Let the denials start.
At the headquarters of Air Products close to the city of Lyon in southern France
Two men burst through the factory gates in a car, with one jumping out and decapitating the unnamed victim
His severed head was then said to have been covered in Arabic writing and left hanging on a nearby fence
The terrorists then detonated small ‘gas bombs’ close to the gas factory building injuring dozens of workers
30-year-old man ‘known to security services’ was arrested at the scene, telling officers he was a member of ISIS
Denials of what and by whom?
What is a purely political post doing on here? Surely the OP can talk about this somewhere outside of CC, as it is against TOS.
Xiggi is probably referring to a lot of the defense Islam receives from the left in the US, @saintfan. He might also be referring to the fact that a lot of people also believe it’s only the radicals in Islam who are extremists (not going to comment on whether or not I believe that to be true, for obvious reasons).
I also don’t think this is purely political. I think that this is a piece of news and most stories can become politically charged by whatever the person’s preconceived biases are. If someone is more likely to terrorism as as acts carried out by someone who is (most likely) mentally ill or a member of a fringe group who’s indoctrinated, it has a different connotation. If someone already believes that religion (or a specific religion) is dangerous, they are more likely to view this as evidence that religion is a huge source of the world’s problems.
Personally, I think that the no-politics rule is nice, but relatively unrealistic. There are issues related to education and college that are undeniably tied to politics. It would be nice to be able to discuss those topics without also talking about the politics, but the two are inevitably tied together.
It is fine to agree or disagree, but the learned OP is well aware of the rules of the TOS, in fact and in spirit.
To speak of terrorist and specifically highlight their religion rather than their radical leanings is another way to alienate members of this community. I didn’t hear anyone condemning Lutherans last week for their connection to an act of terrorism. What is this post supposed to do anyway? The act could have been discussed without unnecessarily calling into question the peaceful nature of Islam. Religion and politics on a broad scale are just not directly posted here. It is one thing to discuss when it is personal but the initial post is inflammatory rather than thoughtful or nuanced.
Politics and religion aren’t the same thing.
I agree that there are better outlets to discuss this kind of thing and the way the OP phrased it may have been slightly biased, but I don’t think that Islam, or at the very least the fact that the Islamist flag was flown, is irrelevant to the story.
However, much of the news coverage on the Islamic state is fear mongering when most people should be more afraid of dying in a car accident 10 minutes from their home. I think we should probably leave the coverage of the Islamic state to Donald Trump so that he can take down those “bozos” once and for all 
I disagree that the the original post was “purely political” or against TOS. If there is disagreement about the post and how it was phrased, fine, but why the attempt to silence and censor?
Why, indeed. When others were rightly outraged about other acts of violence and expressed anger, fear, frustration, whatever, a discussion ensued and there was no attempt at censorship.
I guess I felt the title and argumentative nature of the post was political, not the actual article.
I guess a better tactic would be to call out the OP for assuming that his fellow CCers were not capable of comments other than denial.
Since the tone of this went south from the beginning, maybe we could turn this into a story about the multiple attacks that have happened this morning. Early indicators show this is bigger than France at this point.
I’m not sure why anyone would call out another poster or change his thread direction. that seems very disrespectful. I’m also confident, that Xiggi and the moderators will ensure the appropriateness of this thread.
Frankly, I think extreme emotion about a beheading where a human being’s head was posted on a fence is appropriate. It seems like something out of a horror movie. Props to Xiggi for giving a place to express our horror.
It is universally horrific, hence the confusion about why we on CC would be spouting denial. I give our community more credit than that.
Are there people who deny that ISIS and their affiliated individuals are evil and perpetrate horrific crimes against humanity? Even ISIS would likely agree with that statement.
However, if “deniers” includes people who don’t believe that allowing schoolgirls to wear headscarves on the public trains will lead them down the primrose path to terrorism then you can count me in.
Does anyone know who the deceased was, and why he was selected?
Considering that my S is about to head out on a 14 month abroad program, this is NOT political. It affects the safety of our college students.
I, too, would love to hear some clarification from the OP. The title is insulting and baiting if in reference to those who say Islam is a peaceful religion, and to be quite frank, I’m not too surprised considering the source.
Say what?
I take great exception of the characterization of my original post as a political baiting exercise. The title and the contents of my posts that were very limited beyond the original link and direct quotation were not political, and absolutely within the rules of THIS forum. In addition, it is very much on par with a number of prior discussions regarding acts of terrorism in the United States or abroad. On the other hand, ad hominem remarks … never are. Nor is the questioning of the motives of a poster!
The words I used are germane to discussions about the rise of such barbarian acts. How else could be define the beheading of a French citizen and the presence of an ISIS message on the site? The criminals (if you happen to dislike the term terrorist) made sure to leave a signature card in the form of the nature of the killing and a message that leaves no doubt about the motivation.
Should we stop denounce acts of barbarism and continue to dissociate them from the movement those violent criminals are honoring through gratuitous executions?
Lastly, my comment about the denials was not meant to be confined to this community but was pointing to the public and media reactions in the US in general with reference to previous acts such as the Charlie Hebdo or the most recent Garland one.
Oh well!
[QUOTE=""]
Does anyone know who the deceased was, and why he was selected? <<< Take a look at the rest of the worldwide news: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-attack/
[/QUOTE]
50 years old man working for a US owned company. A number of additional attacks.