Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

[CREATIVE!11]

Kinda weird watching some dude in real life get filled with bullets.... I know he's a terrorist piece of garbage but it's still unsettling.

I'm glad I'm not a solider, gives you an idea how they all end up with PTSD....

Edit: Also saw that poor cop get shot in the head, it's just how merciless it looked. Some dude who is someone's son, someone's father. Scumbags....

 

[Rroff]

of course he does... just look at all the oppressed Christian countries and all their human rights abuses and all the islamic countries with the same issues... duh!

stonings in Trafalgar Square, floggings in Washington, D.C....

Christianity is far from not an oppressive religion either, its neither particularly objective or encouraging of open mindedness in most incarnations.

 

[Amnesia]

It does seem to be what your post is saying. You seem to suggesting that appeasement is the way to go because otherwise the people that will take offence will kill people. We effectively give in to their demands because otherwise people will die. Do you realise what sort of world that would eventually make?

No i wasn't suggesting a solution....you just seem to be pushing one for me and disagreeing with it.

 

[olivier renault]

...

You find those numbers satisfactory? 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%? That's 1/6, 1/5...

This way higher than I'd like on issues that I consider pretty crucial.

It is a good poll, though. Let's see how it does next time.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

 

[RDM]

No i wasn't suggesting a solution....you just seem to be pushing one for me and disagreeing with it.

i was just trying to understand your position and why you were pushing for answers on the questions you were asking. Now it seems you don't have a position and we're just asking questions about appeasement for the sake of it?

Regardless of the number of deaths I wouldn't be calling for censorship, instead I would be looking at those that have the real problem, those that feel having their faith criticised is worthy of some punishment.

 

[dowie]

One can condemn murderous attacks whilst supporting the legal process without being hypocritical. I support jail sentences for rapists; I would strongly condemn anyone who imprisoned someone they thought was a rapist without due process.

yes, but the Hezbollah leader is hypocritical as he also called for similar attacks on Salmon Rushdie

though yeah it is frustrating to see these condemnations coming from people Such as the Saudis who are otherwise happy with the principle that someone should be killed for blasphemy - that, after all if the root cause here. Though I agree in that case that from the Saudi POV there is a difference in that they can criticise without being hypocritical given that they support killing for blasphemy after a trial.

 

[Amnesia]

i was just trying to understand your position and why you were pushing for answers on the questions you were asking. Now it seems you don't have a position and we're just asking questions about appeasement for the sake of it?

Regardless of the number of deaths I wouldn't be calling for censorship, instead I would be looking at those that have the real problem, those that feel having their faith criticised is worthy of some punishment.

Not censorship....i don't see any reason why there should be a law about it.

But you disagree with appeasement no matter how many lives are lost.

not a stance i would take...say for example ..would you do a large drawing and hang it across your house like a flag with your family sleeping inside ? All it could take is a small fire.

Unless everyone did it you are just making yourself and others around you a target.
if everyone drew those pictures and it was the norm then muslims would be annoyed at everyone equally but would get over it.

 

[dowie]

Some of the issues I can see being problematic are
1. (As I've replied to) - How can western society deal with the fact we do have a sizeable amount of Muslims who are still being taught that to insult a prophet is a religious crime? Or that they get offended so easily over images of a prophet?
2. How can western society deal with the inequality issues, e.g. Treating women differently? Or Bigamy?
3. What is the current line for westernised Muslims when it comes to leaving their faith? Or their treatment of other faiths?

At the end of the day the terrorists in this thread where from France, all their indoctrination came from some Muslim community within France, one that clearly practices Islam in a way that is very much not compatible with the country, so this is not a case of attacking in any form the Islamic states, it should be about France sorting out it's Islamic communities, which isn't going to go down very well at all..

I think that is bang on, it isn't going to happen overnight but Islam in the west does need to change, muslim leaders do need to change/speak out... not about terrorism but the core issues that are currently causing this conflict in ideologies.

 

[RDM]

Not censorship....i don't see any reason why there should be a law about it.

So self censorship out of fear of a backlash then?

But you disagree with appeasement no matter how many lives are lost.

To be fair as soon as lives start to be lost then steps need to be taken against that but the steps should be about dealing with the problem (the extremists) rather than by self censorship.

not a stance i would take...say for example ..would you do a large drawing and hang it across your house like a flag with your family sleeping inside ? All it could take is a small fire.

To be fair if I did a drawing of Mohammed I wouldn't be in any real danger as my art skills are pretty appalling no one would know who I was meant to be offending!

I am also not the sort of person to be deliberately offensive unless provoked. But I do defend others right to be and can even see a need for it. Poking fun at the establishment in all its myriad forms should be encouraged.

Unless everyone did it you are just making yourself and others around you a target.
if everyone drew those pictures and it was the norm then muslims would be annoyed at everyone equally but would get over it.

An interesting solution, but I am not entirely sure it would work out that way.

 

[FoxEye]

Christianity is far from not an oppressive religion either, its neither particularly objective or encouraging of open mindedness in most incarnations.

Care to back that up (without referring to the Law of the Old Testament - which doesn't apply to Christians btw)?

 

[Rroff]

Care to back that up (without referring to the Law of the Old Testament - which doesn't apply to Christians btw)?

I'm more talking about how it is practised by the majority of denominations.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Care to back that up (without referring to the Law of the Old Testament - which doesn't apply to Christians btw)?

So we'll ignore the fight over women clergy, stance against contraception, stance against personal choice (i.e. abortion), intolerance of homosexuals, excommunication for members of Freemasonry, it breeds authoritarianism, it depreciates the natural world, ignorance of scientific principles, it's misogynistic, repression of sexual freedoms and so on.

Ok - I accept that most of those are problems Catholocism rather than Christianity but you'll still find the theme running through most denominations.................

 

[FoxEye]

But Christians don't behead homosexuals, even if homosexuals are excluded from joining them. Moreover, no branch of Christianity could interpret the New Testament in a way which condones violence to homosexuals. At worst, you'd simply not befriend them. But there's nothing to prevent you working with them, eating with them, etc.

Too often people in these threads say things like "Oh, Christianity is much the same/just as bad."

It blatantly isn't tho, is it. How many Christian scriptures could you use as justification for murdering shoppers in a grocery store? Or killing cartoonists?

 

[kwerk]

France doesnt have freedom of speech theres plenty of censorship laws.

Try publishing a cartoon questioning how many died in the holocaust for example and see how much prison time youll receive.

Charlie hedbro themselves did a cartoon calling for the NF to be banned lol.

 

[Rroff]

But Christians don't behead homosexuals, even if homosexuals are excluded from joining them. Moreover, no branch of Christianity could interpret the New Testament in a way which condones violence to homosexuals. At worst, you'd simply not befriend them. But there's nothing to prevent you working with them, eating with them, etc.

Too often people in these threads say things like "Oh, Christianity is much the same/just as bad."

It blatantly isn't tho, is it. How many Christian scriptures could you use as justification for murdering shoppers in a grocery store? Or killing cartoonists?

Not saying Christianity is as bad/the same but its a long long way from the opposite of oppression, there are several denominations (i.e. exclusive brethren) who actually do forbid sitting down to eat, socialising with, etc. people they consider sinners or not of their flock. Unfortunately knowing a bit more than I want to about the inner workings of some denominations its more reconciling it with their outward image and/or not getting away with it legally that reigns many of them in - a good few would like nothing better than to inflict their values sometimes by force if necessary (though they don't see it that way) on every one if they could get away with it.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

But Christians don't behead homosexuals, even if homosexuals are excluded from joining them. Moreover, no branch of Christianity could interpret the New Testament in a way which condones violence to homosexuals. At worst, you'd simply not befriend them. But there's nothing to prevent you working with them, eating with them, etc.

Too often people in these threads say things like "Oh, Christianity is much the same/just as bad."

It blatantly isn't tho, is it. How many Christian scriptures could you use as justification for murdering shoppers in a grocery store? Or killing cartoonists?

You said how is it opressive, I responded with examples.

Now you respond saying but "Christians don't behead people" but who said anything about beheading - the context of the discussion was opression (and even in respect of the Paris attrocoties no one hase been beheaded). Unless of course you consider beheading to be the only form of opression.

Poor debating technique on your part I'm afraid..

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah, well how's this for debating then?

"LOLIslam - relgion of peace."

"But Christianity! Crusades! Oppression! We can't criticise Islamic aggression, murder, Sharia law. Because the Pope isn't gay!"

It's just annoying, that's all. The Jihad-apologists always come out to bash Christianity after anything like this happens and all it does is derail the topic at hand.

Hint: This topic is not about Christianity. People got murdered in the name of Islam a couple days ago.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Yeah, well how's this for debating then?

Pretty **** to be honest.

 

[FoxEye]

Pretty **** to be honest.

/shrug. It's pointless anyhow; positions are entrenched.

One group thinks Islam is young and will become more tolerant as time progresses (good luck with that). They have a million reasons why we shouldn't blame Islam for acts committed in its name. And argue they aren't doing anything we haven't already done (historically).

The other group thinks we're giving Muslims too much of a free ride in this country to re-model entire areas into Muslim strongholds. And that things are going to get a lot worse before too long (they will, I have no doubt). Because Islam in its pure form is totally incompatible with anything that isn't Islam.