French teacher murdered for Muhammad

Should we instead beware of the current or wannabie oligarch and group who want to benefit over the conflict? Then banging our head against each other while all of us are equally potential victim here?

Oligarchy us the way things go, it will swing back I think.

Elites always rule for themselves regardless of race, culture, religion, political system lol.
 
I'm born in a very non-practicing Muslim family (even my father can be consider anti-Islam), went to Catohlic school, then interested in Budhism during high-school even consider converting, being pretty much agnostic leftist in University and becoming the opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood in my University, then later on I back to Islam like in 2006 till now (I can't even read the Quran at that time). My family think I'm a better person now, I quit alcohol at least, while back-then I keep bottles of alcohol near to me, I might already died if I keep living like that. I was able to drink half bottle of blue vodka in one go at one new year party. But thanks anyway.
Religion can certainly be a powerful placebo/self-help tool for people. It would not have stuck around for as long if it wasn't.
However, you can be both sober and a good person without guidance from imaginary divinity.
Still, I'm rather "live and let live" kind of guy. If you need it, I don't begrudge anyone the help of their imaginary friends.
Except when they may become hateful, angry and/or violent for no other reason besides that imaginary friend telling them to.
 
Lol damn NZ says hold my beer.

Binge drinking here as a kid we did whole bottle and back then the bottles were 1125 ml.

Record was 1.5 litres aged 16. Blacked out, complete mess would not recommend.

Last time I drunk bottle of vodka threw up three times and two day hangover. That was 11 years ago or so. Bottles are also smaller (1 litre).

I still drink but don't get intoxicated. Had one large beer tonight, 2.5 standard drinks but doesn't touch the sides.

Once in a while I still dream about drinking, whenever I see bottles of liquor lining up on the store refrigerator on a retail store, cold and sweaty, it gives me chill down to my spine. I never remember I ever throw up when I drank, I able to control alcohol better than weed, no matter how much do I drank I never reach to the point where I black-out and sleep in the pool of vomit.

Oligarchy us the way things go, it will swing back I think.

Elites always rule for themselves regardless of race, culture, religion, political system lol.

Right I'm the one who bring up Oligarch/group here, so I will be responsible for this.

My initial thesis was about global jihad, until one of our honorable member in this forum here advise me not to chose that topic hence I cancelled it, worried for my own safety, I was not yet enter the process of writing just yet, at that time I was still in the process of reading and researching also consulting with my mentor in University, so I'm not an expert but I confident to say that I might know more than basically many of you here regarding this topic.

The lone-wolf operation is a wild card tactic that is used by both the Jihadist and the Right Wing extremist. The method are simple, just put out material that able to agitate the crowd of Muslim or Nationalist alike, and mostly the agitation fuel was provided by each-other, like religious extremist would use the act of right wing extremist to created new pool, while the right-wing extremist would also use the muslim extremist acts to burned their pool. Add that with other related agitative data like oppression against Muslim right, inflated rape's data that allegedly done by immigrant, etc etc. After that they will write down the ideas and manual on how to execute the operation, a informational tool to cause havoc and sensation like a more heavier version of anarchist cook-book. After that they can just cross their finger and let the magic work.

Each of operation that operated like this are un-structured and completely alienated, like archipelagos of operation. There is no chain of command and the target is random, and it often back-fired, like there were more than one mosque get bombed in West Java because of this kind of operation; and please don't get smug and think that the back-fire is only exclusively would happened to Muslim, it will be only a matter of time until some people or group who are considered to be ideologically "left" will accused as "antifa", and they would be targeted by some right wing lone wolf operation.

At short these two organizations are actually mutually similar. So in the end it's only a tool that is used by organization, by reacting a lone-wolf operation by alienating general Muslim crowd who don't get an atom of idea about it is not only unfair, but it's a way to get trap by the same loophole of devil that they created, that benefit both pole of recruitment pool.

This is not a battle between Muslim vs the rest of the world, this is a battle against organizations (right wing and ISIS like vs rest of the world) that used terrorism as tactics.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he qualifies as a liberal though.

If various middle east countries had free and fair elections in a lot if cases they would elect various crappy leaders associated with terrorist groups like the Muslim brotherhood.

Let's not forget that this is the case only because the quite secular mass organizations there were destroyed with the hand or certain western countries all over it. If Mosadegh hadn't been overthrown would Iran eventually have fallen to the ayatollahs? If the PLO hadn't been undermined would Hamas have found a void to fill? In the 1960s Nasser was by far the most popular arab leader and scared the hell out of the saudi royalty. That Saudi Arabia remained Saudi at all was due to american protection.
 
This is awful and I know this might not be a popular take, but wth is wrong with Islam? Their zealots are heads above the rest it seems to me.

When your opponents have no heads, that's not hard to achieve.
 
I'm convinced that the vast majority of religious fanatics are mental cases. Once you start applying religious law on someone who does not belong to your religion, you're a nutcase in my book.

And it's not altogether surprising that there are so many mentally unstable people in the world. It's a harsh place, and our current modes of production don't help.
 
It's worth noticing this:

Among the organisations being investigated by authorities is the high-profile Anti-Islamophobia Collective, which Darmanin said appeared to be “clearly implicated” in the attack because the father of a child at the school had repeated its name in a video posted online calling for Paty’s dismissal.
The pupil’s father and Abdelhakim Sefrioui, a well-known Islamist radical with links to the organisation who routinely uses social media and local campaigns to pressure the government over alleged Islamophobia, are among 11 people who have so far been arrested in connection with the murder.

The days when cries of "islamophobia" were a get-out-of-jail card for this fanatic scum are over in France.
 
I'm convinced that the vast majority of religious fanatics are mental cases. Once you start applying religious law on someone who does not belong to your religion, you're a nutcase in my book.

And it's not altogether surprising that there are so many mentally unstable people in the world. It's a harsh place, and our current modes of production don't help.
This is a really harmful comparison in pretty much every sense of it. Not only does this put down people with mental illness (which is under-diagnosed, under-reported on, and generally not seen as important as physical health), but it presumes a link between entirely logical behaviour (fundamentalist interpretation of rules, i.e. rules of scripture) and mental illness. Sorry, I do not agree in the slightest.

People don't have to be mentally-ill to be violent. To be indoctrinated. To be taken advantage of (which is what some of it can be, in terms of religious extremists). People also don't have to be mentally-ill to be the organisers and recruiters of such extremists. Do you not understand how harmful this kind of thinking is?
 
I agree, in that only a small fraction of people with "mental illness" are actually violent in the first place. The vast majority is more docile than the norm.

Besides, ideologically-driven violence is distinct from mental illness, though it is sometimes convenient to mix the two. Eg iirc Freud was working with british authorities to publish a psychological evaluation of Hitler, but it seems to have been propaganda-heavy in the first place and I doubt Hitler was that insane; he found a willing public and even wrote a book to explain his position. It's not like everyone responsible for a lot of deaths is imagining demons will tear him up if he refuses to become a martyr.
 
There's ideological violence and then there's mental illness disguised as ideological violence. And we will always have a low-boil of the later until we provide viable diagnosis and interventions*. But they're absolutely different things.

*What? El_Mac pointing out again that we underfund such research deliberately? Say it ain't so!
 
By the modern definitions of mental illness (which imo are way too broad) yest they are mentally ill.

Which does not exclude the need to deal with the existing fanatics by destroying them, but does induce to thinking about how to avoid this kind of mental illness. Whist is basically not an inescapable one but the result social pathologist. A horsehockey society is making people mentally ill, that I believe was @aelf 's point and I agree.
 
We have multiple forum posters expressing the willingness to kill for partisan reasons - so I guess there's an obvious divide between being theoretically willing to pull the trigger and actually doing so - it's morally a thin line (even if not practically so).
 
By the modern definitions of mental illness (which imo are way too broad) yest they are mentally ill.
With what diagnoses? "mentally ill" is a medical term that carries actual weight. You can't just claim "by the modern definitions" (in addition to not, well, citing any apparent definitions).

Society can be both unhelpful to the mentally-ill and damaging to people with robust mental health. I don't think you understand, but blaming everything on some kind of universally-applied mental illness is exactly the kind of stigma people with mental illnesses suffer daily. It's not helpful. It's not a proper cause. It certainly won't contribute to deradicalising extremists. But I guess if your only mission is to "destroy them", you don't need to care about the minutae :)
 
Have it your way, claim that they're perfectly rational and cool-headed. Now about the destroying them part, them would you rather cuddle with those perfectly rational and cool-headed fanatics? Or just pat them in the back?
You might, of course, try arguing rationally with them. And end up a head shorter, as this french teacher did.
 
By the modern definitions of mental illness (which imo are way too broad) yest they are mentally ill.

Which does not exclude the need to deal with the existing fanatics by destroying them, but does induce to thinking about how to avoid this kind of mental illness. Whist is basically not an inescapable one but the result social pathologist. A ****** society is making people mentally ill, that I believe was @aelf 's point and I agree.

By all means deal with fanatics who commit crimes, just don't ally yourself with the bigots who want to use it as an excuse to attack a whole community.
 
Top Bottom