Well, they did a good job of silencing the magazine and stopping the drawing of the prophet - well done lads, great job.

Incidentally, it saddened me to see that on the news this morning, they wouldn't show the full front page of Charlie Hebdo, only the title with the cartoon folded back behind.

Just to draw another parallel, think back to the concept of Manifest Destinty during the colonisation of the American West in the 1800s. Part of the idea was that God sanctioned the colonists to claim the lands.

At the time, no doubt many considered it a noble enterprise, but I'm not sure the indigenous peoples saw it that way.

Is this really any different to the forced imposition of any ideology be it religious or otherwise?

It also demonstrates that Islam is not unique in being misused for violent conquest.

Indeed. I think that was part of what I was saying here...

i.e. general hypocricy all round, including selective amnesia of history.

How can you compare what happened a couple of hundreds years ago with extreme islam now . I dont see any parrallels .

I think what they're saying, is that the extremists are a couple of hundred years behind us when it comes to mental evolution.

I think part of the point is the complete absence of humanity with which the pioneers (and indeed virtually all colonists since the dawn of mankind) treated the indigenous people, due to their unquestioning and unshakeable belief in their own superiority.
Whether it is the imposition of a religion, the theft of land or the enslavement of people, these are all unacceptable to modern, so-called Western thought.

I understand that but how can the people who claimed land in their god be compared with todays extremists who dont want free speech but want sharia law , no equal rights for women ,martyrdom and very wiilingly die for their cause .

America, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong .... Plenty more to add to the list....

But much of it was conquest, it is different to turning up on a modern business, bus, plane etc and then killing people on it, in it, with it.

Instead of dropping bombs from an aeroplane?

I guess it is not exactly the same. I'm not really sure what the question within this thread is really.

Perhaps we should frame some questions for further debate rather than just talking around the subject?

If we are just talking about Islam and extremism, then my point would be that extremists can come from any religion or ideology. Look at Timothy McVeigh - Oklahoma bomber. He was white, fought for the US army, born Catholic but moved away from it. He was associated with a fundamentalist Christian movement though.

Best not mention the IRA / UVF etc.

Here's a generic difference: a state can make a formal declaration of war, with defined and agreed-by-treaty rules (e.g. a requirement to avoid harming non-combatants if at all possible, a requirement to treat prisoners properly, proper recognition of neutrals, or not to use certain proscribed weapons). If during that war, people from *either* side can be tried for their actions (as is still happening in the UK from Afghanistan.)

A terrorist works differently; he views *everyone* who is not on his side as against him, as a legitimate target. He makes no distinction between soldiers and civilians as his target, and his enemy appears to be 'everyone'.

Ethically, I would argue that these are not the same thing.

If during that war, there are offenses against those rules