Paris Terrorist Attack

Thanks. Well I'd love to know which bits you (and ZZT) agreed with and disagreed with at your convenience. I fully appreciate that I can, as a retired man of leisure, spout off with all this stuff whereas others of the Hornet tribe have other time constraints though ...

 

Dunno. Well spotted. Oh Philippine spotted it. I thought it was yesterday!

 

as someone who constantly points out the ridiculousness of trying to homogenize the followers of a faith, it's a little disappointing that you would do the same thing to people living in a country

 

Look at the amount of people buying the magazine this week it's far different to 5 people committing a murder and the whole of Islam being attacked.

Now Cameron wants more access to our phones.. Interesting.

 

Maybe. Let's see.

 

What's your point?

 

So what are you suggesting:

1) The Catholic Church should have sent a death squad to the offices of Marithe et Francois Girbaud, did a bit of the old "pray and spray", shot and wounded a Catholic flic (before executing him) before making their way to a protestant super-market before chanting a few "Hail Mary's" and then "offing" a few customers and obtainnig suicide by cop?

2) A representative Muslim body should have attempted through the courts to ban the publication citing "...a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs...".

Here's the best-selling "photograph" of a young Mohammed, still on-sale throughout Iran today:

 

I think that was a brilliant post although I didn't quite get all of it. But then I am an old git ...

 

i honestly don't understand this post. sorry

but as you say, the murderers don't represent islam. and the advertising authority of france doesn't represent french culture/the staff at charlie either, so the two things have precisely nothing to do with each other

 

My point wasn't on how it was dealt by the extremists.

My point is that many are saying there should be a freedom of speech to publish what you want when it comes to pictures of Muhammad. There should be a right to offend they say but shouldn't it work in both ways then? That picture was banned because it is offends Christians, the same way a cartoon of Muhammad bending over or what not shouldn't be allowed since it is offensive.

 

That an attack on our privacy isn't surprising.

I believe that the Government does want to police our phones and freedom and will eventually do so.

 

I really don't know how you missed the thousands in Bosnia to be fair?

Cambodia

Central African Republic

Tibet

India

Palestine

Syria

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bes-moment-shoved-Queens-immigrant-train.html - Not persecution but a murder nonetheless.

 

2000 people were killed by Boko Haram the same as Paris. That's not trending, barely any TV news coverage. I'd say 1/4 of people that know about Paris know about this.

Do we value certain lives more than others?

 

Me neither. Why doesn't the guy spell out what he thinks rather than aimlessly liking your post?

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that free speech overrides everything. Free speech works in the other direction too. People can "freely" complain about jokes, cartoons, etc, if they are offended and maybe something should be removed from view, but that shouldn't bring a criminal charge, or punishment, and certainly shouldn't mean someone should get shot.

But I agree with the hypocrisy, but I think you have picked a bad example.

 

You've missed the point entirely.

The simple act of drawing their prophet is offensive to many Muslims. It's nothing to do with the message. You could draw him as the savior of the world and it would still be unpopular.

The point of satire has never been to be overtly offensive. People might take the message that way, but that's collateral damage. I sincerely doubt there is a single point about Islam that couldn't be made without drawing Mohammed, so why not just do that? The outcome is the same without undermining the message from the word go. Any medium which immediately undermines its own message via its chosen delivery system is poor fare at best.

The world needs more respect, not less. The conversation shouldn't be "I can do something that offends you so suck it up, buttercup", it should be "I can do something which offends you but I choose not to because I'm not a ****".

Frankly, I don't think this furore is much more than another example of the online disinhibition effect in practice. I doubt any of the main proponents of this "freedom" would have the balls to walk into a mosque carrying an impolite cartoon of Mohammed, much less think it's a reasonable and socially acceptable thing to do.

 

'The guy' lol you clown.

MILLIONS of people have spoken about freedom of speech so I'm not being unfair, millions of people does count as a representation.

5 terrorists doesn't count as a fair representation.

Following me?

 

There's no real mystery there; it's all about media ratings. The media doesn't cover it because fear produces ratings.

It reminds me of the Heather Ledger Joker monologue about "the plan" in Batman; 2000 people in Boko Haram? All part of the plan, no one cares. But a dozen people in Paris? Everyone loses their minds.

 

You make a fair half point. Yes, the western media does value some lives more than others. I don't like that. However, the lives you say they should have valued equally were all killed by a terrorist organisation representing your religion anyway. Whether you like that or not.

 

You could say that, not representing me though are they.

Plenty of Muslims killed in that attack too though I'm sure.

 

Extremists represent no one other than themselves.

Equating Boko Haram with Muslims makes as much sense as blaming me for the Englishman Jeremy Clarkson upsetting a bunch of Argentines with a number plate. Clarkson is not representative of me and terrorists are not representative of an entire religion.

 

Drivel. Please don't patronise me. I understand entirely. The Islamic faith doesn't like their man on the front page or anywhere else for that matter. I get that. Because he's so damned perfect he can't be represented. Well I say he isn't perfect at all. He's not in the slightest bit of a role model. Actually he's a complete waste of space and should be arrested for under age rape. All the more reason to put his face on the page. A double wammy. Most wanted poster. They don't like the pic. They don't like the message either. Great. What the world needs is not more respect. It's a whole lot less. For all religious mumbojumboists. Response to your #577.

 

.

They say they are representing you. I understand you say that they're not. I respect that. And they've mostly killed Muslims too. But, yet again, the problem is coming from a terrorist group who say they represent the Islamic world.

 

You tell someone not to patronise you after leading a response with "drivel"?

Interesting. I think that says more about you than it does about me.

 

We have already had this discussion. This continual twisting of words to try and inflame the situation into Islamaphobia (if that is the word now) is both untruthful and unhelpful.

Boko Haram claim to be Muslims. Just like ISIS. Both groups claim that they are carrying out their murders, rapes, slavery, etc, because it fits in with the Islamic teachings (very roughly).

That is miles away from anyone "blaming" Islam as a whole, or normal, everyday Muslims. I have been saying that since my original ISIS thread in August.

They are saying that they represent Islam because they say that their understanding of Islam is the correct one. Consequently, the rest of Islam should be diligently, continually and wholeheartedly ensuring that ISIS, etc, and any person that is thinking of joining them, knows that they are not.

 

I tell it like it is. You claimed to think that I didn't get that the simple representation of the prophet man was offensive in itself. Well, for your information, I understood that decades ago. So, I say, all the more reason to put it out there and offend. With attached message. No more pandering to medieval b.llocks. Drivel wasn't patronising. It was a challenge to quit being a whining appeaser. But then you decided not to pick up on anything substantive.

 

Muhammad was a rapist?

 

Yep. Aisha. Nine or ten y.o. 'bride'. Or do you think it might have been consensual in her pre-pubescent years?

 

Hahahhaha oh I've heard it all

 

[HR][/HR]

And your counterpoint is? You've heard that. So let's hear you refute it.

 

Nobody knows her real age. Quran clearly states marriage has too be between to consenting adults. You think a man who lived by the rules of Islam like no other would break this rule hahahahah?

They say she could've been from 9-19.

Getting married at 12/13 years old was probably quite normal 10,000 years ago. Didn't King John of England marry a 12 year old?

 

Believe it or not, like you I'm firmly in the "all religions are nonsense" camp - but unlike you, I'm more of a live and let live kind of person - if people wish to delude themselves, that's ok with me.

I don't think that any one group of people deserves special treatment, but I do think that deliberately upsetting them for cheap laughs is just being a complete ****. I don't believe that there is an afterlife - but I wouldn't dream of gatecrashing a funeral and making fun of a grieving widow that believes she'll be reunited with her husband in heaven, just to exercise my freedom of speech and to point out what an idiot she is to believe such antiquated drivel - that would be being a ****.

And I don't know why me being a fellow Watford fan would make you ashamed - I bet we've got loads in common. I like beer, TV (I'm watching Game of Thrones at the moment) and travelling amongst many other things. I just happen to disagree with you that principles are worth killing and dying over*. Can you imagine what Northern Ireland would be like today if people had stuck to the principles they held for centuries? Fortunately they saw sense and realized that peace was worth more than being in the right.

* Of course there are some exceptions to this - standing up to Hitler for example. But insisting on depicting Muhammad on the cover of your magazine isn't one of them.

 

You need to re-read what I responded to.

"Representing your religion" is extremely simple language and I'd suggest you've misread it. There's no reframing of what was written. It's a simple rejection of the concept that extremists reflect the objectives and beliefs of the bulk of Muslims and represent the majority who don't engage in such acts. They don't, pure and simple. They represent their own interpretation of a religion, and they're no more representative of Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christianity. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen anyone argue that the WBC represent Christianity.

Agreed.

Agree with that too, but then what you just wrote isn't what I disagreed with in the first place.

Yes, THEY might say they represent Islam. I think most would agree that's not remotely the same thing as you or I saying it, and different again from the vast majority of Muslims saying it. I could easily say that I represent all Englishmen but that doesn't make it true (even though it is, obviously ).

What an extremist fringe group of any persuasion believe to be true is clearly not something one can apply carte blanche to the people the extremists claim to represent. That's true of Muslim terrorists, Christian terrorists, Basque separatists, Anonymous, or fringe political parties who win shock/protest victories and then citing their "clear mandate" bull. Extremist minorities don't represent the larger whole because if they did, they wouldn't be extremist.

Agreed, and clearly that widespread condemnation is happening for this particular incident. The most recent example I have seen is the Dutch mayor of Morrocan origins who delivered a rather blunt "***** off if you don't like western freedoms" message (I paraphrased), which is to be commended. The reality is that more Muslims have spoken up against the Hebdo shootings than those who took part in it, many of them prominent or representing prominent institutions. That can only be a good thing when trying to prevent the predations of the clerics who prey on the impressionable.

It would be nice to see this continue and I think in this time of social media it might be one of the good things to emerge from the age of e-communication. I don't think this condemnation of extremism is happening for the first time, but I do think the world at large is now able to be aware of it and that's undoubtedly the important part.

 

"Whining appeaser"? You're just being rude. It does you no credit (not to mention that it's rather ironic).