Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

and how many would have to die before you thought different ?

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here. Are you trying to say that if more people had died I may have put some of the responsibility on Charlie Hebdo? If so, then no, I wouldnt. Charlie Hebdo were doing absolutely nothing wrong so why would I blame them for the actions of the killers? Victim blaming really isn't a sensible approach.

Do you think Charlie Hebdo hold some responsibility for the deaths?
 
Did you notice on the video that one Policeman went inside the shop with his shield by himself whilst rest were waiting outside he went beast mode.
 
So zoomee why have you never posted about them before?

What so you can accuse me of posting more pro-islamic stuff? - never win with you blinded bigoted folk. I'm sure you'd find some link to muslim brotherhood, then Hamas, then try to belittle my 'anti-jew' posts - oh wait......
 
Last edited:
Just watched the unedited version of the supermarket siege. Surprised how close he got to the police. Geez, what were they using on him, paintballs?
Quite often too in hostage rescue scenarios troops will be using 9mm calibre weapons, it may take a few more rounds from such a low velocity round to put someone down. You dont want to be using high velocity rifle calibres like 5.56mm or higher due to the risk of rounds penetrating the walls of buildings and harming other bystanders.
 
What so you can accuse me of posting more pro-islamic stuff? - never win with you blinded bigoted folk.

posting about some imprisoned journalists who you strongly disagree with being imprisoned is pro Muslim?

love the bigot reference though given your well lets call it "impairment" in that field.
 
I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here. Are you trying to say that if more people had died I may have put some of the responsibility on Charlie Hebdo? If so, then no, I wouldnt. Charlie Hebdo were doing absolutely nothing wrong so why would I blame them for the actions of the killers? Victim blaming really isn't a sensible approach.

Do you think Charlie Hebdo hold some responsibility for the deaths?

i was simply asking how many people would need to die before you thought it probably wasn't worth it.

just say some of your own family members got killed, would you still say it's worth it to insult muslims ?
 
So, instead of shutting down the blasphemers (i.e. Charlie Hebdo), the terrorists have saved the publication from bankruptcy and increased thier circulation from 60,000 per week to 1 million.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0..._1_million_charlie_hebdo_print_run_next_week/

#JeSuisCharlie

i was simply asking how many people would need to die before you thought it probably wasn't worth it.

just say some of your own family members got killed, would you still say it's worth it to insult muslims ?

As much as I anticipate it would be difficult, I would hope my rational mind would still apportion blame to the terrorists and not Charlie Hebdo.

If somone offends you, you respond with a rebuttal and stiff discourse, not by pointing a gun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Putting aside the usual attempts at deflection. You still didn't answer my original query.

Why is it ok for Charlie Hebdo cartoonists/writers to draw cartoons/write articles and belittle the christians and islamic faiths but not the jewish one?
 
The Charlie Hedbo organisation is quite hypocritical with its claim to 'freedom of speech' - Why did it fire Maurice Sinet in 2009? He was also hit with a number of different lawsuits.

Its ok for them to 'criticise' muslims and christians but if anything jewish is remotely mentioned its a crime by the looks of it. Double standards as usual eh.

nope the magazine has had plenty of Christian and Jewish related cartoons too

the mainstream media in the UK has published some Charlie Hebdo cartoons, the notable thing is the absence in the UK media of the Islamic cartoons

you're just trying to deflect attention while still being in denial that there is a problem within Islam that ought to be addressed by muslims leaders, that particular cartoonist did more than just criticise judaism, he was openly anti-semetic towards jews:

"'Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it... I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die.'"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i was simply asking how many people would need to die before you thought it probably wasn't worth it.

just say some of your own family members got killed, would you still say it's worth it to insult muslims ?

I would struggle to put a number on it. How many deaths do you think freedom of expression is worth? Zero deaths so let's have strict blasphemy laws restricting freedom of speech?
 
Putting aside the usual attempts at deflection. You still didn't answer my original query.

Why is it ok for Charlie Hebdo cartoonists/writers to draw cartoons/write articles and belittle the christians and islamic faiths but not the jewish one?

As I explained earlier, they have done cartoons to belittle the Jewish faith, a simple Google image search of "Charlie Hebdo Jews" will show that.
 
As much as I anticipate it would be difficult, I would hope my rational mind would still apportion blame to the terrorists and not Charlie Hebdo.

Not blame, more of a was it worth it to have digs at them knowing how sensitive some are and given their history of death threats over such things.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ohamed-as-bbc-changes-guidelines-9968473.html

BBC has made the right response I think. Basically in response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the BBC is removing its ban on depictions of the prophet Mohammed.

Personally I dont think that's necessarily the right way to go. The presenter of the last leg said it well last night. "I'm not going to show the cartoons of Mohammed, not because I fear reprisal, but because it's offensibe to million of people."

While a blanket ban also makes no sense there needs to be a some sensitivity here, much like in news articles when dead bodies are show. Respect for others (non violent) sensitivities should be high up people's list whether it is muslims and Mohammed or jokes about recently deceased people.

Your typical average Muslim, then? I know quite a few too. Do they represent the majority in the world? Then I hope you're right.



Not ALL :rolleyes: And it's not a minority either, that's precisely the point.



Check out the polls on the subject. But I guess they don't count, or are not representative, or whatever. Check out the poll, in Pakistan, or in Malaysia, one of the more progressive Muslim country.

Here's one for your convenience. Think what you will, but there is quite some way to go.



That's not what I'm getting at. When push comes to shove, there is a reluctance to pick anything at all. It is not the same attitude.

Most muslims I've met around the world really just want to carry on their every day lives. They don't care what others believe. The idea that there is this worldwide uprising of the majority of Muslims against the west to force their religion on the west is as ridiculous a conspiracy as the no moon landings jokers. A very, very small vocal minority want that certainly, they are the ones that "shout" loudest and they are the ones the west appear to be listening to. They do not represent the average muslim in the same way the EDL and BNP do not represent the average Brit.

As for that link I'm not sure it proves what you think it proves... For starters

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: while most favour using religions law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishment - such as whipping or cutting of hands - in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are acceptable.

Remember that sharia law is not a single peice of legislation throughout the muslm world. It's not, it's a catch all phrase to cover Islamic based laws that vary significantly from country to country. The sharia law most people in the west seem to bring up is the hardline sharia law of Saudi arabia, which is totally different to sharia law in other countries. Saudi is one of the most hardline countries out there (see the stoning article yesterday), yet even there most sharia law doesn't apply to non Muslims.

So while many Muslims support the idea of sharia law they most don't believe it should apply to non Muslims (and most countries make that distinction clearly) and a significant proportion don't believe it should include serve punishment. Then there is obviously the variation on what people believe sharia law should be. What does that all sound like? The variation in law inchristian based countries.

Now on to european Muslims.
20% of Kosovan Muslims want some form of sharia law, 15% of Bosnian Muslims and 12% of Albanian Muslims. That's not particularly high, especially in those countries where islam is very devout relative to the rest of Europe. Then there is Turkey, with another 12% figure. So already the idea that most european Muslims want some form of sharia law is put to bed, it's only a small minority.

Another interesting note that even in the most devout locations on the globe less than half of supporters of sharia believe it should apply to non Muslims. In South East Europe just under two thirds of people that support sharia believe it SHOULD NOT apply to non Muslims.

There is also a handy chart that suggests out of the few in favour of sharia law in Europe only a third believe corporal punishment should apply and only 13% believe in capital punishment for leaving islam.

There are also some nice titbits on women's rights and a poll that shows around 90+% of Muslims worldwide believe in religious freedom and the right of people to practice any religion they please.

Another chart shows that extremism is rejected wholeheartedly by almost every country,with the only country supporting suicide bombing being Palestine, whereas in SE Europe the numbers against suicide bombing are close to 100%.

So essentially that report you linked to shows that in Europe support for sharia law is very low amongst Muslims, even in countries with a long history and significant proportion of Muslims AND that worldwide there is no single definition of Sharia Law, with significant variation seen throughout the regions.

So as a non muslim living in Europe I don't think you have to worry about sharia law affecting you any time soon... Now go have a holiday to Egypt (one of the strongest supporters of sharia) and buy yourself a local beer, because as a non muslim you can do that...

I'm posting this from my phone so haven't been able to directly post the poll images to back up my numbers. They are easy enough to find if you scroll down the link. Thanks for the link BTW, it's a really nice piece showing how tolerant most Muslims are and backs up the point that extremist Muslims are a very small minority.
 
Last edited:
Putting aside the usual attempts at deflection. You still didn't answer my original query.

Why is it ok for Charlie Hebdo cartoonists/writers to draw cartoons/write articles and belittle the christians and islamic faiths but not the jewish one?
Google image search "Charlie Hebdo Jews" and you will see plenty of their anti Jewish comics too. So where is the hypocrisy?
 
I would struggle to put a number on it. How many deaths do you think freedom of expression is worth? Zero deaths so let's have strict blasphemy laws restricting freedom of speech?

freedom of speech .....can you really say what you like without consequences ?
 
Putting aside the usual attempts at deflection. You still didn't answer my original query.

Why is it ok for Charlie Hebdo cartoonists/writers to draw cartoons/write articles and belittle the christians and islamic faiths but not the jewish one?

you're just making stuff up to suit your own agenda - the magazine is anti-religious in general - some jewish cartoons that apparently don't exist:

SnQwOfq.png
 
freedom of speech .....can you really say what you like without consequences ?

No, but the consequences of criticising religion shouldn't be death. The correct response to not liking a satirical comic that you find offensive is to not read it or buy it.
 
freedom of speech .....can you really say what you like without consequences ?

nope

but being killed or even simply punished for mocking a belief is unacceptable and muslim leaders need to do more to change that attitude even among mainstream muslims - condemning a terrorist attack is easy, distancing themselves from it is easy, challenging the attitudes towards criticism of the religion/prophet, being more tolerant of people having a different view, disliking or even mocking your own view - that is what needs to change

there is still a clear conflict with freedom of speech there and so long as even the moderate majority in the west have significant portions believing that this sort of thing is an outrage or worthy of punishment then you're still just increasing the chance of people taking the law into their own hands
 
Now just imagine they didn't allow people unrelated to the incident go,
would people be blaming the cartoonist for provoking...or have less sympathy towards him?

Not sure what you mean there?

The cartoonists by all accounts were provoking extremists by drawing more and more risqué cartoons but that doesn't justify the actions of the killers.

The interesting point I was making there is that the killers were acting very differently to most Islamic extremists that just go in and kill as many as possible. No one is going "oh, they were nice people for only killing the cartoonists", although to me it does seem to imply they had some kind of crusade mindset where they only wanted to kill those that had "wronged" them.
 
Back
Top Bottom