I've just read about the atrocity in Paris. Shocking. In light of what ISIS has been doing, in light of many cases of extremist murder, it is way past time to discuss extremism, but without talking about any particular religion except insofar as it helps to identify a particular minority. Extremism and the murder it promotes is the gist of this.

I have always condemned religious or political extremism. By the very definition of the word "extreme", the extremists are a minority, not average, not the norm.

These butchers, murderers, should be wiped off the face of the earth (IMHO). They are a hindrance to civilisation and peace.

The question arises, should their philosophy and all followers of it also be annihilated? The extreme philosophy, definitely, but what of the followers who have not actually committed murder or attempted murder (yet?)?

Should the world just join together and systematically execute them?

I'm tending towards a "yes".

Ex-judiciously? I'm tending towards a qualified yes.

What other options are there?

In discussing this from this angle, extremism, we must (I intend for this discussion) also include all extremism. Jihadists, Fundamental Christians (that bomb abortion clinics, for example). Price Tag Jews, maybe even Satan Worshipers.

Exterminating the current generation of extremists will not exterminate extremism. There will always be new advocates of interpretations of philosophies/religions that push the boundaries of sense.

Look at the Khmer Rouge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Spanish actions in South America, the Crusades and the Thugees for wrong thinking.

We must fight it, we must educate everyone in civilised behaviour and respect for the law (our law).

I would write more, but this site is not accepting normal typing - it's driving me crazy

They killed them because they had a voice in their way of thinking and putting it down on paper. And perhaps laughed at religion. Shise the made fun of all religions, Bugger them, those pathetic little shites. Where is Allah now? Where is he. Running away in a car they stole off someone that they also killed.

Catch them, kill them, show them that the infidels also have some balls.

Those men were standing up to them with their paper, showing them that they cannot take over. Jeez, they were already bombed two years ago.

RIP The whole of French speaking Europe is sad over this horrific massacre. I have read the publication and i have perhaps grown up a wee bit with Wolinski et al. This is sick and un founded.

So sad. It makes me want to scream the f word on and on and on.,

And anyone that tells me otherwise shall have their head cut off....

The Charlie Hebdo murders were indeed horrific, and I hope the French can soon bring the criminals to justice.

But, Patsy, you have pointed out one important fact, that the criminals targeted CH in retaliation for CH's political stance.

This at least is more understandable that 9/11 and 7/7, where the targets were completely random.

HB is of course right. You cannot eliminate extremism by killing all the extremists. New ones will soon emerge to take their place. There are plenty of Nazi sympathisers even in modern Germany.

There is simply no easy answer. Education, yes, but it'll take aeons.

Muslims do not like their religion being hijacked by these psychopaths.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/french-imams-muslims-must-condemn-barbaric-attack-on-newspaper-26683/

Muslims do not like their religion being hijacked by these psychopaths.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/french-imams-muslims-must-condemn-barbaric-attack-on-newspaper-26683/

Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the Union of the French Mosque, emphasized that he was frightened and shocked by news of the attack, since he had just prayed with Pope Francis for peace and brotherhood capable to consolidate and strengthen the world, with a special intention for Christians in the Middle East.

'since he had just prayed with Pope Francis'

It's as if prayer doesn't work!

Muslims do not like their religion being hijacked by these psychopaths.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/french-imams-muslims-must-condemn-barbaric-attack-on-newspaper-26683/

Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the Union of the French Mosque, emphasized that he was frightened and shocked by news of the attack, since he had just prayed with Pope Francis for peace and brotherhood capable to consolidate and strengthen the world, with a special intention for Christians in the Middle East.

'since he had just prayed with Pope Francis'

It's as if prayer doesn't work!

Yeah, silly Suzie. But the point of religion is not the ethereal being, it's the philosophy of love thy neighbour, the ten commandments etc. Society needs rules and the human condition of greed and thoughtlessness being what it is, religion coerces those rules upon the masses.

It's sort of like the tooth fairy for children....get through this bit of pain (without too much crying, hopefully) and you will be rewarded, or "Be good or Santa wont fill your stocking", even the boogey man, (he'll come to get you if you don't go to bed having cleaned your teeth first!).

God serves a purpose.

I will segue back to OP...in a bit...have an errand to run.

Extremism is born of either misguided interpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of scripture. I reject what the Q'uran experts say on TVF that the very scriptures of it preach hatred and a goal of world domination. The world's major (and I have no doubt minor) religions for the most part have been set up to guide society.

Perhaps the time is coming to properly debunk all religions because without the Man In The Sky to be threatened or cajoled with, extremism can not survive (except for small pockets of wackos that have no basis in relifion anyway).

Extremism is born of either misguided interpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of scripture.

Actually, the opposite it true.

Care to elaborate?

My premise is that religions originated from primitive superstitions that took a hold and the then religious leaders enjoyed their positions of power. However, over time, and as populations expanded, the leaders, still enjoying their power, realised that they can craft society. This they did with largely beneficent messages. It does not take a genius to realise that society can not operate without rules, and that rules need to be seen to produce good results. It does not take a genius to realise that if you want to continue in your position of power, you need to have a cohesive society. High Lord Priest of a congregation of 20 is not nearly as good as HLP of 20 000.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/792166-why-are-we-taking-this-up-the-butt/?p=8941826

Why do I feel I am being shafted by religion?????

The C&I religions are based on a pathetic collection of fantasy tales some 1,500 to 2,000 years ago.

It is incredible that the human race is still suffering from the same delusions that were put about to gain power and control over a bunch of ignorant cave and tent dwellers. Anybody who tried the same gig today would be declared insane and housed in a padded cell. Although that twit Hubbard did manage to have some success with the weak minded and needy.

Care to elaborate?

My premise is that religions originated from primitive superstitions that took a hold and the then religious leaders enjoyed their positions of power. However, over time, and as populations expanded, the leaders, still enjoying their power, realised that they can craft society. This they did with largely beneficent messages. It does not take a genius to realise that society can not operate without rules, and that rules need to be seen to produce good results. It does not take a genius to realise that if you want to continue in your position of power, you need to have a cohesive society. High Lord Priest of a congregation of 20 is not nearly as good as HLP of 20 000.

If what you say above is true (which I think highly likely) it does not follow that "Extremism is born of either misguided interpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of scripture".

It cannot be said that groups such as the Taliban are using a misguided interpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of scripture.

Care to elaborate?

My premise is that religions originated from primitive superstitions that took a hold and the then religious leaders enjoyed their positions of power. However, over time, and as populations expanded, the leaders, still enjoying their power, realised that they can craft society. This they did with largely beneficent messages. It does not take a genius to realise that society can not operate without rules, and that rules need to be seen to produce good results. It does not take a genius to realise that if you want to continue in your position of power, you need to have a cohesive society. High Lord Priest of a congregation of 20 is not nearly as good as HLP of 20 000.

If what you say above is true (which I think highly likely) it does not follow that "Extremism is born of either misguided interpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of scripture".

It cannot be said that groups such as the Taliban are using a misguided interpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of scripture.

Ok, "scripture" is the wrong word. And thus so is "interpretation".

What the extremists do is ignore modern interpretations and covenants that serve the majority of latter day adherents very well.

What the extremists do is ignore modern interpretations and covenants that serve the majority of latter day adherents very well.

Which eventually results in the definition of extremist being acquired by an appeal to numbers. Ugly.

You have the 'pick and mix' followers (not just of Islam) and others who are not 'pick and mix' followers such as the Taliban and Creationists. You often hear from politicians and the media stating that person 'x' or group 'x' is not a true believer in 'y' or does not represent 'y'. This is certainly a misrepresentation that is accepted by the 100's of millions with no concern as to whether it is valid or not

Secular Western values are not compatible with wholesale violence meted out on the basis of ethnic, national, political or religious affiliation. More so when this affiliation is assumed, rather than verified. So taking this route as an underlying policy means letting go (or loosening the grip) of some ideals, and perhaps, ultimately, resulting in a different society than that which the original effort was aimed at preserving.

On the other hand, Western democracies are ill equipped to follow through with any long term effort whatsoever - both a weakness (in terms of utilizing long term goals) and a source of strength (better resistance to manipulation by the powers that be). And yes, the latter is not full-proof, just better than most of the alternatives. The concept of long term and well coordinated global effort is out of step with democratic realities. An effort along these lines which involves aggression is somewhat easier to materialize, as lends itself to quantitative measures, which supply short-term footholds (without comment on the validity of these measures, just referring to their effect). Efforts which focus on long-term, slow-change, and qualitative changes (such as educational campaigns) are not as easy to adhere to.

There will be a price to be paid whether we succumb to extremism or address it effectively.

Exterminating the current generation of extremists will not exterminate extremism. There will always be new advocates of interpretations of philosophies/religions that push the boundaries of sense.

Look at the Khmer Rouge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Spanish actions in South America, the Crusades and the Thugees for wrong thinking.

We must fight it, we must educate everyone in civilised behaviour and respect for the law (our law).

I would write more, but this site is not accepting normal typing - it's driving me crazy

As suggested above, I am unsure how to be successful. I tend to agree with Seastallion- Hunt them down and kill them. Irrespective of how we prefer to live an enlightened modern life, they pose and existential threat to all humanity. But the question arises, for me, "Who then becomes extreme?" In other words, where does it end. How is the mid line first defined before, by consensus, we establish the extremes? By what standard to we embark on such a global quest?

My concern is that for political expediency such acts, though seemingly the only recourse, further empower a Police State, with all manner of political dissidence being later labeled extreme.