Anonymous wrote:From bbc:

The claim was issued in written format in French and Arabic, and in audio format, all via established IS channels, according to the BBC's jihadist media expert Peter King.

The statement claims that "eight brothers wearing explosive vests and assault rifles targeted carefully chosen locations in the heart of the French capital".

It goes on to call Paris the "capital of abomination and perversion".

"In a holy attack facilitated by Allah, a group of believers and soldiers of the caliphate – may Allah give it might and victory – targeted the capital of abomination and perversion, the one that carries the banner of the cross in Europe, Paris."

Serious question - is this just some nonsense terrorist rhetoric or do they really have some specific belief that Paris is really a terrible place for some really specific reason?

Anonymous wrote:I am not Muslim and I am not cracking it open. The Koran has plenty of violence as does the life of Muhammed. Much of his 'conquest' of unbelievers is used to justify current actions today. I am not going to get into a theological or semantic argument about civilians versus non-civilians. What matters is civilians are being killed today as 'unbelievers' and it is wrong.

bingo - which is what I wrote in another thread

Anyone with an agenda will pull information out of context to support a cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

Are you guys heading down to the recruiting station today?

Anonymous wrote:So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

Yes. World War III.

There are reports that the attackers' car had a Belgian license plate. This reminds me that the thwarted train attack a few weeks ago was on a Brussels - Paris route.

Witnesses say the attackers were young men of middle eastern looks who spoke accentless French.

So, act of war against NATO ally.

Boots on the ground time?

I am not Muslim and I am not cracking it open. The Koran has plenty of violence as does the life of Muhammed. Much of his 'conquest' of unbelievers is used to justify current actions today. I am not going to get into a theological or semantic argument about civilians versus non-civilians. What matters is civilians are being killed today as 'unbelievers' and it is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's plenty in the Koran, as well as the old testament , that can be interpreted to condone violence. While the Christian church employed violence. There is little in the new testament that condones it. The life of muhammed, the model for Muslims, involved much warfare.

I can assure you that there is nothing in the Qur'an that condones the slaughter of non-combatant civilians including woman and children. Mohammaed did not do this either. Warfare was a part of every religion/region back in those times, but they did not slaughter civilians.

Lol, yeah, OK.

You are more than welcome to show hard evidence that Islam or Mohammed supported the killing of civilians, especially woman and children. Good luck on that journey of finding a reputable source though. But I wouldn't even waste your time tbh, that is not the purpose of this thread.

I said violence, not the killing of civilians. I would have to dig through my Koran which I don't want to do--as I don't think any civilized/sane religious group literally interprets the old books as maximum. Fundamentalists do and twist things--and unfortunately there is plenty to twist in all the books if you are inclined. So I agree with both of you. Unfortunately, these terrorist fundamentalists do spend time, combing or simply ,misinterpreting the Koran and Haditth.

You assured us there is nothing in the koran condoning the massacre of innocents, but refuse to crack it open to have a look. I think you owe it to yourself and every dead innocent to have that look. This pathology within Islam needs fixing and nobody is better placed to carry out a Reformation than muslims. Quit avoiding and engage.

I guess the Pope is giving a just war definition. Which is fine--I think fighting them is a just war. But I cringe when people say an enemy is not human. I consider them evil humans who have put forth a plan under which all their actions are logical - to destroy us, our children, our way of life. Unfortunately, they are NOT aliens from another planet--though the parallels are amazing. They are parasitic--they tax, but don't produce anything--they destroy--and they will have a need llike Genghis Khan to keep moving on to fresh places to destroy as the destroyed places will not sustain them. They are not setting up functioning civil societies. their caliphate is a joke--it totally depends on living off the remnants of what the people they vanquished built.

Even the Pope gets it

This is a Third World War

"I am shaken and pained," the pope said. "I don't understand, but these things are difficult to understand, how human beings can do this. That is why I am shaken, pained and am praying."

The director of the television station recalled how the pope has spoken many times about a "third world war being fought in pieces."

"This is a piece," the pope responded. "There are no justifications for these things."

On social media, Islamic State militants claimed responsibility, but Pope Francis insisted there can be no "religious or human" excuse for killing innocent people and sowing terror. "This is not human."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's plenty in the Koran, as well as the old testament , that can be interpreted to condone violence. While the Christian church employed violence. There is little in the new testament that condones it. The life of muhammed, the model for Muslims, involved much warfare.

I can assure you that there is nothing in the Qur'an that condones the slaughter of non-combatant civilians including woman and children. Mohammaed did not do this either. Warfare was a part of every religion/region back in those times, but they did not slaughter civilians.

Lol, yeah, OK.

You are more than welcome to show hard evidence that Islam or Mohammed supported the killing of civilians, especially woman and children. Good luck on that journey of finding a reputable source though. But I wouldn't even waste your time tbh, that is not the purpose of this thread.

I said violence, not the killing of civilians. I would have to dig through my Koran which I don't want to do--as I don't think any civilized/sane religious group literally interprets the old books as maximum. Fundamentalists do and twist things--and unfortunately there is plenty to twist in all the books if you are inclined. So I agree with both of you. Unfortunately, these terrorist fundamentalists do spend time, combing or simply ,misinterpreting the Koran and Haditth.

French President François Hollande on Saturday blamed Islamic State for the terrorist attacks across Paris that left at least 127 people dead, and vowed to retaliate.

“It is an act of war that was waged by a terrorist army, a jihadist army, by Daesh, against France,” Mr. Hollande said, using an Arabic name for Islamic State. “This act of war was prepared and planned from the outside, with accomplices inside,” he added, saying France would respond to the attacks.

why did over 6000 westerners leave and go to Islamic State??

for religion indoctrination in Islam.

This is a war of ideas. We need to be smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lanier said no imminent threat to DC

Um, how would anyone know that? The mark of terrorism is that it's unexpected.

MI5 feared a revenge attack related to or inspired by the killing of Jihadi John.

But they don't know if the attack is related to Jhadi John. It's obvious this attack was well planned based on the scope and magnitude. Jhadi John was killed yesterday. This thing was not planned overnight.

How difficult is it to walk into a building and shoot people? I'm not sure it takes as much planning as you think.

This wasn’t just one site. It was several. It took planning to coordinate this attack. It also took planning to get the arms and weapons together and into these locations undetected. It has been in the planning for some time, of that we can be sure.
The revenge for the killing of Jihadi John is being planned now, I would guess.
These are pure evil animals.

Not only coordination, but the French have banned civilian ownership of guns as so many of you want here in the U.S. They can't protect themselves when attacked. Even their police leave their guns at the station at he end of the shift. Total stupidity. One off duty French police officer could have saved so many.

Instead they died on their knees.

Breaks my heart. Mark Levin tonight said "Thank God for the 2nd Amendment". Amen sir, Amen.

Here in DC "off duty" active duty military are not allowed to carry a weapon outside their homes. If I would want anyone to have that right it would be people trained, oh and also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and of course the American people. So here in DC, we are basically in the same boat.

From bbc:

The claim was issued in written format in French and Arabic, and in audio format, all via established IS channels, according to the BBC's jihadist media expert Peter King.

The statement claims that "eight brothers wearing explosive vests and assault rifles targeted carefully chosen locations in the heart of the French capital".

It goes on to call Paris the "capital of abomination and perversion".

"In a holy attack facilitated by Allah, a group of believers and soldiers of the caliphate – may Allah give it might and victory – targeted the capital of abomination and perversion, the one that carries the banner of the cross in Europe, Paris."

Paris attacks :Act of war by ISIS says Hollande, per BBC.
7 terrorists dead via suicide bomb, one shot by police. Unclear, if there are more at this point.