Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

ThestigGT999 said:
Hezbollah leader on Charlie Hebdo: ‘Extremists more offensive to Islam than cartoons
Click to expand...

in context Hezbollah is currently fighting ISIS in Syria, they're bound to condemn a Sunni Muslim terror attack

on the other hand they're also quite happy to kill for exactly the same reasons (as are their Iranian Shia sponsors)

quote from that same Hezbollah leader re: Rushdie

"If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwā against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so. I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that."
Click to expand...

it is even more hypocritical than the Saudi's condmening the attacks while also executing blasphemers
 
Amnesia said:
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
Click to expand...

Its a bit of a philosophical question and I hate philosophy so I'll leave that to others to answer!:)
 
Tefal said:
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?
Click to expand...

As he was a policeman I'd assume they saw him as a threat, especially as at least one of them was there purposely to protect the head cartoonist.

Many of the people the let go/told to leave were encountered after they had massacred the cartoonist staff.

On the other hand you could be right about ammo, but then that never seemed to have stopped extremists in the past. I't doesn't quite gel with their comments of "we don't kill civillians" either which suggests to me a very "military" (and as someone else said) "surgical" strike. You'd have thought that their getaway plan would have been a bit tougher though.
 
Last edited:
247A769F00000578-2900259-image-a-62_1420637332528.jpg


threat?


On the other hand you could be right about ammo, but then that never seemed to have stopped extremists in the past.
Click to expand...

harder to get large amounts of ammo in France compared to the middle east/America i imagine.
 
Amp34 said:
Do you actually have any evidence at all for this statement?
Click to expand...

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291

78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted and 62% of people disagree that freedom of speech should be allowed even if it insults and offends religious groups.
Click to expand...

that is what needs to be changed by muslim leaders


not silly calls for laws to protect their religion from criticism/insults:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...emy-law-uk-un-mohammed-youtube_n_1912004.html

Around 80 senior Muslim leaders in Bradford held an emergency meeting on Monday night, called by the Council For Mosques, to discuss the film, which is reported to have been made by Egyptian Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

Chief executive Mohammed Saleem Khan told The Huffington Post UK: “We do feel we need to hold a demonstration on Friday, to show how we are feeling about this, how we are hurt.

"We have set up to write to the Government, to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Minister of Communities and call for a law to protect religious rights.

“We will also be writing to Bishops to the Sikh, Hindu and Jewish faiths asking them to call for this protection from blasphemy. We work closely together on many issues and we need their support on this. We need protection for our faiths in law.”
Click to expand...

that is the fundamental problem - the inability to accept freedom of speech and the idea that people should be punished for insulting a religion/prophet...
 
Last edited:
I do not think that this was terrorism, it was a criminal act shooting civilians and taking hostages.

The cause was misguided (radicalised) men believing their religion to have been insulted grievously taking revenge using deadly weapons. Undoubtably criminal.

I do think that there is justification in religious people feeling 'got at' by these cartoon images and to say that they should get over it, get a sense of humour or just ignore it is wrong. There is a need for satire in life and politics, life would be grey without it. To satirise entire beliefs due to the actions of a minority of its adherents is also wrong.

I am not a religious person and cannot envisage a supernatural (above nature) being. There are many who do not share this view, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists to name a few. I respect everyone's right to have a belief but not to impose this on others if they do not wish it or need it.

We need to have respect without creating laws or covenants which positively or negatively restrict peoples ability to comment, complain or criticize others. No additional laws are required here and one or two recent protections should be repealed in my view. Every person, group, ethnicity, sect, race etc. should have identical protection under UK law

So the criminal act, it was murder and kidnapping, both illegal and if caught, the perpetrators can be tried and found guilty, or as happened here, shot trying to evade capture. No legislation required.

Tweeting, retweeting possibly insulting pictures to show solidarity with abhorrence to these crimes is not a solution, the calm demonstrations of grief in France was far more poignant and effective. In this internet age we need to reign back on the insults a bit and have more consideration for each others point of view however much we may disagree.
 
RDM said:
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?
Click to expand...

again that isn't what my post was saying.


Amnesia said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nkata said:
I do think that there is justification in religious people feeling 'got at' by these cartoon images and to say that they should get over it, get a sense of humour or just ignore it is wrong. There is a need for satire in life and politics, life would be grey without it. To satirise entire beliefs due to the actions of a minority of its adherents is also wrong.
Click to expand...

bit of a false premise - they're anti-religious in general, that stance isn't based upon the actions of any particular minority - they're free to take that viewpoint and to produce satire in line with their views - it is a fairly legitimate form of expression and they criticise/mock a wide range of political and religious beliefs. I don't see why they should make some exceptions because one group in particular chooses to become super offended when mocked/criticised

why draw a distinction between political and religious beliefs - they're just beliefs/ideologies at the end of the day (aside from religious beliefs containing an added diety or several and maybe some promise about what will happen after you die)
 
Amnesia said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
If we stopped drawing cartoons they'd just move onto the next thing that offends them, like eating pork for example.

Where do you draw the line?
 
Was it just coincidence they ended up in a print factory or did they pick it because they thought it printed Charlie Hebdo?

Just a thought, I guess it didn't print it as I doubt they would have let the owner out alive.
 
The trouble with hardline muslims is that because it is by and large a repressive religion our ideals of being free in western countries is not ideal to them hence they bitterly despise and resist it.
 
Mr Jack said:
Sorry if this has already been posted and I missed it, but I thought this collection of cartoons from Arabic newspapers in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo was well worth a look: http://imgur.com/a/zd5rl/
Click to expand...

that is positive/reassuring

but while it is positive that they will criticise the terror attacks - had Charlie Hebdo cartoonists published their magazine in an Arab country* they'd at best have been arrested and imprisoned and at worst they'd be executed


*only exception is Libya which AFAIK doesn't have blasphemy laws, but given the regime change and the fact it is currently ruled by people with Islamist sympathies I wouldn't fancy your chances there either
 
Skunkworks said:
If we stopped drawing cartoons they'd just move onto the next thing that offends them, like eating pork for example.

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

I don't think they would over eating pork but i do get your point.
but personally it's not something i would do if it were to put other lives at risk.
 
dowie said:
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:
Click to expand...

That is the problem though, it's no more an "Islam" issue than anti homophobia and adultery is a "Christian" issue. Some devout followers of the book of both religions follow it to the letter but that doesn't mean all, or even the majority do. Most Muslims, just like most Christians, are intelligent and free willed enough to realise that some things need to be ignored. I will grant you that more Muslims appear to be for death for apostasy than Christian believing death for adultery (for example) but outside of a few areas it doesn't actually have widespread support, especially in Europe, where it will only be supported by a small minority of Muslims.

To say it is a problem between Islam and free speech is wholeheartedly running roughshod over the reality. Yes to the devout followers of the Koran it may be, but much like every other religion most Muslims pick and choose. Rather than being a problem with Islam we need to realise it is actually a problem confined to some Muslims, generally in less developed countries. The same issues can be seen in other religions, Ugandan anti gay laws being a prime example.
 
Amp34 said:
That is the problem though, it's no more an "Islam" issue than anti homophobia and adultery is a "Christian" issue. Some devout followers of the book of both religions follow it to the letter but that doesn't mean all, or even the majority do. Most Muslims, just like most Christians, are intelligent and free willed enough to realise that some things need to be ignored. I will grant you that more Muslims appear to be for death for apostasy than Christian believing death for adultery (for example) but outside of a few areas it doesn't actually have widespread support, especially in Europe, where it will only be supported by a small minority of Muslims.

To say it is a problem between Islam and free speech is wholeheartedly running roughshod over the reality. Yes to the devout followers of the Koran it may be, but much like every other religion most Muslims pick and choose. Rather than being a problem with Islam we need to realise it is actually a problem confined to some Muslims, generally in less developed countries. The same issues can be seen in other religions, Ugandan anti gay laws being a prime example.
Click to expand...

Until Sharia (at the very least the putrid parts some countries have) is made entirely unacceptable globally, no one in the west will care, as of now there is no progress in the middle-east and that makes it easy to contort opinion towards an all-out conflict.

So unless someone can rein these extremists in, the west will eventually and violently polarise.
 
dowie said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291



that is what needs to be changed by muslim leaders


not silly calls for laws to protect their religion from criticism/insults:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...emy-law-uk-un-mohammed-youtube_n_1912004.html



that is the fundamental problem - the inability to accept freedom of speech and the idea that people should be punished for insulting a religion/prophet...
Click to expand...

2/3rds of Muslims calling for prosecution of people drawing inflammatory images is not the same as supporting the murder of the people that drew it. Let's remember that that poll was related to the drawing of a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, it wasn't just a picture of Mohammed...

We already have laws against offensive images and actions and as much as free speech is a right for everyone that doesn't mean people should not be allowed to to be offended by something that was inherently designed to get a reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom