Top Menu

Gregoire Moutaux: Frenchman Planned Mass Terrorist Attacks

Gregoire Moutaux

(h/t:Rookie)

via. BBC

A Frenchman detained last month with a large cache of arms was planning mass attacks during the Euro 2016 football tournament, which starts on Friday, Ukrainian officials say.

The man, identified by French media as Gregoire Moutaux, 25, was arrested on the Ukrainian border with Poland.

Intelligence chief Vasyl Hrytsak said the man had planned 15 attacks and was driven by ultra-nationalist views.

He had amassed guns, detonators and 125kg of TNT, Mr Hrytsak said.

Mr Hrytsak listed bridges, motorways, a mosque and a synagogue among the suspect’s potential targets. He was being prosecuted for arms smuggling and terrorism, he said.

His home in north-east France has been searched by police, who – according to media reports – found a T-shirt bearing far-right insignia. The Ukrainians say he was motivated by hatred of immigration and globalisation.

Continue reading…

, , , , , , , , ,

  • rookie

    “2:191 and slay them wherever you find them … slaughter is better than ‘fitnah.'”

    What a stupidity?!
    Read 2:190 – 2:195.

    And Ilisha is wasting time here…

  • rookie

    “The Koran tells you that murder is better than sin.”

    What a liar!?

  • You con’t seem to get that “clear” is not the equivalent ot “basic,” “simple” or “easy.” I’ll expand on the example I already gave you.

    Let’s say there are two manuals for brain surgery. One manual is so clear, a brain surgeon can use it as a step-by-step guide to a procedure and pull it off successfully. The other manual is ambiguous, has contradictory instructions, is missing some crucial information, and so forth, so that it is unclear exactly what the surgeon is supposed to do to complete the procedure being described. The first is clear, and the second is unclear. Neither manual is likely to be clear to a layperson who lacks medical training.

    The Qur’an does not say “this book is so basic, an uneduated child can understand it,” and even if it did say something like that, it would refer to the Qur’an ITSELF, not English-language interpretations, which at best, can only approximate the original Arabic meaning. The statement about being clear has to do with the quality and consistency of the Qur’an, not it’s simplicity.

    With regard to the verse, you don’t know what “fitnah” means here. That’s the problem. You don’t know what it means in the verse you’re referencing nor what it means in the broader framework of Islam. Nor do you know the prophetic tradition, which itself offers an example of how this verse is to be interpreted.

    The only thing that seems reasonable for you to say is that if it’s possible for you to misread the verses, then it’s also possible for uneducated Muslims to read the verses, and perhaps that’s a problem. I would agree that may be. I’d like to think Muslims know better than to pick up a Qur’an, especially if they don’t speak Arabic, and draw the same conclusions you have. But if that doesn’t happen, then in that case, the person really is a “misunderstander” of Islam, a term Robert Spencer uses sarcastically.

    If that is proven to be the case, then the answer would be more education. When the Western colonial powers came to Muslim-majority lands, one of the first things they did is suppress, or in some cases destroy, Islamic institions. Direct colonial rule has ended, but it took centuries to develop those institutions and they will not be rebuilt overnight, or even within a few deacdes, especially not by people suffering the immense burden of post-colonial aftermath and continued neo-colonial depredations.

    What are the Western imperial powers doing now? More of the same. Covertly creating and arming “Islamic” terrorist groups when they support their own short-term aims. The last thing the Western imperial powers actually want is true, orthodox Islamic institutions popping up across the globe, competing in the marketplace of ideas. Some colonial officials have said as much.

    French colonial strategist Baron Carra De Vaux:

    “Colonization is a buiness that requires time and in which any abruptness could prove fatal.” To proceed carefully, Carra de Vaux proposed that “we should split the Muhammadan world, and break its moral unity, taking advantage of the political and ethnic deivisions that already exist in it….While he feared this could incite local troubles, as a whole [it] would serve to “weaken Islam, make it restless, numb it, and render it forever incapable of great awakenings.”

    Divide and rule and destroy Islam as a competitor and bulwark against their colonization. That’s what they set out to do, and for over 200 years, that’s what they did. So why should it be surprising the region is a mess? And if Islam is the problem, why was it *NOT* in this condition when the colonizers showed up? A thousand years prior, Muslim-majority countries were the world leaders, and viewed Europe as an insignificant backwater. Same Islam, different time and circumstances.

    aggressor [uh-gres-er]
    a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggressor

  • Let’s go back and recall why it is I mentioned Christian Just War doctrine in the first place:

    Yes, it *is* rational for *anyone* under certain circumstances to kill “non-innocents.” That is true in Christian just war doctrine, Islamic just war doctrine, and even secular international law, when “non-innocents” are those who attack you or your people, forcing you to defend yourselves. The right of self defense if hardly unique to Islam.

    That is true, and the point was that there is some consistency in viewpoints on killing “non-innocents” when “non-innocents” means people who are attacking you. You personally can dismiss Christian Just War, but the point stands.

    The Qur’an is clear. That doesn’t mean a layperson can understand the meaning from reading an English-language interpretation. A brain surgery manual could be perfectly clear in explaining how to perform brain surgery, but that doesn’t mean a layperson with no training can make sense of it, or use it to successfully perform brain surgery. Yes, there is “something wrong” with your education on the topic of Islam, which is that you appear not to have any. Worse than mere ignorance, it appears you’ve been misinformed.

    Where did you get your information about Islam? You have yet to answer that question.

    What is your point regarding invasions? Did I say Muslims have never invaded anyone? No, I did not. So this is a straw man. What I asked you is how the Crusades fit into your understanding of Christianity. Obviously not all Christians share your view, just as not all Muslims share the same view.

    How can it be that the behavior of Muslim terrorists reflects Islam, but aggressive attacks by Christian Crusaders do not reflect Christianity? If you want to say the Crusaders behavior was *in spite of* Christianity and not because of it, then you should be able to understand that Muslims aggression can also be *in spite of* Islam, not because of it. The doctrine does not change because of it.

    I can’t say for certain what Christianity really has to say about just war. Only what some Christians have said and done. Why? Because I’m not a scholar. Not even close. I don’t have any strong desire to indict Christianity, which should be clear from the point I made about violence not being particular to any one group.

    You’ve doubled down on this concept of “non-innocents” even though I’ve already explained to you that Islam would only allow the attack of “non-innocents” if you define “non-innocents” are ATTACKERS. It is INCORRECT to say that in Islam *ALL* non-Muslims are considered “non-innocents”. You continue to make assertions based on a faulty premise, an as such, you assertions are wrong.

    There is nothing in Islamic doctrine that says Muslims should kill non-Muslim merely for being non-Muslims. That is a LIE. Why do you keep repeating this lie?

  • You don’t have any understanding of the Qur’an, nor of that verse and what it actually means. That’s like me taking some “kill everything that moves” verse from the Bible and saying Christians kill people because of it today. That’s a very weak argument.

    True, St. Augustine is not Jesus, but there is such a thing as Christian Just War doctrine, which developed over centuries. Now if you want to insist that Christianity is pacifist and forbids all violence, okay. I’m not going ot argue with you. Maybe that’s your interpretation. To me that level of pacifism is not realistic. If you are under attack, it seems to me you ought to have the right to defend yourself. Anyway, the Christian Crusaders were not even defending their own lands. They invaded other people’s lands, so I wonder what that was all about? Why didn’t they realize their religoin is pacifist?

    I see no evidence whatsoever that Christian-majority countries are more peaceful than Muslim-majority countries. Not if you consider their development and stockpiling of evil weapons of mass destruction, nor their murder rates, nor their propensity for going to war on flimsy pretexts, over and over again. The US spends far more money than ALL nations combined on weapons, and has been at war of one kind or another since it was founded. I also haven’t seen a decline in this behavior as America becomes more secular. The countries with the top murder rates in the world are all in Latin America, not the Middle East. The big picture doesn’t indict Islam, nor for that matter Christianity or even secularism. Violence is a human thing, and no one has a monopoly. That’s what seems obvious to me.

    You are not judging Islam by the conssistenies with anything becasue you don’t have a grasp of Islamic doctrine. Not even a rudimentary one. You’re making assumptions and baseless statements that only prove your ignorance of the subject. For example, there most assuredly are not “108 verse that call for killing non-innocents” That’s a ridiculous assertion. Did you get that off of some hate site? Maybe the “Religion of Peace”? Jihad Watch? That’s like going to some Atheist site to learn about Christianity, or heading over to the Daily Stormer to formulate an opinion of Jews. If you want to learn about Islam, you need to learn from a credible source. If you don’t want to learn about Islam, you should at least refrain from speaking out of ignorance. If you are a Christian, or at least someone who admire Christian values, I would think you’d value telling the truth, and what you’re saying here is not true.

    In fact, there isn’t even ONE verse in the Quran that calls for killing innocent people. And the term “non-innocents” is not mentioned at all. It’s a bizarre concept you seem to have made up, or perhaps read on a hate site.

    You continue to insist behaviors that are FORBIDDEN in Islam are a result of people following Islam. That is illogical. It simply makes no sense.

  • Journey

    2:191 and slay them wherever you find them … slaughter is better than ‘fitnah.’ I did learn arabic when I was younger so I can read the Koran. Who is “them”? “Them” are those who engage in fitnah. Fitnah is a very vague word – it can be used for anyone.

    St Augustine is not Jesus. Christians take their doctrine from the New Testament. The church fathers’ writings are not scriptures, but just opinions. Christian teachings are not based on practical everyday life, like fighting wars. They are about changing hearts and minds of people.

    >You’re judging Islam by the behavior of TERRORISTS?

    I am judging Islam by its consistency between what its doctrines say, and how these are put into action. Muhammad was a murderer, and the Koran tells you that his behaviour is to be emulated, and that he is the perfect role model.

    Yes, there are ‘peaceful’ verses interspersed in the Koran amongst the 108 verses that call for killing non-innocents. But these peace verses are tainted by the latter. If one day I wake up and feel like loving people, I find the verse for it. If the next day I want to kill people, there’s a verse for that too.

    I’m not saying the Bangladesh attackers are ISIS – they are Muslims who are emulating Muhammad and reading the verses of the Koran that tell them to get rid of “fitnah.”

    You people owe it to those poor young people who were brutally killed to REJECT this evil religion and so-called prophet.

  • Where are you getting this stuff? Of course sin is “tied up” in language and actions, and yes, you can repent and be forgiven until the Last Day. I’m not seeing how you’re connecting this with killing people?

    No, false. A non-Muslim isn’t deemed “non-innocent.” Islam forbids killing non-combatants, period. Even during war and regardless of their religion.

    No, the Qur’an does NOT say murder is better than sin. That makes no sense, since murder *IS* a sin.

    Islam encourages Muslims to forgive their enemies as well, and to incline toward peace is the enemy offers peace. There are no commands from Muhammad to kill people to wipe out sin either! Where are you getting this stuff? You “wipe out” sin in Islam by sincerely repenting.

    Yes, Christian Just War Theory DOES include the concept of allowing for self defence. One example:

    “They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.'” ~ Augustine

    You’re judging Islam by the behavior of TERRORISTS? Really? Who says they care in the least what actual Islamic doctrine says? If this is ISIS, they’re a Saudi-backed mercenary army. Just because they do something doesn’t mean it’s a legitimate part of Islamic doctrine. Islam, for example, FORBIDS the killing of non-combatants and also prohibits vigilante killings. So, NO, the murders in Bangladesh do NO comport with Islamic teachings.

    It simply isn’t true that non-Muslims = non-innocents in Islam. I’ve never even heard the term “non-innocents” before. What a strange concept!

  • Not exactly. Yes, Islam teaches that all people are born innocent with an innate sense of right and wrong, and that no one should be held accountable for the sins of others. This Islam rejects the concept of Original Sin. You got that part right.

    Islam *ALSO* acknowledges that ALL human beings sin. What does an of this have to do with just war?

  • Journey

    Where do you draw the line? How do you define an “attack” and who is innocent? Are you? The doctrines differ greatly with this line: Islam believes people are born innocent and then become “non innocent”. Christianity, OTOH, believes no-one is innocent. We are ALL sinners. Think about that for.

  • Yes, it *is* rational for *anyone* under certain circumstances to kill “non-innocents.” That is true in Christian just war doctrine, Islamic just war doctrine, and even secular international law, when “non-innocents” are those who attack you or your people, forcing you to defend yourselves. The right of self defense if hardly unique to Islam.

  • JD

    How it works

  • George Carty

    Also, so much for the Kremlin propaganda about Ukrainians being neo-Nazis…

  • mindy1

    Glad they caught this one, seems like a European timothy mcveigh

Powered by Loon Watchers