Islamist knifemen chanting 'Allahu Akbar' behead French priest, 84, and leave nun fighting for her life after storming Mass

Francois Hollande says France is at war with ISIS after two Islamist knifemen butchered a French priest and left a nun fighting for her life before they were both shot dead by police in Normandy.
One of the men who stormed into the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray near Rouen during mass was a local man, who was being monitored by electronic tag after being jailed for trying to join fanatics in Syria.
The 84-year-old priest, named as Jacques Hamel, had his throats cut while a nun is critically injured in hospital following the raid which saw five people held hostage by ISIS assailants shouting Allahu Akbar.
This afternoon it emerged that the murdered clergyman was deputising while the parish priest was on holiday. French authorities say they have arrested a third man in connection with the attack.
The two killers were 'neutralised' by marksmen as they emerged from the building, which is now being searched for explosives. French president Hollande said France is 'at war' with ISIS while the terror group has claimed responsibility for the killing.
It comes as it emerged that the building was one of a number of Catholic churches on a terrorist 'hit list' found on a suspected ISIS extremist last April.
There are also reports that one of the attackers was a local resident who was under electronic tag surveillance having been jailed in France for trying to travel to Syria in 2015. His bail terms allowed him to be unsupervised between 8.30am and 12.30pm - the attack happened between 9am and 11am.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708394/Two-men-armed-knives-people-hostage-French-church.html

A despicable attack on people because of their religion.

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

Tommy Monk wrote:

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

The lefties on here will probably be pleased - it was only a couple of Catholics after all.

Raggamuffin wrote:A despicable attack on people because of their religion.

They made that poor man kneel at the alter then cut his throat. They filmed it too. I'm just about speechless at what is happening in the world. Something has to give.

france...germany....



the sowed the wind....now they reap the whirlwind.....

AND....are or are not my predictions comming true....

the right is on the rise and for why???

Oh thats right......the left have been idealogicaly ramming unconditional acceptance down everyones throat...
and NOW?? Its come and bit them on the ass......

what you are seeing is a mere beginning.....It will get worse and worse ....much worse...

The lefties on here have the nerve to bang on about "bad" Brexit was, and yet they have nothing to say about the slaughter going on in Europe because of their support for the open-door policy. I think they really want some kind of war - and they want the terrorists and murderers to win.

Lord Foul wrote:france...germany....



the sowed the wind....now they reap the whirlwind.....

AND....are or are not my predictions comming true....

the right is on the rise and for why???

Oh thats right......the left have been idealogicaly ramming unconditional acceptance down everyones throat...
and NOW??   Its come and bit them on the ass......

what you are seeing is a mere beginning.....It will get worse and worse ....much worse...

The 'progressive' leftie agenda is pro eu dictatorship and pro mass Muslim immigration.


People don't want this... have never wanted this... and have never voted for this... so are turning away from voting for those who have been pursuing this agenda without mandate and against the wishes of the people.


By following this agenda the lefties have hijacked democracy and been imposing an agenda that the people don't want and never agreed to.


Party's against this corruption of democracy are the only real democratic ones there to vote for.

Tommy Monk wrote:

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

See, that's the difference between the left and the right. The left blames this priest's horrific murder on the sadistic monster who cut his throat.

The right immediately tries to use this man's horrifying final moments of existence to score political points.

Not quite... the left blinkered view is as you say... while my view acknowledges this too and then also sees the bigger picture...


That's the difference...

Tommy Monk wrote:Not quite... the left blinkered view is as you say... while my view acknowledges this too and then also sees the bigger picture...


That's the difference...

Tarring everyone with the same brush is not the same thing as seeing the bigger picture.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

See, that's the difference between the left and the right. The left blames this priest's horrific murder on the sadistic monster who cut his throat.

The right immediately tries to use this man's horrifying final moments of existence to score political points.

No the right looks to see what the root cause is and the left continually try to invent a shield and wall around the reason to defend an ideology, that teaches absolute beliefs, that allow for violence and call for violence.

Again i ask you, do you think that the crusdaes had nothing to do with Christianity?

Do you think the Holocaust had nothing to do with Lutheranism?

Do you think the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity?

Yet a person murders and invokes Islam and states emphatically of religious text to justify their acts and you see a claim it has nothing to do with the very thing that without it existing, would have never caused the murder of this priest. You wrongly and continually think that by defending an ideology, that you need to as to protect Muslims. You do not protect them, you end up sending them like lambs to the slaughter. Muslims are as much under threat from islamism as Non-Muslims and Islamism stems fundementally from a literal political religious Islam, that conflicts with the fundemental rights, of Non-Muslims, Women, homosexuals etc.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

See, that's the difference between the left and the right. The left blames this priest's horrific murder on the sadistic monster who cut his throat.

The right immediately tries to use this man's horrifying final moments of existence to score political points.

The left are probably celebrating ...

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

See, that's the difference between the left and the right. The left blames this priest's horrific murder on the sadistic monster who cut his throat.

The right immediately tries to use this man's horrifying final moments of existence to score political points.

No the right looks to see what the root cause is and the left continually try to invent a shield and wall around the reason to defend an ideology, that teaches absolute beliefs, that allow for violence and call for violence.

Again i ask you, do you think that the crusdaes had nothing to do with Christianity?

Do you think the Holocaust had nothing to do with Lutheranism?

Do you think the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity?

Yet a person murders and invokes Islam and states emphatically of religious text to justify their acts and you see a claim it has nothing to do with the very thing that without it existing, would have never caused the murder of this priest. You wrongly and continually think that by defending an ideology, that you need to as to protect Muslims. You do not protect them, you end up sending them like lambs to the slaughter. Muslims are as much under threat from islamism as Non-Muslims and Islamism stems fundementally from a literal political religious Islam, that conflicts with the fundemental rights, of Non-Muslims, Women, homosexuals etc.

I think all the stuff you've mentioned was caused by religion -- AND a lot more.

That's the problem with the right -- you claim to look for root causes but you don't dig deep enough. Not every Lutheran massacres Jews, do they? Not all Christians torture heretics and not all Muslims murder non-Muslims.

So while their religion factored in -- it may have been the push they needed or the excuse they used, or played dozens of other roles -- the religion itself is not enough to make someone a killer, or else all religious people would be killers.

It's the religion of the victims which seems to be the issue.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

No the right looks to see what the root cause is and the left continually try to invent a shield and wall around the reason to defend an ideology, that teaches absolute beliefs, that allow for violence and call for violence.

Again i ask you, do you think that the crusdaes had nothing to do with Christianity?

Do you think the Holocaust had nothing to do with Lutheranism?

Do you think the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity?

Yet a person murders and invokes Islam and states emphatically of religious text to justify their acts and you see a claim it has nothing to do with the very thing that without it existing, would have never caused the murder of this priest. You wrongly and continually think that by defending an ideology, that you need to as to protect Muslims. You do not protect them, you end up sending them like lambs to the slaughter. Muslims are as much under threat from islamism as Non-Muslims and Islamism stems fundementally from a literal political religious Islam, that conflicts with the fundemental rights, of Non-Muslims, Women, homosexuals etc.

I think all the stuff you've mentioned was caused by religion -- AND a lot more.

That's the problem with the right -- you claim to look for root causes but you don't dig deep enough. Not every Lutheran massacres Jews, do they? Not all Christians torture heretics and not all Muslims murder non-Muslims.

So while their religion factored in -- it may have been the push they needed or the excuse they used, or played dozens of other roles -- the religion itself is not enough to make someone a killer, or else all religious people would be killers.

You see you are looking wrong as again I am looking at the ideology, and who created that ideology, which would be a person, so again your reasoning is flawed. People then follow and literally believe in that ideology, where others will not literally do so or even act on that ideology, but they will certainly be prejudiced against as was the case with Lutheraism against Jews, which is why Hitler was able to manipulate many Germans, based on this belief being centuries in the making.
Where you have hate found within religion based on absolute beliefs, where they believe that God is the ultimate and cannot be challenged, then you have aistuation of increased risk of harm to people. Where even worse you find aspects in the ideology that play off fear of what happens to people who die and suffering. It offers a get out cluase, one that allows people to willingly throw away their lives in the cause of that religion and combined with transgression and Jihad, allows people through also others preaching hate based on the texts to commit dispicable acts.
The root cause is the ideology itself, which sadly you keep confusing with people who follow that belief in variious ways.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

More blood on the hands of the lefties who support the importation of these dangerous 'religious' nut jobs!


It won't be long before law abiding citizens start arming themselves for their own protection... and who could blame them...

See, that's the difference between the left and the right. The left blames this priest's horrific murder on the sadistic monster who cut his throat.

The right immediately tries to use this man's horrifying final moments of existence to score political points.

but wont/cant/are too yellow/stupid or unmotivated to do anything about it except mouth useless pointless platitudes

hell the left would EVEN these attacks continued/intensified, rather than accept that tighter security (especially online security) is increased.

their right to view porn unseen overides the publics right to be protected.....

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

No the right looks to see what the root cause is and the left continually try to invent a shield and wall around the reason to defend an ideology, that teaches absolute beliefs, that allow for violence and call for violence.

Again i ask you, do you think that the crusdaes had nothing to do with Christianity?

Do you think the Holocaust had nothing to do with Lutheranism?

Do you think the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity?

Yet a person murders and invokes Islam and states emphatically of religious text to justify their acts and you see a claim it has nothing to do with the very thing that without it existing, would have never caused the murder of this priest. You wrongly and continually think that by defending an ideology, that you need to as to protect Muslims. You do not protect them, you end up sending them like lambs to the slaughter. Muslims are as much under threat from islamism as Non-Muslims and Islamism stems fundementally from a literal political religious Islam, that conflicts with the fundemental rights, of Non-Muslims, Women, homosexuals etc.

I think all the stuff you've mentioned was caused by religion -- AND a lot more.

That's the problem with the right -- you claim to look for root causes but you don't dig deep enough. Not every Lutheran massacres Jews, do they? Not all Christians torture heretics and not all Muslims murder non-Muslims.

So while their religion factored in -- it may have been the push they needed or the excuse they used, or played dozens of other roles -- the religion itself is not enough to make someone a killer, or else all religious people would be killers.

You see you are looking wrong as again I am looking at the ideology, and who created that ideology, which would be a person, so again your reasoning is flawed. People then follow and literally believe in that ideology, where others will not literally do so or even act on that ideology, but they will certainly be prejudiced against as was the case with Lutheraism against Jews, which is why Hitler was able to manipulate many Germans, based on this belief being centuries in the making.
Where you have hate found within religion based on absolute beliefs, where they believe that God is the ultimate and cannot be challenged, then you have aistuation of increased risk of harm to people. Where even worse you find aspects in the ideology that play off fear of what happens to people who die and suffering. It offers a get out cluase, one that allows people to willingly throw away their lives in the cause of that religion and combined with transgression and Jihad, allows people through also others preaching hate based on the texts to commit dispicable acts.
The root cause is the ideology itself, which sadly you keep confusing with people who follow that belief in variious ways.

No, the root cause is the difference between people who can believe in a religion and live peacefully, and people who cannot.

Think about it! There must be some psychological phenomenon that allows some people to commit horrific acts. Every other possible cause has been eliminated -- we know that people don't commit violence simply on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age, intelligence, income level, health, substances abused, etc. The root cause of predisposition to violence MUST be psychological.

If we really wanted to make the world more peaceful, we'd be researching the psychology of violence rather than pointing fingers at different factions.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


You see you are looking wrong as again I am looking at the ideology, and who created that ideology, which would be a person, so again your reasoning is flawed. People then follow and literally believe in that ideology, where others will not literally do so or even act on that ideology, but they will certainly be prejudiced against as was the case with Lutheraism against Jews, which is why Hitler was able to manipulate many Germans, based on this belief being centuries in the making.
Where you have hate found within religion based on absolute beliefs, where they believe that God is the ultimate and cannot be challenged, then you have aistuation of increased risk of harm to people. Where even worse you find aspects in the ideology that play off fear of what happens to people who die and suffering. It offers a get out cluase, one that allows people to willingly throw away their lives in the cause of that religion and combined with transgression and Jihad, allows people through also others preaching hate based on the texts to commit dispicable acts.
The root cause is the ideology itself, which sadly you keep confusing with people who follow that belief in variious ways.

No, the root cause is the difference between people who can believe in a religion and live peacefully, and people who cannot.

Think about it! There must be some psychological phenomenon that allows some people to commit horrific acts. Every other possible cause has been eliminated -- we know that people don't commit violence simply on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age, intelligence, income level, health, substances abused, etc. The root cause of predisposition to violence MUST be psychological.

If we really wanted to make the world more peaceful, we'd be researching the psychology of violence rather than pointing fingers at different factions.

Wrong.

Without the religion, these attacks would not happen based on the texts that state to hate and kill.
It would not lead people to believe they should kill people, as without this, they would not have reason to do so, unless they had formed this individually themselves.
So again the ideology when it includes hate and is literally believed increases the risk factor of violence multiple fold, just as we have seen for the last 3,000 years. Again there is a pnenomenom, its called religion, which again based off an absolute belief, can make people think they are righteius in acts we see as barbaric. They see them as justified and called upon by their diety to do so and they based this off religious and claims to historical deeds of important religious characters like Prophets.
The question you need to ask is throughout history, how much violence would not have happened based on literal religious belief.
When you have 3 that automatically claim all other religions are wrong and then that people will be eternally punished, it creates a belief those who believe are right and saved and those who do not are condemned and this immediatelly forms a prejudiced of those who do not believe. This then coupled with claims to commands by a deity, and based again off fear itself of punishement in an after life, plays on the insecure of death itself. That they fear that retribution by their deaity is far worse than anything else and then easily believe as i stated, what they are doing is holy and just to them. That is the danger of such ideologies, which you keep failing to grasp Ben

I will add one further thing.
All 3 have been engineered to defend against any challenge to this belief system, with the worst form of punishment justified. That of death itself to those who challenge the 3 beliefs, whether in this life or the make believe one proposed. This again allos for a prejudiced to form against those who do not believe and allows for them to act against what they see as a threat to that faith. We are seeing this played on the very narative within by Islamists themselves for decades. Where they constantly claim Islam is being set upon by the west and that it is out to destroy it. Its control more than anything that forms from religion itself, that people fear most to lose after retribution itself. As this loss of control is like failing to defend their deity and thus making them believe they will be damned. This all stems around the fear factor of punishement itself required and needed in order for people to believe in the first place. That is why history is littered with so many examples of violence within religion. They are engineered and created to justify violence against the ideology itself being questioned, let alone not even allowing people to leave, through fear of execution itself.

That is a very dangeroeus ideology, that plays off some good aspects, like charity, love, helping people etc, but all centreed and engineered to help those mainly within the faith itself. So the ideologies have a defense mechanism and a violent one to deal with any form of threat to its existance.

Nah, if the religion didn't exist, some other ideological structure would emerge to fill the vacuum. Human beings all have beliefs and probably need them -- or, you might say that to have no beliefs would be literally not human.

Even ideologies that are based on peace have been twisted to support or justify violence, so again -- there's something wrong with people who are violent, not with people who form beliefs.

Ben Reilly wrote:Nah, if the religion didn't exist, some other ideological structure would emerge to fill the vacuum. Human beings all have beliefs and probably need them -- or, you might say that to have no beliefs would be literally not human.

Even ideologies that are based on peace have been twisted to support or justify violence, so again -- there's something wrong with people who are violent, not with people who form beliefs.

Other ideologies do exist, but at present the most dangeroeus is islamism.
That is the point at present.
Beliefs come from a source and beliefs based around supreme beings as seen allow people to form the worst prejudices based again on something they view cannot be wrong and they do this based off a fear.

Again read my next points you may have missed?

I will add one further thing.
All 3 have been engineered to defend against any challenge to this belief system, with the worst form of punishment justified. That of death itself to those who challenge the 3 beliefs, whether in this life or the make believe one proposed. This again allos for a prejudiced to form against those who do not believe and allows for them to act against what they see as a threat to that faith. We are seeing this played on the very narative within by Islamists themselves for decades. Where they constantly claim Islam is being set upon by the west and that it is out to destroy it. Its control more than anything that forms from religion itself, that people fear most to lose after retribution itself. As this loss of control is like failing to defend their deity and thus making them believe they will be damned. This all stems around the fear factor of punishement itself required and needed in order for people to believe in the first place. That is why history is littered with so many examples of violence within religion. They are engineered and created to justify violence against the ideology itself being questioned, let alone not even allowing people to leave, through fear of execution itself.

That is a very dangeroeus ideology, that plays off some good aspects, like charity, love, helping people etc, but all centreed and engineered to help those mainly within the faith itself. So the ideologies have a defense mechanism and a violent one to deal with any form of threat to its existance.

Still, the point is that despite that fact, most don't follow it.

Look, I'll agree that there are many dangerous ideas that incite people toward violence, if you agree that most people ignore them and that those who follow them have something else wrong with them.

Happy people don't commit murders.

That is true; happy people don't commit murders.
Muslims extremists, like ISIS though, are supposed to "ecstatic" when they carry out terrorist attacks.

Ben Reilly wrote:Still, the point is that despite that fact, most don't follow it.

Look, I'll agree that there are many dangerous ideas that incite people toward violence, if you agree that most people ignore them and that those who follow them have something else wrong with them.

Happy people don't commit murders.

I have never denied that most ignore them, but when we are speaking of numbers, is it a comfort when the minority number in the millions Ben? So I have no problem being in agreement on the majority do not.

Disagree on the last point as well about happiness, as many people kill with glee, when they believe it is righteous and just.
This is again backed up with evidence and i understand that again in most cases happy people do not kill, but there are many ISIS followers who will claim they are very happy, others that will say they are not.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


You see you are looking wrong as again I am looking at the ideology, and who created that ideology, which would be a person, so again your reasoning is flawed. People then follow and literally believe in that ideology, where others will not literally do so or even act on that ideology, but they will certainly be prejudiced against as was the case with Lutheraism against Jews, which is why Hitler was able to manipulate many Germans, based on this belief being centuries in the making.
Where you have hate found within religion based on absolute beliefs, where they believe that God is the ultimate and cannot be challenged, then you have aistuation of increased risk of harm to people. Where even worse you find aspects in the ideology that play off fear of what happens to people who die and suffering. It offers a get out cluase, one that allows people to willingly throw away their lives in the cause of that religion and combined with transgression and Jihad, allows people through also others preaching hate based on the texts to commit dispicable acts.
The root cause is the ideology itself, which sadly you keep confusing with people who follow that belief in variious ways.

No, the root cause is the difference between people who can believe in a religion and live peacefully, and people who cannot.

Think about it! There must be some psychological phenomenon that allows some people to commit horrific acts. Every other possible cause has been eliminated -- we know that people don't commit violence simply on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age, intelligence, income level, health, substances abused, etc. The root cause of predisposition to violence MUST be psychological.

If we really wanted to make the world more peaceful, we'd be researching the psychology of violence rather than pointing fingers at different factions.

There are examples of people being violent against others for each one of those reasons...

But not ONLY because of those things, and most people who can be described by one of those things will never commit a violent act.

Ben Reilly wrote:Nah, if the religion didn't exist, some other ideological structure would emerge to fill the vacuum. Human beings all have beliefs and probably need them -- or, you might say that to have no beliefs would be literally not human.

Even ideologies that are based on peace have been twisted to support or justify violence, so again -- there's something wrong with people who are violent, not with people who form beliefs.

Islam commands violence and oppression... it's in the koran... Muslims are just following orders (which incidentally was what many Nazis said they were doing too)...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Nah, if the religion didn't exist, some other ideological structure would emerge to fill the vacuum. Human beings all have beliefs and probably need them -- or, you might say that to have no beliefs would be literally not human.

Even ideologies that are based on peace have been twisted to support or justify violence, so again -- there's something wrong with people who are violent, not with people who form beliefs.

Islam commands violence and oppression... it's in the koran... Muslims are just following orders (which incidentally was what many Nazis said they were doing too)...

All the Nazis followed orders. If Muslims are ordered to violence and oppression, most of them are not following their orders.

whatever....

Everytime one of these bastards is killed his body should be fed to a pen of pigs specially kept for the purpose....

Lord Foul wrote:whatever....

Everytime one of these bastards is killed his body should be fed to a pen of pigs specially kept for the purpose....

Then you're punishing him for being a Muslim, rather than for being a murderer.

typical lefty stance

wrong....I'm punishing him (really??...he's dead ) for being a murdering Muslim
now
we will THEN see just how valid all these stupid arguments are

if you did this and Muslims in general kicked off then all thier protestations about these types not really being Muslims is shown to be crap and as a bonus you could round up all the complainers and deport/imprison them as terrorist sympathisers

Lord Foul wrote:typical lefty stance

wrong....I'm punishing him (really??...he's dead ) for being a murdering Muslim
now
we will THEN see just how valid all these stupid arguments are

if you did this and Muslims in general kicked off then all thier protestations about these types not really being Muslims is shown to be crap and as a bonus you could round up all the complainers and deport/imprison them as terrorist sympathisers

In the eyes of his friends, family and Muslims worldwide, you'd be punishing him for being a Muslim.

Thus pouring gasoline on the fire ...

in which case what can one assume except that his "Muslim-ness" is what drives his murderousness.....

Vic you can only punish someone for the crime they've committed not because of their religion. Which is what you'd be doing by killing them and then insulting the faith.

Lord Foul wrote:typical lefty stance

wrong....I'm punishing him (really??...he's dead ) for being a murdering Muslim
now
we will THEN see just how valid all these stupid arguments are

if you did this and Muslims in general kicked off then all thier protestations about these types not really being Muslims is shown to be crap and as a bonus you could round up all the complainers and deport/imprison them as terrorist sympathisers

Why would Muslims kick off when they claim it is nothing to do with islam and that they are not Muslims.

So if they are kicking off, like you say, they are fundmentally placing a link to the faith and treating him as a Muslim and not an extremist.

You see this happen is Israel all the time, they glorify terrorists, based on a claim to transgression to what constitutes all Israel even before 1967.

Now as soon as Palestinians invoke they are martyrs they fundmentally place the attack done in the name of Islam..

You forget this is the point about Islam, it does allow for violence, what is only questionable is whether somebody is guilty or not.

To 40% of Muslims in this country Isrtaeli's are guilty and wrongly justify murder and terrorism against them, based off a belief around transgression.

ISIS believe the same thing based on transgression, accept the people they cast guilty not only includes Israeli's but also all western people and also non-Wahhabist Muslims.

Which constantly proves the Islamic link if and when you would throw a body to the animals to feed on, showing it always has something to do with Islam.

So you make a factual point, as why would Muslims care about what happens to the body of a terrorist, if they deem it not Islamic or done in the name of Islam?

@Eddie

Pish

if they have committed the crime because of their religion then why not

AND you are not in fact insulting "the religion" you are (if you beleive in the nonsense the abrahmists pedle)
but ensuring the shithead is NOT getting his perceived "reward" since of course he aint getting into paradise having been eaten by pigs....


ANY argument to the contrary is utterly invalid on the basis of the lefty's favourite argument that they are not doing this in the name of ISLAM

becasue EITHER  they are (and therfore we are effectively at war with islam)
OR
they are not since they are effectively apostates that have left the way of islam...  (and therefore it doesnt matter anyway (except to the idiots that actually THINK they are acting for islam))

Lord Foul wrote:Pish

if they have committed the crime because of their religion then why not

AND you are not in fact insulting "the religion" you are (if you beleive in the nonsense the abrahmists pedle)
but ensuring the shithead is NOT getting his perceived "reward" since of course he aint getting into paradise having been eaten by pigs....


ANY argument to the contrary is utterly invalid on the basis of the lefty's favourite argument that they are not doing this in the name of ISLAM

becasue EITHER  they are (and therfore we are effectively at war with islam)
OR
they are not since they are effectively apostates that have left the way of islam...  (and therefore it doesnt matter anyway (except to the idiots that actually THINK they are acting for islam))

Agreed, it can only be one or the other, but it is that they are still treated as Muslims, because we have one of the worst mass murderers in Bin laden who was after death given Islamic rituals before his burial at sea.
Muslims themselves fail to shread the link beteen themselves from terrorists as they treat the terrorists in death still as Muslims, which is a major part of the problem.
They are not distancing themselves from Islamic terrorists, even after they have died.

In which case, of course, you'd have to do the same to every religious criminal.
You're kind of saying, "let religious punishment fit the criminal", so would you nail a Christian paedophile to a cross?

eddie wrote:In which case, of course, you'd have to do the same to every religious criminal.
You're kind of saying, "let religious punishment fit the criminal",  so would you nail a Christian paedophile to a cross?

Wrong

Its Muslims that claim this is not done in the name of islam and that they are not Muslims.
The fact only a few imans paint them as apostates, shows you the extent of the problem, as again why would a Muslim be bothered at a terrorist they claim to view not as Muslim, being fed to pigs?
By being outraged, they are not distancing themselves or islam from the terrorist, but fundementally claiming the terrorist is a Muslim

no because that would be an honour

I'd "excommunicate" him and then castrate him....THEN hang him

AND...

one would first need to establish that the christian paedophile did it in the name of and for the furtherance of "his" christianity............

so as didge says ...not comparable....

Aren't you simply stooping to their level?

erm...no

doing this one would be targeting ONLY the wrong doer

Besides...and I have asked tis a number of times.....

why do we HAVE to be "better" than them? do unto others as they would do unto you.....but do it first....

What do you make of this Victor and why it so easy for Islamists to jusitfy their terrorism?





Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 93 :: Hadith 597

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "A man who never did any good deed, said that if he died, his family should burn him and throw half the ashes of his burnt body in the earth and the other half in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah should get hold of him, He would inflict such punishment on him as He would not inflict on anybody among the people. But Allah ordered the sea to collect what was in it (of his ashes) and similarly ordered the earth to collect what was in it (of his ashes). Then Allah said (to the recreated man ), 'Why did you do so?' The man replied, 'For being afraid of You, and You know it (very well).' So Allah forgave him."



This is what I keep stressing to Ben about fear

Lord Foul wrote:Besides...and I have asked tis a number of times.....

why do we HAVE to be "better" than them?  do unto others as they would do unto you.....but do it first....

Indeed and clearly the likes of ISIS are students of Carl von Clausewitz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war

eddie wrote:Vic you can only punish someone for the crime they've committed not because of their religion. Which is what you'd be doing by killing them and then insulting the faith.

Not to mention, you'd inspire further attacks. You'd be party to more people getting killed.

Didge wrote:What do you make of this Victor and why it so easy for Islamists to jusitfy their terrorism?





   Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 93 :: Hadith 597

   Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "A man who never did any good deed, said that if he died, his family should burn him and throw half the ashes of his burnt body in the earth and the other half in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah should get hold of him, He would inflict such punishment on him as He would not inflict on anybody among the people. But Allah ordered the sea to collect what was in it (of his ashes) and similarly ordered the earth to collect what was in it (of his ashes). Then Allah said (to the recreated man ), 'Why did you do so?' The man replied, 'For being afraid of You, and You know it (very well).' So Allah forgave him."



This is what I keep stressing to Ben about fear

yep . Very telling...scared stiff of a theology....