totalitarian architecture, they will destroy Mecca!

[Christophe]

Contradict them?
I would say they support them.
More than 80% of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and almost 70% of the attacks take place in Muslim countries.

We agree on these figures!

And so the "global" part seems to me to be largely overestimated ... am I wrong?

[sen-no-sen]

Contradict them?
I would say they support them.
More than 80% of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and almost 70% of the attacks take place in Muslim countries.

We agree on these figures!

And so the "global" part seems to me to be largely overestimated ... am I wrong?

Indeed, below a more detailed graph:

28-victims-du-terrorism.jpg (190.57 KiB) Viewed 1138 times

All types of terrorism included, but hey, Islamic terrorism currently constitutes the bulk of terrorist acts in the world ...

[Exnihiloest]

Excellent site.
Believe that there is a second degree and subtleties to the greater or lesser integration in the civil laws of all Muslim countries, of the Koran, or that human rights would be a universal and innate notion of which only one factor external would be the cause of rejection in some, is a dangerous belief. It was also believed in the 30s that "Mr. Hitler," as he was called at the time, would remain reasonable and not drag the world into war. We saw the rest. Come on, give up your Godwin points ...

We do not have the same values...

Certainly. Secularism is one of mine, which is why I do not make the slightest concession to Islam or to the sectarians who devote themselves to it and who by their complacency provide all the tranquility of thought, self-justification and action to Islamists. All religions are sects, they are called "religions" only after a certain number of followers. We had the Catholic Inquisition a few centuries ago, but that's what the Iranian population is currently experiencing, or the Syrians under Daesh, so no thank you. It took the French Revolution to eliminate religious domination, we are not going to let the worm interfere again which will lead to the same catastrophes. Separating Islam from terrorism is a misconception. This is my point of view, and that of Salman Rushdie.

You make an unfortunate confusion between two fundamental points: the cultural backwardness of the Moslem world with respect to the global acceleration and terrorism. ...

The two are completely linked, through information.
The "Muslim world", in particular the oil countries, had and have the means to catch up and educate the populations. They don't. The money is monopolized by family oligarchies (who buy villas of 8000m² living space on the seafront on the French Riviera, no, there is no mistake about the number of zeros, it is a second homes of Saudi princes). No Muslim country has a level of democracy comparable to ours. Saddam Husseins, Kadhafi and other El Assads were and are for the survivor, dictators. And the "Arab Spring" becomes worse winters than what preceded them, it is to say how much the phenomenon of the submission and the violence is anchored deep in the "culture", the hopes are always disappointed, the democracy is still incompatible with the Muslim world, and we see no signs of improvement.

So what do your numbers say? Your figures say that people came out of the Middle Ages with easier and easier access to Western technology, especially information, but brutally. All the cultural development and the awareness that we have had in the West since the Inquisition, also marked by our own wars, is lacking.
In the context of their old mentality, power is obtained and maintained only by submission. A deficient education, too short a time, and powers without ambition for their people but for their buttocks, could not change this mentality. The somewhat complex awareness of his identity, of his delay compared to the West has been made obvious by the means of communication. Combined with ignorance of the evolutionary process of the West which explains why it is there, it can only lead to systematic opposition, rejection, and revenge. The more the West is seen, and the Internet also works in the Muslim world, the more it will be fought. It is not new, it is in the spirit, to kill the disbeliever is normal and desirable, Muhammad already used Islam to enslave the other tribes.

[Christophe]

Indeed, below a more detailed graph

So the graphic in question was bogus ...

[Exnihiloest]

...
Did the USA bring them "democracy and freedom"?

They had a dictator. Some believed that eliminating the dictator opened the door to democratic power, in addition to maintaining access to oil. Well it is not. In these countries one strong regime follows another. Of the number of Muslim countries, there would be one democratic if "Muslim world" were compatible with "democracy". We must draw the consequences: everyone at home, we do not interfere, we do not have to impose our human rights values, we limit ourselves to trade.

[sen-no-sen]

Indeed, below a more detailed graph

So the graphic in question was bogus ...

Can no, rude yes, but that was not the goal, they reflect the explosion of terrorist acts since the war in Iraq.

[sen-no-sen]

Certainly. Secularism is one of mine, which is why I do not make the slightest concession to Islam or to the sectarians who devote themselves to it and who by their complacency provide all the tranquility of thought, self-justification and action to Islamists. All religions are sects, they are called "religions" only after a certain number of followers. We had the Catholic Inquisition a few centuries ago, but that's what the Iranian population is currently experiencing, or the Syrians under Daesh, so no thank you. It took the French Revolution to eliminate religious domination, we are not going to let the worm interfere again which will lead to the same catastrophes.

It is a very caricatured vision which completely eludes cultural evolution.
Secularism did not appear "ex nihilo", a large part of its ideals stem from Christianity.
Secularism is another term to designate structural atheism, ie resulting from the degree of dissipation of energy of a society (post monotheism phase).
This one is developed via Freemasonry and I reassure you right away, Freemasonry was itself a sect in its beginnings ...

To separate Islam from terrorism is an error of reasoning.

It's up to you to demonstrate that terrorism is historically consubstantial with Islam ...

So what do your numbers say? Your figures say that people came out of the Middle Ages with easier and easier access to Western technology, especially information, but brutally. All the cultural development and the awareness that we have had in the West since the Inquisition, also marked by our own wars, is lacking.

It’s not MY numbers, or would you take historical reality into account?
Learn a little better about the standard of living in Muslim countries before the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, because your comments border on the ridiculous.


Kabul 1970 ...

[Janic]

It took the French Revolution to eliminate religious domination, we are not going to let the worm intrude again which will lead to the same catastrophes.

the French revolution only took the dominant religion as a model, down to the point, and the inquisition was replaced by revolutionary terror for the same purpose: are we not talking about Daesh terrorism? (not Islam and true pacifist Muslims) as we talked about revolutionary terrorism with its guillotines that worked permanently !!

It is a very caricature vision which completely eludes cultural evolution
Secularism did not appear "ex nihilo", a large part of its ideals stem from Christianity .. ..

Certainly, but not out of principle, but because, historically, populations have shown enormous inertia to change their point of view and remain very attached to their culture; this is what Catholicism did in its early days by mixing "Christian" doctrine and paganism (that is to say everything else!)

Secularism is another term to designate structural atheism, ie resulting from the degree of energy dissipation of a society (post monotheism phase)

Absolutely! You see we can, almost, agree on certain points. Secularism (which is more an article of faith than a reality) has been kidnapped by anti-religious atheism inherited from the revolution whether in France or elsewhere as in Russia. The radical methods of this country are interesting to study on this aspect which did nothing but copy ours (that of the revolutionaries, not of the more or less indifferent population besides!)

[sen-no-sen]

Secularism (which is more an article of faith than a reality) has been kidnapped by anti-religious atheism inherited from the revolution whether in France or elsewhere as in Russia.

Secularism is a consequence of industrial society and its corollary: globalization.
In a globalized society it is no longer possible to maintain a monotheism, that is to say a theistic system of thought which monopolizes the brains in a given space.
Indeed when a cultural field is too large it fragments into sub-elements, hence the appearance of schisms.
Outside in an open world and faced with the multitude of exchanges and migratory flows it becomes necessary to allow everyone to be able to practice their religion in order to limit the risks of conflicts.
The religious fact passes to the second degree vis-a-vis the emergence of the economy which becomes the new doctrine of rallying, it is not any more god which gathers the men but the exchange of goods and services.
Historically the new mainstreams, even if they take many previous concepts * do not behave with past beliefs with great leniency.


Just to do in the politically incorrect (you can insult me ​​by MP!): It is partly because of secularism that Islamic terrorist attacks are committed in France, so the great discourses on secularism (like those of Mr Valls) as a bulwark against terrorism, it makes me laugh a little (yellow).
Indeed it is by allowing everyone to practice their religion that we have allowed oddballs to advocate anything and everything, I do not think that such a phenomenon has occurred in "Christian France". yesteryear "(but we are not in the Middle Ages I agree!)
For what reasons should we operate with so much restraint an (un) analysis on religious beliefs?


* Communism takes for example many concepts in Judaism.

[Janic]

janic wrote: Secularism (which is more an article of faith than a reality) has been kidnapped by anti-religious atheism inherited from the revolution whether in France or elsewhere as in Russia.

Secularism is a consequence of industrial society and its corollary: globalization.

Secularism existed long before any attempt at globalization. That some people then took it over to justify a system is part of the human "habits" of appropriation.

In a globalized society it is no longer possible to maintain a monotheism, that is to say a theistic system of thought which monopolizes the brains in a given space.

You mix "monotheistic" religions and monotheism which declares a single source to the "real" world which is ours, independently of any representation (prohibited moreover because necessarily false)

Indeed when a cultural field is too large it fragments into sub-elements, hence the appearance of schisms.

Except that you have to ask yourself: why?
The animals, that we are, rush on the meal that their parents bring to them and they squabble to have the best and the biggest piece, this is how survival is learned in a hostile world, but that ceases when these little ones mature and in turn become parents and learn the gift of self for others. So partial fragmentation: yes, to return one day to the fundamentals: disinterested love and it is not religious hatred as anti-religious that will achieve it!

it is no longer God who brings men together but the exchange of goods and services.

It is no longer the god as religions have presented and distorted it for the sake of class, caste, domination as Daesh did after Catholicism with its inquisition and all the others, non-religions, who did the same !

Historically the new mainstreams, even if they take many previous concepts * do not behave with past beliefs with great leniency.

There yes, but it is the fact of all the dominators in history and we are not at the end with the new elected home.

Just to do in the politically incorrect (you can insult me ​​by MP!): It is partly because of secularism that Islamic terrorist attacks are committed in France, so the great discourses on secularism (like those of M.Valls) as a bulwark against terrorism, that makes me laugh a little (yellow).
Indeed it is by allowing everyone to practice their religion that we have allowed oddballs to advocate anything and everything, I do not think that such a phenomenon has occurred in "Christian France". yesteryear "(but we are not in the Middle Ages I agree!)

The Middle Ages, under civil and religious totalitarianism, had to seek to break the shackles imposed by these rulers, hence the reform movements repressed with the secular arm. Our society boasts of being democratic, liberal, tolerant after having for centuries suffered this yoke. Is there excess in the other direction? Inevitably! But backing up would be worse!

* Communism takes for example many concepts in Judaism.

Inevitably Marx was of Jewish culture. However, we should not confuse Marx's philosophy with the Soviet communism that followed. However if Marxism is strongly humanism, communism will quickly cease to be it for reasons of interest, of power of domination and the anticommunists confuse, voluntarily or not, the two.