Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

Destination · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:08

dowie said:
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,

Their issue is, the book is quite clear on what should happen to the rest of us, and what should happen to those who mock, or leave the faith.
Hard to preach a religion where it states one thing, and you preach another.

Christianity took a long time to separate itself and get to the core message of love god, and love others. Westbro and certain smaller factions, some very close to home, didn't quite make it that far as yet.

They are not overly radical if they are spouting the 'mainstream' view, and most of them persists in this.

Noughtboy · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:08

gjrc said:
everyone is 'surprised' you have more information than anyone else including the global media agencies???

I apologise. My source(s) told me 17 hostages. It was 19! (although I have seen reports of a total of 42).

15 hostages upstairs add the 4 dead was 19.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nt-works-and-jewish-grocer-ended-9968962.html

Even then, it was more than the official 6.

Amnesia · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:09

RDM said:
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.

So we don't have freedom of speech because there are consequences. So the freedom of speech what people keep going on about doesn't even exist.
yes i agree that the consequences should not be death but when death threats are given over a particular subject is it wise to go ahead and put other lives and your own at risk ?
hebdo thought so and paid the price but had far more been killed i think peoples views would have changed.

ThestigGT999 · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:10

Hezbollah leader on Charlie Hebdo: ‘Extremists more offensive to Islam than cartoons

Tefal · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:10

Amnesia said:
So we don't have freedom of speech because there are consequences. So the freedom of speech what people keep going on about doesn't even exist.
yes i agree that the consequences should not be death but when death threats are given over a particular subject is it wise to go ahead and put other lives and your own at risk ?
hebdo thought so and paid the price but had far more been killed i think peoples views would have changed.

i think he question is why is it a risk?

surely the death threats are what should be acted upon by society and stopped from becoming a reality.

thats why we pay for the police.

Amp34 · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:11

scorza said:
2 and 3 just aren't true, well perhaps 2 is if you take it literally - they weren't expected to complain about the Breivik killings, but they did anyway. It's interesting how many jihadi apologists seek to portray Breivik as a Christian, and while it's true he claimed to be, he also admitted that he wasn't particularly religious, didn't go to church, wasn't radicalised by another Christian. So I think it's slightly disingenuous to trying and portray him as Christian terrorist.

Are you suggesting people in this thead are trying justify the actions of these killers?

Amp34 · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:13

Tefal said:
and what wrong did the police man they executed do their religion?

their "civility" is probbaly more a case of ammo conservation than decency.

I take it you read the post where I explained the reason I chose the word "civil"? It would explain it.

Amnesia · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:15

Amp34 said:
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 actions of the terrorists are unjustifiable.....what i was getting at is had more been killed, say people who were not linked to that office then maybe people would ask...was it worth antagonizing the nutters

RDM · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:15

Amnesia said:
So we don't have freedom of speech because there are consequences. So the freedom of speech what people keep going on about doesn't even exist.
yes i agree that the consequences should not be death but when death threats are given over a particular subject is it wise to go ahead and put other lives and your own at risk ?
hebdo thought so and paid the price but had far more been killed i think peoples views would have changed.

Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. I would agree that our nation's laws around free speech aren't perfect, but would probably like to see them go the opposite way to you.

Are you saying that we should restrict the rights of people to criticise religion because of the actions of terrorists?

Do you think it should be illegal to criticise or make fun of religion?

robgmun · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:17

dowie said:
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:

Don't expect and answer from our forums own little Jihadi apologist on this.

Tefal · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:19

Amp34 said:
I take it you read the post where I explained the reason I chose the word "civil"? It would explain it.

but where did the policeman affect their religion, he was down un armed an not a threat it was a cold blooded execution of an unrelated person nothing more.

and fine if you want to use the word civil but the selection of the targets was more likley down to limited ammunition and making sure they had enough to kill thier "primary" targets and hopefully escape than any honor etc.

has anything turned up about where they got the weapons though?

Amnesia · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:22

RDM said:
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. I would agree that our nation's laws around free speech aren't perfect, but would probably like to see them go the opposite way to you.

Are you saying that we should restrict the rights of people to criticise religion because of the actions of terrorists?

Do you think it should be illegal to criticise or make fun of religion?

No it does not say that in my post.

Amp34 · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:22

AlecR said:
Who do people think the solutions are to this terror threat? More war?

No. Otherwise the solution is way above my pay grade..

However More engagement, tolerance (for moderates) and education would be my suggestion. Cut off any last vestiges between the extremists and the general population. We need to support the Muslims and allow them to force the extremists out of their midst, rather than go in ourselves and play in to the extremists hands, less "look at the western soldiers trying to invade and change your culture", more "our prophet would not allow this to happen".

I'd also argue we need to get tougher on both our and other countries foreign policies, especially countries such as Saudi arabia, who fund and arm many of these people. They may not do it directly but by proxy, helping to keep parts of the Middle East destabilise and allowing more extremism to grow in the gaps. Just because the organisation you give arms to today is your "friend" does not mean it will stay that way, even if it does they could lose their weapons, just look at ISIS wandering around with half of Iraqs arsenal.

Xordium · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:22

Zoomee's gone quiet all of a sudden ...

Tefal · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:24

Xordium said:
Zoomee's gone quiet all of a sudden ...

i expect over the next week at least a few bumps to the Palestine/isreal thread.

dowie · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:25

Hikari Kisugi said:
Their issue is, the book is quite clear on what should happen to the rest of us, and what should happen to those who mock, or leave the faith.
Hard to preach a religion where it states one thing, and you preach another.

Christianity took a long time to separate itself and get to the core message of love god, and love others. Westbro and certain smaller factions, some very close to home, didn't quite make it that far as yet.

They are not overly radical if they are spouting the 'mainstream' view, and most of them persists in this.

ak22, to be fair to him, posted a youtube video where one Islamic Scholar at least disagreed...

and to be fair the Quran is a bit more ambiguous on the matter - it is some hadiths that call for death for insulting the prophet... so although it isn't even necessarily an extremist point of view to state that plenty of scholars believe that in an Islamic state the Islamic punishment for insulting the prophet should be death or to point out that plenty of muslims in general - even if they don't want people to be killed for it - do support some punishment for insulting the prophet... there is at least some hope that that viewpoint can change, as it isn't something set in stone in the Quran

punishment for apostacy itself is unfortunately a bit less ambiguous - so there is going to inevitably still be a conflict between Islam and freedom of religion... but some progress could at least be made on the freedom of speech angle if there was willingness from muslim leaders

unfortunately it isn't going to change overnight - just look at the backlash directed at another very progressive, anti-extremist campaigner and muslim - Maajid Nawaz when he said this about a fairly innocent Jesus and Mo cartoons:

"This is not offensive & I'm sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it."

he face a huge backlash, death threats, George Galloway calling on British muslims not to vote liberal democrat in response, a fellow liberal democrat MP and Huffington Post editor Mohammed Shafiq actually making rather veiled threats about people in Pakistan being informed about the comments... it provoked a huge **** storm... just a muslim politician trying to say something progressive

that is the real challenge for muslim leaders, not the easy condemnation of terrorist attacks but the change in backwards attitudes even amongst plenty of moderate muslims towards freedom of speech

RDM · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:27

Amnesia said:
No it does not say that in my post.

No but it is the inevitable consequence of the view you are currently suggesting. So I am wondering what your views on freedom of expression are especially when they conflict with your faith.

If atheists started killing any out spoken adherents of religion would the correct response be telling people not to be outwardly religious?

robgmun · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:34

Tefal said:
i expect over the next week at least a few bumps to the Palestine/isreal thread.

Even through i don't think he should be banned, reading his posts always leaves a taste of **** in my mouth. I don't want to put him on ignore either as that would be giving in, views like his needs to be challenged and shown for how awful they are

Amp34 · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:35

dowie said:
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

Do you actually have any evidence at all for this statement?

Tefal · 10 Jan 2015 at 13:37

robgmun said:
Even through i don't think he should be banned, reading his posts always leaves a taste of **** in my mouth. I don't want to put him on ignore either as that would be giving in, views like his needs to be challenged and shown for how awful they are

it's always quite funny though watch the timing of them, islamic extremists carry out an atrocity or two, the Palestine thread gets bumped saying how evil the jews are.