12 dead in attack on Paris newspaper; France goes on alert

[micmichd]

mrtoad, do you really believe I would dare to accuse a whole profession that could lock me up in asylum if I wouldn't already have an expertise on my mental state?

Edited January 11, 2015 by micmichd

[H1w4yR1da]

My attention was mainly taken by your last comment, so let me respond bottom up.

If an immigrant population lives within the confines of the law of the host country, what further requirement is there for them to 'fit in'?

Let's see.

How about not creating muslim only no go areas and patrolling theses area to make sure locals follow Islamic traditions while physically attacking any that refuse, not raping hundred of local children, not expecting halal food to be served in schools, restaurants and supermarkets, not taking over schools in the Midlands and instituting strict Islamic rules, not murdering daughters in 'honor' killings if they refuse a forced/arranged marriage, not mutilating pre pubescent girls with FGM etc. etc.?

Edited January 11, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[7by7]

(some quotes removed to comply with forum software)

Although extremist groups such as ISIS have supported this horrendous crime, these evil terrorist murderers do not represent the majority of Muslims and have been condemned by them.

Charlie Hebdo killings condemned by Arab states – but hailed online by extremists

Moderate Muslims Use #JeSuisCharlie To Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack In Paris

Not in our name – Muslims respond in revulsion to Charlie Hebdo massacre

Paris Murders are a Greater Insult to Islam: Muslim Council of Britain Statement on Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Muslim Council of Britain Express Solidarity With Jewish Community After Paris Kosher Supermarket Deaths

Of course, those whose closed minds tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush will no doubt, yet again, call me an 'apologist for terrorists' for posting this, even though I have never sought to defend or apologise for any act of terrorism, no matter who commits it.

But that is the only reaction these people can come up with when confronted with facts which don't suit their prejudice.

I have posted a similar list earlier, so not contesting that there are were and are official statements from Muslim organizations and heads of state condemning the attack.

What I do wonder about is how much public support among Muslim communities and nations do these statements represent? Westerners are quite at home denying that their leader's statements conform to their own views (this can be evident in about any semi-political topic on TVF). Would it not be the same for Muslims?

When people feel strongly about issues, there is often a public display of their discontent - be it demonstrations, marches, strikes and what not (limiting the reference to relatively non-violent means of expression), or nowadays, social media campaigns. There is relatively less public outrage expressed by Muslims over Islam-related terrorist attacks than one could have expected, going by some of the claims repeatedly raised. If these statements indeed represent a majority, then this majority either feels less than directly involved or threatened, is either passive or restricted in its reactions.

There are instances when the above happens, but there is a disparity of numbers showing up for similar occasions to do with protesting (real or imagined) wrongdoing against Islam or Muslims. This could be attributed to many factors, non of which shed a very favorable light on the issue.

As shown; Muslims are taking to social media, such as Twitter, to condemn this attack.

I understand that prayers for the murdered were said at many mosques on Friday; I'm told by a Muslim friend that was certainly the case at my local one.

Arifa Akbar makes some very a valid points in Paris attacks: No, Mr Murdoch. I am not responsible

This week, I'm told I haven't apologised enough. Not nearly enough – being a British Muslim, and confining my expressions of disbelief, alarm and anger, to only my circle of friends, colleagues and family – when in Paris, 17 are dead, Europe is in mourning, and the freedoms enshrined in my own profession have been barbarically violated.

The sub heading to that article is "Christians were not expected to say sorry for the Oklahoma City bombing, yet Muslims are being asked to apologise."

A good point; no one demanded Christians apologise for or condemn that atrocity. No one criticised Christians for not taking to the streets to demonstrate their horror at the bombings.

No one demanded that Jews apologise for the murders committed by self described "far right Zionist" Anders Behring Breivik in Sweden in 2011.

Ditto for atrocities by other terrorists; the IRA, ETA for example.

Why is it only when the terrorists are Muslim that people demand ordinary people take to the streets to condemn them?

[JockPieandBeans]

So in which country is that happening? It's certainly not happening in any European one; where those who try to impose Sharia law are arrested and suitably punished; in the UK, for example, by imprisonment.

Are you so gullible that you truly do not believe that elements of Sharia Law is not only being implemented, but has been taking place all over Europe for years ?

If you want to mention the UK. There is no part of Sharia Law that is part of UK Civil or Criminal Law. So why has a blind eye been turned it ?

Sharia has been operating in the UK, managed by locally-appointed councils, in parallel to the British legal system since 1982.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Edited January 11, 2015 by JockPieandBeans

[MJP]

So in which country is that happening? It's certainly not happening in any European one; where those who try to impose Sharia law are arrested and suitably punished; in the UK, for example, by imprisonment.

Are you so gullible that you truly do not believe that elements of Sharia Law is not only being implemented, but has been taking place all over Europe for years ?

If you want to mention the UK. There is no part of Sharia Law that is part of UK Civil or Criminal Law. So why has a blind eye been turned it ?

They're doing it under civil arbitration. But it's not right I agree and it's only the start of turning the UK into what the extremists really want.

It's going to take normal Muslims to deal with this. When are they going to grow a pair and step up?

[Ulysses G.]

Why is it only when the terrorists are Muslim that people demand ordinary people take to the streets to condemn them?

Because radical Muslims commit way more terrorist crimes than any other group and because there are a lot of passages in the Qur'an that justify what they are doing. People are to prone to wonder how many ordinary Muslims silently approve of terrorism, even if they don't actually plant the bombs.

Islam has 1.57 billion adherents and make up over 23% of the world population. If even 10% support terrorism, we are in big trouble and it is very possible that it is even more than that, although there is no way to know for sure. If ordinary Muslims do not find a way to put a stop to violent Jihad, they might all end up sharing the blame.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[JockPieandBeans]

So in which country is that happening? It's certainly not happening in any European one; where those who try to impose Sharia law are arrested and suitably punished; in the UK, for example, by imprisonment.

Are you so gullible that you truly do not believe that elements of Sharia Law is not only being implemented, but has been taking place all over Europe for years ?

If you want to mention the UK. There is no part of Sharia Law that is part of UK Civil or Criminal Law. So why has a blind eye been turned it ?

They're doing it under civil arbitration. But it's not right I agree and it's only the start of turning the UK into what the extremists really want.

It's going to take normal Muslims to deal with this. When are they going to grow a pair and step up?

It matters not a jot what it is being done under. It should not be taking place period.

I think you have that wrong MJP. it is not radical Muslims that are pushing Sharia in the UK, it is " Normal Muslims " as you so eloquently put it.

[Morch]

You are referring to 9/11

We are not Americans

We are not going to negotiate our citizen rights in the name of fear and accept a patriot act like you did

WE ARE NOT AFRAID

I'm not a Yank. I'm English,

Good ...

so you should know in Europe we refuse to be governed by fear, because fearing people are weak and accept anything

Are we talking about the same Europe where certain major media outlets do their best to refrain from mentioning anything this attack got to do with Islamic terrorism?

Putting on a brave face right after the attack, and with global support is one thing. How things will pan down the road is another. Would other practitioners of social and political satire be more careful in the future? Will governments tackle related issues any better? Would the public actually subscribe to this fearless attitude or will it go for curbing some freedoms in return to promised safety?

I do not know the answers to these questions, and neither does anyone else. We can speculate, but making decisive comments on what public attitudes will be like is far from a sure bet. Certain reports suggest a trend of emigration by some French citizens, the ones more likely to be shopping in Kosher delis.

[ABCer]

I have quite a few Muslim friends and a lot of them do support terrorism.

They do support terror attacks on Israel and on Jews.

They also support terrorist attacks against Shiite Muslims and Mosques.

These are people who are relatively moderate in their religious practices.

Personally, they would not be involved in terrorism.

They just don't see anything wrong with these things happening to their enemies.

How many are like that, I don't know, but I suspect a lot.

Credo, thanks for being so forward. Tell us what are your friends... You are an honest man.

Question. How do you know that they are not personally involved in terrorism?

Question. Your friends don't see anything wrong with these things (terrorism?) happening to their enemies (Israel, Jews, Shiite Muslims and their Mosques?).

Question. Do you see anything wrong with these your Muslim friends?

Thanks for supporting my view on the issue at hand - Terror attack in France.

I suspect that all Muslims in all European countries are like that.

But it is not important whether they are all like that or only a few or a lot.

Because if it is only 10% of them - this makes potentially an army of 5 M terrorists.

At a present ratio of success (about 10 innocent civilians for 1 terrorist) Europe is doomed.

Never mind the show of unity of European Ministers***.

Never mind the 'vigil' kept by people of free will of the World.

Never mind the efforts of National Security Forces in all of EU.

Never mind if the cartoons will keep being published.

You cannot fight Terrorism with Pacifism.

You cannot fight Barbarism with Humanism.

You cannot fight Fanaticism with Logic and Idealism.

You cannot fight Evil with Goodness.

You cannot use Public Forces against unidentified individual members of Public.

You cannot fight Terrorism until the States are being led by false unsustainable ideals that basically created the present crisis.

I am sorry to have to say this but it is the truth.

*** Just watched on BBC the Show of Unity with most of European Ministers demonstrating solidarity with French.

Each and every face is guilty as hell in facilitating the Terror by their Political Correctness! Damn them all!

[7by7]

<snip>

There were and there are many immigrants in Europe who did not turn to terrorism even after being attacked, demonized and marginalized. How come suddenly signing up with IS (or the current flavor of the month terrorist outfit) became a default option?

It isn't. Only a tiny minority of European Muslims have done so or attempted to do so.

The highest estimate I can find comes from the EU's anti-terrorism chief quoted in this BBC article; "more than 3,000."

Which obviously means less than 4,000; but let's take that figure.

In 2010, according to the Pew Forum, the Muslim population of Europe, excluding Turkey, was 44 million (source); I'll take that figure, even though nearly 5 years later it must be higher.

4000 out of 44 million. I make that 0.009%!

Still 0.009% too many; but not the hordes that some would have us believe.

[7by7]

Why is it only when the terrorists are Muslim that people demand ordinary people take to the streets to condemn them?

Because radical Muslims commit way more terrorist crimes than any other group and because there are a lot of passages in the Qur'an that justify what they are doing. People are to prone to wonder how many ordinary Muslims silently approve of terrorism, even if they don't actually plant the bombs.

Islam has 1.57 billion adherents and make up over 23% of the world population. If even 10% support terrorism, we are in big trouble and it is very possible that it is even more than that, although there is no way to know for sure. If ordinary Muslims do not find a way to put a stop to violent Jihad, they might all end up sharing the blame.

Because people like Pamela Gellar blame all Muslims for the actions of the terrorists.

Bigotry, pure and simple.

Then people like you swallow the crap of the bigots.

[JockPieandBeans]

The highest estimate I can find comes from the EU's anti-terrorism chief quoted in this BBC article; "more than 3,000."

Which obviously means less than 4,000; but let's take that figure.

25000 is also more than 3000. So how does it obviously mean less than 4000 ?

[mrtoad]

mrtoad, do you really believe I would dare to accuse a whole profession that could lock me up in asylum if I wouldn't already have an expertise on my mental state?

Oh dear

Good luck

[Thai at Heart]

(some quotes removed to comply with forum software)

Although extremist groups such as ISIS have supported this horrendous crime, these evil terrorist murderers do not represent the majority of Muslims and have been condemned by them.

Charlie Hebdo killings condemned by Arab states but hailed online by extremists

Moderate Muslims Use #JeSuisCharlie To Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack In Paris

Not in our name Muslims respond in revulsion to Charlie Hebdo massacre

Paris Murders are a Greater Insult to Islam: Muslim Council of Britain Statement on Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Muslim Council of Britain Express Solidarity With Jewish Community After Paris Kosher Supermarket Deaths

Of course, those whose closed minds tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush will no doubt, yet again, call me an 'apologist for terrorists' for posting this, even though I have never sought to defend or apologise for any act of terrorism, no matter who commits it.

But that is the only reaction these people can come up with when confronted with facts which don't suit their prejudice.

I have posted a similar list earlier, so not contesting that there are were and are official statements from Muslim organizations and heads of state condemning the attack.

What I do wonder about is how much public support among Muslim communities and nations do these statements represent? Westerners are quite at home denying that their leader's statements conform to their own views (this can be evident in about any semi-political topic on TVF). Would it not be the same for Muslims?

When people feel strongly about issues, there is often a public display of their discontent - be it demonstrations, marches, strikes and what not (limiting the reference to relatively non-violent means of expression), or nowadays, social media campaigns. There is relatively less public outrage expressed by Muslims over Islam-related terrorist attacks than one could have expected, going by some of the claims repeatedly raised. If these statements indeed represent a majority, then this majority either feels less than directly involved or threatened, is either passive or restricted in its reactions.

There are instances when the above happens, but there is a disparity of numbers showing up for similar occasions to do with protesting (real or imagined) wrongdoing against Islam or Muslims. This could be attributed to many factors, non of which shed a very favorable light on the issue.

As shown; Muslims are taking to social media, such as Twitter, to condemn this attack.

I understand that prayers for the murdered were said at many mosques on Friday; I'm told by a Muslim friend that was certainly the case at my local one.

Arifa Akbar makes some very a valid points in Paris attacks: No, Mr Murdoch. I am not responsible

This week, I'm told I haven't apologised enough. Not nearly enough being a British Muslim, and confining my expressions of disbelief, alarm and anger, to only my circle of friends, colleagues and family when in Paris, 17 are dead, Europe is in mourning, and the freedoms enshrined in my own profession have been barbarically violated.

The sub heading to that article is "Christians were not expected to say sorry for the Oklahoma City bombing, yet Muslims are being asked to apologise."

A good point; no one demanded Christians apologise for or condemn that atrocity. No one criticised Christians for not taking to the streets to demonstrate their horror at the bombings.

No one demanded that Jews apologise for the murders committed by self described "far right Zionist" Anders Behring Breivik in Sweden in 2011.

Ditto for atrocities by other terrorists; the IRA, ETA for example.

Why is it only when the terrorists are Muslim that people demand ordinary people take to the streets to condemn them?

This is a very simple question to answer.

Several of these crimes were not carried out on behalf of a prophet or a religion.

If someone beats someone up on behalf of Liverpool football club, the first people to denounce it are the club and other supporters.

Ask your extreme anti govt supporters if they support McVeigh some say yes. The crime was not commited on behalf of the church.

[Morch]

Anjem Choudary . . .

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips

This is political theatre not to be taken seriously. A real journalist or a more talented interviewer would have picked Choudary apart. Hannity is a blunt, unsubtle instrument in the manufactured culture wars, pretty much confined to the US context. This is meant to drive ratings and income for the corporation behind this media outlet.

Rushdie started to talk about this on Bill Maher's Real Time the other day. I listen to Salman Rushdie. He has been engaged deeply on these issues for a long time.

Choudary is difficult to listen to but basically a provocateur. The trick is to not be provoked. If you believe in free speech, then you have to let him speak. People like this have little moderation. If you have well crafted laws and strong institutions, generally you can give them enough rope to hang themselves. If they stray into hate speech or actual incitement of actions to aid and support terrorist activities then you can get them. Just like Abu Hamza.

Could a non-Muslim carry on like Choudary and get away with it in the UK?

Is there an equivalent non-Muslim minority figure going on in the same style and getting away with it?

How would either of the above fare in any Muslim country if trying something of the sort?

[7by7]

So in which country is that happening? It's certainly not happening in any European one; where those who try to impose Sharia law are arrested and suitably punished; in the UK, for example, by imprisonment.

Are you so gullible that you truly do not believe that elements of Sharia Law is not only being implemented, but has been taking place all over Europe for years ?

If you want to mention the UK. There is no part of Sharia Law that is part of UK Civil or Criminal Law. So why has a blind eye been turned it ?

Sharia has been operating in the UK, managed by locally-appointed councils, in parallel to the British legal system since 1982.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

The issue of Sharia courts in the UK has previously been declared off topic here by the mods and posts about it deleted.

So instead of replying here, I refer you to this topic, where it has been discussed at length.

I will say, though, that Beth Din, the Jewish equivalent, have been operating in the UK, in the same way as Sharia now does, for well over 100 years and is very similar; particularly in the treatment of women: Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts

Meanwhile; will you, or anyone, answer the question: in which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?

Edited January 11, 2015 by 7by7

[alanrchase]

Anjem Choudary . . .

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips

This is political theatre not to be taken seriously. A real journalist or a more talented interviewer would have picked Choudary apart. Hannity is a blunt, unsubtle instrument in the manufactured culture wars, pretty much confined to the US context. This is meant to drive ratings and income for the corporation behind this media outlet.

Rushdie started to talk about this on Bill Maher's Real Time the other day. I listen to Salman Rushdie. He has been engaged deeply on these issues for a long time.

Choudary is difficult to listen to but basically a provocateur. The trick is to not be provoked. If you believe in free speech, then you have to let him speak. People like this have little moderation. If you have well crafted laws and strong institutions, generally you can give them enough rope to hang themselves. If they stray into hate speech or actual incitement of actions to aid and support terrorist activities then you can get them. Just like Abu Hamza.

Could a non-Muslim carry on like Choudary and get away with it in the UK?

Is there an equivalent non-Muslim minority figure going on in the same style and getting away with it?

How would either of the above fare in any Muslim country if trying something of the sort?

It would not be allowed. But isn't that the great thing about Western democracies? Free speech.

[Morch]

fools, crooks, fraudsters, you name it, same as anywhere really

But we don't give up our civil rights

Yet you stay in a country where freedom of speech is ....well....somewhat, to put it politely, limited. By reading many of your comments on this topic.....i am baffled....you are just PC IMO.....good for you. Or you booked your ticket already ?

Yes I am here, and that makes me realize how important freedom of speech and democracy are.

Some people are here to exploit Thailand. Others are here to contribute to its development. We have made careers and lives here. Sometime progress is positive. Sometimes otherwise. But we continue. Those here to exploit are the ones who clear off when things don't go so well. The rest of us stick it out. We PC crowd put our money where our mouths are.

And some people are here for neither of the above reasons. Not everyone got an idealistic goal or a nefarious plan in mind.

Some people stay, some people move on - this is not always to do with exploiting, this is not always connected to contributing.

"We few, we happy few"....

You just won a free coupon for one self-congratulatory pet on back.

[H1w4yR1da]

This is an interesting read. It appears France is in as bad a state as the UK with some of its muslim immigrants.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/10/hundreds-no-go-zones-across-france-are-limits-non-muslims

[Morch]

This could turn the tide....

France fighting for Liberty once again. I hope it will be like old times past, when they gave America the Statue.

Liberty comes at a price....as we can see. Many have paid that price, and it is our duty to honor and hold that...as our inherent right. Once it is lost, it will come at even a higher price.

Some images are hard to resist....sorry about that

[7by7]

Why is it only when the terrorists are Muslim that people demand ordinary people take to the streets to condemn them?

This is a very simple question to answer.

Several of these crimes were not carried out on behalf of a prophet or a religion.

If someone beats someone up on behalf of Liverpool football club, the first people to denounce it are the club and other supporters.

Indeed, the club and some supporters, usually representatives of the supporters club or random supporters stopped by reporters for a vox pop will denounce it; but not all supporters will do so publicly, even though they do privately.

But some people are expecting all Muslims to somehow publicly apologise for these events, and accuse them of supporting terrorism if they don't.

Ask your extreme anti govt supporters if they support McVeigh some say yes. The crime was not commited on behalf of the church.

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

This has been proven by the condemnation of it from all around the Muslim world; apart from nut jobs like ISIS of course.

[JockPieandBeans]

The issue of Sharia courts in the UK has previously been declared off topic here by the mods and posts about it deleted.

So instead of replying here, I refer you to this topic, where it has been discussed at length.

I will say, though, that Beth Din, the Jewish equivalent, have been operating in the UK, in the same way as Sharia now does, for well over 100 years and is very similar; particularly in the treatment of women: Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts

Meanwhile; will you, or anyone, answer the question: in which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?

If its off topic why do you keep mentioning it then ?

Why dont you try answering a question Mohammed ?

Too close to home for you ?

Perhaps this article from todays Independent may help explain it for you.

Under guidance produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to compose Islamic wills that refuse women an equal share of inheritances and discount non-believers entirely, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The recommendations can also prevent illegitimate children, as well as those who have been adopted, from being included in an inheritance.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from discrimination authorised on the basis of religion, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph it was a “deeply disturbing” development.

And she pledged to raise the issue with ministers. “This violates everything that we stand for,” she said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamic-law-to-be-enshrined-in-british-law-as-solicitors-get-guidelines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html

This is just the start. I'm pretty sure all of this will be old news to you Mohammed.

[MrTee]

I saw this - wondered what other posters may think

Ahmed the policeman died in the line of duty.

I have no idea if he was a devout Muslim or what were his opinions on the civilians he was tasked to keep safe.

Actually think it is a bit low to use such a manipulation (but willing to take it back if there is something to show otherwise).

Basically the above is painting Ahmed the policeman along the lines of the stereotypical generic Muslim image - religiously devout, culturally rooted in a foreign land. Doesn't sound like a good multicultural point of view. For all I know (and again, could be wrong, of course) Ahmed the policeman could have led rather sacrilegious life, was more interested in things French than wherever his family originated from and might have even sniggered at the cartoons drawn by the people he guarded.

Is the tweeter guy who posted this family, close friend, fellow police officer?

I cannot speak for the person that tweeted it, but what his family said today was surely the voice of reason.. had it been my brother I may just have been a bit more outraged, but come on you bigots here is a muslim standing up for the very same principles that you claim to subscribe to.

either you are for bigotry or you are against it..

Please feel free to express you self .

Is it funny that the pigs that unleashed this atrocity are no different from the pigs now calling for the murder of all muslims?

These evilldooers believe they speak for the whole of the Islamic world, are you going to put them on a pedestal by agreeing with them ?

[7by7]

Anjem Choudary . . .

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips

This is political theatre not to be taken seriously. A real journalist or a more talented interviewer would have picked Choudary apart. Hannity is a blunt, unsubtle instrument in the manufactured culture wars, pretty much confined to the US context. This is meant to drive ratings and income for the corporation behind this media outlet.

Rushdie started to talk about this on Bill Maher's Real Time the other day. I listen to Salman Rushdie. He has been engaged deeply on these issues for a long time.

Choudary is difficult to listen to but basically a provocateur. The trick is to not be provoked. If you believe in free speech, then you have to let him speak. People like this have little moderation. If you have well crafted laws and strong institutions, generally you can give them enough rope to hang themselves. If they stray into hate speech or actual incitement of actions to aid and support terrorist activities then you can get them. Just like Abu Hamza.

Could a non-Muslim carry on like Choudary and get away with it in the UK?

Is there an equivalent non-Muslim minority figure going on in the same style and getting away with it?

How would either of the above fare in any Muslim country if trying something of the sort?

It would not be allowed. But isn't that the great thing about Western democracies? Free speech.

It is allowed; you only have to look at the activities of people like Tommy Robinson and Pat Condell to see that!

Yes, free speech is one of the cornerstones of Western democracy.

"I abhor what you have to say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." (Original source unknown, but often attributed to Voltaire.)

[MrTee]

Choudary needs to be shot talk about bigotry,the man is a bigot of the first degree" do as we want or take the consequences"

Choudary is pig even amongst radical Islamasists, but you give him credence by getting outraged by his puerile comments ?

[Thai at Heart]

Why is it only when the terrorists are Muslim that people demand ordinary people take to the streets to condemn them?

This is a very simple question to answer.

Several of these crimes were not carried out on behalf of a prophet or a religion.

If someone beats someone up on behalf of Liverpool football club, the first people to denounce it are the club and other supporters.

Indeed, the club and some supporters, usually representatives of the supporters club or random supporters stopped by reporters for a vox pop will denounce it; but not all supporters will do so publicly, even though they do privately.

But some people are expecting all Muslims to somehow publicly apologise for these events, and accuse them of supporting terrorism if they don't.

Ask your extreme anti govt supporters if they support McVeigh some say yes. The crime was not commited on behalf of the church.

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

This has been proven by the condemnation of it from all around the Muslim world; apart from nut jobs like ISIS of course.

One of them has a video speaking out of support and help from ISis.

I am not or expecting all Islamic people to denounce it to me. I would be happy of the majority would denounce it to extremists and stop them doing it again.

[7by7]

The issue of Sharia courts in the UK has previously been declared off topic here by the mods and posts about it deleted.

So instead of replying here, I refer you to this topic, where it has been discussed at length.

I will say, though, that Beth Din, the Jewish equivalent, have been operating in the UK, in the same way as Sharia now does, for well over 100 years and is very similar; particularly in the treatment of women: Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts

Meanwhile; will you, or anyone, answer the question: in which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?

If its off topic why do you keep mentioning it then ?

I asked a question of someone who claimed it is being imposed across Europe.

Why dont you try answering a question Mohammed ?

Too close to home for you ?

I have discussed Sharia law in the UK at length in the topic linked to; and will happily discuss it further with you there if you wish to do so.

Will you answer the question "In which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?"

No, you wont; because the answer is "None."

[Morch]

12 people murdered by radical muslims. Whatever race or religion they were. It is another hate filled attack by muslims against the West. No other way of dressing it up.

No need too....It is as you say murder.

Same as the collateral thousands killed on a regular basis elsewhere in the countries pounded by drones etc.

They obviously feel no need to dress it up. They just know they lost family & it probably feels like

some form of hate to them too.

It might have been the same if naturalized second generation Western immigrants in Afghanistan (example) would be carrying attacks on their fellow countrymen. That's without getting into further differences, like current attack essentially directed at what would was termed in the post above as "collateral" damage.

[JockPieandBeans]

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

BBC News

Ahead of the rally, a video emerged appearing to show supermarket gunman Amedy Coulibaly pledging allegiance to militant group Islamic State.

In the video he says was working with the Charlie Hebdo attackers, saying: "We have split our team into two... to increase the impact of our actions."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30765824

Authorisation or pre-knowledge ? This was well orchestrated with far more than those executed involved.

[MJP]

Come on now fellas. Calm it down a bit.

I'm not removing posts but I'm going to leave it to you guys to . . .

. . . well you know . . .