'

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, Miss Le Pen made a passionate speech about a “murderous ideology” leading to an “odious attack”.

“It is my responsibility to make sure that the fear is overcome,” she said. “This attack must instead free our speech about Islamic fundamentalism. We must not be silenced”.

She insisted that “hypocrisy” on the issue must end.

“We must not be scared of saying the words: this is a terrorist attack carried out in the name of radical Islam,” Miss Le Pen said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11331595/Marine-Le-Pen-condemns-murderous-ideology-in-the-aftermath-of-Charlie-Hebdo-shooting.html

[malaise]

17. And yet again they left an ID

Some wingers have all the luck

[NewDeal_Dem]

47. terrorists sure are careless with their IDs, aren't they? you or I wouldn't do that, but evil

terrorists always bring ID to the scenes of their crimes -- and then lose it!

[DonCoquixote]

12. all religions have severa sides

There is the side of people who are just trying to get through the day, because, faith has been a tool

There is the side that does good works, as many charities are open that help no one else

BUt all relgions, be it the latest celebrity cult or the big three from Jerusalem, have a faction that tries to dominate others. Granted, they are small, but in this age, you do not need to have great numbers to do a lot of killing.

There are already many Muslims who have spoken out on this, and they deserve praise.

However, what needs to be said to ALL EXTREMISTS, from (insert ism here) to (insert faith here) is that they cannot use violence to scare people into shutting up.

It is not that offensive speech has any value in and of itself, Frankly I think MAD magazine did with Charlie did, and better, but Clergy of all sorts have a nasty habit of sayign that any speech critical of them is hate speech, trying to say that to criticize them is an act of bigotry. It has all the reliably of a math equation, as you can insert ANY religion in (or even some varieties of self described Atheism in) and you will see the pattern of acting like a helpless victim when they do not have power over people, then ratcheting up the violence when they get power.

Of course,it is stupid to think that any amount of people you can fit in a single building can represent a whole. Even if it was possible to engineer stadiums that could hold one million people, you still would not get a sliver of most religions. Also, thanks to our media, the wrost of the crop know how to grab mikes and cameras, and scream out "we are the whole!" In this case, the extremists grabbed the mike, while in the country that has the most muslims, Malaysia (as in NOWHERE near anywhere even called the Mid east) isis is not only condemned, but banned.

But just because we want to be fair does not mean we will yield what WE believe. If relgion xyz wants to co-exist, great, but if they try to limit existence, they need resistance. and yes, again, allrelgions have their share of good and bad behavior on record. No faith has a clean rap sheet.

[Rhinodawg]

13. So true.

" An all-out war between the Islamic and Christian worlds would be unwinnable, unendable, and produce a world that would be unliveable."

Exactly... we should just give in to any demand and accept anything a few fringe malcontents do so we don't get into an all-out war.

Sharia law...no problem.
no freedoms...ok
death to gay muslims...cool
women as property.... all good.
honor killings....pffffffft
FGM....not my business













obvious sarcasm

[HereSince1628]

15. I understand, but would like to point out...barbaric does refer to people

in typical use, tribal people who don't belong to or benefit from one of the great civilizations. Which is to say people whose behaviors would, thereby, not be the behavior of a great civilized people like 'us' (people who own and operate, say killer drones?).

Insanity is something that happens to people. It is a reference to people who aren't healthy like say 'us', insanity references people with mental illness whose cognition and or emotions are so dysfunctional as to allow them to behave in inappropriate ways. Like killing without truly legitimate reasons (like say pushing themselves and other nations to war using lies about biological and nuclear weapons programs?).

I agree with the idea within your post that we should lay the blame on the people who perpetrated and or directed these killings (if such a controlling person exists). I think that's proper.

But I make the above comments to point out just how hard it is to extract oneself from the influence of chauvinism which sees "us and ours" as healthy and good, serving proper causes and contrasts our goodness to the badness of others who we see as diseased and bad, and in service to improper causes.

The ease with which we fall into chauvinistic perspectives to re-establish comprehensible order to the world after a tragic event seems so very common that it may be a general truism about how people relate to the world through the influence of their culture and bonds with society.

And if that is true for all people, we might rightfully ponder what alienating experience(s) befell these killers that their worldview would stray so far from that of their fellow French citizens, and Western civilization including us, to commit these killings as proper acts?

[Rex]

19. Fundamentalists. We can say who is to blame, people that believe

in a dangerous way to rule over society guided by their own subjective faith in a book (sorry, but boiled down it is always over some book) that was written by men long, long ago. In a way that goes against common sense and logic and reasoning. A way that gets people killed, blown up, beaten down and shot. That causes war and strife and genocide and mass migration out of harms way by the lucky innocents that escaped. The persecution of gays, minorities and anyone else needed as a scapegoat for political gain. The use of false piety as a means to gain power and influence over the masses.

Fundamentalism is the bane of the world. Not saying every secular person on the planet is good - just that you don't see them stoning people to death or starting wars over which book is telling the truth.

[CrawlingChaos]

20. This immediately exploded into a vile wave of hate toward Muslims

Rationality has flown right out the window. It is terrifying to watch the ease and speed with which villagers grab the torches and pitchforks. The messaging works that well. And the top tier Islamophobes are just warming up.

As far as what's actually behind the attacks, here's something worth considering, IMO:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/01/paris-shooters-just-returned-from-natos.html

[reorg]

24. seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

But it will be dismissed in a second as a "conspiray theory".

[NewDeal_Dem]

48. another possibility is hollande's rapprochement with the russians.

Hollande eyes end to Russia sanctions

http://www.france24.com/en/20150105-france-hollande-russia-sanctions-putin-ukraine-libya-intervention-greece-syriza/

[MNBrewer]

22. Saying Islam is to blame is not at all the same as saying "all muslims are to blame"

It's not even LIKE saying it.

Here's another example: saying Christianity is to blame for the recent waves of persecution of homosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa is not at all the same as saying that all christians are to blame for it.

[reorg]

23. yes it is

it means: since Islam is to blame, prove to us that you have at least distanced yourself from those aspects of Islam ...

In the reports and discussions about anti-gay legislation in Uganda, though, I don't remember anybody claiming "Christianity" was to blame. The fundamentalist nutcases from the US who supported it were clearly designated as such.

For instance:

KAMPALA, Uganda — Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

Uganda is set to pass new anti-gay legislation with provisions calling for the execution of gay people under some circumstances. The rumor of the death penalty clause being removed seems grossly exaggerated. Dr. Warren Throckmorton, who has followed the legislation closely, indicates that some Western media are erroneously reporting that the death penalty clause has been removed. He writes that "the bill is the same bill it has always been. It cannot be amended until the committee report is presented to the floor of the Parliament." Even with the amendment the legislation remains a gross travesty of justice.

The "intellectual" fuel for this grotesque law came from Christian fundamentalists in the United States. According to The New York Times:

American fundamentalists operate in Africa both openly and covertly. They conduct public "crusades" to covert African Christians to their extremist views but also run a plethora of "charitable" projects operated "under the umbrella of nongovernment organizations (NGOs), which provides them with access to grant monies from various overseas agencies," according to "Globalizing the Culture Wars," a report by Political Research Associates (PRA).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping-finance-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-you-are_b_2229509.html

In late February, when Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed the nation's harsh new anti-gay bill into law, he claimed the measure had been "provoked by arrogant and careless western groups that are fond of coming into our schools and recruiting young children into homosexuality." What he failed to mention is that the legislation—which makes homosexuality a crime punishable by life in prison in some cases—was itself largely due to Western interlopers, chief among them a radical American pastor named Scott Lively.

Lively, a 56-year-old Massachusetts native, specializes in stirring up anti-gay feeling around the globe. In Uganda, which he first visited in 2002, he has cultivated ties to influential politicians and religious leaders at the forefront of the nation's anti-gay crusade.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda

If you can find an article or editorial claiming that "Christianity" was to blame for this law or the executions of gays, please show it.

[MNBrewer]

25. Christianity is certainly to blame.

The can be no question.

[reorg]

27. well, I appreciate your personal opinion

but looking for an editorial or report pointing this out you drew a blank, right?

[MNBrewer]

28. You mean find someone else's personal opinion who agrees with me? LOL!

I'm capable of forming my own opinions, thanks.

[MNBrewer]

30. Just to humor you

http://religiondispatches.org/ugandan-bishops-push-notorious-anti-gay-bill/

The Uganda Joint Christian Council, which includes Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox bishops, has called on parliament to move the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill forward. According to the Ugandan newspaper The Daily Monitor:

Top religious leaders from across the country have asked Parliament to speed-up the process of enacting the Anti-Homosexuality law to prevent what they called “an attack on the Bible and the institution of marriage.”

[Bluenorthwest]

58. And yet Uganda is over 40% Catholic, another 40% Anglican. So blaming one fundie guy in the face of

active gay baiting by Bishops of both of the major Churches and absolute silence from Pope Francis about it seems a tad like PR for the others who are very much involved and who are all of them using forms of Christianity to attack a minority group. The facts are just the facts.

[reorg]

63. the Catholics in Uganda apparently didn't agree

at least that's what the story behind the link says by the poster I responded to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6060474

The point is, obviously, that there is no worldwide outrage about Christianity over this, it's always this or that group which is held responsible for inhuman or just false policies and attitudes - as it should be.

But there is no lack of writers and also posters here who will steadfastly point out that violence is an essential part of Islam (as opposed to Christianity and Judaism), indicates lack of civilisation, not that this or that Wahhabi sect (those present in Germany denounce all violence, BTW) or self-identified resistance fighters against this or that invasion and/or dictatorship are to blame.

[Warpy]

26. I blame the killers

Yes, they went to Syria and Yemen, but that's only because they already wanted to kill.

They grew up Muslim, but sought out violent heresy because they already wanted to kill.

[Ken Burch]

49. Thank you. That is a sane, sensible response. n/t.

[politicman]

52. 2 sides to the story and one is always dismissed or downplayed....

These two brothers may be violent people who had a lust for killing and so used the Islamic religion and their trip overseas to justify their murderous intent,

BUT,

do you even for a second entertain the idea that there are many people out their that live their lives as peaceful and normal but turn one day turn into murderers because of an injustice that they think they are righting?


For instance, I am sure there are many Muslims (and others) out there that have lived their lives in a very peaceful way, but have ended up becoming radical and extremist and violent after seeing the many injustices against Muslim nations by western countries.

Imagine a young man who has a girlfriend, goes out at night, drinks alcohol and does many things that Islam considers a sin, and then one day he is exposed to videos of American bombs landing all over Islamic countries killing hundred of thousands of innocent Muslims. Suddenly this young guy starts to believe that the western world is against his Islamic religion, and then some 'cleric' who has his own agenda gets into the mind of the young guy and reinforces the idea that the west is against all Muslims.

This young guy is now radicalised and ends up wanting to inflict as much damage on the west as he possibly can, thus you have muslim terrorist acts.


Lets be clear, there is always 2 sides of the story, we hear about and get enraged when we see terrorists inflicting damage, YET there is another side of the story which we always dismiss or at least downplay, and that side of the story is just as despicable as the terrorist acts, that side being the western bombs that kill many many Muslims in the name of oil, etc.

[Warpy]

60. These guys have had multiple run ins with the cops, who seemed unsurprised about who they are

so I doubt anything in particular made them go from pussycat to pit bull.

I have a strong feeling that they were already violent little punks when they saw the Abu Ghraib pictures. Those might have inspired the trips to Syria and Yemen for training in how to shoot people, but I doubt they were particularly peaceful beforehand. The only thing "radicalization" did is motivate them to get the training to make them more efficient killers.

And yes, there exist a few branches of mostly Sunni Islam based on vicious misinterpretation of the Quran just waiting for violent punks to discover them. The rest of the Sunni world is just now waking up to that fact and realizing it will be their job to correct this. Radical and heretical Islam, after all, has killed more Muslims than anyone else.

[PeaceNikki]

37. Obama?

[B Calm]

53. I blame all religions!

[True Blue Door]

54. It's not a statement of hostility to say that Islam in general has a problem.

In fact, it should be a statement of friendship: Treat it like a drug intervention. "Your religion is empowering these assholes. You need to examine its tenets and find out what it is in Islamic doctrines that's stirring them up more than other kinds of religious bigots."

[Iggo]

62. I dunno, but definitely not Scotsmen. That's for sure.

[One_Life_To_Give]

65. Is Radical XXX insufficient?

I don't think we can claim that it is something as broad as Islam nor pretend that it doesn't occupy a corner within Islamic institutions. Clearly their are some individuals and they appear to frequent/make up certain mosques which are tied to certain sects within Islam. We should not indict all nor excuse all who did not pull the trigger. The level of hatred being demonstrated does not come about in a vacuum.