To say that in the light of what has happened in Paris we mustn't give the extremists what they want..?

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I'd like to reproduce an article in The New Statesman which is basically saying that the aims of these attacks is to increase anti Muslim prejudice, increasing attacks on these communities ( as we've already seen in France) and thereby increasing the sense of alienation and hostility towards the West and recruiting more terrorists...?

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-attack-really-struggle-over-european-values

I also think that you have to put up with being offended sometimes.

"I used the paedophile example of how very often posters have ostrich syndrome."

Whereas what you've actually shown is how often posters create strawmen.

It's not news to anyone that there are extremists claiming justification from Islam, who launch terrorist attacks, who have done so since well before 9/11, and who will continue to launch more.

If you listen to the clip there is a caller stating that muslims should apologise. Furthermore, i have had people in my family demanding the same.

Mrsruffalo - i can understand your fear of attacks against jewish people. Such attacks have been increasing in France and other European countries.

All nationalities and races should be protected from attacks. The people we all need to unite against are the terrorists.

Was a member of your family the caller? Seriously, it is rare and pretty much unheard of as far as I know. Different experience for you, you need to sort your family out!

Focusing debate on muslims is dangerous. It takes focus away from the extremists and terrorists and instead of a concentrated intense focus on them it diverts attention away.

We need more unity at this time not less. Surely one thing the terrorists have proved is that they dont give a shit about what religion their victims are.

Mrsr - no the caller is not someone i know. Fyi there have posters this week on mn also demanding that muslims apologise. I can see you are getting to frothing stage so i will bid you goodbye.

LOL at frothing. I am sorry you have such a myopic family, as I said, you do need to sort them out and talk some sense into them. I honestly don't know anyone who would be so stupid as to demand that all muslims should apologise. I am just trying show you that most people are more enlightened than you realise. But coming from a family like that, I can see why you would accuse people of frothing etc and be worried about misunderstandings. I am sorry you are gojng through this.

mrsrufallo - you talk great sense.

PausingFlatly really? As I've read posts which state otherwise which prompted to post what I did.

My own is that the killers were after three things:

1. To increase division, thereby proving the western democratic ideals are vulnerable and easily overthrown
2. To frighten people into doing what they - the killers - wanted
3. To garner some personal 'glory'.

I don't know what else to say, really, other than it is up to us as individuals to make sure that 1 and 2 don't come to pass

I'm as lefty as they come but I can understand why people are leaning to the right. Its not necessarily out of fear but due to the fact that at this moment in time our liberal democracys can do nothing to stop the murder of its citizens. Very few people seem willing to admit to this. The primary duty of a government is keeping its citizens safe but no government is willing to have an honest conversation with its public to say its not possible.

What, that paedophiles don't exist?

FYI it did happen, here's the photo. I don't know if this is allowed? Sorry if not MN take the photo down.

I think there is (or should be) a big difference between objecting to and criticising a religion/organisation/movement (not sure of the right word, but essentially the suprastructure)... a difference between objecting to that, and displaying hatred or aggression toward the individual human members.

I'm sorry if not articulating myself very well, am very much typing as I'm thinking. But to my mind, religious membership (all varieties) is much more akin to political membership than anything like race. And we can and do criticise people's political leanings all the time, regardless of whether or not we know anything else about that individual.

I own and have read the Qur'an, plus most of the Bible, and a variety of other religious books. If these are to be taken as the 'manifestoes' of their respective religious ideologies, then I find all of them objectionable.

I find them all objectionable because they all advocate prescriptive behaviour and systems of punishment to inflict on other people, not just spiritual/moral guidance for an individual to follow and keep to themselves.

As it is, I think even religion (the suprastructure itself) could be harmless if kept powerless and confined within the agreed laws of the land. But, unfortunately it doesn't work like that... at least not yet.

I object to the religion itself as an ideology, but not the human members who follow it. I object to Islam, but not Muslims. I object to Christianity, but not Christians, Judaism but not Jews, etc etc.

Likewise I object to UKIP but would not expect to be called UKIPophobic, nor would I insult individual members/voters, because they are human and all different. But, like most (?all) religion, the ideology itself I believe contains toxins that outweigh any potential benefits.

I see your point OP and I am also really worried that these horrific events will be used to fuel extremism and justify curtailing of civil liberties - rather ironic considering the murdered journalists could only do their job in a state with very strong protections for the right to free speech.

The 72 virgins thread is pretty horrific; I wasn't expecting to read these kinds of views on MN.

Inanothervisit - nailed it.

Lots of people pray all the time, but most religions don't require you to ostentatiously spread out your prayer mat, get down on the floor, and then put your head down and your bottom up into the air. So that's the difference - other religions can pray on the train without anybody noticing. It is not about the prayer really, but about all the actions that go with the prayer that say 'look at me everybody, I'm now praying'. When Charlie Hebdo has just happened and people are nervous. That is not against the law, but it's just not polite is it.

Personally kawigla, i'm happy for muslims to have the freedom to pray on trains (or wherever they like for that matter). As long as i can have the freedom to say they look bloody ridiculous

Ostentatious praying- how very dare they

YANBU, I think it is worrying that this is pushing lots of people to become more intolerant and also right wing. We need to look at why these young men are so disenfranchised and angry that they are turning to extremism/terrorism. The answer I think is global inequality. We need to concentrate on making things fairer and educating people. Going down the UKIP route will certainly make things worse.

The aim is to terrorise people into submission to their religion. The genocide of Christians, Shias, Yazidis and other minorities in Syria and Iraq and abduction of their girls into sex slavery by these wahabbi fundamentalist nuts is the eventual intention for Europe. It's 'our' Muslims fighting over there ffs, what do you think they'll be doing when they come back?

I'm sick of hearing about 'poor Muslims', there's no concern from the Islamic community for the victims of their religious zealots, only excuses, justifications and concern for themselves that people might actually realise that this problem needs to be dealt with before it's too late. That suggests widespread support. If this were only a tiny minority, there's be a majority out on the streets protesting. There isn't. For reasons we'll understand when we're on the receiving end of what the Syrians and Iraqis have been enduring.

The occasional Muslim saying 'this is not Islam' isn't representative of the majority community, I do notice that even those who speak out add a 'but', but if they submitted to Islam this wouldn't have happened....

Muslims are not the victims, those murdered, forcibly converted at the penalty of death and enslaved in the name of Islam by their followers are.

My sympathy is for the victims of crimes, not the perpetrators and their supporters.

The New Statesman and Guardian always come up with convoluted reasoning after each atrocity, because they don't want a public backlash or for the authorities to get tough.
I wish they'd just say so.
In fact, I agree that getting too tough could increase support for terrorism; it's always a balancing act.
We mustn't destroy the very liberties we wish to preserve.

Much simpler motive: These cartoons outraged the terrorists
So, they wanted to punish those who published them and prevent them publishing any more.
Also to discourage other media from publishing similar cartoons.
The same principle as trying to murder Salmon Rushdie for so many years

It works too:
Any news organisations will consider very carefully the safety of their staff and buildings. Most in the UK and elsewhere decided not to publish. A brave few published on principle.

And read how several posters on these threads keep saying not to provoke them. i.e. keep quiet and don't publish. Sad.

I would love to see as many Muslims as possible praying on the floor on my daily commute because it would mean there was plenty of space. Look at that lovely train. No people and empty seats

Personally kawigla, i'm happy for muslims to have the freedom to pray on trains (or wherever they like for that matter). As long as i can have the freedom to say they look bloody ridiculous

As long as he wasn't blocking a corridor, exit or loo and , if he was, as he does seem to be beside an exit, moves when asked to not when he's finished his prayer, it's his own business and I couldn't care less.

Although thinking on it there may well be reasons from his own safety for not doing this. Some train journeys can be very bumpy and if that train has to stop suddenly (I was on one recently which hit a sheep on the track)he's going to hit his head on the partition

Equally he has no right to take offence or object to anyone else pondering why it's necessary to make a public display of praying in a location not usually designed for that purpose. Or for that matter argue with a guard who asks him to move if it is a safety issue.

totally mixed feelings on this

Firstly, idea that people should apologise for something they had absolutely zero to do with is rather crazy. I don't need Muslims to apologise for terrorism, why should they?

But I also think that more and more people are starting to query whether the term 'moderate muslim' is a bit of a paradox when the faith itself is so blinkered, strict and backward.