How Emmanuel Macron wants to retaliate against Erdogan

[rainmaker]

For example to me religion and culture is important, but country/nation must come well before it (as I must leave the former up to the individual...but the latter is deeply tied to the final undeniable rational existence).

I will not make common cause by default with another Hindu simply because he is same religion to me...as there could very well be other identities and ideologies he has that conflict with red lines I have set up. This goes for every specific identity I have.

It is this Salafist ideology which says that nations and "man-made" Constitutions are haram, that it is every Muslim's divine duty to overthrow "man-made" systems and to institute Shariah. That if they don't do this they will personally go to Hell.

That is why every country with Salafi groups is in continuous instability with a large number of jihadi groups each declaring each other kafir and trying to institute the "only true Shariah".

This is why there is only one solution - ban promotion of Salafi ideology entirely. Anything short of this, and you will have recurring terrorist attacks.

Salafis do not have any loyalty to any nation.
Salafis don't believe in human rights
Salafis do not recognize non-Salafis as humans.
Salafis will not accept any agreement with "kuffar" (Kuffar = anyone who is not a believer of the Salafi flavour of the month)

The problem is Salafism. The solution is to ban Salafism.

The Salafism threat is over-rated due to their horrific terrorist attacks. Once you ban Salafi mosques, NGOs and preachers, the Islamist terrorist threat level will drop to near zero, just like it was pre-1970 before Saudi Arabia started their global petro-funded campaign to open Salafi mosques and madrasas throughout the world.

Bangladesh banned Middle-Eastern NGOs in 2005-6 and now the terrorism threat is near zero. If Europe bans Salafi funding and preaching then the terrorism threat will drop to zero.

 

[Nilgiri]

It is this Salafist ideology which says that nations and "man-made" Constitutions are haram, that it is every Muslim's divine duty to overthrow "man-made" systems and to institute Shariah. That if they don't do this they will personally go to Hell.

That is why every country with Salafi groups is in continuous instability with a large number of jihadi groups each declaring each other kafir and trying to institute the "only true Shariah".

This is why there is only one solution - ban promotion of Salafi ideology entirely. Anything short of this, and you will have recurring terrorist attacks.

Salafis do not have any loyalty to any nation.
Salafis don't believe in human rights
Salafis do not recognize non-Salafis as humans.
Salafis will not accept any agreement with "kuffar" (Kuffar = anyone who is not a believer of the Salafi flavour of the month)

The problem is Salafism. The solution is to ban Salafism.

The Salafism threat is over-rated due to their horrific terrorist attacks. Once you ban Salafi mosques, NGOs and preachers, the Islamist terrorist threat level will drop to near zero, just like it was pre-1970 before Saudi Arabia started their global petro-funded campaign to open Salafi mosques and madrasas throughout the world.

Bangladesh banned Middle-Eastern NGOs in 2005-6 and now the terrorism threat is near zero. If Europe bans Salafi funding and preaching then the terrorism threat will drop to zero.

I wish it was so simple...but it never is.

The human mind, too much of it is greedy and doesn't think in deeper terms.

So Saudi oil money talks ....and the influence + strings attached are not well understood till much later.

When that happens, then removing/countering the extremist strain is taken as affront on whole community as whole.

Here is KSA funded salafi university set up in arguably Hinduism holiest city:

About Us Archives - Al Jamia Tus Salafiah - Varanasi, India

About Al Jamia Tus Salafiah, Varanasi

aljamiatussalafiah.org

Could Hinduism set one up in return in Islam holiest city?...that too some theological, puritanical strain of Hinduism?....one that prioritises personal interpretation of scripture (ijtihad) over established legal precedence (taqlid)? Every religion can do this in the end it will become zero sum game of whom can assert supremacy (with requisite violence and sin) at cost of all semblance of the redeeming features of humanity that gotten us this far.

The latter (taqlid) is foundational basis for every constitutional republic in world.

Thus the matter must be clearly put to Islamic identity/world at large, they must form overwhelming consensus to reject this salafi extremism (and understand approrpiate context of ijtihad)....then only will there be a genuine resolution with non-Muslims I feel, in that there will not be unfair portrayal that all Muslims are being targetted (by countries with the rule of law and due process invested at individual level), when the issue is the extremists and those that may have been overly influenced and corrupted by them.

This should be the understanding rather than resorting to it being immoral fight of communalism and majoritarianism.

 

[rainmaker]

So Saudi oil money talks ....and the influence + strings attached are not well understood till much later.

When that happens, then removing/countering the extremist strain is taken as affront on whole community as whole.

The solution is very simple.

Make a proclamation that every single religious group must obey the fundamental values of the Constitution. Make it compulsory for all religious organizations to have registration from the Department of Social Services (or whatever the equivalent). If they do not, it will be an illegal organization and be shut down by police. If any religious organization preaches anything contrary to the Constitution, they will lose their registration.

Nobody will be allowed to scream discrimination because it is equal for all religions.

This is what needs to be done to combat the global Salafi threat.

If India could pulverize the Golden Temple then they can definitely enforce registration of all religious organizations to conform with fundamental values of the Constitution. I guarantee you most Muslims hate Salafis with a passion and will support the initiative. I was glad to see that India finally addressed the Salafi Zakir Naik. Bangladesh didn't even allow that guy to land in BD the one time he wanted to come here.

Inaction on Salafism is NOT AN OPTION. Not for India, not for France, not for any country in the world.

 

[Zafer]

I don't know why but France is the spearhead of free speech against Muslims.

 

[Saithan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322792649288523778

Well as long as Islam is the target the world can ignore Russia and China.

Also keep selling arms to KSA and the arab countries and Iran to keep this going. It makes controlling your own nation easier. Fuel extremism with intential provocation on freedom of speech to get the desired effect and repeat the whole cycle.

Check out the video Inposted about rebuilt vhechnya you can see how fanatic they are

And the tweet in French where you can call in and report radical muslim citizens. Wow, just wow

 

[Saithan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322796489731694592

Arson attempt on a mosque in France in Chateaudun

 

[Nilgiri]

The solution is very simple.

Make a proclamation that every single religious group must obey the fundamental values of the Constitution. Make it compulsory for all religious organizations to have registration from the Department of Social Services (or whatever the equivalent). If they do not, it will be an illegal organization and be shut down by police. If any religious organization preaches anything contrary to the Constitution, they will lose their registration.

Nobody will be allowed to scream discrimination because it is equal for all religions.

This is what needs to be done to combat the global Salafi threat.

If India could pulverize the Golden Temple then they can definitely enforce registration of all religious organizations to conform with fundamental values of the Constitution. I guarantee you most Muslims hate Salafis with a passion and will support the initiative. I was glad to see that India finally addressed the Salafi Zakir Naik. Bangladesh didn't even allow that guy to land in BD the one time he wanted to come here.

Inaction on Salafism is NOT AN OPTION. Not for India, not for France, not for any country in the world.

My friend, you mean well and this is long conversation I could have with you...we will agree on a lot.

But real world is very different, I know how most politicians think and what they will ignore...and what they would rather focus on. Same with lot of regular people (who have same attitudes overall but little power so just sheep around thats the difference).

They know what matters are much more emotive on the ground in India...functional cultural tensions and wedges. That will the focus to pit people against each other....and always will be. I say it with heaviest of hearts.

This salafi uni in varanasi, and others like it does far more damage in the end....but you have to realise it has been operating more than 50 years now. Think of that precedence and thus weight of narrative it established in now among the community...what they would see it as if after this time, it (along with all else like it) is clamped down upon.

Can a strictly anti-constitutional thing be found here? Would any laws passed to get at it (given the weighty problem of how this current administration already looks like to most muslim eyes whatever true or untrue directed there)...how would they weigh down on more domestic extremist movements in deobandi and barelvi too? Or because those are more local, they would get a pass....or should same weight be applied across the board?

Then you have to consider the real economic threat KSA and Gulf have over the vital economic links with India (remittance and close energy imports). Some 50 billion USD a year toward India (among other things like employment and re-export of refined products) basically comes under threat if India takes an anti-KSA stance on established salafi institutes.

Why you think India is reluctant to push much on even Malaysia for extradition of Zakir Naik? If it doesn't make any example there past some noises....fat chance it would do anything for KSA.

Anyway let us see if and what France does anything on its end....I honestly don't even know what the situation there is exactly with Salafi teachings and presence. They have far more effective and honed set up than India (with less murky BS identity politics at all levels) that they can employ if they choose to....since they are developed country with a weighty resolve on this matter that I think lot of people don't seem to realise....and just label it as "far-right" or whatever.

 

[rainmaker]

Then you have to consider the real economic threat KSA and Gulf have over the vital economic links with India (remittance and close energy imports). Some 50 billion USD a year toward India (among other things like employment and re-export of refined products) basically comes under threat if India takes an anti-KSA stance on established salafi institutes.

Why you think India is reluctant to push much on even Malaysia for extradition of Zakir Naik? If it doesn't make any example there past some noises....fat chance it would do anything for KSA.

You don't have to worry about any reaction from KSA at all. When Sheikh Hasina was processing the death sentences of the Jamat-e-Islami leaders, lots of people warned that Bangladesh would face "severe repurcussions", Gulf countries would send back all Bangladeshi workers, the economy would collapse, etc.

But guess what? Sheikh Hasina hanged all the Jamat leaders one by one. Jamat was the main vehicle for propagating the Saudi ideology and values into Bangladesh. Saudi could not do shit. The Bangladeshi economy is booming and the same Saudi Arabia is now begging Bangladesh to send troops to fight in Yemen (which BD won't). Keep in mind Bangladesh was much more dependent on KSA than India ever was.

Go ahead, crack down on Salafism. Think of the future victims whose lives you will be saving. There are enough traditional Muslim opponents of Salafism that you won't face any backlash.

Also close down Darul Uloom Deoband too, please. That hellhole is the source of all backwardness and ignorance in the Muslim community in Bangladesh.

 

[Timur]

I don't know why but France is the spearhead of free speech against Muslims.

maybe because of their reputation in algeria?

 

[Nilgiri]

You don't have to worry about any reaction from KSA at all. When Sheikh Hasina was processing the death sentences of the Jamat-e-Islami leaders, lots of people warned that Bangladesh would face "severe repurcussions", Gulf countries would send back all Bangladeshi workers, the economy would collapse, etc.

But guess what? Sheikh Hasina hanged all the Jamat leaders one by one. Jamat was the main vehicle for propagating the Saudi ideology and values into Bangladesh. Saudi could not do shit. The Bangladeshi economy is booming and the same Saudi Arabia is now begging Bangladesh to send troops to fight in Yemen (which BD won't). Keep in mind Bangladesh was much more dependent on KSA than India ever was.

Go ahead, crack down on Salafism. Think of the future victims whose lives you will be saving. There are enough traditional Muslim opponents of Salafism that you won't face any backlash.

Also close down Darul Uloom Deoband too, please. That hellhole is the source of all backwardness and ignorance in the Muslim community in Bangladesh.

Like I said I know how politicians in India think. Some also aren't too against having extremism-provider so there is some prevalence of extremism on the ground for their political purpose....so the issue can linger and score points and wedges on. Too many times "ends justify the means" have been used on spurious and dubious issues as well, so there is general apathy and antipathy from many quarters....esp minorities.

If you do genuine deep economic reform (that is now only re-starting in India again after break of 25 years), its same thing, lot of cushy status quo points gets challenged because things get more direct and efficient (more power/control invested in private and consumer hands)....and govt scope and inefficiency "cut" is reduced. That is precisely why economic reform in India is done in drip by drip when all the answers + original problems (pretty much all lie with govt) are well known in results of 1991.

If India is serious, let it apply pressure on far smaller economy of consequence to us that is malaysia to extradite Zakir Naik. Only then is some pathway to do same open to any other, that too big energy and investment provider. We have to make balances when we are still at this stage of development is the harsh reality.

 

[Hexciter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322999676510109704

 

[Joe Shearer]

Quick question (and then my take on this issue and a larger issue beyond that):

If a Muslim (in whatever definition...let me go by the basic one that submits to the Quran as his/her central tenet of faith) is offended by these cartoons in some significant way, does that not mean he/she is first recognizing in some way (overtly or subconsciously o whatever mix) the prophet is capable of being visually depicted in first place?

Does that not run fundamentally contrary to what is stated+mainstream-interpreted in the Quran itself (the final prophet and other prophets before him) cannot be visually depicted.

If this holds true, where is the fundamental cause for offense to be had? Any visual depiction (mocking , glorifying. neutral or otherwise) is summarily rejected if you hold your faith. Is it not?

Ab initio, the misunderstanding is totally to be held by the other side in that they have no idea or understanding of what they are attempting to do.

Not to put Yankeestani on the spot here but am I as a Hindu/Indian supposed to be overly offended at this meme?:

The Meme Thread

defencehub.live

Am I to call for its removal from sight and vision for my personal offense (or the affront/offense it may have on my larger community of faith/identity....as though I can somehow personally harness that too in the resolution needed for some further argument and reasoning?)

If this meme were published in charlie hebdo or even a mainstream publication, should I ask for that publication to be banned? Nope....because I have literally no way of giving objective reference to my personal offense level to another person in first place. Neither does he have in the other way.

How do any ONE of you know what resides in my personal faith and conscience? How may I describe it to ANY single one of you in the most appropriate way so you may understand it fully with your own context and references to get exactly HOW i feel? How would you know its real or if I am lying?

It is impossible....is it not? So how does it make it possible for you to do so for another?

There is a reason why such relative things are left in the realm of faith and why the best system of laws must govern what is physically proven to a much higher absolute standard.

My religion makes no rule against visual depiction of anything in the supernatural or earthly realms...all that has existed, exists and will exist....all is fair game.

As the dragon told Merlin, the old religion was around eons before you my young warlock, and will be there eons well after.

It is I that have to then give everyone a full benefit of the doubt as the default as to their intention and understanding. It rests on me, no one else. In the end the realm of faith is a personalised exercise, it is your decision to believe and implement in your actions. If a society deems it should be collectivised, I disagree with it...but then that society simply does so in the well-spring of this to begin with....it has no foundation to (forcibly) exert on another society the same thing. History (and current affairs) have too many examples of where this leads to, please read up on them.

It is why I simply reject (in capacity I have to bring to bear...i.e myself) any misconstrued mocking or humour thrown my way at my religion or any other identity (country, ideology, ethnicity...you name it). They simply do not know of it in the way I hold dear...but that is my personal decision, and theirs....as nothing can be proven....can I reach into their head and they into mine to fully establish this stuff?

So the freedom for anyone to engage in that must never be limited...as it is simply highly non-referenced in the absolute sense.

On this issue I stand 100% with the French republic. @Vergennes

You can attack Macron all you want....but he is a President, he is the highest executive, brought there by the democratic process of his nation.

Many of you here do not seem to understand he is merely voicing what is long established in something deeper: The French constitution and its judicial branch. Surely the highest political office of a country must be aligned to this?

As close French friend of mine years ago gave as parting conclusion (I was taking many of your lot position for devils advocate game I like to play from time to time with people in general...and he fell for it then ):

(In French, paraphrasing) This country my good friend, is the land of Voltaire....there are certain things you simply won't understand....and what blood and strife and cost it involved to get here....we hold it dear, the dearest thing of all about our nation.

I can go on at some length on how this still manifests an ocean distance away here in Quebec (our BQ party leader just stepped into it recently...but he explained it so well it stunned the typical liberals these days).

So what is the real problem many of you seem to have?

Is it where free speech starts and ends compared to freedom of expression?

Many of you, in fact I would venture most of you, do not know the difference between these two concepts in first place... sorry to say (and one or two of you are noticeably severely intellectually deprived on this whole topic to begin with).

You will have to define what they are before we can get into things like its application w.r.t Holocaust denial (which by the way I consider as free speech....but French republic disagrees...and I do not agree with them there).

My own position is maximising free speech is a good thing...but freedom of expression is not absolute and must be well defined (your rights end where they provably infringe on mine). The countries that define, implement and achieve the greatest amount of free speech are noticeably far more developed and (intrinsically) progressive (in the original definition) for a reason.

Likewise in that exercise, this is the reason freedom of expression is (and must be) constrained by provable tort.

You don't get to yell fire! in a crowded theatre etc...and say hey free speech right?!

You don't get to spray paint nazi signs on a synagogue and say free speech!

You don't get to enter a private home by force to tell someone something and say free speech!

You all have to try understand what is provable action and intent (and the tort)....and what cannot be proven (and resides in the mind and conscience fully).

By this, the (murdered) French teacher did nothing wrong legally. Do we even know the context of why he was bringing up the cartoons for study? This is important btw.

After all if offense-basis is the principle for employment legally, where does the limit go?...till whole society is totally fractured on it (given at some point something that doesnt offend you... offends someone else).

Leaving side Islam and Hinduism which I have brought up already here:

Are we to ban halloween and any potential mocking of witchcraft....because a number of Wiccans assert they are offended?

I have a Jehovah's witness friend....each year around Christmas time, he diligently explains to me new things that offend him about this "Pagan" holiday and how he says Christianity mainstream has been corrupted.

He hates pretty much every cultural depiction of it that is mainstreamed, and the very holiday's date itself (moved to cover a pagan solstice festivity by a certain sect of Christianity that seem to have the naming rights and inertia itself he says). He hates Christmas trees, the decoration of them, he hates visual depiction of Santa Claus (very different to Saint Nicholas he says), the idolatry of this and that...and just about everything causes him great offense...(known to only him).

But what he wont say is there should be a legal movement to change all this...much less some mob force (even if say his group was big enough to do so)....because he gets what Faith is in the end. This is why he can literally have a conversation and earthly co-existence with me (that even has elements of friendship), a complicated Eastern Pagan by his definition.

You all can take all of this and compare it to charlie hebdo depictions and think strongly upon your reasoning on what you can prove (emotional hurt wise) to another on it....and if you do so...what can be done back your way if that is the standard? What if the very intrinsic performance/rituals of your own religion/culture is highly offensive to another...if we are to have an offending basis for rule making?

There is reason why you must approach certain crucial things with deductive reasoning....not a flawed inductive one.

This applies to every identity issue in general...not just Faith.

Would like to hear @Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 take if they would like to share theirs.

Personally, I think this is a non-issue.

No individual or collection of individuals following a system of faith has the right to be offended by the actions of any other individual. That possibility simply does not arise; it is a system of faith, of faith maintained on intangible and unprovable perceptions. The system of faith may lay down stipulations that guide the following individual (alone, by himself or herself, according to their religious consciousness) in social matters, what to do in society, in sum, but cannot lay down what others may or should do, nor even decide what followers of that system of faith are 'entitled' to do with respect to others.

This is for followers of all religious systems of faith; for instance, I wish pious Hindus would stop being offended at what they think is lack of respect shown to their objects of worship - Lakshmi on a pair of slippers - and that when they insist on being offended, they should be carefully constrained to act within the civil laws governing permissible behaviour within society in general, with NO allowances made for the religious impulse governing that behaviour.

In the ultimate, this constraint should apply to behaviour directed towards any kind of behaviour or expression by others; it could apply just as strongly, for instance, to political disagreements and displays of lack of respect towards any political concept or personalisation.

The only occasions when a protest may be considered legitimate is in the case that the rights of an individual have been compromised. We may agree, for instance, on loathing Socialism; that under no circumstances gives us the authority or the right to abuse an individual of opposing views in a personal manner. That individual, or supporters of that individual, are entitled to take legal recourse to silence that abuse; even in this exceptional case, there is no possibility of taking up, in any but a legal matter, the defence of an individual who has been offended by references made by her.

I don't think my views are relevant. It is highly unlikely that the Earth will look reformed and enlightened within the end of my life.

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't think my views are relevant. It is highly unlikely that the Earth will look reformed and enlightened within the end of my life.

It is not worth getting stuck about if your views are relevant or non-relevant my friend.

You believe in them, for better or for worse....they are either eternal truth or non-truth....tangible to many or very few.

But you must make them known as you can and care to.... rather than wonder if they are relevant.

What they are (truth or un-truth)....are left to time....and the longer action and higher purpose of life's existence itself....quite possibly the highest.

As Bob Dylan went "The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind..."

 

[Saithan]

Turkey questions France’s dissolution of 'nonexistent' group

The Turkish Foreign Ministry on Wednesday criticized France's controversial move to ban an alleged Turkish nationalist group, saying: 'Turkey will take...

www.dailysabah.com

So... how do you dissolve a group that doesn't exist ? Unless they're going to use this as pretext to target all turkish unions, charity groups and such in France ?

@Vergennes does this make sense ? I mean this is like abolishing "vikings" ppl who may identify themselves as vikings.

 

[Vergennes]

Turkey questions France’s dissolution of 'nonexistent' group

The Turkish Foreign Ministry on Wednesday criticized France's controversial move to ban an alleged Turkish nationalist group, saying: 'Turkey will take...

www.dailysabah.com

So... how do you dissolve a group that doesn't exist ? Unless they're going to use this as pretext to target all turkish unions, charity groups and such in France ?

@Vergennes does this make sense ? I mean this is like abolishing "vikings" ppl who may identify themselves as vikings.

Dissolving a group gives you a legal basis which broadens and greatly accelerates the fields of action of the judges and the National Police + Gendarmerie.

This will also allow the monitoring and prosecuting of people who identify as grey wolves or who display their symbols. (Hand signs,flags,slogans etc.)

 

[Saithan]

Dissolving a group gives you a legal basis which broadens and greatly accelerates the fields of action of the judges and the National Police + Gendarmerie.

This will also allow the monitoring and prosecuting of people who identify as grey wolves or who display their symbols. (Hand signs,flags,slogans etc.)

So if a passerby makes the sign of the Gray Wolf he could get arrested and questioned. Is there a similar prohibition towards Nazi salute ?

 

[Vergennes]

So if a passerby makes the sign of the Gray Wolf he could get arrested and questioned. Is there a similar prohibition towards Nazi salute ?

Giving a Nazi salute isn't directly forbidden by law,however wearing uniforms and Nazi insignas are. They can be punished with a fine.

 

[Vergennes]

In connection with the increasing number of threats against the Armenian community,the prefect of the Auverge-Rhône-Alpes region took the decision to put Armenian churches and schools under the protection of police forces and the army. The measure could be taken by other regions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324387386005094402

 

[Saithan]

In connection with the increasing number of threats against the Armenian community,the prefect of the Auverge-Rhône-Alpes region took the decision to put Armenian churches and schools under the protection of police forces and the army. The measure could be taken by other regions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324387386005094402

View attachment 5837
View attachment 5836

What about other places of worship ?

Wouldn’t common sense not dictate others be put under protection considering act of revenge from right wing extremists ?

 

[Vergennes]

What about other places of worship ?

Wouldn’t common sense not dictate others be put under protection considering act of revenge from right wing extremists ?

There's increased vigilance and protection around places of worships,but the most threatened ones are churches and synagogues.