Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

arc@css said:
I have no problem with people that strongly believe in something, religion or otherwise. However, please don't try and force your opinions on others. Instead save yourself the bother of planning an assault; stay at home and and blow your head off in the name of god at your own convenience.
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate. Could the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo not be considered forcing opinions on others? Western society in general could be seen as highly provocative to devout believers of all faiths.

The real point is there is no such thing as "multi culturalism", or equal rights. Although all people share a great deal in common, there are differences, some of them more contentious than others. In any society there will normally be a dominant culture, who should try their best to accommodate others, but if common ground can't be found, the majority voice must prevail, and they shouldn't feel guilty about it.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
Good god you really are stupid aren't you...?

I'll highlight the important star...

*for the hard of sight note the "", meaning I'm not actually calling them civil at all...[/SIZE]

Can you see it now? ;)
Click to expand...

You said you respected the Taliban cowards who murdered 130 kids as they were standing up for what they believed in and now you're praising these cowards in Paris for only shooting who they felt like shooting? You are only kidding yourself.
 
Amp34 said:
Guess you also missed the * then?

But then again selective reading and hearing seems to be a trait a lot in this thread have so... :)
Click to expand...

It's not missed, and no, you are not getting away with it with a couple of 'snide' quotation marks. FYI, That's the proper usage of quotation marks. Meaning, as in a sarcastic context, denoting the opposite effect. If you had any sense, you would not care on how politely they murder their way around an office. But you felt the need to point it out, didn't you.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
Playing devils advocate. Could the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo not be considered forcing opinions on others? Western society in general could be seen as highly provocative to devout believers of all faiths.

The real point is there is no such thing as "multi culturalism". Although all people share a great deal in common, there are differences, some of them more contentious than others. In any society there will normally be a dominant culture, who should try their best to accommodate others, but if common ground can't be found, the majority voice must prevail, and they shouldn't feel guilty about it.
Click to expand...

Millions of years of evolution says that humans of different colour/religion/political leaning etc. do not mix well.

I'd like to say it was a nice try but it wasn't.
 
helpimcrap said:
In my eyes the only people who can truly stand up to this and bring good their religion are other Muslims. Were they killed in the name of Islam for making satire of Mohammed or something?

I haven't read up on it because it angers me too much.

It should be the Muslim community who stand up and make public rallies asking for justice for those who stain the name of Islam. They need to make a stand as Islam is not a violent religion but as soon as a Muslim is seen they are looked down upon and feared. That is not how they should want to feel.
Click to expand...


I partly agree with this - but the violence is easy to condemn and it achieves relatively little... the root cause is the idea that other people can't criticize the prophet/that people deserve punishment for doing so.

Saudi criticized the attacks - easy to do, yet they execute people for the same thing.

I notice Zuckerberg made a post on facebook this morning about having received a death threat related to the mohammed video. Some of the comments illustrate the problem we have with Islam and freedom of speech - people openly stating that they support freedom of speech but then contradicting themselves by claiming that it doesn't mean freedom to insult, offend etc...

this guy has the right idea:

PjLshpx.png


the problem is, unless there is a shift in attitude in general, and I don't just mean amongst extremists but simply ordinary people having to accept that other people have the right to air a different view, to mock, to criticise a belief and that this shouldn't be seen as a threat or require a punishment... as long as you've got that sort of view shared across a large portion then it is just a matter of time for a few more at the extreme end to take matters into their own hands. It isn't just the violence that needs to be addressed by muslims leaders, it is a fundamental shift in attitudes.
 
Keep going guys - keep playing into the hands of the terrorists and give them what they want.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...harlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html

Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting.
Click to expand...

As for zuckerburg - tell him where to stick his views - we all know his stance on facebook about muslims:
Get your racism here!: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ic-web-postings/ar-BBhtgoi?ocid=mailsignoutmd

Funny how he defends his right to take down anything anti-israeli doesn't it? Wheres his call for free speech then? pffft
 
Last edited:
chief barker said:
Millions of years of evolution says that humans of different colour/religion/political leaning etc. do not mix well.

I'd like to say it was a nice try but it wasn't.
Click to expand...

There's no reason why cultures can't co exists, providing democratic will is adhered to by all.
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
Look up Malmo.

It's only Sweden that is letting them do what they want. Even let them rape.

But they have a stupidly insane bat nuts lefty Government in right now and would probably join in on the antics.

They truly are nutters.

I feel sorry for most people there, including Muslims.

That's the trouble with pacifist nations when it comes to elections.
Click to expand...

LOL!

I'm sorry but you are frothing at the mouth on this. I live just outside Malmo, and while yes there are a few muslim no gooders around in some of the rougher parts it is nowhere near as bad as you claim it to be. In fact I woulc say that the swedes are so unused to a little trouble that they complain about everything so much, in reality the muslim problem is a lot worse in Manchester, Stoke and other UK holes, which I have lived in.

EDIT Just to say though I am firmly agaisnt muslamic scumbags and I don't think there is such a thing as tolerant islam.
 
Last edited:
zoomee said:
Keep going guys - keep playing into the hands of the terrorists and give them what they want.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...harlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of the war the jihadist are trying to provoke?

Ultimately people just want the threats and violence to stop. It's hard to see how that's a possibility without something fundamentally changing. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to just except this is normal part of life, and hope the terrorist one day get board and stop.
 
Last edited:
tbyeah said:
"Civil" is entirely the wrong word. "Surgical" would be more apt even if you are being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Surgical also works, but "civil" is a reasonable word to use. Why? Because of the way they carried out their attack.

I think they believed they were civil, upstanding members of society, they attacked only those they saw as the enemy. They didn't go in to kill as many as possible, they went in and killed people they thought had wronged them. The fact they called people not of the Charlie magazine "civilians" would indicate they thought they were soldiers fighting their war, and wanted to complete their "mission", killing only those they saw as the enemy, while still feeling like they were good people by not killing those they saw as not involved.

Note again i'm not saying they were civil, rather they thought they were civil, upstanding people. Personally I think they are totally deluded murderers, however I'm trying to understand why they did what they did and why they attacked in a completely different way to most islamic extremists (which is generally along the lines of kill as many infidels as possible).

Unfortunately several people on here appear to want to shut any debate down before it is started and insist any questions or opposition to their anti muslim stance is a "glorifying" terrorism and islam.

Above&Beyond said:
You said you respected the Taliban cowards who murdered 130 kids as they were standing up for what they believed in and now you're praising these cowards in Paris for only shooting who they felt like shooting? You are only kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. Please read all the posts telling you this multiple times.

Also please tell me where I am praising these terrorists?

olivier renault said:
It's not missed, and no, you are not getting away with it with a couple of 'snide' quotation marks. FYI, That's the proper usage of quotation marks. Meaning, as in a sarcastic context, denoting the opposite effect. If you had any sense, you would not care on how politely they murder their way around an office. But you felt the need to point it out, didn't you.
Click to expand...

So because I used the "" rather than the '' and the * and explanation that the word I used wasn't actually what I meant I'm obviously glorifying their actions?:confused:

I pointed it out yes, like several people previous to my post. It's a very different tactic in Islamic terrorism (and terrorism in general) and quite rightly should be pointed out. It doesn't mean anyones glorifying anything. Shutting down discussion on topics such as this is part of the reason so many in this thread are so vehemently anti muslim, they can't be challenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom