Mass shooting in France at magazine that published Mohammed cartoons

[Kondor3]

...I uphold your right to stupidly declare your fellow Americans as your "enemy" just as I uphold your right to make a fool of yourself with your posts here...

I have not declared any of my fellow Americans to be my Enemy, or the Enemy of my country. Good luck in finding such an example.

You inability to distinguish between labeling a Belief System as a spiritual and cultural and philosophical Enemy and labeling its Militant elements as an actual Enemy - versus blanket condemnation of its practitioners - continues to bedevil your attempts at counterpointing.

It's certainly amusing to observe, but your juvenile, petulant insistence upon holding to such a faulty interpretation does eventually grow tiresome.

...The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from "declaring a belief system to be the enemy" since that precludes the "free exercise" of religion...

Are you also suffering from the delusion that I called for our government to do such a thing?

...Obviously you don't understand the oath you claim to have taken because if you did you would not be declaring that your fellow Americans are the "enemy" for doing nothing more than exercising their 1st Amendment rights to their choice of religious beliefs...

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between labeling a Belief System as a spiritual and cultural and philosophical Enemy, versus labeling its practitioners thusly.

Wake me up when you've matured sufficiently to make and comprehend that distinction in both theory and practice.

...That you persist in your blind bigotry...

My eyes are wide open, and my conclusions are information- and evidence -based, not emotive.

...and unAmerican intolerance...

Americans are intolerant of INtolerance, and Islam boasts the highest degree of INtolerance presently operative on any appreciable scale and degree of sustainability, across the entire spectrum of the world's various mainstream belief systems and practices.

...that violates the oath that you allegedly took is most definitely you problem...

Naming our nation's (and our culture's) Enemies is in keeping with the very best traditions and practical manifestations of that oath.

=======================================================

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

=======================================================

Publicly observing the nature and intent of a hostile, openly-adversarial mindset, and declaring that mindset to be our spiritual and cultural and philosophical Enemy, is something that is done very day of the week, in keeping with and in defense of our own Constitution.

Publicly declaring the Militant elements within the domains of that mindset to be a real and mortal Enemy is also in keeping with that Oath, as a matter of best practices.

...and yes, I will continue to call you out on it whenever I see you doing it.

Feel free.

You're not much of a challenge, in the final analysis, and your lack of discernment and comprehension in such matters does make for some considerable amusement.

So, go for it.

Or not.

I really don't care.

 

[irosie91]

My answer is
BE CREATIVE and examine history.

I recommend that you read Sun Tzu's the Art of War first.

But let me make some observations that put a lot of this in context. Christians have waged war on other Christians as recently as the 1990's. Those wars were bloody and brutal and killed millions of innocent people. There is ongoing religious strife between Muslims and Hindus just as there is between Jews and Muslims.

As far as I am concerned all religions are at fault here because all of their "holy books" can be interpreted to justify violence in the name of their deity.

But We the People don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. We have "godlike powers" at our disposal. We can observe our enemies from the "heavens" and strike them dead from the "heavens" too at the push of a button.

Sun Tzu advised against making unnecessary "enemies". The sheer utter stupidity of declaring 1.6 billion people who believe something to be the "enemy" is astounding. Furthermore it is a violation of the 1st Amendment so the government won't be as ignorant and stupid as Kondor.

I think that you and I are on the same page when it comes to analyzing the problem and being creative in finding alternative solutions.

The problem is disaffected individuals who are being mislead into believing that violence is a solution to their situation. When someone has nothing they have nothing to lose. So it makes sense to alter their situation so that they do have something to lose in which case they will reconsider their alternatives.

Yes, there are many ways to make that happen and I have some ideas in that regard but I would like to hear back from you first before taking this any further.

Peace
DT

you have said nothing other than ----"BE NICE" ----if there is a creed in the world which millions embrace-----that
requires those who embrace it to kill you, or conquor and oppress you, or force you to embrace that creed-------just happily cooperate. Either drop dead,, accept oppression
or embrace that creed. Non muslims are the ENEMEEEES OF ISLAAAAM by definition. I learned that
fact from muslims

 

[RandomVariable]

Naming an Enemy (as I did in #845) is a far cry from declaring (or advocating for) War.

Your inability to distinguish between the two is your cross (or crescent?) to bear, not mine.

Naming an Enemy (as I did in #845) is a far cry from declaring (or advocating for) War.

Your inability to distinguish between the two is your cross (or crescent?) to bear, not mine.

Given that I do not HAVE a problem... given that I did NOT declare nor advocate for war in #845 - either explicitly nor implicitly - it looks like the problem is yours, after all.

No, you are not a Realist... you have your head in the sand.

Care to count-up the number of acts of large-scale worldwide religiously-driven terrorism committed by Muslims in recent decades, versus the numbers committed by Christians, Jews and Hindus?

Wanna lose?

Fanatics that control entire Muslim countries and regions and that command Muslim armies and militias actively engaged in large-scale warfare and terrorism operations are, indeed, criminals, as well as being valid military war-targets.

I wage no war nor call for war against Islam.

But I DO label Islam as our (The West's) spiritual and cultural and philosophical Enemy.

And I DO label Militant Islam as our actual and mortal Enemy - in a very real military sense.

Militant Islam will end-up dominating mainstream Islam.

When that happens, there may, indeed, be war, although it will not be The West (modern, secularized Christendom) that starts it.

The hate oozing up from the philosophical roots of Islam is the breast-milk of Militant Islam.

And, unless mainstream Islam manages to wean its misbegotten offspring off the teat - and undergo serious modernizing and reform, Islam remains a serious threat.

Your foolhardy faux equivalencies and attempts to portray Islam-at-large as non-threatening, as a spiritual and philosophical baseline, no longer signifies like it once did.

Your arguments are being swept aside by modern history and recent events, and relegated to the back burner as well-intentioned but simplistic, naive and gravely flawed.

Miltant Islam is our mortal Enemy.

Mainstream Islam is our spiritual and philosophical Enemy.

The former deserves our best efforts to kill it.

The latter deserves our most serious and sustained watchfulness and skepticism.

Any other portrayal of what I have said - or my intentions - is in error.

Or the result of outright lying, in an attempt to discredit a position or a colleague.

You have been caught lying, in intentionally and falsely attempting to portray my #845 as a declaration of war against Islam.

When one is caught in a lie, it is valid to label that person as a Liar.

Again... your problem, not mine.

You are obviously ignorant of the ongoing violence that Hindus have been waging against Muslims for the last 6 decades. Just as you are ignorant of the other religious violence that is ongoing. What do think is happening in Gaza? How how about in the middle of Africa?

So once again you made a statement based upon nothing but undiluted ignorance just as you have about Islam.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this is that your ignorance is self imposed and willful. You have no interest whatsoever in trying to learn anything at all about the 1.5 billion people you have declared to be your "enemy". Are you even aware that you have just declared a couple of million of your fellow Americans your "enemy"?

So yes, you are identical in attitude to those who committed murder in France because you are intolerant and ignorant.

And yes, you are the problem because you refuse to educate yourself.

Fortunately the majority of Americans are better people than you are and yes, I am including the American Muslim population in that majority.

You have zero understanding of the degree to which I have studied and understand Islam at large.

Your simple-minded falling back upon personal insult, baseless allegations, and outright lying about declarations and intent, and your inability to distinguish between declaring a belief-system an Enemy versus declaring war upon actual people, show you up for the intellectual coward and mental deficient that you have manifested as during the course of this exchange.

Furthermore, I am not 'into' endless automatic gainsay... especially with proven liars and Muslim apologists.

My arguments will have to stand or fall upon their own merits, in the eyes of others, your own whiny protestations notwithstanding.

This sequence is terminated.

Only a fool would claim to have "studied Islam" and still have no clue that you cannot suppress a religion any more than you can suppress an idea. That you have unilaterally declared it "the enemy" demonstrates that you had no idea just how many of your fellow Americans are Muslims. Sun Tzu would have laughed out loud at your stupidity for declaring 1.5 billion people as your "enemy".

Yes, you are running away because you cannot defend your own unAmerican bigotry and intolerance. Like many of your ilk you are incapable of admitting when you are proven wrong.

Sun Tzu would ABSOLUTELY declare every single Muslim on the planet an enemy.

In which case you won't have any problem providing the quotation from him that supports your claim, right?

I really hate posts like this. You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about, Sun Tzu in this case. I would prefer not to reply at all but I do. For lack of something more profound to say I will just leave it at: You are a moron.

You want a link to a quote??? Dumb ass.

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10519804

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it

So why can't you tell us where you suspect the 05% (75,000,000) murderers live?

In Muslim countries and Muslim communities across the world, where you would normally find Muslims.

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10519757

When about 5% of Muslims are the "extremists" (those that follow true Islam), and about 60% at least support the ideology, then we aren't really talking about a "few" Muslims are we?

So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

 

[RandomVariable]

Roud 10519804

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it

So why can't you tell us where you suspect the 05% (75,000,000) murderers live?

In Muslim countries and Muslim communities across the world, where you would normally find Muslims.

I like it that that number of 1.5 keeps getting used but then they are say, "Well we are not like those others." So what is the number? 1.1/.4? .7/.8? (The answer is 1.5.)

 

[Roudy]

Wow 92 pages and still no one was killed because they posted a picture of Mohammed. I posted one yesterday and have been waiting for my inevitable whacking yet I am still alive.

Even if a Muslim fanatic living close by gets hold of your location?

You are extremely naive.

What is naive is thinking these people are not just reacting to an opportunity. Your statement proves the point. None of these guys cares enough to to get on a plane and fly to Paris to avenge their religion. They were just there and looking for any excuse. The fact it was a picture is irrelevant.

"just reacting to an opportunity"??? an opportunity to murder people? In fact ----there have been Islamic terrorists that ----WENT PLACES to carry out terrorist actions--------
.... I do not see what point you are trying to make?
Can you explain?

Yes they react to opportunities. That's how radical posers work. They defend their beliefs as long as it is not too much trouble. And if it will get them attention on the news. That is why me posting this picture for the tenth time will result in nothing:

Anderson Cooper does not care if someone on this obscure internets forum gets whacked. That is why no one who posted a whacky picture here is in any danger. They will pick the easier target. It could just as easily been someone eating a bagel with a schmear.

This is a phony attempt. Put your name and address underneath the picture, or post that picture in a magazine or in public with your name on it, and then we'll talk. A guy like Sunni can make a few phone calls if you know what I mean

Millions of people have been posting these anti islam pictures since 9-11 on these anonymous boards.

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10519804

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it

So why can't you tell us where you suspect the 05% (75,000,000) murderers live?

In Muslim countries and Muslim communities across the world, where you would normally find Muslims.

I like it that that number of 1.5 keeps getting used but then they are say, "Well we are not like those others." So what is the number? 1.1/.4? .7/.8? (The answer is 1.5.)

There have been some polls taken in certain Muslim countries about what the Muslim public support, look them up. Don't act like you don't know about them. The more shocking polls are the ones taken of Muslims living in the West.

 

[Roudy]

France had adequate warnign they had problems as the Muslims have been terrorizing the Jews there for several years. But because it's the Jews and no one gives a shit about them they figured "real Frenchmen" were OK. Guess not.
This isnt the last of these incidents, in France or elsewhere.

The biggest fear in the media seems to be not more Muslim attacks but more support for Marine Le Pen and right wing groups. Who could blame anyone for going to them? The Left certainly has no solutions.

so true----it was actually more than 20 years ago when
French jews in the USA began commenting "jews cannot
live in France anymore"

And if anybody is wondering where all this "anti semtism" in Europe is coming from....it's from the millions of Muslim immigrants.

 

[hipeter924]

Wow 92 pages and still no one was killed because they posted a picture of Mohammed. I posted one yesterday and have been waiting for my inevitable whacking yet I am still alive.

Even if a Muslim fanatic living close by gets hold of your location?

You are extremely naive.

What is naive is thinking these people are not just reacting to an opportunity. Your statement proves the point. None of these guys cares enough to to get on a plane and fly to Paris to avenge their religion. They were just there and looking for any excuse. The fact it was a picture is irrelevant.

"just reacting to an opportunity"??? an opportunity to murder people? In fact ----there have been Islamic terrorists that ----WENT PLACES to carry out terrorist actions--------
.... I do not see what point you are trying to make?
Can you explain?

Yes they react to opportunities. That's how radical posers work. They defend their beliefs as long as it is not too much trouble. And if it will get them attention on the news. That is why me posting this picture for the tenth time will result in nothing:

Anderson Cooper does not care if someone on this obscure internets forum gets whacked. That is why no one who posted a whacky picture here is in any danger. They will pick the easier target. It could just as easily been someone eating a bagel with a schmear.

This is a phony attempt. Put your name and address underneath the picture, or post that picture in a magazine or in public with your name on it, and then we'll talk. A guy like Sunni can make a few phone calls if you know what I mean

Millions of people have been posting these anti islam pictures since 9-11 on these anonymous boards.

You just need to go on twitter. Post a pig Mohammad image with your details, then wait for an angry mob, assault or death.

 

[irosie91]

The most anti semitc muslims I encountered---were those
who had just landed in the USA and were from places that
had no jewish population

 

[RandomVariable]

Roud 10519804

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it

So why can't you tell us where you suspect the 05% (75,000,000) murderers live?

In Muslim countries and Muslim communities across the world, where you would normally find Muslims.

I like it that that number of 1.5 keeps getting used but then they are say, "Well we are not like those others." So what is the number? 1.1/.4? .7/.8? (The answer is 1.5.)

There have been some polls taken in certain Muslim countries about what the Muslim public support, look them up. Don't act like you don't know about them. The more shocking polls are the ones taken of Muslims living in the West.

I saw a poll of some of the opinions of mosque attendees in America. If the majority of U.S. saw that it would scare the socks of them.

 

[Esmeralda]

Roud 10519757

When about 5% of Muslims are the "extremists" (those that follow true Islam), and about 60% at least support the ideology, then we aren't really talking about a "few" Muslims are we?

So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

Use your bean. If they supported full Sharia law, their countries would function under full Sharia law. Take Turkey, for example, it is 90% Muslim, yet it absolutely does not function under Sharia law: I know, I lived there for 2 years. The vast majority of people there do not want a country that is ruled by Sharia law. Some countries in the ME have some form of Sharia law, but only Saudi is full Sharia. However, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, only a small minority hail from the ME. Again, logically, if most of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet wanted Sharia law to dominate, then most Muslim countries would have it, but they don't.

 

[Roudy]

Naming an Enemy (as I did in #845) is a far cry from declaring (or advocating for) War.

Your inability to distinguish between the two is your cross (or crescent?) to bear, not mine.

Naming an Enemy (as I did in #845) is a far cry from declaring (or advocating for) War.

Your inability to distinguish between the two is your cross (or crescent?) to bear, not mine.

Given that I do not HAVE a problem... given that I did NOT declare nor advocate for war in #845 - either explicitly nor implicitly - it looks like the problem is yours, after all.

No, you are not a Realist... you have your head in the sand.

Care to count-up the number of acts of large-scale worldwide religiously-driven terrorism committed by Muslims in recent decades, versus the numbers committed by Christians, Jews and Hindus?

Wanna lose?

Fanatics that control entire Muslim countries and regions and that command Muslim armies and militias actively engaged in large-scale warfare and terrorism operations are, indeed, criminals, as well as being valid military war-targets.

I wage no war nor call for war against Islam.

But I DO label Islam as our (The West's) spiritual and cultural and philosophical Enemy.

And I DO label Militant Islam as our actual and mortal Enemy - in a very real military sense.

Militant Islam will end-up dominating mainstream Islam.

When that happens, there may, indeed, be war, although it will not be The West (modern, secularized Christendom) that starts it.

The hate oozing up from the philosophical roots of Islam is the breast-milk of Militant Islam.

And, unless mainstream Islam manages to wean its misbegotten offspring off the teat - and undergo serious modernizing and reform, Islam remains a serious threat.

Your foolhardy faux equivalencies and attempts to portray Islam-at-large as non-threatening, as a spiritual and philosophical baseline, no longer signifies like it once did.

Your arguments are being swept aside by modern history and recent events, and relegated to the back burner as well-intentioned but simplistic, naive and gravely flawed.

Miltant Islam is our mortal Enemy.

Mainstream Islam is our spiritual and philosophical Enemy.

The former deserves our best efforts to kill it.

The latter deserves our most serious and sustained watchfulness and skepticism.

Any other portrayal of what I have said - or my intentions - is in error.

Or the result of outright lying, in an attempt to discredit a position or a colleague.

You have been caught lying, in intentionally and falsely attempting to portray my #845 as a declaration of war against Islam.

When one is caught in a lie, it is valid to label that person as a Liar.

Again... your problem, not mine.

You are obviously ignorant of the ongoing violence that Hindus have been waging against Muslims for the last 6 decades. Just as you are ignorant of the other religious violence that is ongoing. What do think is happening in Gaza? How how about in the middle of Africa?

So once again you made a statement based upon nothing but undiluted ignorance just as you have about Islam.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this is that your ignorance is self imposed and willful. You have no interest whatsoever in trying to learn anything at all about the 1.5 billion people you have declared to be your "enemy". Are you even aware that you have just declared a couple of million of your fellow Americans your "enemy"?

So yes, you are identical in attitude to those who committed murder in France because you are intolerant and ignorant.

And yes, you are the problem because you refuse to educate yourself.

Fortunately the majority of Americans are better people than you are and yes, I am including the American Muslim population in that majority.

You have zero understanding of the degree to which I have studied and understand Islam at large.

Your simple-minded falling back upon personal insult, baseless allegations, and outright lying about declarations and intent, and your inability to distinguish between declaring a belief-system an Enemy versus declaring war upon actual people, show you up for the intellectual coward and mental deficient that you have manifested as during the course of this exchange.

Furthermore, I am not 'into' endless automatic gainsay... especially with proven liars and Muslim apologists.

My arguments will have to stand or fall upon their own merits, in the eyes of others, your own whiny protestations notwithstanding.

This sequence is terminated.

Only a fool would claim to have "studied Islam" and still have no clue that you cannot suppress a religion any more than you can suppress an idea. That you have unilaterally declared it "the enemy" demonstrates that you had no idea just how many of your fellow Americans are Muslims. Sun Tzu would have laughed at loud at your stupidity for declaring 1.5 billion people as your "enemy".

Yes, you are running away because you cannot defend your own unAmerican bigotry and intolerance. Like many of your ilk you are incapable of admitting when you are proven wrong.

Derideo----you comment makes no sense-------"1.5 billion people cannot be an enemy"-- why not?

Because 1.6 billion people are not waging war on anyone.

1.6 (I thought it was 1.2) billion people aren't waging war on anyone, however the ideology they follow is. And those that are waging war on the free world, are simply true followers of the ideology.

 

[hipeter924]

Roud 10519757

When about 5% of Muslims are the "extremists" (those that follow true Islam), and about 60% at least support the ideology, then we aren't really talking about a "few" Muslims are we?

So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

Use your bean. If they supported full Sharia law, their countries would function under full Sharia law. Take Turkey, for example, it is 90% Muslim, yet it absolutely does not function under Sharia law: I know, I lived there for 2 years. The vast majority of people there do not want a country that is ruled by Sharia law. Some countries in the ME have some form of Sharia law, but only Saudi is full Sharia. However, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, only a small minority hail from the ME. Again, logically, if most of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet wanted Sharia law to dominate, then most Muslim countries would have it, but they don't.

Not for long, the current Turkish government will eventually see to that. And some of them are more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[Roudy]

Roud 10519757

When about 5% of Muslims are the "extremists" (those that follow true Islam), and about 60% at least support the ideology, then we aren't really talking about a "few" Muslims are we?

So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

Use your bean. If they supported full Sharia law, their countries would function under full Sharia law. Take Turkey, for example, it is 90% Muslim, yet it absolutely does not function under Sharia law: I know, I lived there for 2 years. The vast majority of people there do not want a country that is ruled by Sharia law. Some countries in the ME have some form of Sharia law, but only Saudi is full Sharia. However, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, only a small minority hail from the MD. Again, logically, if most of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet wanted Sharia law to dominate, then most Muslim countries would have it, but they don't.

Turkey doesn't follow Shariah because Kamal Attaturk basically outlawed Islam from all affairs of govt. He put in place a law that allowed the military to take over, should Islamists gain power (kind of like what just happened in Egypt). He even changed the official alohabet to Latin letter.

I wonder what is was about Islam that the Turks, Muslims themselves that caused them to virtually ban the religion from having any influence on govt. . Perhaps first hand experience of its effects?

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (pronounced [mustäˈfä ceˈmäl äˈtäˌtyɾc]; 19 May 1881 (conventional) – 10 November 1938) was a Turkish army officer, reformist statesman, and the first President of Turkey. He is credited with being the founder of the Republic of Turkey. His surname, Atatürk (meaning "Father of the Turks"), was granted to him in 1934 and forbidden to any other person by the Turkish parliament.[1]

Atatürk was a military officer during World War I.[2] Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, he led the Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence. Having established a provisional government in Ankara, he defeated the forces sent by the Allies. His military campaigns led to victory in the Turkish War of Independence. Atatürk then embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern and secular nation-state. Under his leadership, thousands of new schools were built, primary education was made free and compulsory, and women were given equal civil and political rights, while the burden of taxation on peasants was reduced.[3] His government also carried out an extensive policy of Turkification.[4][5][6][7] The principles of Atatürk's reforms, upon which modern Turkey was established, are referred to as
Kermalism.

independence and the Caliphate, 1924–1925
Abolition of the Caliphate was an important dimension in Mustafa Kemal's drive to reform the political system and to promote the national sovereignty. By the consensus of the Muslim majority in early centuries, the caliphate was the core political concept of Sunni Islam.[74] Abolishing the sultanate was easier because the survival of the Caliphate at the time satisfied the partisans of the sultanate. This produced a split system with the new republic on one side and an Islamic form of government with the Caliph on the other side, and Mustafa Kemal and İnönü worried that "it nourished the expectations that the sovereign would return under the guise of Caliph."[75] Caliph Abdülmecid II was elected after the abolition of the sultanate (1922).

The caliph had his own personal treasury and also had a personal service that included military personnel; Mustafa Kemal said that there was no "religious" or "political" justification for this. He believed that Caliph Abdülmecid II was following in the steps of the sultans in domestic and foreign affairs: accepting of and responding to foreign representatives and reserve officers, and participating in official ceremonies and celebrations.[76] He wanted to integrate the powers of the caliphate into the powers of the GNA. His initial activities began on 1 January 1924, when[76] İnönü, Çakmak and Özalp consented to the abolition of the caliphate. The caliph made a statement to the effect that he would not interfere with political affairs.[77] On 1 March 1924, at the Assembly, Mustafa Kemal said

“ The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political instrument, as had been the case in the past.[78] ”
On 3 March 1924, the caliphate was officially abolished and its powers within Turkey were transferred to the GNA. Other Muslim nations debated the validity of Turkey's unilateral abolition of the caliphate as they decided whether they should confirm the Turkish action or appoint a new caliph.[77] A "Caliphate Conference" was held in Cairo in May 1926 and a resolution was passed declaring the caliphate "a necessity in Islam", but failed to implement this decision.[77]

Two other Islamic conferences were held in Mecca (1926) and Jerusalem (1931), but failed to reach a consensus.[77] Turkey did not accept the re-establishment of the caliphate and perceived it as an attack to its basic existence; while Mustafa Kemal and the reformists continued their own way.[79]

On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".[67][80]

The removal of the caliphate was followed by an extensive effort to establish the separation of governmental and religious affairs. Education was the cornerstone in this effort. In 1923, there were three main educational groups of institutions. The most common institutions were medreses based on Arabic, the Qur'an and memorization. The second type of institution was idadî and sultanî, the reformist schools of the Tanzimat era. The last group included colleges and minority schools in foreign languages that used the latest teaching models in educating pupils. The old medrese education was modernized.[81] Mustafa Kemal changed the classical Islamic education for a vigorously promoted reconstruction of educational institutions.[81]Mustafa Kemal linked educational reform to the liberation of the nation from dogma, which he believed was more important than the Turkish War of Independence.

“ Today, our most important and most productive task is the national education [unification and modernization] affairs. We have to be successful in national education affairs and we shall be. The liberation of a nation is only achieved through this way."[82] ”
In the summer of 1924, Mustafa Kemal invited American educational reformer John Dewey to Ankara to advise him on how to reform Turkish education.[81] His public education reforms aimed to prepare citizens for roles in public life through increasing the public literacy. He wanted to institute compulsory primary education for both girls and boys; since then this effort has been an ongoing task for the republic. He pointed out that one of the main targets of education in Turkey had to be raising a generation nourished with what he called the "public culture". The state schools established a common curriculum which became known as the "unification of education."

Unification of education was put into force on 3 March 1924 by the Law on Unification of Education (No. 430). With the new law, education became inclusive, organized on a model of the civil community. In this new design, all schools submitted their curriculum to the "Ministry of National Education", a government agency modelled after other countries' ministries of education. Concurrently, the republic abolished the two ministries and made clergy subordinate to the department of religious affairs, one of the foundations of secularism in Turkey. The unification of education under one curriculum ended "clerics or clergy of the Ottoman Empire", but was not the end of religious schools in Turkey; they were moved to higher education until later governments restored them to their former position in secondary after Mustafa Kemal's death.


Atatürk with his Panama hat just after the Kastamonu speech in 1925.
Beginning in the fall of 1925, Mustafa Kemal encouraged the Turks to wear modern European attire.[83] He was determined to force the abandonment of the sartorial traditions of the Middle East and finalize a series of dress reforms, which were originally started by Mahmud II.[83] The fez was established by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 as part of the Ottoman Empire's modernization effort. The Hat Law of 1925 introduced the use of Western-style hats instead of the fez. Mustafa Kemal first made the hat compulsory for civil servants.[83] The guidelines for the proper dressing of students and state employees were passed during his lifetime; many civil servants adopted the hat willingly. In 1925, Mustafa Kemal wore his "Panama hat" during a public appearance in Kastamonu, one of the most conservative towns in Anatolia, to explain that the hat was the headgear of civilized nations. The last part of reform on dress emphasized the need to wear modern Western suits with neckties as well as Fedora and Derby-style hats instead of antiquated religion-based clothing such as the veil and turban in the Law Relating to Prohibited Garments of 1934.

Even though he personally promoted modern dress for women, Mustafa Kemal never made specific reference to women's clothing in the law, as he believed that women would adapt to the new clothing styles of their own free will. He was frequently photographed on public business with his wife Lâtife Uşaklıgil, who covered her head in accordance with Islamic tradition. He was also frequently photographed on public business with women wearing modern Western clothes. But it was Atatürk's adopted daughters, Sabiha Gökçen and Afet İnan, who provided the real role model for the Turkish women of the future. He wrote: "The religious covering of women will not cause difficulty ... This simple style [of headcovering] is not in conflict with the morals and manners of our society."[84]

On 30 August 1925, Mustafa Kemal's view on religious insignia used outside places of worship was introduced in his Kastamonu speech. This speech also had another position. He said:

“ In the face of knowledge, science, and of the whole extent of radiant civilization, I cannot accept the presence in Turkey's civilized community of people primitive enough to seek material and spiritual benefits in the guidance of sheiks. The Turkish republic cannot be a country of sheiks, dervishes, and disciples. The best, the truest order is the order of civilization. To be a man it is enough to carry out the requirements of civilization. The leaders of dervish orders will understand the truth of my words, and will themselves close down their lodges [tekke] and admit that their disciplines have grown up.[65] ”
On 2 September the government issued a decree closing down all Sufi orders and the tekkes. Mustafa Kemal ordered their dervish lodges to be converted to museums, such as Mevlana Museum in Konya. The institutional expression of Sufism became illegal in Turkey; a politically neutral form of Sufism, functioning as social associations, was permitted to exist.[citation needed]

 

[jasonnfree]

Roud 10519757

When about 5% of Muslims are the "extremists" (those that follow true Islam), and about 60% at least support the ideology, then we aren't really talking about a "few" Muslims are we?

So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

Use your bean. If they supported full Sharia law, their countries would function under full Sharia law. Take Turkey, for example, it is 90% Muslim, yet it absolutely does not function under Sharia law: I know, I lived there for 2 years. The vast majority of people there do not want a country that is ruled by Sharia law. Some countries in the ME have some form of Sharia law, but only Saudi is full Sharia. However, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, only a small minority hail from the ME. Again, logically, if most of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet wanted Sharia law to dominate, then most Muslim countries would have it, but they don't.

Having knowledge by living in Turkey means nothing to students of Fox News University.

 

[Esmeralda]

Roud 10519757 So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

Use your bean. If they supported full Sharia law, their countries would function under full Sharia law. Take Turkey, for example, it is 90% Muslim, yet it absolutely does not function under Sharia law: I know, I lived there for 2 years. The vast majority of people there do not want a country that is ruled by Sharia law. Some countries in the ME have some form of Sharia law, but only Saudi is full Sharia. However, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, only a small minority hail from the ME. Again, logically, if most of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet wanted Sharia law to dominate, then most Muslim countries would have it, but they don't.

Not for long, the current Turkish government will eventually see to that. And some of them are more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

No, they are not more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood and they are not going to stay in power forever. Gloom and doom is all you people understand. You've never set foot in Turkey and you think you know all about it. I have Western and Turkish friends who live there. The situation is not at all as you are suggesting.

 

[Roudy]

Even if a Muslim fanatic living close by gets hold of your location?

You are extremely naive.

What is naive is thinking these people are not just reacting to an opportunity. Your statement proves the point. None of these guys cares enough to to get on a plane and fly to Paris to avenge their religion. They were just there and looking for any excuse. The fact it was a picture is irrelevant.

"just reacting to an opportunity"??? an opportunity to murder people? In fact ----there have been Islamic terrorists that ----WENT PLACES to carry out terrorist actions--------
.... I do not see what point you are trying to make?
Can you explain?

Yes they react to opportunities. That's how radical posers work. They defend their beliefs as long as it is not too much trouble. And if it will get them attention on the news. That is why me posting this picture for the tenth time will result in nothing:

Anderson Cooper does not care if someone on this obscure internets forum gets whacked. That is why no one who posted a whacky picture here is in any danger. They will pick the easier target. It could just as easily been someone eating a bagel with a schmear.

This is a phony attempt. Put your name and address underneath the picture, or post that picture in a magazine or in public with your name on it, and then we'll talk. A guy like Sunni can make a few phone calls if you know what I mean

Millions of people have been posting these anti islam pictures since 9-11 on these anonymous boards.

You just need to go on twitter. Post a pig Mohammad image with your details, then wait for an angry mob, assault or death.

He'd like to exhibit his amazing bravery by posting a picture on an anonymous board, with the name "Politico". Muslims all over the world are now looking for a guy named Politico. Ha ha ha.

 

[irosie91]

Roud 10519757

When about 5% of Muslims are the "extremists" (those that follow true Islam), and about 60% at least support the ideology, then we aren't really talking about a "few" Muslims are we?

So where do 75,000,000 terrorists and/or extremists getting ready to kill, live.

Are you intentionally trying to be dumb? Read it again.

I said a small percentage (around 5%) are the ones who are carrying out the violence and majority of the rest, agree with it or encourage it. For example, do majority of Muslims support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion? Fuck yeah.

Actually, no. The majority of Muslims do not support capital punishment for those who insult Islam or Mohammad, or convert to another religion.

They support Shariah law, do they not? And Shariah law says capital punishment for those that insult Mohammad.

Use your bean. If they supported full Sharia law, their countries would function under full Sharia law. Take Turkey, for example, it is 90% Muslim, yet it absolutely does not function under Sharia law: I know, I lived there for 2 years. The vast majority of people there do not want a country that is ruled by Sharia law. Some countries in the ME have some form of Sharia law, but only Saudi is full Sharia. However, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, only a small minority hail from the ME. Again, logically, if most of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet wanted Sharia law to dominate, then most Muslim countries would have it, but they don't.

you cannot be MORE deluded. There is a huge backlash
against secularism RIGHT NOW ----even in the traditionally
MOST SECULAR muslim land----TURKEY. You lived
"in turkey" -----what Turkey----Istanbul or some other major
city where you were involved with educated people?
Long ago I began to encounter LOTS OF IRANIANS---
most of them highly educated and from Teheran----
Because of them -----when the country fell to the filth
of Shariah in 1979----I thought "this won't last for more
than five years" A relative of mine was born in Turkey
(relative by marriage) I commented to him "the turks are
not so nuts as to fall for this stuff"-----he shook his head
and said "they are plenty nuts". Lands populated by
muslims were secularized by-----COLONIALISM---they are
in a GIANT BACKLASH