Journalism is getting dangerous. Freedom of the press is one thing, but I'm not sure my principles stretch to regularly stirring up Islamist ire.
QuoteGun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11
Gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 11 people and injuring 10, French officials say.
Witnesses spoke of sustained gunfire at the office as the attackers opened fire with assault rifles.
The satirical weekly has courted controversy in the past with its take on news and current affairs.
Its latest tweet was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
An eyewitness, Benoit Bringer, told French TV channel Itele: "Two black-hooded men entered the building with Kalashnikovs. A few minutes later we heard lots of shots."
The men were then seen fleeing the building.
"It's carnage," French police official Luc Poignant told another French channel, BFMTV.
The magazine was fire-bombed in November 2011 a day after it carried a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883)
The Tweet in question:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6vY6mDIAAEI5k1.jpg:large)
Horrifying. Just horrifying. :cry: :mad:
I was considering two angles of responding - bashing muslims or making a joke about gun control.
I couldn't decide which to choose. :(
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 06:56:37 AM
I was considering two angles of responding - bashing muslims or making a joke about gun control.
I couldn't decide which to choose. :(
These two don't seem to be mutually exclusive :unsure:
:glare:
Unpossible! Mohammed never had people murdered for expressing their opinion! Wait, eh, he did....
A video now on all French channels with masked attackers "shouting Allah 'o Akbar" and "we've avenged Muhammad", so islamicists are the official suspects.
Well, with the highest terror alert in the next days, the transportation system will be messed up. Guess what, it's the beginning of the Winter sales (Brazen bad timing for les soldes here too bad for the current cheap Eurostar offer).
Some earlier incidents, much less dramatic, had been dismissed as isolated events, it will be much tougher this time.
http://www.france24.com/en/20141221-police-shooting-allahu-akbar-joue-tours-jihad-islamic-state/ (http://www.france24.com/en/20141221-police-shooting-allahu-akbar-joue-tours-jihad-islamic-state/)
http://www.france24.com/en/20141222-driver-french-pedestrians-allahu-akbar-attack-dijon/ (http://www.france24.com/en/20141222-driver-french-pedestrians-allahu-akbar-attack-dijon/)
edit for Martinus ;)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
No clues about who did it yet, but islamicists are strongly suspected.
I think it is premature to draw a conclusion that masked men with kalashnikovs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking a journal known for its anti-muslim caricatures may be islamist or indeed have anything to do with Islam.
Goddamnnit.
Looking at the indications so far, these guys seem like pros. Really tight grouping on the shots on the police car, for instance, and the gear they have is not that of your average nutcase.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
No clues about who did it yet, but islamicists are strongly suspected.
I think it is premature to draw a conclusion that masked men with kalashnikovs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking a journal known for its anti-muslim caricatures may be islamist or indeed have anything to do with Islam.
Interestingly that one detail isn't being reported by most media outlets that seem to just be leaping from what the journal published to islamicists.
Also, how tragic. :(
Don't mess with third world monkey people's moon gods.
And some of us are just ignorant Americans, Brazen, so we have no idea what that tweeted cartoon says. I see a dude talking into a microphone. Probably bitching about Jews or shooting rape victims. What's it say?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 07:49:02 AM
Don't mess with third world monkey people's moon gods.
And some of us are just ignorant Americans, Brazen, so we have no idea what that tweeted cartoon says. I see a dude talking into a microphone. Probably bitching about Jews or shooting rape victims. What's it say?
Leader of Daesh/Isil/whatever wishing a Happy New Year and specially, good health.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 07:47:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
No clues about who did it yet, but islamicists are strongly suspected.
I think it is premature to draw a conclusion that masked men with kalashnikovs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking a journal known for its anti-muslim caricatures may be islamist or indeed have anything to do with Islam.
Interestingly that one detail isn't being reported by most media outlets that seem to just be leaping from what the journal published to islamicists.
Also, how tragic. :(
A number of news sites are actually reporting this detail (or the attackers shouting or saying other things of a similar nature) and they are citing one of the survivors as the source.
Makes you wonder whether the media outlets who are not reporting on that do so because the information is not credible or because they are censoring this important piece of information out.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
No clues about who did it yet, but islamicists are strongly suspected.
I think it is premature to draw a conclusion that masked men with kalashnikovs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking a journal known for its anti-muslim caricatures may be islamist or indeed have anything to do with Islam.
Earlier on, the current French government said that people attacking policemen in a precinct with a knife, or driving their car into people while shouting Allah 'o Akbar were just lunatics. Some isolated incidents.
Also, the same newspaper's offices were firebombed 4 years ago by Muslims after re-printing Mohammed's caricatures.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:52:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
No clues about who did it yet, but islamicists are strongly suspected.
I think it is premature to draw a conclusion that masked men with kalashnikovs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking a journal known for its anti-muslim caricatures may be islamist or indeed have anything to do with Islam.
Earlier on, the current French government said that people attacking policemen in a precinct with a knife, or driving their car into people while shouting Allah 'o Akbar were just lunatics. Some isolated incidents.
Ok, so this means Muslims can be dangerous and murderous lunatics without having to belong to a terrorist organisation.
It looks like journalists could find themselves on the frontline of a culture war between the vast majority, and a militant tiny minority using force.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2015, 07:55:32 AM
It looks like journalists could find themselves on the frontline of a culture war between the vast majority, and a militant tiny minority using force.
Not just journalists but also authors, movie directors etc. Funnily enough, I don't recall members of any other religion actually targeting people with murderous attacks in retaliation for
words and images. (Even attacks on abortion clinics are different, as the attacks were perpetrated on people who, in the misguided minds of fundamentalists, were engaged in murder of "innocent children").
Do we really need any more proof that Islam is singularily the religion most incompatible with Western values (freedom of speech and expression being the most important of which)?
And Houellebecq's new book Soumission about an Islamicised France is out next Wednesday.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 07, 2015, 08:00:55 AM
And Houellebecq's new book Soumission about an Islamicised France is out next Wednesday.
Great timing :tinfoil:
Don't think the PC left will blame it on him, yet. So far, Union nationale.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 07:51:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 07:47:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
No clues about who did it yet, but islamicists are strongly suspected.
I think it is premature to draw a conclusion that masked men with kalashnikovs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking a journal known for its anti-muslim caricatures may be islamist or indeed have anything to do with Islam.
Interestingly that one detail isn't being reported by most media outlets that seem to just be leaping from what the journal published to islamicists.
Also, how tragic. :(
A number of news sites are actually reporting this detail (or the attackers shouting or saying other things of a similar nature) and they are citing one of the survivors as the source.
Makes you wonder whether the media outlets who are not reporting on that do so because the information is not credible or because they are censoring this important piece of information out.
To be honest, I found it a bit weird that the BBC article and the few articles I read, before stumbling on The Independent, made such a notice of Charlie Hebdo makes jokes about Islam when they weren't providing a description of the gunmen or any statements made by the gunmen that linked them with Islam.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 07, 2015, 08:00:55 AM
And Houellebecq's new book Soumission about an Islamicised France is out next Wednesday.
Just googled it out. Looks interesting - sounds like French response to "Handmaid's Tale". :P
Apparently the book was featured on this week's cover of Charlie Hebdo...
Quote
Agnes Poirier
@AgnesCPoirier
Cabu, one of France's greatest cartoonist is said to have died in #CharlieHebdo attack.Expect millions in the streets
Names well noms de plume of the victims are coming up: Charb, Wolinski, Cabu et Tignous. The first three are famous in France, even beyond their "political" circle. Cabu used also to feature on a kid's show (as a cartoonist/satiricist) most thirty-somethings watched back then. '68ers I liked, sometimes.
I guess the accusations of islamophobia/racism are dead, along the with dozen victims
http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous (http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous)
French only, sorry but dates from 2013
Exec summary
Charlie Hebdo not racist? Yes, you are.
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html)
Exec Summary
No, Charlie Hebdo is not racist.
(https://scontent-a-cdg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10930183_10204320638431016_5196777767875575873_n.jpg?oh=190fb500766d5b7a0ac7aa38c7b164e0&oe=5524ECBF)
To give you an example of their strangely prescient humour this time:
Al-Baghdadi lookalike speaking:
Still no terrorist strikes in France
Wait, we've got till the end of January to give our wishes.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 08:26:44 AM
I guess the accusations of islamophobia/racism are dead, along the dozen victims
http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous (http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous)
French only, sorry but dates from 2013
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html)
Well, I don't know. If I were about to be shot by crazy Muslims, I would probably be afraid of them at that time - so the victims were probably Islamophobic shortly before they died.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 08:31:15 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 08:26:44 AM
I guess the accusations of islamophobia/racism are dead, along the dozen victims
http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous (http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous)
French only, sorry but dates from 2013
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html)
Well, I don't know. If I were about to be shot by crazy Muslims, I would probably be afraid of then at that time - so the victims were probably Islamophobic shortly before they died.
:secret:
Dates from 2013
I know. :secret:
Quote from: Brazen on January 07, 2015, 06:49:08 AM
Journalism is getting dangerous. Freedom of the press is one thing, but I'm not sure my principles stretch to regularly stirring up Islamist ire.
.....
I'd have thought freedom of the press, by definition includes allow journalist do do what you've described as "stirring up ..... ire"
It's not your principles that would be stretched, but the very natural and understandable fear that you, as a journalist would be targeted by these terrorists.
Perfectly understandable and I think I'd be with you, in that I'm not sure I'd have the courage to do what these journalists were doing.
Charlie Hebdo had some fixed police guard for a while, after the 2011 arson, then just some regular patrols lately.
To give you a sense of perspective, the attack took place in their HQ which is only a few blocks away from the Bastille district.
Some new details from France 24
QuoteCartoonist Corine Rey, aka "Coco", has told the weekly Humanité that she was the one who, at gunpoint, let the men inside the building of Charlie Hebdo.
"They shot Wolinski, Cabu... it lasted about five minutes... I took cover under a desk... they spoke perfect French... they said they were Al Qaida," Rey was quoted as saying.
Notes:
L'Humanité is the Communist party's official newspaper
Perfect French spoken as a native banlieue accent/dialect speaker from what I've heard on the news.
Quote
Agnes Poirier @AgnesCPoirier 55m
#CharlieHebdo Attack. I have just been asked by AlJazeera if CharlieHebdo journalists should apologize (for making fun at Islamists).
:huh:
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 08:41:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 07, 2015, 06:49:08 AM
Journalism is getting dangerous. Freedom of the press is one thing, but I'm not sure my principles stretch to regularly stirring up Islamist ire.
.....
I'd have thought freedom of the press, by definition includes allow journalist do do what you've described as "stirring up ..... ire"
It's not your principles that would be stretched, but the very natural and understandable fear that you, as a journalist would be targeted by these terrorists.
Perfectly understandable and I think I'd be with you, in that I'm not sure I'd have the courage to do what these journalists were doing.
I would absolutely republish their cartoons tomorrow if I had a paper or magazine. I've been on death's door before. I am not afraid of them. I have principals that I value, and I won't let them suppress them even under the threat of death.
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
We wish that about your posts every day. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 08:57:17 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 08:41:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 07, 2015, 06:49:08 AM
Journalism is getting dangerous. Freedom of the press is one thing, but I'm not sure my principles stretch to regularly stirring up Islamist ire.
.....
I'd have thought freedom of the press, by definition includes allow journalist do do what you've described as "stirring up ..... ire"
It's not your principles that would be stretched, but the very natural and understandable fear that you, as a journalist would be targeted by these terrorists.
Perfectly understandable and I think I'd be with you, in that I'm not sure I'd have the courage to do what these journalists were doing.
I would absolutely republish their cartoons tomorrow if I had a paper or magazine. I've been on death's door before. I am not afraid of them. I have principals that I value, and I won't let them suppress them even under the threat of death.
Laudable sentiment, but just that, sentiment as you live many thousands of miles from the problem.
I'd suggest to you that the reality is these terrorist outrages can lead to self-censorship as Brazen alluded to.
Given the situation in this country, with it's increasing numbers of islamists, I think the gay muslim guy who does a drag act, sometimes in a hijab is particularly courageous. And maintaining the spirit of freedom of expression. I'll see if I can find a link.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
It's quite sad that the country of Voltaire would fall victim to this menace.
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2015, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
:yes:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Also, this will surely ensure Marine Le Pen has a real chance to become President. :ph34r:
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2015, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
Maybe but it makes it seem sort of noxious; having to defend what is essentially crap with no actual value except as a lightning rod for freedom.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 07, 2015, 08:00:55 AM
And Houellebecq's new book Soumission about an Islamicised France is out next Wednesday.
And now this thread has my attention. (I mean, Islamists shooting people is like "dog bites man." Let me know when journalists behead some Muslims.)
God, I hope it's better than The Map and the Territory.
Quote from: Drakken on January 07, 2015, 09:10:34 AM
Also, this will surely ensure Marine Le Pen has a real chance to become President. :ph34r:
That's the trouble with populists - if there is a problem that the mainstream fails to even acknowledge, the populist non-solution to that problem will end up being the only option for the voters.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 09:08:17 AM
Laudable sentiment, but just that, sentiment as you live many thousands of miles from the problem.
I'd suggest to you that the reality is these terrorist outrages can lead to self-censorship as Brazen alluded to.
Given the situation in this country, with it's increasing numbers of islamists, I think the gay muslim guy who does a drag act, sometimes in a hijab is particularly courageous. And maintaining the spirit of freedom of expression. I'll see if I can find a link.
I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.
I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2015, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
:yes:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)
Now, of course, that would be a far cry from these brutal, terrible methods noted in this thread - but still not exactly a position in line with that quotation.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2015, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
:yes:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Good for him, he's now dead, so how do we defend it now? :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2015, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
:yes:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)
Now, of course, that would be a far cry from these brutal, terrible methods noted in this thread - but still not exactly a position in line with that quotation.
This analogy is so wrong I will not even grace it with a response. Boycotts are legal. Murders are not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.
I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.
Even if your colleagues could die in the any retribution attack?
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 08:57:17 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 08:41:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 07, 2015, 06:49:08 AM
Journalism is getting dangerous. Freedom of the press is one thing, but I'm not sure my principles stretch to regularly stirring up Islamist ire.
.....
I'd have thought freedom of the press, by definition includes allow journalist do do what you've described as "stirring up ..... ire"
It's not your principles that would be stretched, but the very natural and understandable fear that you, as a journalist would be targeted by these terrorists.
Perfectly understandable and I think I'd be with you, in that I'm not sure I'd have the courage to do what these journalists were doing.
I would absolutely republish their cartoons tomorrow if I had a paper or magazine. I've been on death's door before. I am not afraid of them. I have principals that I value, and I won't let them suppress them even under the threat of death.
Laudable sentiment, but just that, sentiment as you live many thousands of miles from the problem.
In fairness, whenever we get any closer, you start screaming "draft war"... well, you know how that tune goes.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2015, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:04:20 AM
I just wish that for once the published cartoons (that led to violent reprisals) were actually clever. :(
It's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
:yes:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)
Now, of course, that would be a far cry from these brutal, terrible methods noted in this thread - but still not exactly a position in line with that quotation.
This analogy is so wrong I will not even comment on it extensively. Boycotts are legal. Murders are not.
That's why I noted they are not the same. :)
The comparison is that you seem happy to restrict the ability of others to note their point of view as long as a) that restriction doesn't come via murder and b) what is being restricted is something you are happy to have restricted.
Quote from: Brazen on January 07, 2015, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.
I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.
Even if your colleagues could die in the any retribution attack?
If they don't want to take the risks they can resign.
Not really. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from criticism (and criticism involves ostracism). I have a choice not to associate with someone who expresses views I disagree with (and this includes boycotting a company if its high ranking representatives express views I disagree with). Same goes for telling a company that if it chooses to give a high ranking job to someone I disagree with, I will take my business elsewhere. Voltaire wouldn't have been a hypocrite if he chose not to invite the person, whose right to say things he would have defended to death, to his dinner parties either.
This is a completely different thing (not just a difference of degree) from either committing illegal, violent acts against someone for saying things I disagree with - or prosecuting someone for saying such things (for the record, I disagree with hate speech laws and the like as well).
This is so obvious to me, I am not sure if you are trolling or suffering from a brief spell of idiocy.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:23:32 AM
Not really. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from criticism (and criticism involves ostracism). I have a choice not to associate with someone who expresses views I disagree with (and this includes boycotting a company if its high ranking representatives express views I disagree with). Same goes for telling a company that if it chooses to give a high ranking job to someone I disagree with, I will take my business elsewhere. Voltaire wouldn't have been a hypocrite if he chose not to invite the person, whose right to say things he would have defended to death, to his dinner parties either.
This is a completely different thing (not just a difference of degree) from either committing illegal, violent acts against someone for saying things I disagree with - or prosecuting someone for saying such things (for the record, I disagree with hate speech laws and the like as well).
This is so obvious to me, I am not sure if you are trolling or suffering from a brief spell of idiocy.
So defending to the death the right to say something only covers preventing someone from being killed or prosecuted for your statements? But penalties like losing one's job, losing one's business, having one's life all but destroyed are all okay?
Wow, you are really stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:34:56 AM
Wow, you are really stupid.
This is what I've been putting up with.
For questioning the sincerity in which you hold the line on freedom of speech? I hardly can see you getting outraged if someone was to say off one of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church specifically because of what they say.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:17:53 AM
This analogy is so wrong I will not even grace it with a response. Boycotts are legal. Murders are not.
Indeed. The analogy is unacceptable because gays are a cause (The cause) that Martinus support, whereas Muslims are not. Of course, the analogy is apt, but he could never see it.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:34:56 AM
Wow, you are really stupid.
hes not comparing boycotting to murder, he's questioning the sincerity of your belief in what you quoted.
This came up just now, she's wrong on her general thesis, but I find is humorous that this was just posted
Karen Armstrong on Religion and the History of Violence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6I-V3iNeFo
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 09:36:38 AM
For questioning the sincerity in which you hold the line on freedom of speech? I hardly can see you getting outraged if someone was to say off one of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church specifically because of what they say.
I would be outraged, yes.
And really, you are equating me deciding not to do business with someone with whom I disagree with with prosecution? A boycott is nothing else than a collective declaration by a group of people that they would exercise their right not to do business with someone over something they have said or done. Are you saying that this right does not exist or that it should be suspended? I am not even sure what your point is. It is just so completely stupid and a lame narcissistic attempt on your part to continue an argument which you have already lost.
Denmark almost took it as an act of war when the Middle East boycotted our dairy products after the Muhammad cartoons.
Quote from: HVC on January 07, 2015, 09:38:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:34:56 AM
Wow, you are really stupid.
hes not comparing boycotting to murder, he's questioning the sincerity of your belief in what you quoted.
Not really. Again, first of all Voltaire's words were aimed at protecting someone from state prosecution. So that's that.
I do think however that it is sensible to expand this principle to protecting someone from violence - and other illegal actions - by persons who are not associated with the state.
I do not think that it is sensible to expand this principle so far as to argue that this should grant someone effective immunity of all negative social consequences of saying disagreeable things.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 09:41:53 AM
Denmark almost took it as an act of war when the Middle East boycotted our dairy products after the Muhammad cartoons.
Wasn't that an action by governments though?
Reports say it's Al Qaeda in Yemen that's responsible
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/07/shooting-paris-satirical-magazine-charlie-hebdo
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 07:26:31 AM
Unpossible! Mohammed never had people murdered for expressing their opinion! Wait, eh, he did....
You should post more quotes from religious documents you haven't read to prove that point.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:45:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 07:26:31 AM
Unpossible! Mohammed never had people murdered for expressing their opinion! Wait, eh, he did....
You should post more quotes from religious documents you haven't read to prove that point.
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369
try reading it yourself then
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:45:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 07:26:31 AM
Unpossible! Mohammed never had people murdered for expressing their opinion! Wait, eh, he did....
You should post more quotes from religious documents you haven't read to prove that point.
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369)
try reading it yourself then
I meant you you should sit down, and read the whole books rather then just quotes culled from websites.
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:45:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 07:26:31 AM
Unpossible! Mohammed never had people murdered for expressing their opinion! Wait, eh, he did....
You should post more quotes from religious documents you haven't read to prove that point.
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369)
try reading it yourself then
I meant you you should sit down, and read the whole books rather then just quotes culled from websites.
I've got better things to do that read volumes of drivel
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arabianluxuries.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fsahih-al-bukhari-9-vol-set.jpg&hash=6b5b97b0de3b0e38be19f6012ad6943694d51534)
I had enough brain cells murdered by the innane Mein Kampf in my teen age years. And the link I gave you was to the entirty of Sahih Bukhari you nitwit, I linked you to the bookmark where mohammed sends the assassin to murder the poet who mocked him.
NSFW
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668
Video of these fuckers shooting and executing a police officer.
Edit:
Apparently what they were saying during the shooting:
"Terrorist 1 : -Je vais le tuer! (I'm gonna kill him!)
Policeman :-Nan c'est bon chef! (Nah it's okay chief!)
execution
Terrorist 1 : -C'était pas un algérien. C'est bon." (He wasnt an algerian, it's alright)
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
thats not much of a commitment. The Koran is less than 80,000 words, the bible, to compare, is around 800,000 (depending on version)
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
So you are saying that the 1 billion muslims who DONT speak arabic or the 1.5 billion muslims you can barely comprehend the archaeic arabic of the koran can't theoretically be muslims since they can't understand what they believe?
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
Well, sucks for Allah then.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.lprs1.fr%2Fimages%2F2015%2F01%2F07%2F4426573_davpope.jpg&hash=99310bab91fd6221765cac19c9ff4cf1381f8386)
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2015, 11:40:46 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.lprs1.fr%2Fimages%2F2015%2F01%2F07%2F4426573_davpope.jpg&hash=99310bab91fd6221765cac19c9ff4cf1381f8386)
Omg Im stealing that. :pinch:
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:16:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:45:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 07:26:31 AM
Unpossible! Mohammed never had people murdered for expressing their opinion! Wait, eh, he did....
You should post more quotes from religious documents you haven't read to prove that point.
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369)
try reading it yourself then
I meant you you should sit down, and read the whole books rather then just quotes culled from websites.
I've got better things to do that read volumes of drivel
Then don't quote it to us like you know what the fuck you are talking about. You are working backward, you've come to an opinion and you look for quotes that back it up, and then expect these quotes to convince us when these quotes didn't even inform you original opinion and you are to goddamn lazy to bother even trying to understand what you quote.
Horrifying :(
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
A video now on all French channels with masked attackers "shouting Allah 'o Akbar" and "we've avenged Muhammad", so islamicists are the official suspects.
Well, with the highest terror alert in the next days, the transportation system will be messed up. Guess what, it's the beginning of the Winter sales (Brazen bad timing for les soldes here too bad for the current cheap Eurostar offer).
This is really difficult for France given the driving into Christmas markets two or three days in a row, no? It's awful.
Scary thing about all the French terrorism cases, including this attack, is that they're obviously terrorism. But they also seem like sort of lone gunman/school shooting attacks. I could be wrong but I suspect that combination is going to stop.
I wonder if it's the future. Weird almost inexplicable acts of individual (or grouplet at most) terrorism like the killing of Lee Rigby, the chocolate siege in Sydney etc. That's scarier than groups trying to make a bomb.
As an aside I just started reading The French Intifada over the weekend. I will have fiercely held pilfered opinions soon :menace:
QuoteLooking at the indications so far, these guys seem like pros. Really tight grouping on the shots on the police car, for instance, and the gear they have is not that of your average nutcase.
Or maybe not :blush:
QuoteIt's like The Interview, more often than not freedom of expression involves defending the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to defend the great things.
Salman :wub:
QuoteThat's the trouble with populists - if there is a problem that the mainstream fails to even acknowledge, the populist non-solution to that problem will end up being the only option for the voters.
Not to sidetrack but the mainstream have acknowledged it or did you miss Sarko.
I've always thought DdB is a little sanguine about Le Pen. She scares the shit out of me.
QuoteI can't recall but do you take issues with businesses being boycotted over causes they choose to support, CEOs being fired? (I think you said you participate in boycotts?)
No! :yeah:
The French don't fuck around. Someone is going to get Legion Étrangere-ed.
Admittedly, Sheilbh, there have been those on the left who even opposed Salman. So the "oh it's so hard to defend these nasty cartoons" excuse is just a cover for spineless hypocrisy.
How do our resident Muslim lovers feel today? :contract:
G.
Here's a satirical magazine I'd feel safe working for.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10350512_876409225732705_8668277886528406268_n.jpg?oh=d3e0a21a8e8fae7ccf1c2bd30302ae32&oe=553533CF&__gda__=1433315091_e653363b61aff391878328855d7fd7d8)
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 09:40:56 AM
This came up just now, she's wrong on her general thesis, but I find is humorous that this was just posted
Karen Armstrong on Religion and the History of Violence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6I-V3iNeFo
I It's very interesting because ... like in The Wire, which all of the delightful white liberals who are creaming over This American Life also adore and cherish. One of the big central moral issues in The Wire is that a state's witness was killed and if you're going to step out and like speak a truth about a crime as a state's witness then you deserve to be protected and respected for that. r eally liked parts of the book but she distorts Islamic history beyond recognition.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 12:21:12 PM
How do our resident Muslim lovers feel today? :contract:
Pretty crappy, thanks for asking.
You seem to be in a fine and cheerful mood.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 12:21:12 PM
How do our resident Muslim lovers feel today? :contract:
G.
I guess the Mosque burnings didn't arouse you attention earlier this week.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 12:13:22 PM
Admittedly, Sheilbh, there have been those on the left who even opposed Salman.
Really? I genuinely can't think of any, maybe there's a few now but at the time.
The most prominent who was, for want of a better word, anti-Salman was John Le Carre who may be of the left. But his criticism of Rushdie from what I remember reading was always ever so slightly xenophobic. It was ever so slightly why should Britain pay for the protection of this man? It's something that's always made me very wary of Le Carre outside his novels since.
QuoteSo the "oh it's so hard to defend these nasty cartoons" excuse is just a cover for spineless hypocrisy.
Not really because you're still saying yes to free speech, but by the way this is pretty distasteful. There's no hypocrisy there. Though I don't know if it holds with Charlie Hebdo, which even I'd heard of before this, and is like France's Private Eye.
To go to celed's 'The Interview' point I absolutely support the writes of James Franco and Seth Rogen, but I sure as hell ain't going to watch their latest film :P
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 12:27:06 PM
You seem to be in a fine and cheerful mood.
Indeed; because I think this attack will win the presidency for Marine Le Pen. ^_^
G.
Because when I hear about a tragedy, my first instinct is to wonder how it will affect the local elections.
Psycho.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Because when I hear about a tragedy, my first instinct is to wonder how it will affect the local elections.
Psycho.
Yeah, the lack of empathy and the focus on personal gain really is worrying.
QuoteThe accusation that we are pouring oil on the flames in the current situation really gets on my nerves. After the publication of this absurd and grotesque film about Muhammad in the US, other newspapers have responded to the protests with cover stories. We are doing the same thing, but with drawings. And a drawing has never killed anyone.
We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it's about the person of the Prophet or radical Islam. When you start saying that you can't create such drawings, then the same thing will soon apply to other, more harmless representations
Editor Stéphane Charbonnier, now according to reports killed.
A brave man, and one who should always be remembered. Today, even I feel a bit French.
Seems like Le Monde, France Inter, and other media networks in France have vouched to provide all support and staff needed to ensure what remains of Charlie Hebdo continues to live on. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Drakken on January 07, 2015, 12:47:18 PM
Seems like Le Monde, France Inter, and other media networks in France have vouched to provide all support and staff needed to ensure what remains of Charlie Hebdo continues to live on. :thumbsup:
Well vilifying them as racists and islamophobes who only have their own racism to blame for the threats against them sort of has to come to an end?... then again, it only took one day for LeMonde to end is pro USA 9/11 sympathy.
Quote from: Drakken on January 07, 2015, 12:47:18 PM
Seems like Le Monde, France Inter, and other media networks in France have vouched to provide all support and staff needed to ensure what remains of Charlie Hebdo continues to live on. :thumbsup:
Hell, they'll probably get US Feds money if they ask for it.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Because when I hear about a tragedy, my first instinct is to wonder how it will affect the local elections.
Psycho.
:rolleyes:
Those people died as much because of the stupidity of all those who insist on denying there's a problem with Islam as from the bullets of the jihadis. Or will someone have the gall to pretend this was nothing but an act of lunacy perpetrated by mental defectives? Had the problem been named, had precautions been taken, you might not have had this golden opportunity to wring you hands and insult me.
G.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me.
This should have its own thread.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me.
This should have its own thread.
Yeah, in the backroom! :mad:
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
I find that perspective rather humorous. That is like saying one must read the New Testament in the original Greek, you know what Jesus spoke.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Because when I hear about a tragedy, my first instinct is to wonder how it will affect the local elections.
Psycho.
Much as I dislike defending Grallon (and I'm not really), but in the face of a tragedy we often grasp at straws. We look for things we can discuss and control, instead of the unexplicable horror that has just happened.
When Edmonton's 9-person homicide was first announced, I felt guilty that my first or second thought was 'gee, I wonder who is going to get that file'.
But while that reaction is fairly normal, common decency doesn't means not looking quite so gleeful about multiple murders.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
I find that perspective rather humorous. That is like saying one must read the New Testament in the original Greek, you know what Jesus spoke.
And there's something to that - it would avoid all of the fights over translations that have happened over the centuries.
Fox news is epic. For some reason MSNBC
and CNN are off the air on direct tv.
Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
QuoteThe accusation that we are pouring oil on the flames in the current situation really gets on my nerves. After the publication of this absurd and grotesque film about Muhammad in the US, other newspapers have responded to the protests with cover stories. We are doing the same thing, but with drawings. And a drawing has never killed anyone.
We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it's about the person of the Prophet or radical Islam. When you start saying that you can't create such drawings, then the same thing will soon apply to other, more harmless representations
Editor Stéphane Charbonnier, now according to reports killed.
A brave man, and one who should always be remembered. Today, even I feel a bit French.
Except in that earlier instance, they definitely were adding oil to the flame - oh and I don't recall anyone (governments) saying that they couldn't publish those cartoons when they did, but rather questioned the judgement to do so.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 01:01:48 PM
Much as I dislike defending Grallon (and I'm not really), but in the face of a tragedy we often grasp at straws. We look for things we can discuss and control, instead of the unexplicable horror that has just happened.
When Edmonton's 9-person homicide was first announced, I felt guilty that my first or second thought was 'gee, I wonder who is going to get that file'.
But while that reaction is fairly normal, common decency doesn't means not looking quite so gleeful about multiple murders.
Personal thoughts are one thing. You didn't text your colleagues with that question, because you knew that would be stupid.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 07, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Because when I hear about a tragedy, my first instinct is to wonder how it will affect the local elections.
Psycho.
Much as I dislike defending Grallon (and I'm not really), but in the face of a tragedy we often grasp at straws. We look for things we can discuss and control, instead of the unexplicable horror that has just happened.
When Edmonton's 9-person homicide was first announced, I felt guilty that my first or second thought was 'gee, I wonder who is going to get that file'.
But while that reaction is fairly normal, common decency doesn't means not looking quite so gleeful about multiple murders.
Common decency also doesn't mean we should advocate genocide, but that's grallon for you.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 01:01:48 PM
But while that reaction is fairly normal, common decency doesn't means not looking quite so gleeful about multiple murders.
You really are a voice of reason.
And I mean that.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 01:02:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
I find that perspective rather humorous. That is like saying one must read the New Testament in the original Greek, you know what Jesus spoke.
And there's something to that - it would avoid all of the fights over translations that have happened over the centuries.
Well the decision to restrict the Quran to one dialect of Arabic happened after a civil war so yeah it was developed to solve the same problem.
Here is what Wikipedia, mother of all knowledge, has to say on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations
QuoteTranslation of the Qur'an has always been a problematic and difficult issue in Islamic theology. Since Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text should not be isolated from its true form to another language or form, at least not without keeping the arabic text alongwith. Furthermore, an Arabic word, like a Hebrew or Aramaic word, may have a range of meanings depending on the context - a feature present in all Semitic languages, when compared to the moderately analytic English, Latin, and Romance languages - making an accurate translation even more difficult.[1]
According to modern Islamic theology, the Qur'an is a revelation very specifically in Arabic, and so it should only be recited in the Arabic language. Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations necessarily subtly change the meaning, they are often called "interpretations"[2] or "translation(s) of the meanings" (with "meanings" being ambiguous between the meanings of the various passages and the multiple possible meanings with which each word taken in isolation can be associated, and with the latter connotation amounting to an acknowledgement that the so-called translation is but one possible interpretation and is not claimed to be the full equivalent of the original). For instance, Pickthall called his translation The Meaning of the Glorious Koran rather than simply The Koran.
The task of translation is not an easy one; some native Arab-speakers will confirm that some Qur'anic passages are difficult to understand even in the original Arabic. A part of this is the innate difficulty of any translation; in Arabic, as in other languages, a single word can have a variety of meanings.[2] There is always an element of human judgement involved in understanding and translating a text. This factor is made more complex by the fact that the usage of words has changed a great deal between classical and modern Arabic. As a result, even Qur'anic verses which seem perfectly clear to native speakers accustomed to modern vocabulary and usage may not represent the original meaning of the verse.
The original meaning of a Qur'anic passage will also be dependent on the historical circumstances of the prophet Muhammad's life and early community in which it originated. Investigating that context usually requires a detailed knowledge of hadith and sirah, which are themselves vast and complex texts. This introduces an additional element of uncertainty which cannot be eliminated by any linguistic rules of translation.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
I find that perspective rather humorous. That is like saying one must read the New Testament in the original Greek, you know what Jesus spoke.
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
Here is what Wikipedia, mother of all knowledge, has to say on the matter:
Yes I am aware of the Islamic tradition on this but the problem is that the Quran already has that problem, there being many dialects of Arabic. When the Quran was first written down it lacked the vowel markings, for example. Eventually the Umayyads decreed that only a specific dialect of Arabic should be used and all the versions were translated into that dialect. So if you are really worried about translations fucking up the purity of it you are a bit late. Might as well just read a translation.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
I find that perspective rather humorous. That is like saying one must read the New Testament in the original Greek, you know what Jesus spoke.
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
By the time of the Gospel of John they were pretty removed from the Aramaic Jewish origins. Jesus talks like a Greek Philosopher most of the time.
Weren't most of the Gospels written in Aramaic? I thought I read once that Luke was noticeable among the disciples for writing in Greek, taken as evidence of his education.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Weren't most of the Gospels written in Aramaic? I thought I read once that Luke was noticeable among the disciples for writing in Greek, taken as evidence of his education.
All the gospels were written in Greek. Now there was some controversy over Matthew but most people now agree it was originally Greek as well.
A Latin/Classical Greek Professor once told us that it's Greek with a strong Hebrew/Jewish accent, because it was written in the common verbiage of the target audience, and not in the stilted language that many translations have since provided.
I wrote my Gospel in Arameic and nobody gave a shit.
- Tomas
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Weren't most of the Gospels written in Aramaic? I thought I read once that Luke was noticeable among the disciples for writing in Greek, taken as evidence of his education.
No they're all Greek.
I believe Luke is noticeable in the New Testaments for clearly writing for a Greek audience and for being a bit of a stylist. I think the same goes for Paul. The others, from my understanding, are a bit more ploddingly Aramaic-ish and far more Jewish in content (especially Matthew).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Weren't most of the Gospels written in Aramaic? I thought I read once that Luke was noticeable among the disciples for writing in Greek, taken as evidence of his education.
They were all written in Greek. All the original and older documents are in greek. The earliest versions are all in greek. Some people argue that some of the gospels may have been written in aramaic, this is in part due to their attributition (the attribution is almost certainly false) to people who spoke aramaeic and probably did not speak greek. All the archeological and linguistic evidence is consistent with greek origins to the gospels.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Weren't most of the Gospels written in Aramaic? I thought I read once that Luke was noticeable among the disciples for writing in Greek, taken as evidence of his education.
No they're all Greek.
I believe Luke is noticeable in the New Testaments for clearly writing for a Greek audience and for being a bit of a stylist. I think the same goes for Paul. The others, from my understanding, are a bit more ploddingly Aramaic-ish and far more Jewish in content (especially Matthew).
Yep. This is why there was some thought for awhile that Matthew had originally been in Aramaic.
Twitter is mobilising:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wdQcVCIAA_2I_.jpg:large)
I give you: Muhammad in a funny hat
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa3.files.biography.com%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fc_fill%2Cdpr_1.0%2Cg_face%2Ch_300%2Cq_80%2Cw_300%2FMTE4MDAzNDEwNjM2MTQ2MTkw.jpg&hash=7d0827428cf7120e1bc39dc7299e3852a0a22f8b)
Ok, so it's Elijah Muhammad and not the prophet. :sleep:
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Twitter is mobilising:
This has the potential to get very silly, very quickly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 01:35:52 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Twitter is mobilising:
This has the potential to get very silly, very quickly.
I agree.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wlgE2CIAANvbg.png)
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Twitter is mobilising:
I'm sure that will be exceedingly helpful.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 07, 2015, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
I have writhed in unimaginable agony from having 4 inches of my tibia removed. I've gone into shock and nearly died from a bad reaction to a nausea drug. I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me. I've nearly been killed in a car crash.
I know what I'm capable of, and I would publish the damn pictures.
Even if your colleagues could die in the any retribution attack?
If they don't want to take the risks they can resign.
Humm. I guess Brazen is not, well, brazen?
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
Fuck no. Don't do that!!111
I cannot contemplate my suffering here in Languish if you happen to convert to Islam.
I would probably e-shoot myself.
Freedom of speech has pretty much been abandoned as a concept in Sweden. It saddens me a bit, but I have written off Sweden a long time ago. Swedish consensus is that victims of Muslim cartoony aggression deserve what they get.
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Twitter is mobilising:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wdQcVCIAA_2I_.jpg:large)
Obviously a fake. That pencil sharpener is much too big for the pencils.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Saying The Prophet Mohammed is no different than saying Jesus Christ (which means Jesus the Messiah).
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Saying The Prophet Mohammed is no different than saying Jesus Christ (which means Jesus the Messiah).
Prophet is a word in english, Christ isn't.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Meh.
To my mind, "Prophet" is purely a title that distinguishes Mohammed the historical personage. It does not indicate any actual belief in Islam or the religious reality of prophet-hood. Your suggestion would be like saying "Jesus, the alleged Christ".
Edit: ninja'd by BB
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Prophets is a self proclaimed title. It's ok to use it for all prophets.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Meh.
To my mind, "Prophet" is purely a title that distinguishes Mohammed the historical personage. It does not indicate any actual belief in Islam or the religious reality of prophet-hood. Your suggestion would be like saying "Jesus, the alleged Christ".
Edit: ninja'd by BB
Yeah isn't Prophet Muhammad generally the name used to make it clear one is speaking about him vs. the many, many, many other Muhammads? :unsure:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Prophets is a self proclaimed title. It's ok to use it for all prophets.
Agreed.
What would suck is if Muslims were able to convince journalists to *only* use the word "prophet" for Mohammed, and no-one else.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Saying The Prophet Mohammed is no different than saying Jesus Christ (which means Jesus the Messiah).
Prophet is a word in english, Christ isn't.
Disagree:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christ?s=t
By saying "The Prophet Mohammed" they identify him as the Mohammed who is worshipped by Muslims. BFD.
False accusation by mongers. 15 yard penalty, replay the down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 02:06:41 PM
False accusation by mongers. 15 yard penalty, replay the down.
Wrong sports reference in use. Yellow carded.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:07:58 PM
Wrong sports reference in use. Yellow carded.
Irrelevant point raised. One free throw and retain possession.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 02:06:41 PM
False accusation by mongers. 15 yard penalty, replay the down.
Wrong sports reference in use. Yellow carded.
Both of you knock it off or you're going into the penalty box for five minute majors.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Prophets is a self proclaimed title. It's ok to use it for all prophets.
Agreed.
What would suck is if Muslims were able to convince journalists to *only* use the word "prophet" for Mohammed, and no-one else.
When was the last time you heard a journalist say "Jesus Christ the Messiah" or "Christ the Messiah"?
The point I'm making is some journalist are intentionally using it, to conform with the Islamic claim that he is God's final prophet.
It's a relatively recent change with some journalist in the UK.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Prophets is a self proclaimed title. It's ok to use it for all prophets.
Agreed.
What would suck is if Muslims were able to convince journalists to *only* use the word "prophet" for Mohammed, and no-one else.
When was the last time you heard a journalist say "Jesus Christ the Messiah" or "Christ the Messiah"?
The point I'm making is some journalist are intentionally using it, to conform with the Islamic claim that he is God's final prophet.
It's a relatively recent change with some journalist in the UK.
Isn't "Christ the Messiah" wrong? The word Christ = Messiah.
This is terrible. So sad, and so maddening that these extremists exist to do this kind of thing when someone disagrees with their extremism. I'm sure all of France is in some turmoil over this, with at least Paris where it occurred in some kind of shutdown.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 02:06:41 PM
False accusation by mongers. 15 yard penalty, replay the down.
Wrong sports reference in use. Yellow carded.
Both of you knock it off or you're going into the penalty box for five minute majors.
Bumphing. Catcher gets a penalty shot.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Am I the only one who can't parse this sentence? :huh:
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Surely "The Alleged Prophet Mohammed" would be more accurate and neutral?
* I wonder if it's a bbc inhouse editorial guide or are the covering their own arses by attempting to placate religious extremists who might come after them?
Prophets is a self proclaimed title. It's ok to use it for all prophets.
Agreed.
What would suck is if Muslims were able to convince journalists to *only* use the word "prophet" for Mohammed, and no-one else.
When was the last time you heard a journalist say "Jesus Christ the Messiah" or "Christ the Messiah"?
The point I'm making is some journalist are intentionally using it, to conform with the Islamic claim that he is God's final prophet.
It's a relatively recent change with some journalist in the UK.
A quick google news archive search reveals many American news sources and a few like using "Prophet Muhammad" or "prophet Muhammad" frequently as early as 2005. Bet if I did a bit more digging I could find hits for more UK outlets. ;)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 07, 2015, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Am I the only one who can't parse this sentence? :huh:
He's complaining about the use of the title "prophet" for Mohammed.
Wow, a somewhat respected newspaper here just published this article on their website: "IS: Denmark will be next". It contains a series of tweets from people sympathising with IS saying that Denmark will also be attacked.
Oh my.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2015, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 02:06:41 PM
False accusation by mongers. 15 yard penalty, replay the down.
Wrong sports reference in use. Yellow carded.
Both of you knock it off or you're going into the penalty box for five minute majors.
Bumphing. Catcher gets a penalty shot.
Meh - we follow the honour system. If the curler did an illegal move he is expected to remove his own rock from play.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 12:21:12 PM
How do our resident Muslim lovers feel today? :contract:
G.
Apparently, not phased in the least.
We are only joking on real sports.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2015, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 02:06:41 PM
False accusation by mongers. 15 yard penalty, replay the down.
Wrong sports reference in use. Yellow carded.
Both of you knock it off or you're going into the penalty box for five minute majors.
Bumphing. Catcher gets a penalty shot.
Meh - we follow the honour system. If the curler did an illegal move he is expected to remove his own rock from play.
Get your rocks off :mad:
A well-known satirical magazine in Germany invited for a press conference today with this text: "Terror advice: At 4pm we will have a meeting with other newspapers, opportunity for you to kill everyone of the lying German press. There will be sandwiches afterwards."
They also put this old 2006 title on their website. It says "Religions compared" and the lower right corner says "Please ignite here".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTDz0Qux.png&hash=5a34b5f80b202f53be058f3226961f4fbf6ae2ae)
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
From what I understand you have to read it in Arabic. Translations aren't considered to really be the word or Allah.
I find that perspective rather humorous. That is like saying one must read the New Testament in the original Greek, you know what Jesus spoke.
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
The old filioque pun gets lost so much in translation.
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2015, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, I want to make a commitment. I will read the whole Quran.
Fuck no. Don't do that!!111
I cannot contemplate my suffering here in Languish if you happen to convert to Islam.
I would probably e-shoot myself.
Dude, I will never convert to Islam. I will sooner convert to Judaism - converting to Islam is the dumbest thing I can think of. You just need to know what you dislike, I think.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:23:23 PM
Wow, a somewhat respected newspaper here just published this article on their website: "IS: Denmark will be next". It contains a series of tweets from people sympathising with IS saying that Denmark will also be attacked.
Oh my.
A somewhat respected newspaper? Which one?
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:23:23 PM
Wow, a somewhat respected newspaper here just published this article on their website: "IS: Denmark will be next". It contains a series of tweets from people sympathising with IS saying that Denmark will also be attacked.
Oh my.
A somewhat respected newspaper? Which one?
He lied - there are no respected newspapers in Denmark.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:23:23 PM
Wow, a somewhat respected newspaper here just published this article on their website: "IS: Denmark will be next". It contains a series of tweets from people sympathising with IS saying that Denmark will also be attacked.
Oh my.
A somewhat respected newspaper? Which one?
Berlingske, but this on their b.dk site which increasingly is descending into click bait.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 02:23:23 PM
Wow, a somewhat respected newspaper here just published this article on their website: "IS: Denmark will be next". It contains a series of tweets from people sympathising with IS saying that Denmark will also be attacked.
Oh my.
A somewhat respected newspaper? Which one?
He lied - there are no respected newspapers in Denmark.
Lies, there are at least 2. But true, the 5 big ones are pretty rubbish.
Berlingske and Politiken are pretty good newspapers, according to what I have read. :huh:
Who said this:
QuoteGarton-Ash: "Our seventh principle is that we respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief. Would you agree with that?"
..... says that "almost all people who have religious belief are realist about their belief", which he explains means that people of faith see it as objective and that blasphemy is therefore seen as an objective harm which does more than just hurt feelings. He then gives the example of a demeaning depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, "The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.
"One of the mistakes secularists make is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief."
Hint, this person may or may not have been the most significant director general of the BBC during the last 10-15 years.
Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2015, 02:46:50 PM
Berlingske and Politiken are pretty good newspapers, according to what I have read. :huh:
It's their websites and insufferable editors that warrant the "somewhat". Although Politiken's editor sometimes says something clever.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 02:47:53 PM
Who said this:
QuoteGarton-Ash: "Our seventh principle is that we respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief. Would you agree with that?"
..... says that "almost all people who have religious belief are realist about their belief", which he explains means that people of faith see it as objective and that blasphemy is therefore seen as an objective harm which does more than just hurt feelings. He then gives the example of a demeaning depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, "The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.
"One of the mistakes secularists make is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief."
Hint, this person may or may not have been the most significant director general of the BBC during the last 10-15 years.
Hildegard of Bingen? Rudolf Hess?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wALSkIEAELn1T.jpg)
@nedboulting
Cabu among the dead. His work often reflected his adoration of Paris.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 02:47:53 PM
Who said this:
QuoteGarton-Ash: "Our seventh principle is that we respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief. Would you agree with that?"
..... says that "almost all people who have religious belief are realist about their belief", which he explains means that people of faith see it as objective and that blasphemy is therefore seen as an objective harm which does more than just hurt feelings. He then gives the example of a demeaning depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, "The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.
"One of the mistakes secularists make is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief."
Hint, this person may or may not have been the most significant director general of the BBC during the last 10-15 years.
Given that it's some BBC high-up, probably some pedophile.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:21:15 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 07, 2015, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
One or two bbc journalists* aren't covering themselves in glory on this, "The Prophet Mohammed". :rolleyes:
Am I the only one who can't parse this sentence? :huh:
He's complaining about the use of the title "prophet" for Mohammed.
Mohammed the donkey fucker, child rapist, murderer and lying bastard who pretended to be a prophet and created an imperialist ideology called Islam the religion of peace?
Ahh, ok.
Well I hope ISIL's cyber division won't find that post. :p
What's the difference between a prophet and a professor?
One of them have an slight chance of not thinking he is the center of the world.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 03:08:17 PM
Well I hope ISIL's cyber division won't find that post. :p
I am pretty sure that Siege's answer to IS would be "Molon Labe".
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 03:08:17 PM
Well I hope ISIL's cyber division won't find that post. :p
Is fear of Islam spreading to Languish?
I had enough with Brazen's not-so-brazen post surrendering freedom of speech to the donkey-fuckers.
:mad:
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2015, 03:13:26 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 03:08:17 PM
Well I hope ISIL's cyber division won't find that post. :p
I am pretty sure that Siege's answer to IS would be "Molon Labe".
Please. What makes you think I speak greek or gay?
Are these guys still at large?
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
Are these guys still at large?
They flew away in a CIA plane piloted by Dubya himself.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
Are these guys still at large?
I've seen it implied there might be ongoing operations, but that the French media and others might not be reporting it, so as to not give the terrorists assistance.
I don't know if that's true or if the French have a system of censoring such coverage?
Two males aged 32 and 34 respectively suspected, living in Pantin in Paris. Also some stuff about Reims.
The two perpetrators allegedly had returned from Syria. Now that is hardly surprising.
Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2015, 03:26:05 PM
Two males aged 32 and 34 respectively suspected, living in Pantin in Paris. Also some stuff about Reims.
The two perpetrators allegedly had returned from Syria. Now that is hardly surprising.
Our media have been talking about three assailants for the last couple of hours. :hmm:
Yes, no surprise about the Syria connection, I guess that's where they got so skilled in massacring civilians.
Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2015, 03:26:05 PM
Two males aged 32 and 34 respectively suspected, living in Pantin, outside Paris but not that far. Also some stuff about Reims.
The two perpetrators allegedly had returned from Syria. Now that is hardly surprising.
Fixed! The Pantin banlieue has seen some limited gentrification, things were improving but slowly. One of the first huge housing projects (Courtillières) with high rises in Île-de-France.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 01:54:46 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Twitter is mobilising:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wdQcVCIAA_2I_.jpg:large)
Obviously a fake. That pencil sharpener is much too big for the pencils.
Looks more like an M-16, or at least a chopped down M-4.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Weren't most of the Gospels written in Aramaic? I thought I read once that Luke was noticeable among the disciples for writing in Greek, taken as evidence of his education.
You may be confused with The Dead Sea scrools that were mostly written in ancient Hebrew, some Aramaic and then Greek.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 03:39:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 01:54:46 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Twitter is mobilising:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wdQcVCIAA_2I_.jpg:large)
Obviously a fake. That pencil sharpener is much too big for the pencils.
Looks more like an M-16, or at least a chopped down M-4.
To me it looks like a M107.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.dayzdb.com%2Fimg%2Fdatabase%2Fm107.png&hash=eb926a4bfab2b842600d8be3d6f3b420d6116f7b)
Why does it says comrade in spanish?
Are they commies?
Yeah, Siege. They're commies.
Compañero is more like partner, mate or companion than comrade which exists in Spanish as camarada as well.
Your Sefaradi-Judeo-Castillian connection is getting weaker and weaker, compañero. :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fygreck.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c5dd653ef01bb07d43e4a970d-800wi&hash=bbdb8f8871453e3958a1cbb62c3a20d5e485da81)
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2015, 03:46:40 PM
Why does it says comrade in spanish?
Are they commies?
What word do you use for the other members of your unit?
Wonder what kind of security the building had.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:00:26 PM
Wonder what kind of security the building had.
Well they did need to kidnap one of the employees to have her enter the key code to get in.
suspects arrested, apparently.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:00:26 PM
Wonder what kind of security the building had.
I imagine not much more than any other office. Apparently the publishers of Houllebecq's latest have beefed up their security.
I suspect that with attacks like this, Sidney, Canada and so on we may end up seeing an end to unarmed policing in London, which would be a great shame.
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:26:50 PM
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 12:21:12 PM
How do our resident Muslim lovers feel today? :contract:
G.
Apparently, not phased in the least.
Heh. Just 80 years ago, the phrase would been "Jew lovers". The more things change...
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
I think those last sentences are really interesting. I saw these tweets by Stephen Pollard:
QuoteEasy to attack papers for not showing cartoons. But here's my editor's dilemma. Every principle I hold tells me to print them. But 1/2
what right do I have to risk the lives of my staff to make a point? 2/2
Because this isn't a mere debate about principles. As today showed, this is about lives. These people are butchers.
No, Charlie Hebdon didn't provoke anyone. It published cartoons.
Get real, folks. A Jewish newspaper like mine that published such cartoons would be at the front of the queue for Islamists to murder.
None of my points mean we shouldn't or wouldn't publish. I'm simply explaining it's a dilemma and not a simple issue of principle
I agree with him. I think if you're a blogger it's maybe fine to publish but if you're an editor it's a really difficult decision especially because you know it would put everyone from the receptionist up at risk. It's fine to make that point if you're explicit about it. What Pollard says here is 'the reason we maybe wouldn't is because of fear' which is in itself a pretty strong political point. It's trying to turn that into a point of principle about 'respect' that I think sticks in the craw.
Edit: And incidentally Art Goldhammer has a great piece on the blasphemous tradition Charlie Hebdo is part of:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-gouaillesatireislamjournalism.html
Which is very 18th century. Maybe a better British comparison is Viz rather than Private Eye?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
It is silly in several respects.
First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.
Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
Many posters support terrorism. Film at 11. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:37:49 PM
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
To tie in with our other discussion it avoids a secular version of idolatry.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:20:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 07, 2015, 04:09:45 PM
suspects arrested, apparently.
Good.
Sorry, not yet, but they were identified. One from Reims, the other two, brothers, from Gennevilliers, a Parisian suburb.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
It is silly in several respects.
First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.
Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.
He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.
Reading comprehension much?
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I have never met a gay person demanding respect from me, so I wouldn't know.
Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2015, 04:38:59 PM
Many posters support terrorism. Film at 11. :rolleyes:
Fortunately, most of those who do I don't care for or their opinions. The only one really that troubles me is Malthus, since he is the only one I respect.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
Which amusingly means the joke is on Jesus, who certainly spoke Aramaic, but likely little if any Greek.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Very well said.
at least this whole thing shows that the political-correctness-disease is still festering. Shouldn't wait too long anymore with administering the medicine though.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 04:44:06 PM
Sorry, not yet, but they were identified. One from Reims, the other two, brothers, from Gennevilliers, a Parisian suburb.
Much less good :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2015, 04:49:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
Which amusingly means the joke is on Jesus, who certainly spoke Aramaic, but likely little if any Greek.
From a certain perspective, the entire Christian religion is a joke on Jesus. :P
He spoke English :rolleyes:
I think he understood English, but I don't think he spoke it well enough to feel confident in general conversation.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
I have certainly heard LGBT activists demand respect for their cause in any number of venues and contexts, so I don't think I can agree with that.
QuoteIt's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Yeah, respect is not something you get just because you demand it. But some people demanding respect for their position does not, in my view, mean all people who hold that position should be mocked.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2015, 04:49:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
Which amusingly means the joke is on Jesus, who certainly spoke Aramaic, but likely little if any Greek.
And is one of the arguments for the proposition that a historical Jesus never existed. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:50:25 PM
He spoke English :rolleyes:
Must have been pretty awkward given how no one around him understood it.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:50:25 PM
He spoke English :rolleyes:
Of course but that was only later when he visited the Native Americans with the Angel Moroni
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:53:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:50:25 PM
He spoke English :rolleyes:
Must have been pretty awkward given how no one around him understood it.
That's why the Gospels are filled with contradictions.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
It is silly in several respects.
First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.
Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.
He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.
Reading comprehension much?
Religion is in no way "medieval". Terrorism is not part of the heart of Islam, and so cannot be "a deadly mutation in the heart of islam". And it makes no sense to state that
all ideas "deserve disrespect" - I point I see you did not bother to contest. Surely some ideas deserve disrespect and others do not, depending on content?
For famous writers, they sure have trouble conveying simple ideas - that people should be free to satyrize anything without fear of assault - without mixing in a lot of silliness.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:49:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Very well said.
But false. Gays most definitely demand respect.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:52:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
I have certainly heard LGBT activists demand respect for their cause in any number of venues and contexts, so I don't think I can agree with that.
QuoteIt's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Yeah, respect is not something you get just because you demand it. But some people demanding respect for their position does not, in my view, mean all people who hold that position should be mocked.
:yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2015, 04:49:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
Which amusingly means the joke is on Jesus, who certainly spoke Aramaic, but likely little if any Greek.
It also means the entire encounter is fictitious, written by greeks for greeks after the fact. It's like claiming the "who's on first" routine was translated word for word from German. It's some other story about somebody else inserted into the gospels making jesus the protagonist after the fact.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
It is silly in several respects.
First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.
Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.
He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.
Reading comprehension much?
Religion is in no way "medieval". Terrorism is not part of the heart of Islam, and so cannot be "a deadly mutation in the heart of islam". And it makes no sense to state that all ideas "deserve disrespect" - I point I see you did not bother to contest. Surely some ideas deserve disrespect and others do not, depending on content?
For famous writers, they sure have trouble conveying simple ideas - that people should be free to satyrize anything without fear of assault - without mixing in a lot of silliness.
Terrorism not part of the heart of Islam? LOL We fight the Islam we have, not the Islam we wish we had.
I think you understand what he meant by all ideas deserve disrespect.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:49:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Very well said.
But false. Gays most definitely demand respect.
Well you're not getting any until your post here have a better tone. :P
edit:And several us are a hair's breadth away to resolving this dispute down to the dictionary definition of respect, tis the Languish way.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2015, 04:49:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:07:28 PM
You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.
Which amusingly means the joke is on Jesus, who certainly spoke Aramaic, but likely little if any Greek.
I heard he went to Agia Napa and partied hard before his final tour. :unsure:
Even Peter went to the karaoke and sang "I am a rock".
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:57:18 PM
Well you're not getting any until you post here have a better tone. :P
Don't worry, I don't come to Languish for respect. :D
Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2015, 04:57:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
It is silly in several respects.
First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.
Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.
He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.
Reading comprehension much?
Religion is in no way "medieval". Terrorism is not part of the heart of Islam, and so cannot be "a deadly mutation in the heart of islam". And it makes no sense to state that all ideas "deserve disrespect" - I point I see you did not bother to contest. Surely some ideas deserve disrespect and others do not, depending on content?
For famous writers, they sure have trouble conveying simple ideas - that people should be free to satyrize anything without fear of assault - without mixing in a lot of silliness.
Terrorism not part of the heart of Islam? LOL We fight the Islam we have, not the Islam we wish we had.
I think you understand what he meant by all ideas deserve disrespect.
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:57:18 PM
Well you're not getting any until you post here have a better tone. :P
Don't worry, I don't come to Languish for respect. :D
Good thing. I think we've been out since forever.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2015, 04:57:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
It is silly in several respects.
First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.
Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.
Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".
He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.
He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.
Reading comprehension much?
Religion is in no way "medieval". Terrorism is not part of the heart of Islam, and so cannot be "a deadly mutation in the heart of islam". And it makes no sense to state that all ideas "deserve disrespect" - I point I see you did not bother to contest. Surely some ideas deserve disrespect and others do not, depending on content?
For famous writers, they sure have trouble conveying simple ideas - that people should be free to satyrize anything without fear of assault - without mixing in a lot of silliness.
Terrorism not part of the heart of Islam? LOL We fight the Islam we have, not the Islam we wish we had.
I think you understand what he meant by all ideas deserve disrespect.
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
He's an artist. He can't just write like regular folk.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:49:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Very well said.
But false. Gays most definitely demand respect.
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PMIt would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.
I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Really? A theology can "demand" respect without the need for human agency? So you are a Theist after all. :P
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PM
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:01:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PMIt would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.
I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.
Mutations are inherent now? :unsure:
I can understand the strident tone of Rushdie's 'post' as this outrage would very likely have been his fate years ago, but for police protection, going into hiding and the then relative lack of murderous fanatics.
I guess he probably feels threatened again.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:01:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PMIt would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.
I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:49:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Because they demand respect.
Yup.
What should we do about gay people demanding respect?
I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.
It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.
Very well said.
But false. Gays most definitely demand respect.
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Islam can't demand respect as an idea, it can't speak. Maybe you are talking about Muslims who demand respect for their religion - which when phrased like that seems similar to the construction of gays demanding respect for their sexuality/life choices. :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:01:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PMIt would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.
I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.
:yes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PM
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.
Which then makes that irrelevant to all of us. I don't think common people approach the world thinking that we should approach everything with disrespect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PM
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.
There is an important distinction between something being "open" to disrespect (as you say) which is not very different from open to criticism and "deserving" disrespect.
Malthus choose to side with people I don't respect. This makes me sad. :(
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:02:56 PM
I can understand the strident tone of Rushdie's 'post' as this outrage would very likely have been his fate years ago, but for police protection, going into hiding and the then relative lack of murderous fanatics.
I guess he probably feels threatened again.
Yeah, it's understandable from Rushdie.
Still, I reserve the right to criticize and even mock him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Really? A theology can "demand" respect without the need for human agency? So you are a Theist after all. :P
I'm baffled by your idiocy here.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:02:56 PM
I can understand the strident tone of Rushdie's 'post' as this outrage would very likely have been his fate years ago, but for police protection, going into hiding and the then relative lack of murderous fanatics.
I guess he probably feels threatened again.
But to go back to the editors point I believe one of his editors and one of his translators were murdered.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 05:05:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PM
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.
There is an important distinction between something being "open" to disrespect (as you say) which is not very different from open to criticism and "deserving" disrespect.
Yeah for sure.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:03:13 PM
Islam can't demand respect as an idea, it can't speak. Maybe you are talking about Muslims who demand respect for their religion - which when phrased like that seems similar to the construction of gays demanding respect for their sexuality/life choices. :)
It can demand respect for it to work as an idea.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:05:38 PM
I'm baffled by your idiocy here.
:secret: he's mocking your own inconsistencies. In fact, you could say he is criticizing and satirizing you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 05:05:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 04:59:36 PM
It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.
I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.
There is an important distinction between something being "open" to disrespect (as you say) which is not very different from open to criticism and "deserving" disrespect.
I was going to post this, but you beat me to it. :lol:
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:05:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Really? A theology can "demand" respect without the need for human agency? So you are a Theist after all. :P
I'm baffled
I am not surprised.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:06:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:05:38 PM
I'm baffled by your idiocy here.
:secret: he's mocking your own inconsistencies. In fact, you could say he is criticizing and satirizing you.
The only inconsistencies are between the various strawmen being constructed.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:07:38 PMThe only inconsistencies are between the various strawmen being constructed.
Yeah, which is why you should stop making them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:05:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:02:56 PM
I can understand the strident tone of Rushdie's 'post' as this outrage would very likely have been his fate years ago, but for police protection, going into hiding and the then relative lack of murderous fanatics.
I guess he probably feels threatened again.
But to go back to the editors point I believe one of his editors and one of his translators were murdered.
Oh I wasn't addressing that point and didn't read that post, but yes it was deadly then, but weren't those two killed in the Muslim world, whereas now the threat is Very real here in Europe and I have some sympathy with guardian editors quandary.
Danish newspapers tomorrow
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6xzZdyIgAE8lK8.jpg)
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:03:13 PM
Islam can't demand respect as an idea, it can't speak. Maybe you are talking about Muslims who demand respect for their religion - which when phrased like that seems similar to the construction of gays demanding respect for their sexuality/life choices. :)
It can demand respect for it to work as an idea.
It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:09:19 PM
Danish newspapers tomorrow
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6xzZdyIgAE8lK8.jpg)
:thumbsup:
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:05:01 PM
Which then makes that irrelevant to all of us. I don't think common people approach the world thinking that we should approach everything with disrespect.
No of course. I think a duty to disrespect leads to sort of very cynical, post-modern, Russia Today-ish view of the world. There's no hierarchy of ideas or narratives.
However given that the world us common people live in is one with such hierarchies and implicit respects I think that writers, artists and especially satirists do perhaps have a duty to prick those bubbles and knock things off the podium, if only temporarily. It's taken a lot of disrespect to get from a sort of Mr Cholmondley-Warner view of the world.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Distinction without a difference. "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples. By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:05:01 PM
Which then makes that irrelevant to all of us. I don't think common people approach the world thinking that we should approach everything with disrespect.
No of course. I think a duty to disrespect leads to sort of very cynical, post-modern, Russia Today-ish view of the world. There's no hierarchy of ideas or narratives.
However given that the world us common people live in is one with such hierarchies and implicit respects I think that writers, artists and especially satirists do perhaps have a duty to prick those bubbles and knock things off the podium, if only temporarily. It's taken a lot of disrespect to get from a sort of Mr Cholmondley-Warner view of the world.
Indeed. This is possibly the only raison d'etre of art. Everything else is banal.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
Oh I wasn't addressing that point and didn't read that post, but yes it was deadly then, but weren't those two killed in the Muslim world, whereas now the threat is Very real here in Europe and I have some sympathy with guardian editors quandary.
From memory it was an Italian editor and a Japanese translator.
But as I say I have no issue with an editor saying 'we won't publish this because I'm afraid for my life, my loved ones and my employees'. My problem comes from an editor who tries to dress that up as an issue of 'respect' or 'sensitivity'.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
It's a tiny minority that is involved in Islamic cartoonery.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
After this thread, I generally respect journalists more than Canadians, FWIW.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:05:01 PM
Which then makes that irrelevant to all of us. I don't think common people approach the world thinking that we should approach everything with disrespect.
No of course. I think a duty to disrespect leads to sort of very cynical, post-modern, Russia Today-ish view of the world. There's no hierarchy of ideas or narratives.
However given that the world us common people live in is one with such hierarchies and implicit respects I think that writers, artists and especially satirists do perhaps have a duty to prick those bubbles and knock things off the podium, if only temporarily. It's taken a lot of disrespect to get from a sort of Mr Cholmondley-Warner view of the world.
I can agree with that but it all seems like introducing a meta-discussion into a discussion of a press release(?) by Rushdie. If we were say critiquing a long-form op-ed or novel by him...well that would seem more appropriate. -_- :D
It was obvious what Rushdie was talking about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
Oh I wasn't addressing that point and didn't read that post, but yes it was deadly then, but weren't those two killed in the Muslim world, whereas now the threat is Very real here in Europe and I have some sympathy with guardian editors quandary.
From memory it was an Italian editor and a Japanese translator.
But as I say I have no issue with an editor saying 'we won't publish this because I'm afraid for my life, my loved ones and my employees'. My problem comes from an editor who tries to dress that up as an issue of 'respect' or 'sensitivity'.
Yes, I half remember, I was confusing those victims with the several dozen killed in the demonstrations in the ME/Pakistan.
I didn't read his piece, just going on what was commented in this thread and if that the case then is a poor showing. I'd be happy if he came out and said the former, it's understandable and I don't think the government can station a squad of MP5 armed police on every newspaper office entrance, enough to deter these type of terrorists.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:09:41 PM
It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.
Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.
Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with. :P
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:08:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:07:38 PMThe only inconsistencies are between the various strawmen being constructed.
Yeah, which is why you should stop making them.
thank you for your lack of contribution
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:13:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
After this thread, I generally respect journalists more than Canadians, FWIW.
What are your thoughts on Josephus, a Canadian journalist? :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:13:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
After this thread, I generally respect journalists more than Canadians, FWIW.
Yeah, It's kinda odd isn't it.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish,
Brazen and Josephus are both well-regarded.
And generally, only lazy journalists get disrespected here.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:19:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:13:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
After this thread, I generally respect journalists more than Canadians, FWIW.
What are your thoughts on Josephus, a Canadian journalist? :contract:
He has excellent taste in music, so is excused all other offences. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 05:20:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish,
Brazen and Josephus are both well-regarded.
And generally, only lazy journalists get disrespected here.
It's the usual "the ones I know are the good ones, it's the group as a whole that's despicable."
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:18:15 PM
I didn't read his piece, just going on what was commented in this thread and if that the case then is a poor showing. I'd be happy if he came out and said the former, it's understandable and I don't think the government can station a squad of MP5 armed police on every newspaper office entrance, enough to deter these type of terrorists.
As I say I wouldn't be surprised if we moved towards an armed Met in the near future.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:06:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:05:38 PM
I'm baffled by your idiocy here.
:secret: he's mocking your own inconsistencies. In fact, you could say he is criticizing and satirizing you.
The only inconsistencies are between the various strawmen being constructed.
I'm curious how you see this debate going. There seems to be a lot of disconnect here.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:09:41 PM
It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.
Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.
Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with. :P
Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities :perv:) but societal acceptance.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:18:51 PM
thank you for your lack of contribution
My pleasure.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Distinction without a difference. "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples. By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.
I don't buy this.
And what does it mean in practice?
And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 05:20:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish,
Brazen and Josephus are both well-regarded.
And generally, only lazy journalists get disrespected here.
It's the usual "the ones I know are the good ones, it's the group as a whole that's despicable."
So... Kind of like how a lot of people think about Muslims.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Distinction without a difference. "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples. By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.
I don't buy this.
And what does it mean in practice?
And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.
... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:12:18 PM
Incidentally, given the general disrespect journalists are held in on Languish, can't we in future considering giving them some appreciation for the increasingly difficult and dangerous job they now find themselves doing, both abroad and now in their home countries?
Absolutely. The dude who covers high school girls basketball for my local rag is a brave hero.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:09:41 PM
It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.
Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.
Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with. :P
Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities :perv:) but societal acceptance.
But I also recognise a number of dysfunctional practices in the "cultural" practice of homosexuality, so to speak. I don't demand respect for the cult of fit body, darkrooms and grindr, for example. And on top of that, homosexuality is inborn so at least a part of it is immutable. Religion isn't.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:22:06 PM
It's the usual "the ones I know are the good ones, it's the group as a whole that's despicable."
I haven't seen this evident distaste for journalists displayed anywhere other than in response to articles that are poorly written and/or factually wrong. Journalists who do their job right pass by without notice.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:23:06 PM
Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities :perv:) but societal acceptance.
Those fighting for respect for the right to bang whoever and for the right to wear whatever on ones head are similar. But what is the gay equivalent to demanding respect for a deity?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:18:15 PM
I didn't read his piece, just going on what was commented in this thread and if that the case then is a poor showing. I'd be happy if he came out and said the former, it's understandable and I don't think the government can station a squad of MP5 armed police on every newspaper office entrance, enough to deter these type of terrorists.
As I say I wouldn't be surprised if we moved towards an armed Met in the near future.
Understandable, but I don't think there's anything like the training resources to ever arm what 30,000* or so police and it would take years anyway. Besides the vast majority would only be armed with side arms, who'd still be at a serious disadvantage if facing AQ/ISIL returnees from Syria/Iraq.
I think something like 10%* of the Met are currently firearms certificated?
Certainly we'll see a greater armed presence, as logically an outrage like this in London is probably next on the list or highly likely given the ME influences at work.
What about employing large numbers of former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a 'beefed-up' Met?
*figure plucked from air.
* 2nd figure plucked from air.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 05:28:07 PM
I haven't seen this evident distaste for journalists displayed anywhere other than in response to articles that are poorly written and/or factually wrong. Journalists who do their job right pass by without notice.
I'll point it out to you the next few times it crops up, if you'd like?
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Distinction without a difference. "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples. By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.
I don't buy this.
And what does it mean in practice?
And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.
... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.
I'm waiting for BB to respond.
I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.
Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:26:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:09:41 PM
It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.
Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.
Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with. :P
Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities :perv:) but societal acceptance.
But I also recognise a number of dysfunctional practices in the "cultural" practice of homosexuality, so to speak. I don't demand respect for the cult of fit body, darkrooms and grindr, for example. And on top of that, homosexuality is inborn so at least a part of it is immutable. Religion isn't.
You stated that you agreed gays don't as for respect, so I'm not expecting you to demand respect for anything. :P
Anyway, I was thinking of the basics like recognizing that homosexual unions can be happy stable, nothing sick about that, should be able to happily couple up like straight couples and speak about one's partner. Nothing to seedy but still ideas around homosexuality.
What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?
There are way to many people here thinking that an attack on ideas is an attack on the humanity of the people holding them, this is not true, these people are idiots.
There are way to many people here thinking that ideas do not have consequences and that all religions are spherical and identical with them all being somehow content free versions of Unitarianism, this is not true, these people are idiots
There are way to many people who think that supernatural ideas have some kind of special claim on respect, this is not true, these people are idiots.
I'm actually, quite repeatedly it seems, quite surprised at the level of intellectual dishonesty and the cognitive dissonance involved in the religion debate. Actually, it's not really a debate, since not actual ideas are exchanged, merely strawmen constructed, ad-hom issued and constant red herrings tossed in.
There are people who believe that their religion commands that murder is good. These people really do exist and they were at work in Paris today. Pretending that the tenents of the religion of the murderers which has previously legitimized murder of those who mock the so called prophet have nothing to do with the murder of those who mock the supposed prophet is denial. I think it is part of the desperate attempt to either preserve the comforting delusion of the sky daddy who can take care of you and the hope that once you die you aren't really dead or to convince ones self that one isn't a racist by desperately denying that the teachings of islam had anything to do with the murders.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:29:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:23:06 PM
Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities :perv:) but societal acceptance.
Those fighting for respect for the right to bang whoever and for the right to wear whatever on ones head are similar. But what is the gay equivalent to demanding respect for a deity?
Well yes there is no gay equivalent of that but I don't see how that means that means gay activists are not about respect for their idea but Muslims are. Gays still want respect for the idea that they can have happy, fulfilling, morally neutral (if not morally good) lives when paired with someone of their own sex. Much as you may disagree with the existence of Allah, there are many who disagree with those ideas I just noted about homosexuality.
That's quite convincing. Did you crib that From Dawkins? I mean the part where you called people who disagree with you "idiots". No wonder he sells so many books.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:33:44 PM
There are way to many people here thinking that an attack on ideas is an attack on the humanity of the people holding them, this is not true, these people are idiots.
There are way to many people here thinking that ideas do not have consequences and that all religions are spherical and identical with them all being somehow content free versions of Unitarianism, this is not true, these people are idiots
There are way to many people who think that supernatural ideas have some kind of special claim on respect, this is not true, these people are idiots.
I'm actually, quite repeatedly it seems, quite surprised at the level of intellectual dishonesty and the cognitive dissonance involved in the religion debate. Actually, it's not really a debate, since not actual ideas are exchanged, merely strawmen constructed, ad-hom issued and constant red herrings tossed in.
There are people who believe that their religion commands that murder is good. These people really do exist and they were at work in Paris today. Pretending that the tenents of the religion of the murderers which has previously legitimized murder of those who mock the so called prophet have nothing to do with the murder of those who mock the supposed prophet is denial. I think it is part of the desperate attempt to either preserve the comforting delusion of the sky daddy who can take care of you and the hope that once you die you aren't really dead or to convince ones self that one isn't a racist by desperately denying that the teachings of islam had anything to do with the murders.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:32:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:26:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:09:41 PM
It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.
Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.
Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with. :P
Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities :perv:) but societal acceptance.
But I also recognise a number of dysfunctional practices in the "cultural" practice of homosexuality, so to speak. I don't demand respect for the cult of fit body, darkrooms and grindr, for example. And on top of that, homosexuality is inborn so at least a part of it is immutable. Religion isn't.
You stated that you agreed gays don't as for respect, so I'm not expecting you to demand respect for anything. :P
Anyway, I was thinking of the basics like recognizing that homosexual unions can be happy stable, nothing sick about that, should be able to happily couple up like straight couples and speak about one's partner. Nothing to seedy but still ideas around homosexuality.
What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?
But the respect for stable gay unions actually follows a great effort on the part of gay community to assimilate (in fact, some would say going too far - there is a subset of gay culture who are opposed to gay marriage for this very reason). This was done in response to the criticism levelled against gay culture for its apparent promiscuity and superficiality. You dont see any such effort on the part of muslims.
That it is an inborn trait is imho quite relevant - at least in the context of respect (if not rights). The fact that being gay is not a choice has a great influence on it being seen as a valid and respected lifestyle option (as opposed to simply being a choice that is merely tolerated but not respected).
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:32:44 PM
What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?
I agree. There's nothing I hate more than the 'born this way' argument - even if I think it's true.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:29:06 PM
Those fighting for respect for the right to bang whoever and for the right to wear whatever on ones head are similar. But what is the gay equivalent to demanding respect for a deity?
Well yes there is no gay equivalent of that but I don't see how that means that means gay activists are not about respect for their idea but Muslims are. Gays still want respect for the idea that they can have happy, fulfilling, morally neutral (if not morally good) lives when paired with someone of their own sex. Much as you may disagree with the existence of Allah, there are many who disagree with those ideas I just noted about homosexuality.
Didn't really consider homophobia to be that encompassing, but okay, I see proof every day that the gay idea is real, which is why I in no way see those two ideas as being equal.
I consider us in agreement though and I move we put the Muslims = Gays debate to rest.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:31:55 PMI'm waiting for BB to respond.
I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.
Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?
Sure. The only thing I'm not good with is the duty to actively disrespect, which is what I got from Rushdie's commentary.
It's not that reflexive disrespect should be disallowed or prohibited, but I can't sign on to it being inherently positive.
Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.
Sweet dreams :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:38:16 PM
But the respect for stable gay unions actually follows a great effort on the part of gay community to assimilate (in fact, some would say going too far - there is a subset of gay culture who are opposed to gay marriage for this very reason). This was done in response to the criticism levelled against gay culture for its apparent promiscuity and superficiality. You dont see any such effort on the part of muslims.
But that says little to nothing about homosexuality not being about ideas and simply is on why someone might choose to respect homosexuality more than Islam.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:38:16 PM
That it is an inborn trait is imho quite relevant - at least in the context of respect (if not rights). The fact that being gay is not a choice has a great influence on it being seen as a valid and respected lifestyle option (as opposed to simply being a choice that is merely tolerated but not respected).
Again, I don't really think that says much beyond why someone might choose to respect it more (/looks at the history of how gay activists messaged in order to gain respect for homosexuality). I can't see why something in-born should be accorded more respect than something that a personally consciously chooses*. Since my identify as a practicing homosexual (as my decision engage in homosexual actions is a choice -based on in-born urges), should in a hierarchy of respect, it be accorded less respect than my identify as a person of middling height or as a person with my brown shade of skin? The latter are without a doubt inborn and pretty immutable.
*which, is questionable in the case of religion where many have it pushed on the by family, community, etc,
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.
And I don't agree that in our everyday lives that we should approach every idea that way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:42:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:32:44 PM
What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?
I agree. There's nothing I hate more than the 'born this way' argument - even if I think it's true.
From the perspective of rights, I agree - it has no bearing.
From the perspective of respect though? I think it is relevant. Respect is not given, it is earned by contributing to the society. Homosexual lifestyle is, generally, less productive from the perspective of the society than heterosexual lifestyle (of course I am generalising greatly here). So if it were a pure choice, I would say someone choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle would deserve less respect (for this particular thing - it is not to say there would be no other reasons to respect him or her) than someone choosing to lead a heterosexual lifestyle.
The fact that it is inborn makes it different - since for a homosexual person, the choice is therefore to live in a stable and happy relationship with another person of the same sex - or to live in a lie with a people of the opposite sex - the former being more respectful choice.
You sure post a lot in your sleep Marty.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:50:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.
And I don't agree that in our everyday lives that we should approach every idea that way.
Then we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:42:39 PM
Didn't really consider homophobia to be that encompassing, but okay, I see proof every day that the gay idea is real, which is why I in no way see those two ideas as being equal.
And there are those who would say that every day that they see proof that their religious ideas are real. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZ2KBXDEcM
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 05:42:39 PMI consider us in agreement though and I move we put the Muslims = Gays debate to rest.
:hug:
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:52:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 05:50:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.
And I don't agree that in our everyday lives that we should approach every idea that way.
Then we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.
Critical thinking? Sure. Approaching every idea with merciless criticism? Not so much.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:52:30 PMThen we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.
I think that's the disconnect. Not everyone equates "critical thinking" with "disrespect."
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:51:05 PM
From the perspective of respect though? I think it is relevant. Respect is not given, it is earned by contributing to the society. Homosexual lifestyle is, generally, less productive from the perspective of the society than heterosexual lifestyle (of course I am generalising greatly here). So if it were a pure choice, I would say someone choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle would deserve less respect (for this particular thing - it is not to say there would be no other reasons to respect him or her) than someone choosing to lead a heterosexual lifestyle.
Yeah, I think we have different perceptions on respect. I don't think respect should only be accorded if one makes a "meaningful" contribution to society. :D
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:51:05 PM
The fact that it is inborn makes it different - since for a homosexual person, the choice is therefore to live in a stable and happy relationship with another person of the same sex - or to live in a lie with a people of the opposite sex - the former being more respectful choice.
I think there are more choices than that - and I don't think "living a lie" is a less respectful choice if both partners are happy, though there is something to be said about lying to one's partner about one's true urges.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:52:30 PMThen we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.
I think that's the disconnect. Not everyone equates "critical thinking" with "disrespect."
This.
Islam, and Christianity, and many other things are wide, wide open for harsh criticism. I just think that doesn't have to equal disrespect.
For the record - and this is really the last thing I am going to post tonight - I also disagree with laws that put preachers in jail for saying that gays go to hell. They have a right to say this and call me sinful and depraved - and I have a right to call them stupid goat-fucking moon worshippers (or whatever ethno-cultural slur applies to their particular brand of iron age mumbo-jumbo).
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Distinction without a difference. "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples. By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.
I don't buy this.
And what does it mean in practice?
And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.
... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.
I'm waiting for BB to respond.
I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.
Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?
Thread moving too fast, and I'm too busy today, to try and give a lengthy response. Sorry.
There is an anti-terrorist police operation in Reims (130 km east-northeast of Paris) right now with a RAID unit (SWAT-like team) there but details are sparse. Also some house search operations in Charleville-Mézières in the northeast.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 06:09:51 PM
There is an anti-terrorist police operation in Reims (130 km east-northeast of Paris) right now with a RAID unit (SWAT-like team) there but details are sparse. Also some house search operations in Charleville-Mézières in the northeast.
Crossing fingers that they get the shit-stains.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:58:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.
Distinction without a difference. "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples. By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.
I don't buy this.
And what does it mean in practice?
And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.
... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.
I'm waiting for BB to respond.
I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.
Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?
Thread moving too fast, and I'm too busy today, to try and give a lengthy response. Sorry.
Understandable.
310 post in just 11 hours, who knew languish wasn't dying. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2015, 05:58:27 PM
Thread moving too fast, and I'm too busy today, to try and give a lengthy response. Sorry.
If only there was a sacred duty to offer a response on an Internet forum. :hmm:
I skipped the last several pages. Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 06:14:44 PM
I skipped the last several pages. Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
Heard on CNN that the terrorists read out the names of the CH staff before they were killed. So pretty personal.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 06:14:44 PM
I skipped the last several pages. Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
What thread have you been reading :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 06:36:15 PM
Heard on CNN that the terrorists read out the names of the CH staff before they were killed. So pretty personal.
Well informed and well organised, I'd say. CH staff is pretty famous in France.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 06:14:44 PM
I skipped the last several pages. Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
What thread have you been reading :huh:
Ah, that explains it, Canadian lawyers where reading a different thread to this one. :cheers:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6yDBNJCIAA_jAr.jpg)
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:40:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 06:14:44 PM
I skipped the last several pages. Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
What thread have you been reading :huh:
Ah, that explains it, Canadian lawyers where reading a different thread to this one. :cheers:
Seriously though. What indefensible position have Malthus, BB or I taken?
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
What's been defended that's indefensible?
According to NBC 1 suspect is shot dead and 2 are arrested.
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 06:54:48 PM
According to NBC 1 suspect is shot dead and 2 are arrested.
Good news.
Big fan of the Indy's front page:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6x_Z5yCQAEEI-k.jpg)
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:44:07 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 07, 2015, 09:38:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:34:56 AM
Wow, you are really stupid.
hes not comparing boycotting to murder, he's questioning the sincerity of your belief in what you quoted.
Not really. Again, first of all Voltaire's words were aimed at protecting someone from state prosecution. So that's that.
I do think however that it is sensible to expand this principle to protecting someone from violence - and other illegal actions - by persons who are not associated with the state.
I do not think that it is sensible to expand this principle so far as to argue that this should grant someone effective immunity of all negative social consequences of saying disagreeable things.
Unless those disagressable things are said by a gay, about gayness.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 06:54:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
What's been defended that's indefensible?
A joke exec.sum for Money, hence stuff like Marty being the
sole of reason. :)
Quote from: Liep on January 07, 2015, 06:54:48 PM
According to NBC 1 suspect is shot dead and 2 are arrested.
The fucked up way they finished off the cop was one way to ensure you won't be taken alive by the
gendarmes, even if you wanted.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
I've had a lunatic hold a knife to my throat and threaten to kill me.
This should have its own thread.
I'm sure I mentioned this back when it happened, about 10 years ago
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:56:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 06:54:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
Exec.Sum - Canadian lawyers defended the indefensible, Garbon was doing his thing with fine distinctions, Marty was the sole of reason and Viking Vikinged for all a raiding party was worth; Languish at it's best. :cool:
What's been defended that's indefensible?
A joke exec.sum for Money, hence stuff like Marty being the sole of reason. :)
:lol: :mad: :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 06:14:44 PM
I skipped the last several pages. Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?
He tackled the shooters.
QuoteI'm sure I mentioned this back when it happened, about 10 years ago
Perhaps, but your narrative is lost to the world like The Diary of a Young Raccoon.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:33:44 PM
There are way to many people here...
Poor Viking, this isn't about stupidity - since most of the members here aren't stupid; they're merely caught up in the zeitgeist of the place, which itself is simply a by-product of the narrative that has been dominant in the West for far too long.
-----
- Consider that the 'leading lights' here are lawyers or wanna-be lawyers, with all the quirks their training has drilled into them as they matured; and you will understand that bad faith, arguing about commas and finessing around arguments are mandatory reflexes...
- Consider that most of them are of Anglo-Saxon origins; which means they've stewed in, throughout their individual lives, and are saturated by, a complex sentiment of superiority born of their ancestors' accomplishments yet laced with the guilt bred from the same sources; with the last great war being a constant reminder... Then you will understand why their blinders go up automatically when certain topics are broached, and how impervious they suddenly become to certain points of view...
- Consider the 'multikulti' slop they've been raised to lap greedily at since the cradle;
- Consider the individual idiosyncrasies each of them are contending with, suppressing them at times yet expressing them at others;
- Consider human nature that constantly pressures all of us into conforming to the general movements the *herd* is taking at any given time;
- Consider finally how this new medium flattens personalities, turning human beings into one-dimensional caricatures...
Then and only then you will understand why you Viking are viewed, here, as nothing but a cranky obsessive relative whose opinion can be scoffed at and dismissed as unimportant; and why I am seen as gleefully, 'glee-fucking-fully', rejoicing at the death of journalists, and nothing but a psycho slavering for blood; something they can blissfully distance themselves from while going on with the circle-jerk of good sentiments...
You and I disturb the mental landscape these hypocritical maggots have cozily crafted with this place; trying to shore-up the narrow world-view that is crumbling around their ears. It is quite amazing how predictable they all are when you stop to think about it.
G.
That was beautiful, man. :cry:
:lol:
As I was saying...
One can always count on Garbon to show up like the poodle he so resembles, daintily sniffing the air to discover where the wind blows, before yapping while preening himself.
:yucky:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 09:06:40 PM
- Consider that the 'leading lights' here are lawyers
I am flattered. Truly flattered.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 09:47:02 PM
As I was saying...
One can always count on Garbon to show up like the poodle he so resembles, daintily sniffing the air to discover where the wind blows, before yapping while preening himself.
:yucky:
G.
A poodle? Can't I at least be something fun (though an outdated trend) like a pug? :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:48:47 PM
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 09:06:40 PM
- Consider that the 'leading lights' here are lawyers
I am flattered. Truly flattered.
Flattery developed in Canada no less.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 09:06:40 PM
Poor Viking, this isn't about stupidity - since most of the members here aren't stupid; they're merely caught up in the zeitgeist of the place, which itself is simply a by-product of the narrative that has been dominant in the West for far too long.
-----
- Consider that the 'leading lights' here are lawyers or wanna-be lawyers, with all the quirks their training has drilled into them as they matured; and you will understand that bad faith, arguing about commas and finessing around arguments are mandatory reflexes...
- Consider that most of them are of Anglo-Saxon origins; which means they've stewed in, throughout their individual lives, and are saturated by, a complex sentiment of superiority born of their ancestors' accomplishments yet laced with the guilt bred from the same sources; with the last great war being a constant reminder... Then you will understand why their blinders go up automatically when certain topics are broached, and how impervious they suddenly become to certain points of view...
- Consider the 'multikulti' slop they've been raised to lap greedily at since the cradle;
- Consider the individual idiosyncrasies each of them are contending with, suppressing them at times yet expressing them at others;
- Consider human nature that constantly pressures all of us into conforming to the general movements the *herd* is taking at any given time;
- Consider finally how this new medium flattens personalities, turning human beings into one-dimensional caricatures...
Then and only then you will understand why you Viking are viewed, here, as nothing but a cranky obsessive relative whose opinion can be scoffed at and dismissed as unimportant; and why I am seen as gleefully, 'glee-fucking-fully', rejoicing at the death of journalists, and nothing but a psycho slavering for blood; something they can blissfully distance themselves from while going on with the circle-jerk of good sentiments...
You and I disturb the mental landscape these hypocritical maggots have cozily crafted with this place; trying to shore-up the narrow world-view that is crumbling around their ears. It is quite amazing how predictable they all are when you stop to think about it.
G.
Grallon, that was one of the best posts on this forum in some time (seriously). :bowler:
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 09:06:40 PM
Poor Viking, this isn't about stupidity - since most of the members here aren't stupid; they're merely caught up in the zeitgeist of the place, which itself is simply a by-product of the narrative that has been dominant in the West for far too long.
-----
- Consider that the 'leading lights' here are lawyers or wanna-be lawyers, with all the quirks their training has drilled into them as they matured; and you will understand that bad faith, arguing about commas and finessing around arguments are mandatory reflexes...
- Consider that most of them are of Anglo-Saxon origins; which means they've stewed in, throughout their individual lives, and are saturated by, a complex sentiment of superiority born of their ancestors' accomplishments yet laced with the guilt bred from the same sources; with the last great war being a constant reminder... Then you will understand why their blinders go up automatically when certain topics are broached, and how impervious they suddenly become to certain points of view...
- Consider the 'multikulti' slop they've been raised to lap greedily at since the cradle;
- Consider the individual idiosyncrasies each of them are contending with, suppressing them at times yet expressing them at others;
- Consider human nature that constantly pressures all of us into conforming to the general movements the *herd* is taking at any given time;
- Consider finally how this new medium flattens personalities, turning human beings into one-dimensional caricatures...
Then and only then you will understand why you Viking are viewed, here, as nothing but a cranky obsessive relative whose opinion can be scoffed at and dismissed as unimportant; and why I am seen as gleefully, 'glee-fucking-fully', rejoicing at the death of journalists, and nothing but a psycho slavering for blood; something they can blissfully distance themselves from while going on with the circle-jerk of good sentiments...
You and I disturb the mental landscape these hypocritical maggots have cozily crafted with this place; trying to shore-up the narrow world-view that is crumbling around their ears. It is quite amazing how predictable they all are when you stop to think about it.
G.
Sérieux, man...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F280.gif&hash=51c535f9798b886d86f83d6b0e2f486862e0c5c8)
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2015, 09:06:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:33:44 PM
There are way to many people here...
Poor Viking, this isn't about stupidity - since most of the members here aren't stupid; they're merely caught up in the zeitgeist of the place, which itself is simply a by-product of the narrative that has been dominant in the West for far too long.
-----
- Consider that the 'leading lights' here are lawyers or wanna-be lawyers, with all the quirks their training has drilled into them as they matured; and you will understand that bad faith, arguing about commas and finessing around arguments are mandatory reflexes...
- Consider that most of them are of Anglo-Saxon origins; which means they've stewed in, throughout their individual lives, and are saturated by, a complex sentiment of superiority born of their ancestors' accomplishments yet laced with the guilt bred from the same sources; with the last great war being a constant reminder... Then you will understand why their blinders go up automatically when certain topics are broached, and how impervious they suddenly become to certain points of view...
- Consider the 'multikulti' slop they've been raised to lap greedily at since the cradle;
- Consider the individual idiosyncrasies each of them are contending with, suppressing them at times yet expressing them at others;
- Consider human nature that constantly pressures all of us into conforming to the general movements the *herd* is taking at any given time;
- Consider finally how this new medium flattens personalities, turning human beings into one-dimensional caricatures...
Then and only then you will understand why you Viking are viewed, here, as nothing but a cranky obsessive relative whose opinion can be scoffed at and dismissed as unimportant; and why I am seen as gleefully, 'glee-fucking-fully', rejoicing at the death of journalists, and nothing but a psycho slavering for blood; something they can blissfully distance themselves from while going on with the circle-jerk of good sentiments...
You and I disturb the mental landscape these hypocritical maggots have cozily crafted with this place; trying to shore-up the narrow world-view that is crumbling around their ears. It is quite amazing how predictable they all are when you stop to think about it.
G.
What? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:52:30 PMThen we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.
I think that's the disconnect. Not everyone equates "critical thinking" with "disrespect."
Indeed, it's rather the opposite, actually. "Critical thinking" implies that one approach an idea as free as humanly possible from pre-conceived notions. Approaching an idea with "disrespect" that you have a preconceived negative view of it.
Howard Dean says we shouldn't call the attackers Muslims or even Islamists. What a dumbass.
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 10:36:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:52:30 PMThen we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.
I think that's the disconnect. Not everyone equates "critical thinking" with "disrespect."
Indeed, it's rather the opposite, actually. "Critical thinking" implies that one approach an idea as free as humanly possible from pre-conceived notions. Approaching an idea with "disrespect" that you have a preconceived negative view of it.
That is very well put dps.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 11:16:56 PM
Howard Dean says we shouldn't call the attackers Muslims or even Islamists. What a dumbass.
That would be feeding into the narrative they deserve. Call 'em...evildoers. Smoke 'em outta their holes.
So I missed that apparently one of them* voluntarily surrendered?
*Or at least one of the people the police were looking for.
One of the policemen who was killed was a Muslim.
They're probably particularly happy they got to kill him :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:03:28 AM
One of the policemen who was killed was a Muslim.
They're probably particularly happy they got to kill him :(
Or not. They may have wanted to avoid killing a Muslim.
I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:07:45 AM
I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.
This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking. The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2015, 12:24:41 AM
This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking. The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.
And to think, we missed all of history's major wars of religious schism, reformation and consolidation. But now we get to watch Islam attempting to wrestle control of itself, with apostates on one side and heretics on the other, backed by nation states. I mean, really now; other than the occasional ethnocentric massacres here and there on the undercard, you just don't get ringside seats to heavyweight title bouts of religion like this anymore.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:07:45 AM
I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.
All we know is that they were targeting those who dared defame the beloved prophet. We don't know much else of what was going on inside their heads, but didn't someone say one of the attackers said it was okay that they executed that policeman on the sidewalk because he wasn't Algerian? These guys weren't indiscriminately firing at everyone-- they clearly had their targets, and shot the police because they got in the way.
Again, I don't know what was going on inside their heads, but I can easily see them having regret at having shot a Muslim (if they found out afterwards). Jihadists and Islamists frequently show deference to other Muslims-- even those that aren't as hard core as they are.
They really don't. They kill far more Muslims than anyone else and not just for ease. Takfirism is a big feature of lots of current jihadi groups - and remember that before ISIS were releasing videos of them killing Western reporters they were releasing videos of them killing apostates and executing Shia truck drivers who answered incorrectly about how to pray. Many of the groups we know as jihadi are called takfiri in the region because that's their more defining feature.
I mean the description of it here really matches ISIS's approach:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/07/03takfirism
QuoteThe elimination of the enemy within was a necessary preliminary to any showdown with outsiders.
You're right we don't know about these guys but if the reports mentioned in this thread that they've been to Syria and are associated with AQAP are true then it's very unlikely that they'd see a Muslim French policemen as anything but an apostate.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 07, 2015, 10:13:52 PM
What? :huh:
You're a WWII buff, look at his avatar. Try and figure out where that picture came from. He's a nut. Fucker makes me look rational.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6w0qBdIEAAH5iY.jpg)
"Two suicidal caricaturists"
- I'm tired of life. Should I jump in front of a train? Or off a high rise?
- I'll draw something about Mohammed.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 12:58:33 AM
You're a WWII buff, look at his avatar. Try and figure out where that picture came from. He's a nut. Fucker makes me look rational.
Guessing games are lame, why don't you just tell us?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
They really don't. They kill far more Muslims than anyone else and not just for ease. Takfirism is a big feature of lots of current jihadi groups - and remember that before ISIS were releasing videos of them killing Western reporters they were releasing videos of them killing apostates and executing Shia truck drivers who answered incorrectly about how to pray. Many of the groups we know as jihadi are called takfiri in the region because that's their more defining feature.
But again, these guys were clearly targeting people who they viewed as responsible for blasphemy. I suppose it's possible that they would have viewed a Muslim policeman as being an apostate simply by working for the French state, but it's also possible that they'd have spared him had they known he was Muslim.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcreepingsharia.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2Fnormal_toonophobia.jpg&hash=8585a0839ecd23e4dccf7525ad75ebad18fc04c7)
:lol:
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2015, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:07:45 AM
I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.
This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking. The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.
Eh. We keep hearing how Islam needs a reformation but I think it's a red herring. They have gone through several reformations, each creating a more monstrous form of the religion than the one before it (and in that, it's not so different from Christianity). What Islam needs is Enlightenment.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 01:25:20 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2015, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:07:45 AM
I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.
This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking. The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.
Eh. We keep hearing how Islam needs a reformation but I think it's a red herring. They have gone through several reformations, each creating a more monstrous form of the religion than the one before it (and in that, it's not so different from Christianity). What Islam needs is Enlightenment.
I think that would increase the number of beheadings, not decrease it.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 11:59:13 PM
So I missed that apparently one of them* voluntarily surrendered?
*Or at least one of the people the police were looking for.
Along the fruitless raid in Reims, in another operation Charleville-Mézières, the brother of a suspect voluntarily surrendered , since he was sought by the police.
Suspects had quite a record with one featuring a conviction in a jihadi connection ring to Iraq in 2008.
The last piece of news is another shooting early in the morning in the close southern Parisian suburb of Montrouge. Two city cops injured, one badly. Suspects had MP5 SMGs.
Still don't know if it's linked to the Charlie Hebdo attack. A suspect has also been apprehended.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 03:01:26 AM
Suspects had quite a record with one featuring a conviction in a jihadi connection ring to Iraq in 2008.
I'm beginning to think the American way of locking them up indefinitely in Guantanamo is a preferred option. :hmm:
Many people are saying that this will not have a chilling effect in France, which is a country of political cartoons as much as it is of haute couture, cuisine and philosophy. Let's hope this is true.
I found this cartoon to be quite powerful in its simplicity:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperallergic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2FScreen-Shot-2015-01-07-at-8.26.21-PM.png&hash=0b1109d29bc2f03d8ddb2a97ec3c0a06841267bf)
Looking through Charlie Hebdo covers. This one is quite good. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--cuTXWQA0--%2Frbvn6qqzltbh1pcluzy6.png&hash=62aec6f733447fd149706a7c55e79f2d306fabfa)
A piece on the victims. Remarkable people.
QuoteCharlie Hebdo terrorist attack: remembering the victims
Gunmen on Tuesday killed at least 12 people at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which has drawn criticism in recent years for covers and cartoons mocking religious figures, including the Prophet Mohammed. Here is what we know about the victims so far, based on media reports.
Stéphane Charbonnier
Charbonnier, who wrote under the name Charb, was the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo.
Charbonnier previously defended the magazine's depictions of Mohammed in cartoons, which were meant to mock extremists, not Islam or Muslims specifically.
"Mohammed isn't sacred to me," Charbonnier told the Associated Press in 2012. "I don't blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don't live under Quranic law."
Charbonnier said he didn't fear retaliation for the magazine's controversial work. He explained to Le Monde in 2012, "I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. This may be a bit pompous what I'm saying, but I prefer to die standing than live on my knees."
Charbonnier made similar comments to ABC News in 2012. "Our job is not to defend freedom of speech. But without freedom of speech we are dead," he said. "I prefer to die than live like a rat."
Georges Wolinski
Wolinski was an 80-year-old cartoonist who had worked for and collaborated with numerous publications, including Charlie Hebdo, L'Humanité, Libération, and Le Nouvel Observateur, according to Le Monde.
"The comedian," he was quoted as saying by Le Monde, "belongs to no party, believes in no religion; all acts are suspect, especially those who are not guided by the profit."
Bernard Verlhac
Verlhac, who went by the moniker Tignous, was a cartoonist who worked for multiple publications throughout his life, including Charlie Hebdo, Casus Belli, and Marianne, according to Le Monde. He also participated in Cartooning for Peace, which strives for "a better understanding and mutual respect between people of different cultures and beliefs."
Le Monde quoted him as saying, "A drawing can make one laugh. When it's truly received, it can make one think. If it makes one both laugh and think, then it's an excellent drawing. But the best drawing makes one laugh, think, and provokes a feeling of shame. The reader experiences shame for having laughed at such a grave situation. This drawing is magnificent, because it's the one that stays."
Jean Cabut
Jean Cabut, who went by Cabu, worked as a cartoonist for many publications, including Charlie Hebdo, Le Monde, and Le Figaro.
Cabut drew one of Charlie Hebdo's most controversial cover images of the Prophet Mohammed, according to the Telegraph. The cartoon depicted Mohammed saying, "It's hard to be loved by idiots," under the caption "Mohammed overwhelmed by fundamentalists."
Le Monde described Cabut's vast body of work: "The unparalleled pencil stroke which allowed him to caricature with a disconcerting ease any personality in the political world or show business, a lingering eternal adolescent air, a slightly arched shape under his raincoat, card drawings under his arm, worthy of the Grand Duduche, the naive and utopian hero that made him famous in the 1960s."
Cabut was also the father of French singer Mano Solo, who died in 2010 at the age of 46 as a result of multiple aneurisms.
Elsa Cayat
Cayat was an analyst and columnist at Charlie Hebdo, according to Le Figaro.
Philippe Honoré
Honoré was a cartoonist who had worked with Charlie Hebdo since 1992, according to the Guardian. He drew the last cartoon tweeted by the magazine before Wednesday's attack. The cartoon shows Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS , with the caption, "Best wishes to al-Baghdadi as well." The leader of ISIS responds, "And especially to good health!"
Mustapha Ourrad
Ourrad was a copy editor at Charlie Hebdo, according to the Guardian.
Frederic Boisseau
Boisseau was a maintenance worker at the Charlie Hebdo building, Le Figaro reported.
Bernard Maris
Maris was a French economist and shareholder in Charlie Hebdo. He served as a member of the Bank of France's General Council, NBC News reported. And he wrote for Charlie Hebdo under the moniker Uncle Bernard, according to French daily newspaper L'Humanité.
Maris was an admirer of the liberal economist John Maynard Keynes, according to Le Monde. He often criticized other economists for the perpetuation of economic concepts that he claimed led to excess.
L'Humanité previously reviewed some of his work: "In volume 1 of this 'anti-manual,' which appeared in 2003, Bernard Maris, a culturally refined and unorthodox economist, and Charlie Hebdo ('Uncle Bernard') chronicler to boot, broke down the ductile 'laws' of economics: laws of supply, demand, of 'pure and perfect' competition, etc. He showed that the economy is not an automatic system imposing its needs on man but that it is a human construct characterised by power play and by political domination, imitative behaviour etc."
Michel Renaud
Renaud, founder of the art festival Rendez-vous de Carnet de Voyage, was visiting the Charlie Hebdo offices for an upcoming project, according to Le Monde. One of Renaud's colleagues reportedly survived the attack.
Ahmed Merabet
Merabet, a 42-year-old police officer, was patrolling the neighborhood when he encountered masked gunment outside the Charlie Hebdo building, according to Le Figaro. "He leaves behind a wife," Rocco Contento, departmental secretary of the union SGP Police Unit, told Le Figaro. "We are all extremely shocked."
Franck Brinsolaro
Franck Brinsolaro was a 49-year-old police officer and bodyguard for Charbonnier, according to Le Monde. He leaves behind a daughter, one of his colleagues told Le Figaro.
Other victims
Eleven were injured, with four in serious condition, according to Paris prosecutor François Molins.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7508335/charlie-hebdo-victims
The link has pictures (both of the people and some of their most famous cartoons) and interview clips with some of them.
Even more shooting today. :(
Also, an explosion near a mosque in East France.
Seriously, could people stop killing other people for a moment, FFS?
Apparently some media outlets showed a picture of Stéphane Charbonnier (the chief editor and victim), holding a copy of Charlie Hebdo with the cartoon on the cover pixelled out.
That is so low and pathetic, I don't have words. :yuk:
The badly injured policewoman early this morning, died.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 12:38:05 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2015, 12:24:41 AM
This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking. The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.
And to think, we missed all of history's major wars of religious schism, reformation and consolidation. But now we get to watch Islam attempting to wrestle control of itself, with apostates on one side and heretics on the other, backed by nation states. I mean, really now; other than the occasional ethnocentric massacres here and there on the undercard, you just don't get ringside seats to heavyweight title bouts of religion like this anymore.
I wouldn't be so smug. At least us Euro balls of light are barely a generation away from the destruction and misery wrought by the great ideological plagues that are nationalism and totalitarianism. Barbarism is for me the same whether the cause under which it is committed is a crescent, cross, swastika or hammer and sickle.
Unconfirmed reports that suspects have been localised in Northern France, in the Aisne, near Villers-Cotterêt, while refuelling at a petrol station.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:24:17 AM
Unconfirmed reports that suspects have been localised in Northern France, in the Aisne, near Villers-Cotterêt, while refuelling at a petrol station.
That could just be your average Belgian fuel thieves.
From the BBC:
A local television station, BFMTV, reports that the main entrance points to Paris have been blocked by police, and the car with suspects in is believed to be to the west of the city.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:24:17 AM
Unconfirmed reports that suspects have been localised in Northern France, in the Aisne, near Villers-Cotterêt, while refuelling at a petrol station.
The two main suspects in the Islamist attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris are said to have robbed a service station in the north of France.
They stole food and petrol, firing shots as they struck at the roadside stop near Villers-Cotterets in the Aisne region, French media report.
France has observed a minute's silence for the 12 people killed at the office of the satirical magazine.
Earlier in the day, a gunman shot dead a policewoman in southern Paris.
A second person was seriously injured in the attack in the suburb of Montrouge, after which the gunman fled.
It is unclear if the attack is related to the pursuit of prime suspects Cherif and Said Kouachi.
According to the manager of the service station that was robbed on the RN2 road in Aisne at about 10:30 (09:30 GMT), the attackers fit the description of the two men, and were heavily armed with Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
They are said to have driven off in the direction of Paris in a Renault Clio car, apparently the same vehicle hijacked in Paris soon after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
According to French commercial channel BFMTV, police are monitoring all of the main entry roads into the capital.
Apparently Houllebecq's under heavy police guard.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:19:35 AM
Apparently Houllebecq's under heavy police guard.
What did he do this time? :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 07:47:20 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:19:35 AM
Apparently Houllebecq's under heavy police guard.
What did he do this time? :P
A book about the French being so afraid of being politically incorrect that they united against Le Pen and just elected whatever wasn't her and ended up with a muslim president. Hilarity ensues.
Not just Muslim, Sharia law crazy president.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 07:47:20 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:19:35 AM
Apparently Houllebecq's under heavy police guard.
What did he do this time? :P
Read all about it:
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/
I was joking.I know about the book.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 01:25:20 AM
Eh. We keep hearing how Islam needs a reformation but I think it's a red herring. They have gone through several reformations, each creating a more monstrous form of the religion than the one before it (and in that, it's not so different from Christianity). What Islam needs is Enlightenment.
The Reformation led to at least 150 years of the worst religious violence that Christianity saw - it was no hold barred fanatical actions, both small scale and large. In the end, Christianity had to figure out how to look at itself not simply tear itself apart.
The problem with the long view is people seem to think the Reformation was a modernizing movement, when it was really a "back to roots" movement to get rid of all the non-essential trappings of the Church. The end result was fanatics who were killing other fanatics for that best of reasons - because God demanded purity.
I think the Islamic world needs economic development and more mature political institutions, rather than a reformation, but since I was trained as a political scientist and economic historian I would say that, wouldn't I?
This why I think it is very important progress in Indonesia and Tunisia is not derailed; these are the best two models for the Egypts and Syrias out there. And Qatar could possibly learn a thing or two from how Singapore conducts itself.
Not sure what to make of this article, since I don't know much about French politics, but worth a read as it's from someone close to the events of yesterday:
Quote
Agnès Poirier
Published: 08 January 2015
I was reading a review of the French writer Michel Houellebecq's latest novel, Submission (Soumission) yesterday morning when an intriguing picture popped up on my computer screen. Fellow journalists seemed to have taken refuge on the rooftop of their offices at Charlie Hebdo. Taken refuge from what? Fire? Flooding? I went back to the Houellebecq review. Submission depicts life in an imaginary France, in 2022: a French Islamist has just won the presidential elections with the backing of the liberal Left and Right. France is refounded as an Islamist Republic.
Then another picture came up on my screen: two armed men in a street of the 11th arrondissement of Paris, near my office. Black-clad and wearing balaclavas, they were shooting at policemen in front of Charlie Hebdo's offices. Houellebecq and his controversial fiction would have to wait.
......
Now France has a big problem on its hands. To be blunt, France has had a problem for 25 years. Successive French governments of both Left and Right have undermined key French republican values — above all secularism — and let the poison of sectarianism creep in. Call it appeasement — and appeasement never yields any results. For years, the French and their governments thought they could somehow buy peace by closing their eyes to the resurgence of fundamentalism of all kinds (Muslim but Jewish and Catholic too) and refusing to speak plainly.
During his presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy came up with a law banning the full veil, to no effect: by then it was already too late for this. With the largest Muslim community (six million people) as well as the largest Jewish community (600,000) in the Western world, the French should have known better.
When the far-Right Front National suddenly proved to be one of the very few political parties in France actually to speak plainly of Islamism, we all buried our heads in the sand, refusing even to debate it. That was a terrible mistake. Marine le Pen's party came first in the European elections last May and now sets the terms of the debate. She almost has a monopoly on the subject, because French democrats haven't had the courage to rise to her challenge on the subject. Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists were the only ones to see clearly and to say it loudly with their cartoons. Now they are dead.
In fact, the space for calm and intelligent public debate in France has shrunk considerably in the past decade or so, stuck as we are between the hysterical but politically astute far-Right and the blind liberal Left and Right, who accuse everyone of religionphobia as soon as the word Muslim, Jew or Catholic is uttered. The French should remember their ugly 16th-century Wars of Religion, and their huge achievement in separating the State from the Church in 1905, the modern basis of the principle of secularism so central to French democracy.
What way forward for France now? We have to go back to the Republic's generous and inclusive basics — and show the door to everyone who doesn't accept them. We should read Voltaire again too: "intolerance cannot be tolerated".
If you do tolerate it, you reap war in your street and your most outspoken and talented writers and artists need around-the-clock police protection. Michel Houellebecq was given such protection just two hours after Charlie Hebdo's attack.
The French must wake up: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité are not just beautiful words carved on old buildings. It is a daily fight. It may even be a war.
Agnès C Poirier is a French political commentator
Full article here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/agns-poirier-now-france-faces-a-daily-battle-for-libert-egalit-and-fraternit-9964903.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/agns-poirier-now-france-faces-a-daily-battle-for-libert-egalit-and-fraternit-9964903.html)
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:11:30 PM
310 post in just 11 hours, who knew languish wasn't dying. :cool:
All it takes is a horrible tragedy to make us spring into life. Sort of like vultures. :lol:
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 09:22:29 AM
Not sure what to make of this article, since I don't know much about French politics, but worth a read as it's from someone close to the events of yesterday:
Quote
Agnès Poirier
Published: 08 January 2015
I was reading a review of the French writer Michel Houellebecq's latest novel, Submission (Soumission) yesterday morning when an intriguing picture popped up on my computer screen. Fellow journalists seemed to have taken refuge on the rooftop of their offices at Charlie Hebdo. Taken refuge from what? Fire? Flooding? I went back to the Houellebecq review. Submission depicts life in an imaginary France, in 2022: a French Islamist has just won the presidential elections with the backing of the liberal Left and Right. France is refounded as an Islamist Republic.
Then another picture came up on my screen: two armed men in a street of the 11th arrondissement of Paris, near my office. Black-clad and wearing balaclavas, they were shooting at policemen in front of Charlie Hebdo's offices. Houellebecq and his controversial fiction would have to wait.
......
Now France has a big problem on its hands. To be blunt, France has had a problem for 25 years. Successive French governments of both Left and Right have undermined key French republican values — above all secularism — and let the poison of sectarianism creep in. Call it appeasement — and appeasement never yields any results. For years, the French and their governments thought they could somehow buy peace by closing their eyes to the resurgence of fundamentalism of all kinds (Muslim but Jewish and Catholic too) and refusing to speak plainly.
During his presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy came up with a law banning the full veil, to no effect: by then it was already too late for this. With the largest Muslim community (six million people) as well as the largest Jewish community (600,000) in the Western world, the French should have known better.
When the far-Right Front National suddenly proved to be one of the very few political parties in France actually to speak plainly of Islamism, we all buried our heads in the sand, refusing even to debate it. That was a terrible mistake. Marine le Pen's party came first in the European elections last May and now sets the terms of the debate. She almost has a monopoly on the subject, because French democrats haven't had the courage to rise to her challenge on the subject. Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists were the only ones to see clearly and to say it loudly with their cartoons. Now they are dead.
In fact, the space for calm and intelligent public debate in France has shrunk considerably in the past decade or so, stuck as we are between the hysterical but politically astute far-Right and the blind liberal Left and Right, who accuse everyone of religionphobia as soon as the word Muslim, Jew or Catholic is uttered. The French should remember their ugly 16th-century Wars of Religion, and their huge achievement in separating the State from the Church in 1905, the modern basis of the principle of secularism so central to French democracy.
What way forward for France now? We have to go back to the Republic's generous and inclusive basics — and show the door to everyone who doesn't accept them. We should read Voltaire again too: "intolerance cannot be tolerated".
If you do tolerate it, you reap war in your street and your most outspoken and talented writers and artists need around-the-clock police protection. Michel Houellebecq was given such protection just two hours after Charlie Hebdo's attack.
The French must wake up: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité are not just beautiful words carved on old buildings. It is a daily fight. It may even be a war.
Agnès C Poirier is a French political commentator
Full article here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/agns-poirier-now-france-faces-a-daily-battle-for-libert-egalit-and-fraternit-9964903.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/agns-poirier-now-france-faces-a-daily-battle-for-libert-egalit-and-fraternit-9964903.html)
France has a problem with
Jewish fundamentalism now? :hmm:
Strikes me that France has a problem with a sizable Muslim ethnic minority whose young are largely unemployed, living in ghettos, overrepresented in jails, and pissed off - and so ripe for extremism of any sort. Just so happens the flavour of the day is Islamicism.
Loudly trumpeting "secularism" isn't going to solve this problem. Even assuming the dissafected minority buys it - will this not just mean picking up a secularist flavour of extremism? You will still have a big minority living in ghettos and pissed off - only now, not religious.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 06:11:30 PM
310 post in just 11 hours, who knew languish wasn't dying. :cool:
All it takes is a horrible tragedy to make us spring into life. Sort of like vultures. :lol:
:)
Yes, and a fittingly Languish turn of phrase as well.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 09:22:29 AM
Not sure what to make of this article, since I don't know much about French politics, but worth a read as it's from someone close to the events of yesterday:
Quote
Agnès Poirier
Published: 08 January 2015
I was reading a review of the French writer Michel Houellebecq's latest novel, Submission (Soumission) yesterday morning when an intriguing picture popped up on my computer screen. Fellow journalists seemed to have taken refuge on the rooftop of their offices at Charlie Hebdo. Taken refuge from what? Fire? Flooding? I went back to the Houellebecq review. Submission depicts life in an imaginary France, in 2022: a French Islamist has just won the presidential elections with the backing of the liberal Left and Right. France is refounded as an Islamist Republic.
Then another picture came up on my screen: two armed men in a street of the 11th arrondissement of Paris, near my office. Black-clad and wearing balaclavas, they were shooting at policemen in front of Charlie Hebdo's offices. Houellebecq and his controversial fiction would have to wait.
......
Now France has a big problem on its hands. To be blunt, France has had a problem for 25 years. Successive French governments of both Left and Right have undermined key French republican values — above all secularism — and let the poison of sectarianism creep in. Call it appeasement — and appeasement never yields any results. For years, the French and their governments thought they could somehow buy peace by closing their eyes to the resurgence of fundamentalism of all kinds (Muslim but Jewish and Catholic too) and refusing to speak plainly.
During his presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy came up with a law banning the full veil, to no effect: by then it was already too late for this. With the largest Muslim community (six million people) as well as the largest Jewish community (600,000) in the Western world, the French should have known better.
When the far-Right Front National suddenly proved to be one of the very few political parties in France actually to speak plainly of Islamism, we all buried our heads in the sand, refusing even to debate it. That was a terrible mistake. Marine le Pen's party came first in the European elections last May and now sets the terms of the debate. She almost has a monopoly on the subject, because French democrats haven't had the courage to rise to her challenge on the subject. Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists were the only ones to see clearly and to say it loudly with their cartoons. Now they are dead.
In fact, the space for calm and intelligent public debate in France has shrunk considerably in the past decade or so, stuck as we are between the hysterical but politically astute far-Right and the blind liberal Left and Right, who accuse everyone of religionphobia as soon as the word Muslim, Jew or Catholic is uttered. The French should remember their ugly 16th-century Wars of Religion, and their huge achievement in separating the State from the Church in 1905, the modern basis of the principle of secularism so central to French democracy.
What way forward for France now? We have to go back to the Republic's generous and inclusive basics — and show the door to everyone who doesn't accept them. We should read Voltaire again too: "intolerance cannot be tolerated".
If you do tolerate it, you reap war in your street and your most outspoken and talented writers and artists need around-the-clock police protection. Michel Houellebecq was given such protection just two hours after Charlie Hebdo's attack.
The French must wake up: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité are not just beautiful words carved on old buildings. It is a daily fight. It may even be a war.
Agnès C Poirier is a French political commentator
Full article here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/agns-poirier-now-france-faces-a-daily-battle-for-libert-egalit-and-fraternit-9964903.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/agns-poirier-now-france-faces-a-daily-battle-for-libert-egalit-and-fraternit-9964903.html)
:cheers:
The conspirationalists are out in force claiming that the terrorists had a sense of humour. Before the attack they hacked Hebdo's twitter account and posted "Meilleurs vœux, au fait. (Happy New Years, by the way)" and this now disputed Honoré comic:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6vY6mDIAAEI5k1.jpg)
Happy New Years to Al-Baghdadi as well
"And especially good health"
As a response to this comic by Charb:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6v_NDuCMAAhoMZ.jpg)
Still no attack on France
"Wait! We still have to the end of January to wish you a happy new years."
QuoteLondon preacher who called for gays to be killed defends Paris Charlie Hebdo shootings
A London preacher who previously called for gay people to be stoned to death has written an article defending the murder of 12 people in Paris yesterday at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Yesterday, gunmen killed twelve people, after attacking the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine that famously published a cartoon of a gay Muslim kiss.
Responding today, USA Today published an opinion article by London preacher Anjem Choudary who defends the murder, and appears to blame the French Government for "allowing" the magazine to publish them images, "thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?"
He writes: "Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
"However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see."
He continues: "Why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?"
Speaking in an interview with Fox News, Choudhary was challenged on his views, and asked whether he still thinks gay people should be put to death, as well as adulterers.
He responded to say he thought those found guilty of "sodomy", and where there are four witnesses, should be stoned to death under Shariah law, which he said should be implemented worldwide.
Another islamophobe who doesn't understand that Islam is a religion of peace, it seems.
Also, wtf USA Today? :huh:
Full article:
QuoteWhy did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/
I like this guy's analysis:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?_r=1
Summary:
Quote
1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.
2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society's liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.
3) The legitimacy and wisdom of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 09:32:08 AM
Strikes me that France has a problem with a sizable Muslim ethnic minority whose young are largely unemployed, living in ghettos, overrepresented in jails, and pissed off - and so ripe for extremism of any sort. Just so happens the flavour of the day is Islamicism.
Loudly trumpeting "secularism" isn't going to solve this problem. Even assuming the dissafected minority buys it - will this not just mean picking up a secularist flavour of extremism? You will still have a big minority living in ghettos and pissed off - only now, not religious.
Poverty alone is rarely enough to engender violence. There are plenty of populations poorer than said French minorities, which abstain from committing terrorist acts.
Strong ideological support is pretty much essential for a terrorist. Whether it is religious, nationalistic or political.
And then there are idiots like Howard Dean:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/08/howard-dean-paris-attackers-not-muslim-terrorists/
Arrogant counter-factual insistence like this from politically correct mainstream politicians is one of the reasons people embrace populist parties like the National Front in France or the Tea Party in the US.
From France 24 liveblog
Expert on BFMTV says gunmen not pros. Went to wrong address, dropped identity card AND "Commandos don't drive a Citroen C3".
The ID card dropped allowed the quick identification. As for the Citroën bit, well I'm a bit more skeptical, it's easier to blend in with...
Not if you're male.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 08, 2015, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 09:32:08 AM
Strikes me that France has a problem with a sizable Muslim ethnic minority whose young are largely unemployed, living in ghettos, overrepresented in jails, and pissed off - and so ripe for extremism of any sort. Just so happens the flavour of the day is Islamicism.
Loudly trumpeting "secularism" isn't going to solve this problem. Even assuming the dissafected minority buys it - will this not just mean picking up a secularist flavour of extremism? You will still have a big minority living in ghettos and pissed off - only now, not religious.
Poverty alone is rarely enough to engender violence. There are plenty of populations poorer than said French minorities, which abstain from committing terrorist acts.
Strong ideological support is pretty much essential for a terrorist. Whether it is religious, nationalistic or political.
Yup. The "Malthus side" keep accusing the "Viking side" that when a white Christian commits mass murder, noone treats it as something related to his religion or ethnicity. But on the flip side, noone is trying to explain or excuse the crime by poverty or unemployment.
QuoteFrom France 24 liveblog
Expert on BFMTV says gunmen not pros. Went to wrong address, dropped identity card AND "Commandos don't drive a Citroen C3".
The ID card dropped allowed the quick identification. As for the Citroën bit, well I'm a bit more skeptical, it's easier to blend in with...
What did he think they were going to tun up in? A Lamborghini? These aren't Qataris, for god's sake.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 08, 2015, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 09:32:08 AM
Strikes me that France has a problem with a sizable Muslim ethnic minority whose young are largely unemployed, living in ghettos, overrepresented in jails, and pissed off - and so ripe for extremism of any sort. Just so happens the flavour of the day is Islamicism.
Loudly trumpeting "secularism" isn't going to solve this problem. Even assuming the dissafected minority buys it - will this not just mean picking up a secularist flavour of extremism? You will still have a big minority living in ghettos and pissed off - only now, not religious.
Poverty alone is rarely enough to engender violence. There are plenty of populations poorer than said French minorities, which abstain from committing terrorist acts.
Strong ideological support is pretty much essential for a terrorist. Whether it is religious, nationalistic or political.
Poverty alone, no.
Poverty plus a sense of exclusion from mainstream society - closer.
Poverty plus a sense of exclusion from mainstream society plus some sort of ideological rallying cry - closer still.
Point being that, when one has a population that does not consider itself part of the mainstream, you have the breeding ground that makes it more likely that violence will happen - one far more ready to be receptive to the message of ideological nutcases.
Ridicule, repression or sweet reason will not persuade such people to reject the message of ideological nutcases, because it is not reason that persuaded them to accept the message in the first place. All ridicule or repression can do, once such a situation has been established, if feed the sense of seperation that made that population pissed off in the first place. It is likely to make them *more* receptive to ideological nutcases, not *less*.
This is why I thought legal restrictions on (say) veil-wearing were stupid. All that will achive is make veil-wearing a sign of bravery, and those punished for doing it into heroes, inspiring more fundies.
The same, BTW, lack of success in ostensible objects afflicts terrorism: this terrorism is not likely to intimidate non-fundies into not publishing (well, it may intimidate some, but overall, not). Rather, it will piss off the non-fundies into publishing *more*, as it makes those who publish in the face of the threat heroes - regardless of the worth of their cartoons or whatever. Publishing a cartoon showing Mohammed with a missile up his bare, hairy ass will now be a sign of bravery, not gaucherie.
There is this difference though: overall, fundie nutters *want* there to be more conflict, while the rest of us want *less* conflict. That's the reason behind the unreason of terrorism. A terrorist laughs every time someone in the West is encouraged by his acts to become a Grallon.
And if we recall communist terrorism in Europe in the post-war period, wasn't it designed precisely to spur the capitalist state into revealing its true fascist character? In other words, the object of terror can often be to incite and inflame through propaganda of the deed.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:28:38 AM
There is this difference though: overall, fundie nutters *want* there to be more conflict, while the rest of us want *less* conflict. That's the reason behind the unreason of terrorism. A terrorist laughs every time someone in the West is encouraged by his acts to become a Grallon.
Which means you can't fight terrorists with one hand tied behind your back. ;)
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
Quote from: Warspite on January 08, 2015, 10:30:59 AM
And if we recall communist terrorism in Europe in the post-war period, wasn't it designed precisely to spur the capitalist state into revealing its true fascist character? In other words, the object of terror can often be to incite and inflame through propaganda of the deed.
I may be wrong, but I think communist terrorism was more rational than muslim terrorism is. Communist terorrism, in theory at least, treats terrorism as an extraordinary measure - once political goals are achieved, it no longer postulates terror (of course it is different in practice, but still). Muslim terrorism is simply "justice through other means" - they want to kill blasphemers, gays and "loose women" in the majesty of sharia law - they just commit mass murder acts now illegaly for lack of legal means.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:25:13 AM
From France 24 liveblog
Expert on BFMTV says gunmen not pros. Went to wrong address, dropped identity card AND "Commandos don't drive a Citroen C3".
The ID card dropped allowed the quick identification. As for the Citroën bit, well I'm a bit more skeptical, it's easier to blend in with...
For the car to blend in better, it needed a dented quarter panel, messed up bumpers or be scratched to hell.
Paris traffic terrified me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2015, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:25:13 AM
From France 24 liveblog
Expert on BFMTV says gunmen not pros. Went to wrong address, dropped identity card AND "Commandos don't drive a Citroen C3".
The ID card dropped allowed the quick identification. As for the Citroën bit, well I'm a bit more skeptical, it's easier to blend in with...
For the car to blend in better, it needed a dented quarter panel, messed up bumpers or be scratched to hell.
Paris traffic terrified me.
:hmm:
I guess that's why one of the cars they left behind had the back window completely broken.
I think it's time to bring back the old Onion's classic:
QuoteWASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/#
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 05:57:39 PM
iron age
:thumbsup:
Once again languish brings enlightenment.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
"Islamist apologists"? We have those posting here? :hmm:
Was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France
And not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
"Islamist apologists"? We have those posting here? :hmm:
Canadians (sans Quebecois), garbon and Raz.
The inability to separate fantasy from reality is one of the classic symptoms of mental illness. Religious people are weirdos and should be treated as such.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 10:51:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
"Islamist apologists"? We have those posting here? :hmm:
Canadians (sans Quebecois), garbon and Raz.
Seems rather inaccurate. But go ahead and use the term, if you think it makes you look reasonable. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
"Islamist apologists"? We have those posting here? :hmm:
Was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France
And not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Nice backtracking, you and other people conflate the two issues constantly, and by not mentioning that any conspicuous religious symbol to people under 18 in state-owned schools. People can still choose a religious school if they wish so. So it's not like their freedom is infringed for the pro-islamist librarytarian out there.
If you weren't conflating you would tell what the law is about and mention that Turkey, despite Erdogan, had had the same law since Atatürk. Erdogan might try to "fix" this though.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
"Islamist apologists"? We have those posting here? :hmm:
Was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France
And not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Nice backtracking, you and other people conflate the two issues constantly, and by not mentioning that any conspicuous religious symbol to people under 18 in state-owned schools. People can still choose a religious school if they wish so. So it's not like their freedom is infringed for the pro-islamist librarytarian out there.
If you weren't conflating you would tell what the law is about and mention that Turkey, despite Erdogan, had had the same law since Atatürk. Erdogan might try to "fix" this though.
All I can say is "huh"?
Somehow, I am forced to discuss Turkey now? :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
This has been said countless times but since the islamist apologists don't want to understand it, but the veil is not banned in France. What is banned in the streets and public places is face-covering garments (except during Carnival). Guess what, that's what the terrorists wore.
"Islamist apologists"? We have those posting here? :hmm:
Was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France
And not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Nice backtracking, you and other people conflate the two issues constantly, and by not mentioning that any conspicuous religious symbol to people under 18 in state-owned schools. People can still choose a religious school if they wish so. So it's not like their freedom is infringed for the pro-islamist librarytarian out there.
If you weren't conflating you would tell what the law is about and mention that Turkey, despite Erdogan, had had the same law since Atatürk. Erdogan might try to "fix" this though.
All I can say is "huh"?
Somehow, I am forced to discuss Turkey now? :huh:
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
This just gets stranger and stranger. :hmm:
My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.
What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. :D
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 10:34:52 AM
I may be wrong, but I think communist terrorism was more rational than muslim terrorism is. Communist terorrism, in theory at least, treats terrorism as an extraordinary measure - once political goals are achieved, it no longer postulates terror (of course it is different in practice, but still).
No terrorism is really inimical to Marxist theory; Marx was quite hostile to "propaganda of the deed" and such antics.
In terms of practice, it is difficult to think of anything less rational than the bizarre but horrific exploits of the Red Brigades, baader-meinhoff, Shining Path et al.
Please don't disrespect the idea of Red Terror.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
Agree Berkut - Rushdie is just saying (in trenchant language to be sure) that religious ideas should be not treated any differently from any other form or kind of idea. That is a basic tenet of any liberal society and as such unobjectionable.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
:huh:
Quote from: Warspite on January 08, 2015, 10:28:16 AM
QuoteFrom France 24 liveblog
Expert on BFMTV says gunmen not pros. Went to wrong address, dropped identity card AND "Commandos don't drive a Citroen C3".
The ID card dropped allowed the quick identification. As for the Citroën bit, well I'm a bit more skeptical, it's easier to blend in with...
What did he think they were going to tun up in? A Lamborghini? These aren't Qataris, for god's sake.
I think he means pros don't choose a getaway car that could be outrun by a bicycle.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
Exactly. But when you satirize or mock religion, specifically THIS religion, people get killed because that is "disrespectful".
What he is saying is pretty obvious Malthus. All ideas deserve to be "disrespected" in the manner that those who killed 12 people found this magazine disrespectful. They all deserve to be challenged, satirized, mocked, argued and debated.
Rushdie is a pretty accomplished writer. I think it is pretty safe to presume that he isn't a drooling idiot incapable of making his point in the manner you insist he must be because you pretend to be incapable of understanding how he is making his point.
ALL ideas deserve that kind of "disrespect" but only a very particular set of ideas being disrespected in that manner results in people being murdered. One of these things is not like the others.
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
:huh:
My paraphrase:
Berkut: the religious perceive criticism as"disrespect". Thus the Rushdie statement makes sense. "Disrespect" in this context does not
literally mean disrespect, it means the sort of searching critique that the religious
perceive as "disrespect".
Me: the Rushdie statement isn't confined to religions. He's stating that all ideas deserve disrespect. Which is why it is awkwardly phrased, because normal people understand there to exist a difference betweeen critique and disrespect. When a scientist peer-reviews someon's paper, he is not "disrespecting" that other person.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
This just gets stranger and stranger. :hmm:
My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.
What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. :D
:secret: Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..
So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.
You are well-known for your bigotry against French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
:huh:
My paraphrase:
Berkut: the religious perceive criticism as"disrespect". Thus the Rushdie statement makes sense. "Disrespect" in this context does not literally mean disrespect, it means the sort of searching critique that the religious perceive as "disrespect".
Me: the Rushdie statement isn't confined to religions. He's stating that all ideas deserve disrespect. Which is why it is awkwardly phrased, because normal people understand there to exist a difference betweeen critique and disrespect. When a scientist peer-reviews someon's paper, he is not "disrespecting" that other person.
I think everyone on the planet understood what Rushdie said except you Malthus.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:21:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
Exactly. But when you satirize or mock religion, specifically THIS religion, people get killed because that is "disrespectful".
What he is saying is pretty obvious Malthus. All ideas deserve to be "disrespected" in the manner that those who killed 12 people found this magazine disrespectful. They all deserve to be challenged, satirized, mocked, argued and debated.
Rushdie is a pretty accomplished writer. I think it is pretty safe to presume that he isn't a drooling idiot incapable of making his point in the manner you insist he must be because you pretend to be incapable of understanding how he is making his point.
ALL ideas deserve that kind of "disrespect" but only a very particular set of ideas being disrespected in that manner results in people being murdered. One of these things is not like the others.
So ... what you are saying is that I shouldn't "disrespect" Rushdie? :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
I think everyone on the planet understood what Rushdie said except you Malthus.
I know the West Coast is a different place, but it is hardly on Mars. :lol:
That is the freaking point that Rushdie is making!
Satire, critique, debate is often seen as "disrespect" by those who hold the views in question.
Rushdie is basically saying this:
Some guy: Your idea is silly! Here is a funny cartoon making fun of it!
Offended guy: That is so disrespectful! I am offended!
Rushdie: Tough shit! If mocking an idea is disrespectful, then we should protect disrespecting ideas!
Rushdie being a vastly more competent writer than myself, said it vastly more eloquently, but it is crystal clear what he is trying to say, as long as your intent in reading him is trying to understand what he is saying, rather than figuring out a way to be offended by it yourself.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:21:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:
Quote"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." –Salman Rushdie
I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.
And so extremism begets more extremism.
Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?
Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.
That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".
The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.
Exactly. But when you satirize or mock religion, specifically THIS religion, people get killed because that is "disrespectful".
What he is saying is pretty obvious Malthus. All ideas deserve to be "disrespected" in the manner that those who killed 12 people found this magazine disrespectful. They all deserve to be challenged, satirized, mocked, argued and debated.
Rushdie is a pretty accomplished writer. I think it is pretty safe to presume that he isn't a drooling idiot incapable of making his point in the manner you insist he must be because you pretend to be incapable of understanding how he is making his point.
ALL ideas deserve that kind of "disrespect" but only a very particular set of ideas being disrespected in that manner results in people being murdered. One of these things is not like the others.
So ... what you are saying is that I shouldn't "disrespect" Rushdie? :lol:
No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
This just gets stranger and stranger. :hmm:
My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.
What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. :D
:secret: Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..
So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.
You are well-known for your bigotry for French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.
My patience for you is at an end.
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2015, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:07:45 AM
I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.
This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking. The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.
Yep,
That is exactly the point made in Aslan's book "No God but God" back in 2005. I brought it to Languish's attention at the time. It is still well worth a read. Perhaps even more now.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:30:34 AM
No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.
:hmm:
I know what he was saying. I'm criticising his way of saying it.
There's a lot of disrespect in this thread.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:30:34 AM
No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.
:hmm:
I know what he was saying. I'm criticising his way of saying it.
That is unnecessary, you should be mocking it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:29:03 AM
That is the freaking point that Rushdie is making!
Satire, critique, debate is often seen as "disrespect" by those who hold the views in question.
Rushdie is basically saying this:
Some guy: Your idea is silly! Here is a funny cartoon making fun of it!
Offended guy: That is so disrespectful! I am offended!
Rushdie: Tough shit! If mocking an idea is disrespectful, then we should protect disrespecting ideas!
Rushdie being a vastly more competent writer than myself, said it vastly more eloquently, but it is crystal clear what he is trying to say, as long as your intent in reading him is trying to understand what he is saying, rather than figuring out a way to be offended by it yourself.
What leads you to believe I'm offended by his statement? I just think it is badly phrased.
After reading Berkut's posts I know one thing that is "deserving" of disrespect.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:30:34 AM
No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.
:hmm:
I know what he was saying. I'm criticising his way of saying it.
That is unnecessary, you should be mocking it.
Apparently Berkut - like religious people - sees the two as the same. :D
Yeah, if only Salman Rushdie knew how to write...
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:30:34 AM
No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.
:hmm:
I know what he was saying. I'm criticising his way of saying it.
That is unnecessary, you should be mocking it.
Apparently Berkut - like religious people - sees the two as the same. :D
You are perfectly welcome to mock it - that doesn't mean your mocking is valid, and I am similarly able and willing to point out that you are being a tool. It goes every which way.
Which...again...is the point Rushdie is making. And doing such a bad job of it, because he simply cannot write as well as Malthus, I am sure.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:37:37 AM
Yeah, if only Salman Rushdie knew how to write...
So you are making an argument that we shouldn't read what Rushdie actually wrote but we should make allowances and read in something he didn't actually say because you say he is a good writer? Now that is some twisted logic right there.
By the way, have you ever tried to read one of his books?
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:32:06 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
This just gets stranger and stranger. :hmm:
My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.
What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. :D
:secret: Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..
So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.
You are well-known for your bigotry for French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.
My patience for you is at an end.
Relax, I'm not a Québécois.
Quote from: Warspite on January 08, 2015, 11:34:56 AM
There's a lot of disrespect in this thread.
This thread deserves to be disrespected.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:32:06 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
This just gets stranger and stranger. :hmm:
My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.
What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. :D
:secret: Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..
So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.
You are well-known for your bigotry for French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.
My patience for you is at an end.
Relax, I'm not a Québécois.
Fuck You!
or is it Allah Ackbar?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2015, 11:40:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:37:37 AM
Yeah, if only Salman Rushdie knew how to write...
So you are making an argument that we shouldn't read what Rushdie actually wrote but we should make allowances and read in something he didn't actually say because you say he is a good writer? Now that is some twisted logic right there.
By the way, have you ever tried to read one of his books?
In my role I do a lot of editing and you would be very surprised how badly even well known names can write, especially if it's a short-notice comment piece. :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:43:02 AM
Fuck You!
or is it Allah Ackbar?
Your latinised arabic is as good as your French irrévérence comprehension skills, Renard Gris.
If you can handle one of Ide's movies reviews, you can fucking handle Rushdie.
"Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."
Yeah, that is so poorly written. I wish I had his inability to write.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:24:07 AM
Me: the Rushdie statement isn't confined to religions. He's stating that all ideas deserve disrespect. Which is why it is awkwardly phrased, because normal people understand there to exist a difference betweeen critique and disrespect. When a scientist peer-reviews someon's paper, he is not "disrespecting" that other person.
Perhaps you've been out of the academic world too long. ;).
It is certainly not unknown for secular academics to perceive constructive criticism or "peer review" as personal disrespect.
And while thankfully the levels of physical violence and weaponry are much lower in the academic context, verbal vitriol and nasty backbiting is commonplace.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:46:21 AM
If you can handle one of Ide's movies reviews, you can fucking handle Rushdie.
Nobody has yet claimed that Ide is a good writer; although, I must say he writes much more clearly that Rushdie. Damning with faint praise, but there it is.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:49:03 AM
"Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."
Yeah, that is so poorly written. I wish I had his inability to write.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
It's like the old days :cheers:
Makes sense, really, since EUOT - and by extension languish - only really stepped into character as a response to 9/11. Languish slowly bleeds to death until some politically contentious tragedy spurs us into impassioned invectives, disrespect, mockery, and eye-rolling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
And while thankfully the levels of physical violence and weaponry are much lower in the academic context, verbal vitriol and nasty backbiting is commonplace.
:lol:
Back to topic, anti-terrorism alert level has been extended to Picardy just north of Île-de-France (Paris region)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2901478/Paris-shooting-suspect-surrenders.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2901478/Paris-shooting-suspect-surrenders.html)
QuoteA nationwide manhunt to trace two brothers wanted over the Paris magazine massacre is focusing on a rural area outside the capital.
There were reports of heavy police presences around the thickly wooded area near a petrol garage where Said and Cherif Kouachi were apparently sighted earlier today.
The pair are the main suspects in yesterday's deadly attack on the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and have now been on the run for more than 24 hours.
Emergency staff at the scene after a shooting in Montrouge, south of Paris (AP)
The tension gripping France deepened further today after a policewoman was shot dead just outside Paris this morning in an attack which officials are reportedly treating as a terrorist act.
Thousands of police and security officers have been deployed to hunt for the brothers and the search appeared to be concentrating on an area to the north of the city after reports that they were spotted driving a Renault Clio at a roadside petrol station in the Aisne region.
They were identified after stealing food and petrol from the service station, it was claimed. The pair were said to have been hooded and armed with Kalashnikovs.
The garage was sealed off and armed police patrolled the surroundings while helicopters hovered overhead. Local media said special forces and police units had been dispatched to the area.
Armed officers were seen in the village of Longpont on the edge of the Forêt de Retz, which is around 50 miles from Paris.
Benoit Verdun, a hotel worker in the area, told Sky News: "There are lots of policemen. I can see a huge police car. They are asking people 'have you seen anybody?' They have big guns with them.
"The forest is bigger than Paris - it is very big and very wide. "
The Vigipirate plan - the French national security alert system - was yesterday raised to its highest level, "alerte attentat", across the entire Ile-de-France region around Paris.
That threat level has now reportedly been extended to cover Picardy, the northern French region where the suspects are said to have been spotted.
The sense of unease in Paris was compounded by the second fatal attack on police in consecutive days.
Today's shooting took place early this morning when an officer stopped to investigate a traffic accident. A street sweeper was critically injured in the incident.
Witness Ahmed Sassi said: "There was an officer in front of a white car and a man running away who shot."
The gunman was dressed in dark clothes.
It means police and security agencies are conducting two separate manhunts as they search for the two brothers identified as the main suspects in the magazine massacre, while the perpetrator in today's attack is also on the loose.
Senior security official Bernard Cazenueve left an emergency meeting to travel to the scene in Montrouge. Authorities have not directly linked the two incidents.
I was expecting this to end in a banlieue siege. Those two suspects are like fish out of water in rural Picardy, if they are there that is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
And while thankfully the levels of physical violence and weaponry are much lower in the academic context, verbal vitriol and nasty backbiting is commonplace.
Henry Kissinger said it much better, though.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:43:02 AM
Fuck You!
or is it Allah Ackbar?
Your latinised arabic is as good as your French irrévérence comprehension skills, Renard Gris.
:lol:
That is true that I have no idea how to write that properly.
Languages evolves & spelling changes. It's hard to swallow, I know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:54:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
And while thankfully the levels of physical violence and weaponry are much lower in the academic context, verbal vitriol and nasty backbiting is commonplace.
Henry Kissinger said it much better, though.
But could he write better than Ide, Rushdie or Berkut (in that order)?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:43:02 AM
Fuck You!
or is it Allah Ackbar?
Your latinised arabic is as good as your French irrévérence comprehension skills, Renard Gris.
:lol:
That is true that I have no idea how to write that properly.
Languages evolves & spelling changes. It's hard to swallow, I know.
Specially for you, since you are not able to be proficient with any spelling. :smarty:
How's your Nouvelle orthographe btw?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2015, 11:58:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:54:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
And while thankfully the levels of physical violence and weaponry are much lower in the academic context, verbal vitriol and nasty backbiting is commonplace.
Henry Kissinger said it much better, though.
But could he write better than Ide, Rushdie or Berkut (in that order)?
I'd rate Berkut and Ide above Rushdie in terms of the raw passion of their prose.
Ide and Rushdie can hit the same levels of flowery inane pretension, but Rushdie does so more consistently.
In terms of clarity, I'd probably have to give a slight edge to Rushdie, though he does have the benefit of editors. However, Ide and Berkut can both express themselves clearly and do so on a regular basis.
As for interesting subject matter, I place Berkut and Ide neck to neck, but ahead of Rushdie.
Anyone can write better than me.
Well, almost anyone.
I think I am generally very clear in my writing, but take about ten times as many words to get the same message across as many others (and Malthus is actually one person who I admire for being able to say the same thing I am trying to say in a fraction of the space).
This post is a good example of that, in fact.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
You are well-known for your bigotry for French-speaking people in Canada
:lol: and thus the joke becomes reality.
A bit of interesting context on Charlie Hebdo for those of us who aren't French: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-gouaillesatireislamjournalism.html
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:43:02 AM
Fuck You!
or is it Allah Ackbar?
Your latinised arabic is as good as your French irrévérence comprehension skills, Renard Gris.
:lol:
That is true that I have no idea how to write that properly.
Languages evolves & spelling changes. It's hard to swallow, I know.
Specially for you, since you are not able to be proficient with any spelling. :smarty:
How's your Nouvelle orthographe btw?
Unlearn, my kids are not in school yet. I will start learning it in the fall of 2017.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 12:22:11 PM
A bit of interesting context on Charlie Hebdo for those of us who aren't French: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-gouaillesatireislamjournalism.html
How do you get rid of that drop down thingy that blocks the text?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2015, 11:40:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 11:37:37 AM
Yeah, if only Salman Rushdie knew how to write...
So you are making an argument that we shouldn't read what Rushdie actually wrote but we should make allowances and read in something he didn't actually say because you say he is a good writer? Now that is some twisted logic right there.
By the way, have you ever tried to read one of his books?
:lol:
Exactly.
Great article, and it speaks to the point Rushdie was making - someone feeling disrespected is the *inevitable* result of freedom to challenge ideas, especially sacred ones.
Hebdo was in the business of offense as a means to an end. Their entire purpose was to be offensive, to be disrespectful in order to jam down our throats that no cow is so sacred as to be exempt.
I don't doubt that if they had taken aim at some of my cherished ideas, *I* would find it disrespectful - being disrespectful was pretty much the point.
The key to a liberal society is that we are in fact allowed, and even should be encouraged, to look at ideas, all ideas, in a critical manner, and the fear that someone might find your critique "disrespectful" cannot and should not be a check on your willingness to express it.
I don't think we would all be better off if we all acted like Hebdo and set out to piss each other off when discussing things we don't agree on, by any means. Productive discourse happens more often when the people involved try to respect one another's views and positions when held honestly.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2015, 12:31:39 PM
Great article, and it speaks to the point Rushdie was making - someone feeling disrespected is the *inevitable* result of freedom to challenge ideas, especially sacred ones.
Hebdo was in the business of offense as a means to an end. Their entire purpose was to be offensive, to be disrespectful in order to jam down our throats that no cow is so sacred as to be exempt.
I don't doubt that if they had taken aim at some of my cherished ideas, *I* would find it disrespectful - being disrespectful was pretty much the point.
The key to a liberal society is that we are in fact allowed, and even should be encouraged, to look at ideas, all ideas, in a critical manner, and the fear that someone might find your critique "disrespectful" cannot and should not be a check on your willingness to express it.
I don't think we would all be better off if we all acted like Hebdo and set out to piss each other off when discussing things we don't agree on, by any means. Productive discourse happens more often when the people involved try to respect one another's views and positions when held honestly.
I like the way a commentator I cited upthread put it:
Quote1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.
2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society's liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.
3) The legitimacy and wisdom of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 12:26:54 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:43:02 AM
Fuck You!
or is it Allah Ackbar?
Your latinised arabic is as good as your French irrévérence comprehension skills, Renard Gris.
:lol:
That is true that I have no idea how to write that properly.
Languages evolves & spelling changes. It's hard to swallow, I know.
Specially for you, since you are not able to be proficient with any spelling. :smarty:
How's your Nouvelle orthographe btw?
Unlearn, my kids are not in school yet. I will start learning it in the fall of 2017.
:secret: This new spelling has been there for quite a while.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 12:46:21 PM
:secret: This new spelling has been there for quite a while.
Yes however I haven't been in a class in 10 years.
And neither did I, yet i'm familiar with it.
Ok, the Duque wins the spelling contest. Lets move on.
German "Postillon":
http://www.der-postillon.com/2015/01/terroristen-haben-gewonnen-wir-sagen.html (German)
Under a cartoon drawing of hairy butt cheeks (not sure if SFW everywhere?):
QuoteParis (dpo) - Overwhelming victory for the terrorists who killed twelve people and injured others in the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo: changing plans, Postillon will not tell their readers which prophet these slightly hairy ass cheeks belong to. The editorial staff will not even announce which religion he's part of.
"Skin color and hairiness allows thousands of conclusions as to the identity and level of holiness of the person shown here," says a Postillon editor who prefers to stay anonymous and is currently residing in an unknown location. "As you can't even see genitalia, it could even be a hairy prophetess, or a prophet with an extremely short penis. It's also possible that the prophet has an erection."
Editors furthermore pointed out that mainstream Christianity alone knows over 50 prophets, depending on interpretation. Manichaeans, Mormons and other religions know many more. The Quran knows at least 25.
Terrorists who consider themselves to be in a Holy War may study the amateurish scribbling by an unknown artist as long as they like. But even if they kiss it they won't learn the identity of the prophet whose ass cheeks are shown here.
Amazing how Quebec still chooses to be part of a land filled with virulent francophobes like Malthus. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:32:06 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.
This just gets stranger and stranger. :hmm:
My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.
What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. :D
:secret: Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..
So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.
You are well-known for your bigotry for French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.
My patience for you is at an end.
Great, so you are done with Turkey. Please now discuss Uzbekistan. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
They really don't. They kill far more Muslims than anyone else and not just for ease. Takfirism is a big feature of lots of current jihadi groups - and remember that before ISIS were releasing videos of them killing Western reporters they were releasing videos of them killing apostates and executing Shia truck drivers who answered incorrectly about how to pray. Many of the groups we know as jihadi are called takfiri in the region because that's their more defining feature.
I mean the description of it here really matches ISIS's approach:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/07/03takfirism
QuoteThe elimination of the enemy within was a necessary preliminary to any showdown with outsiders.
You're right we don't know about these guys but if the reports mentioned in this thread that they've been to Syria and are associated with AQAP are true then it's very unlikely that they'd see a Muslim French policemen as anything but an apostate.
In the Westgate Attack in Kenya, Muslims were allowed to live. Those claiming to be a Muslim were given a pop quiz to validate their Mulsimness.
It seems Nick Clegg has found his balls:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/nick-clegg-condemns-radio-caller-who-tries-to-justify-charlie-hebdo-shootings/
Quote"Here's the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended. That fundamental principle of being free to offend people – and not saying somehow that you have a right not be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians. To even suggest that there is a rationale, an explanation, a motive that somehow absolves them or sheds greater light on such a horrific, cold-hearted, cowardly act, I find that outrageous."
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:14:03 PM
It seems Nick Clegg has found his balls:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/nick-clegg-condemns-radio-caller-who-tries-to-justify-charlie-hebdo-shootings/
Quote"Here's the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended. That fundamental principle of being free to offend people – and not saying somehow that you have a right not be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians. To even suggest that there is a rationale, an explanation, a motive that somehow absolves them or sheds greater light on such a horrific, cold-hearted, cowardly act, I find that outrageous."
The bolded part of what you quoted it better worded than what's in your signature. Less flowery, but much more clear put.
EDIT: And speaking of poorly worded, the second sentence of my post is just terrible grammatically. Screw it, gonna leave it as it is.
Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2015, 02:34:12 PM
Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting? :unsure:
:huh: No. :blink:
One would think a satirical magazine shooting would shed more of a negative light on the magazine industry.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 02:44:05 PM
One would think a satirical magazine shooting would shed more of a negative light on the magazine industry.
Or point out more of the humor inherent in acts of terrorism.
Perhaps a premature detonation joke in there somewhere.
How may Islamic fundies does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, because the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) didnt use them. And the lamp got blown up by a carbomb anyway.
WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA ACKBAR
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
Too busy popping and eating popcorn. The thread
is a hoot - it even forced The Brain to make a serious post!
Chin-chin! Do carry on with your mud pies.
*pops more popcorn*
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2015, 02:34:12 PM
Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting? :unsure:
Nearly the half the time, sadly.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2015, 02:34:12 PM
Does anyone else occasionally read the thread as it being a 'satirical' magazine shooting, instead of a 'satirical magazine' shooting? :unsure:
Yes
You all have been terrorized into giving away your freedoms.
This is why we have to keep on the offensive, invading their countries until Islam is militarily defeated, and only then, after such a catastrophic loss, Islam will reform and join the rest of humankind here in the 21st Century.
Had we kept the preassure on Iraq, and now invaded the territory controlled by ISIS and liberated Syria, they wouldn't have the resources to send trained jihadis to France or elsewhere.
Bottom line. They are not going to have their 30 years war among themselves, therefore we need to give them one.
Meh, Siege, I think the West is strong with its "weakness". That's how we win. It may not be spectacular but it works. Just look what happened to Russia.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:49:14 PM
Meh, Siege, I think the West is strong with its "weakness". That's how we win. It may not be spectacular but it works. Just look what happened to Russia.
What happened to Russia was about economics. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 03:50:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:49:14 PM
Meh, Siege, I think the West is strong with its "weakness". That's how we win. It may not be spectacular but it works. Just look what happened to Russia.
What happened to Russia was about economics. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Aha.
What happened to the woman they forced to open the building for them?
What a fucking coward.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2015, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
Too busy popping and eating popcorn. The thread is a hoot - it even forced The Brain to make a serious post!
Goddammit!
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 03:54:26 PM
Compañero is more like partner, mate or companion than comrade which exists in Spanish as camarada as well.
Your Sefaradi-Judeo-Castillian connection is getting weaker and weaker, compañero. :contract:
Whoa, whoa, slow down. My command of the Iberian languages is unmatched even in the Academia Real.
Companero and camarado are synonyms.
And so is companera and camarada, in the female gender.
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2015, 04:13:04 PM
What happened to the woman they forced to open the building for them?
What a fucking coward.
Apparently she had her young child with her when they threatened her.
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2015, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
Too busy popping and eating popcorn. The thread is a hoot - it even forced The Brain to make a serious post!
Goddammit!
I think everyone is tuckered out for now. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 04:50:58 PM
I think everyone is tuckered out for now. :P
The news isn't. They just had a live debate between all 8 political party leaders about freedom of speech, which I avoided. But Martin Krasnik is tearing into the liberal yahoo that is the chief editor of Politiken right now. Good stuff.
Quote from: Liep on January 08, 2015, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 04:50:58 PM
I think everyone is tuckered out for now. :P
The news isn't. They just had a live debate between all 8 political party leaders about freedom of speech, which I avoided. But Martin Krasnik is tearing into the liberal yahoo that is the chief editor of Politiken right now. Good stuff.
It's the sensationalism they live for.
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 03:54:26 PM
Compañero is more like partner, mate or companion than comrade which exists in Spanish as camarada as well.
Your Sefaradi-Judeo-Castillian connection is getting weaker and weaker, compañero. :contract:
My command of the Iberian languages is unmatched even in the Academia Real.
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 10:28:38 AM
Poverty alone, no.
Poverty plus a sense of exclusion from mainstream society - closer.
Poverty plus a sense of exclusion from mainstream society plus some sort of ideological rallying cry - closer still.
Point being that, when one has a population that does not consider itself part of the mainstream, you have the breeding ground that makes it more likely that violence will happen - one far more ready to be receptive to the message of ideological nutcases.
Yep. As I mentioned I started reading The French Intifada over the weekend and it's seriously grim.
QuoteThere is this difference though: overall, fundie nutters *want* there to be more conflict, while the rest of us want *less* conflict. That's the reason behind the unreason of terrorism. A terrorist laughs every time someone in the West is encouraged by his acts to become a Grallon.
It's the whole heighten the contradictions view. The best book on terrorism is still The Secret Agent. And there's very little that seems new from anarchism.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2015, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
Too busy popping and eating popcorn. The thread is a hoot - it even forced The Brain to make a serious post!
Chin-chin! Do carry on with your mud pies.
*pops more popcorn*
No surprise that Grumbler should find enjoyment in the suffering of others*. :rolleyes:
* And trust me I've suffered a fair bit, having read all 20+ pages of the thread, 'contributing' some of it myself. :P
Christians from the Middle East live in large numbers in Sweden. And yet people who make satirical Jesus-drawings and similar don't routinely face violence and death. So I hardly think poverty and ghetto living make terrorist acts happen.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2015, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler. :lol:
Too busy popping and eating popcorn. The thread is a hoot - it even forced The Brain to make a serious post!
Chin-chin! Do carry on with your mud pies.
*pops more popcorn*
No surprise that Grumbler should find enjoyment in the suffering of others*. :rolleyes:
* And trust me I've suffered a fair bit, having read all 20+ pages of the thread, 'contributing' some of it myself. :P
I'd rather lite Raz on fire than do that. ;)
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 05:07:23 PM
Christians from the Middle East live in large numbers in Sweden. And yet people who make satirical Jesus-drawings and similar don't routinely face violence and death. So I hardly think poverty and ghetto living make terrorist acts happen.
That's two serious posts in one thread.
Another, and concerned folks will send the ambulance. :(
I should go to bed now. :(
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 03:54:26 PM
Compañero is more like partner, mate or companion than comrade which exists in Spanish as camarada as well.
Your Sefaradi-Judeo-Castillian connection is getting weaker and weaker, compañero. :contract:
Whoa, whoa, slow down. My command of the Iberian languages is unmatched even in the Academia Real.
Companero and camarado are synonyms.
And so is companera and camarada, in the female gender.
Companero camarado (sic) do not exist, I'll concede that the ñ is too hard to type for you but not camarado (sic).
Real Academia not Academia Real :D Btw, they only deal with Castillian, not other Iberian languages.
As for being synonyms, perfect synonyms are quite rare e.g compare, according to the Real Academia
http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=camarada (http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=camarada)
Quotecamarada.
(De cámara, por dormir en un mismo aposento).
1. com. Persona que acompaña a otra y come y vive con ella.
2. com. Persona que anda en compañía con otras, tratándose con amistad y confianza.
3. com. En ciertos partidos políticos y sindicatos, correligionario o compañero.
4. f. Compañía o junta de camaradas.
5. f. ant. batería (‖ conjunto de piezas de artillería).
6. f. ant. batería (‖ fortificación para poner a cubierto piezas de artillería).
Quotecompañero, ra.
(De compaña).
1. m. y f. Persona que se acompaña con otra para algún fin.
2. m. y f. Cada uno de los individuos de que se compone un cuerpo o una comunidad, como un cabildo, un colegio, etc.
3. m. y f. En varios juegos, cada uno de los jugadores que se unen y ayudan contra los otros.
4. m. y f. Persona que tiene o corre una misma suerte o fortuna con otra.
5. m. y f. Cosa que hace juego o tiene correspondencia con otra u otras.
6. m. y f. coloq. Persona con la que se convive maritalmente.
Exec sum, you suck at languages, maybe it's the first step to becoming a real American for you, much to the chagrin of Comte Largent. I never thought Chineses spies would suck that much :(
You're like Grey Fox now, but he does not spy at least.
I don't recall Duque de Bragança being so feisty previously :cheers:
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 05:07:23 PM
Christians from the Middle East live in large numbers in Sweden. And yet people who make satirical Jesus-drawings and similar don't routinely face violence and death. So I hardly think poverty and ghetto living make terrorist acts happen.
While your immigrant community may not be in the best economic or social situation, I would guess (and I'll admit it's just a guess) that they are getting a better deal from Sweden than France's immigrant community gets from France.
Sweden is one big welfare state, isn't it.?
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:25:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2015, 05:07:23 PM
Christians from the Middle East live in large numbers in Sweden. And yet people who make satirical Jesus-drawings and similar don't routinely face violence and death. So I hardly think poverty and ghetto living make terrorist acts happen.
While your immigrant community may not be in the best economic or social situation, I would guess (and I'll admit it's just a guess) that they are getting a better deal from Sweden than France's immigrant community gets from France.
What does it matter? Swedish Muslims attack and attempt to murder Swedish cartoonists who draw Mohammed.
Edit: Dammit!
The issue, though, is not poverty alone (or even poverty plus living in a ghetto) - it is poverty plus a sense of seperation from and antagonism with the majority society, that makes for a population more willing to listen to ideological radicals.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:31:29 PM
The issue, though, is not poverty alone (or even poverty plus living in a ghetto) - it is poverty plus a sense of seperation from and antagonism with the majority society, that makes for a population more willing to listen to ideological radicals.
This doesn't explain the Saudi 9/11 hijackers, or Osama bin Laden.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:31:29 PM
The issue, though, is not poverty alone (or even poverty plus living in a ghetto) - it is poverty plus a sense of seperation from and antagonism with the majority society, that makes for a population more willing to listen to ideological radicals.
This doesn't explain the Saudi 9/11 hijackers, or Osama bin Laden.
It seems like alienation is a pretty good explanation for those guys as well, though, even if did not spring from the ghettos.
Psst, Siege-- use compay and see what he does with that.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:24:31 PM
I don't recall Duque de Bragança being so feisty previously :cheers:
He got tired of Malthus constantly putting down the French. :mad:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 05:36:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:24:31 PM
I don't recall Duque de Bragança being so feisty previously :cheers:
He got tired of Malthus constantly putting down the French. :mad:
Why does Malthus hate French-speakers so much?
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:31:29 PM
The issue, though, is not poverty alone (or even poverty plus living in a ghetto) - it is poverty plus a sense of seperation from and antagonism with the majority society, that makes for a population more willing to listen to ideological radicals.
This doesn't explain the Saudi 9/11 hijackers, or Osama bin Laden.
It seems like alienation is a pretty good explanation for those guys as well, though, even if did not spring from the ghettos.
I don't know about that. Where exactly did they get alienated? It wasn't in US, they already came to US with a mission.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:31:29 PM
The issue, though, is not poverty alone (or even poverty plus living in a ghetto) - it is poverty plus a sense of seperation from and antagonism with the majority society, that makes for a population more willing to listen to ideological radicals.
This doesn't explain the Saudi 9/11 hijackers, or Osama bin Laden.
Osama was the ideologue, a leader of a movement - the issue is where the movement gets popular support from.
Also, obviously, not
every terrorist is going to fit the "disaffected population in the West itself" profile. Osama and his Saudis were pissed off mostly by Western effects on the ME (where they originated from).
Dissafected Western Muslims is one source of support; pissed off traditional Muslims already in the ME is another. The first is more worrying, even if the second was more responsible for 9/11.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Dissafected Western Muslims is one source of support; pissed off traditional Muslims already in the ME is another. The first is more worrying, even if the second was more responsible for 9/11.
It's reasonable to ask whether France has a particular problem with the former as well given that polls show 16% support for ISIS in France, increasing to 27% among the young. If it does, what are the causes.
I'm fairly sure 'insufficient secularism' is low on the list.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 05:38:58 PMWhy does Malthus hate French-speakers so much?
He funds his stroller habit from oppressing French-speakers. And as you know, you tend to hate what you oppress, and vice versa; especially if you make money from it.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:31:29 PM
The issue, though, is not poverty alone (or even poverty plus living in a ghetto) - it is poverty plus a sense of seperation from and antagonism with the majority society, that makes for a population more willing to listen to ideological radicals.
This doesn't explain the Saudi 9/11 hijackers, or Osama bin Laden.
It seems like alienation is a pretty good explanation for those guys as well, though, even if did not spring from the ghettos.
Cart before horse, wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians will tend to alienate you from the mass of humanity ?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Dissafected Western Muslims is one source of support; pissed off traditional Muslims already in the ME is another. The first is more worrying, even if the second was more responsible for 9/11.
It's reasonable to ask whether France has a particular problem with the former as well given that polls show 16% support for ISIS in France, increasing to 27% among the young. If it does, what are the causes.
I'm fairly sure 'insufficient secularism' is low on the list.
To ask such a question would be victim blaming.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Dissafected Western Muslims is one source of support; pissed off traditional Muslims already in the ME is another. The first is more worrying, even if the second was more responsible for 9/11.
It's reasonable to ask whether France has a particular problem with the former as well given that polls show 16% support for ISIS in France, increasing to 27% among the young. If it does, what are the causes.
I'm fairly sure 'insufficient secularism' is low on the list.
I don't believe that polls show 16% support now given the recent attack, it was reported they showed it but I really wonder if the people asked really understood in the first case. It's not like there are 16% of Muslims and every one of them supports Daesh/Isis/Isil/whatever.
edit: so it was a poll ordered by Russia Today/Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, with only 3% are very favourable (those would be the real pro-Daesh), the other 12% as somewhat favourable. Most people probably did not understand, knew or cared about ISIS. Some might have decided to play a prank on the poll institute. Colour me skeptical.
http://rt.com/news/181076-isis-islam-militans-france/ (http://rt.com/news/181076-isis-islam-militans-france/)
Is there a magazine in the US that publishes content as racey/imflamitory as Charlie Hebdo? If not, then why is that?
QuotePictured: Female police officer killed in second Paris shooting was '27-year-old rookie who dreamed of serving her country'
:(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901670/Gunman-arrested-Paris-police-officers-seriously-wounded.html
Shall we discuss how alienated future SS camp guards felt growing up in interwar central Europe?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:48:08 PM
It's reasonable to ask whether France has a particular problem with the former as well given that polls show 16% support for ISIS in France, increasing to 27% among the young. If it does, what are the causes.
I'm fairly sure 'insufficient secularism' is low on the list.
"Insufficient employment" doesn't help. It's no secret this generation of Muslim immigrants are having a much tougher time becoming successfully assimilated into the French economy as the late-50s/early 60s decolonization generation did.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 05:58:48 PM
"Insufficient employment" doesn't help. It's no secret this generation of Muslim immigrants are having a much tougher time becoming successfully assimilated into the French economy as the late-50s/early 60s decolonization generation did.
I agree. At the risk of developing a Marti-Piketty fascination, I'm currently reading 'The French Intifada' which is precisely about this.
The list of revenge attacks is depressingly long, though luckily no-one's been seriously hurt :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:48:08 PM
It's reasonable to ask whether France has a particular problem with the former as well given that polls show 16% support for ISIS in France, increasing to 27% among the young. If it does, what are the causes.
I'm fairly sure 'insufficient secularism' is low on the list.
"Insufficient employment" doesn't help. It's no secret this generation of Muslim immigrants are having a much tougher time becoming successfully assimilated into the French economy as the late-50s/early 60s decolonization generation did.
There's some truth to it, but back then, successfully assimilated into the French economy meant working hard, longer hours than French people, for less. Also being invisible on a society level, so no hallal food anywhere, no islamic scarf (unseen till the end of '80s). Not to mention living in shanty towns which were only replaced by the huge social housing projects in the '70s, so sinister today but a huge progress back then. Don't think the youths are interested by that, even if work were plentiful again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
The list of revenge attacks is depressingly long, though luckily no-one's been seriously hurt :(
This reminds me what the government said about the previous Christmas market car and police precinct attacks, it's only a series of isolated incidents committed by lunatics. One should not stigmatise.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 05:52:54 PMCart before horse, wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians will tend to alienate you from the mass of humanity ?
Well, yes, wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians will tend to alienate you from the mass of humanity, no question.
However, I'm working from the assumption that no-one is born wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians. So what we're discussing, I thought, was how someone would move from not wanting to, to wanting to.
And I think that alienation is a significant factor there.
So no, not cart before horse I don't think.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 05:52:54 PMCart before horse, wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians will tend to alienate you from the mass of humanity ?
Well, yes, wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians will tend to alienate you from the mass of humanity, no question.
However, I'm working from the assumption that no-one is born wanting to commit mass murder of innocent civilians. So what we're discussing, I thought, was how someone would move from not wanting to, to wanting to.
And I think that alienation is a significant factor there.
So no, not cart before horse I don't think.
But what if some of them are brought up to believe that way of conducting yourself is the correct one?
I wonder what take Saudi Arabian primary school eduction has on these issues?
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 05:58:43 PM
Shall we discuss how alienated future SS camp guards felt growing up in interwar central Europe?
If it is of interest to you, I suppose we could.
However, I don't think any parallels are that instructive (though I guess we won't know unless we dive into it).
Presumably the reason we're looking at alienation is that we're trying to figure out the mechanism by which young men (and it's usually young men) enact, or attempt to enact, mass murder in the name of radical Islam.
We could, I suppose, say that the primary mechanism is Islam itself, and that all Muslims are with the terrorists. That would mean that Yi would be incorrect when he says he knows no-one who thinks like that.
Personally I wouldn't want to prove Yi wrong on this.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:40:00 PMBut what if some of them are brought up to believe that way of conducting yourself is the correct one?
Then that's pretty fucked up. I'd be interested in looking at things that caused someone to be brought up like that. Personally, I expect it's something more nuanced than "Islam."
QuoteI wonder what take Saudi Arabian primary school eduction has on these issues?
I have no idea.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:34:09 PM
This reminds me what the government said about the previous Christmas attacks, it's only a series of isolated incidents committed by lunatics. One should not stigmatise.
Well they are isolated in a sense. There's no grand plan at work. But all of the recent attacks in France (and the Sidney siege) remind me of school shootings.
It's a different sort of terrorism than strapping a bomb to yourself. I think it's probably more difficult to catch in the early stages and probably more likely to inspire copycat attacks immediately afterwards. As I said before I find the attacks in France, Canada and Australia more unsettling and scary than the London or Madrid bombings.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:34:52 PM
Psst, Siege-- use compay and see what he does with that.
Siege chose the Academia Real (sic) and they don't list compay :contract:
So much for you speaking Castilian and not some latin american "spanish". :(
Besides, compay is at best for both compadre and compañero so still no synonym, just a a homograph.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:40:00 PMBut what if some of them are brought up to believe that way of conducting yourself is the correct one?
Then that's pretty fucked up. I'd be interested in looking at things that caused someone to be brought up like that. Personally, I expect it's something more nuanced than "Islam."
QuoteI wonder what take Saudi Arabian primary school eduction has on these issues?
I have no idea.
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
In light of this despicable massacre of innocent journalist just doing their job, I'd like to invite one or two posters here to reconsider their attitude towards the killing of A'l-Jazerra journalists in the Afghanistan and during the Iraq invasion.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
I wouldn't mind watching that: leading terrorists as competitive schoolgirls :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
I wouldn't mind watching that: leading terrorists as competitive schoolgirls :mellow:
I think right now would be a great time to get that on kickstarter.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
Jacob, I'm not taking you to task, but alluding to the hate-filled Saudi Arabian originated and financed 'educational' material that has found it's way into UK schools.
Based on that I wonder what innocent Saudi children are subjected to in their early years?
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:00:25 PM
Jacob, I'm not taking you to task, but alluding to the hate-filled Saudi Arabian originated and financed 'educational' material that has found it's way into UK schools.
Based on that I wonder what innocent Saudi children are subject to in their early years?
Sure, but I don't think it's of very much relevance in France. I'd be amazed if any Saudi material got near French schools.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 02:58:45 PM
How may Islamic fundies does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, because the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) didnt use them. And the lamp got blown up by a carbomb anyway.
WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA ACKBAR
It's no Gaffigan, but I enjoyed it anyways.
Allah pocket.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:00:25 PM
Jacob, I'm not taking you to task, but alluding to the hate-filled Saudi Arabian originated and financed 'educational' material that has found it's way into UK schools.
Based on that I wonder what innocent Saudi children are subjected to in their early years?
I'm not familiar with that material so I'm afraid I can't add much to that.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:40:00 PMBut what if some of them are brought up to believe that way of conducting yourself is the correct one?
Then that's pretty fucked up. I'd be interested in looking at things that caused someone to be brought up like that. Personally, I expect it's something more nuanced than "Islam".
You'll be pleased to know that the people whose job it is to protect us from terrorists and those who seriously study the issue spend a lot of time studying this.
So much of the literature on radicalisation is freely available it's a surprise why a lot of the Internet debate is not itself more nuanced.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:57:41 PM
In light of this despicable massacre of innocent journalist just doing their job, I'd like to invite one or two posters here to reconsider their attitude towards the killing of A'l-Jazerra journalists in the Afghanistan and during the Iraq invasion.
Anyone know what mongers is talking about? All I can think of are the dude who got zapped in the hotel during the invasion and the other dude that got lit up by an Apache.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:57:41 PM
In light of this despicable massacre of innocent journalist just doing their job, I'd like to invite one or two posters here to reconsider their attitude towards the killing of A'l-Jazerra journalists in the Afghanistan and during the Iraq invasion.
Which one? This incident? How are they doing their job? Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you have to say it.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:07:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:00:25 PM
Jacob, I'm not taking you to task, but alluding to the hate-filled Saudi Arabian originated and financed 'educational' material that has found it's way into UK schools.
Based on that I wonder what innocent Saudi children are subjected to in their early years?
I'm not familiar with that material so I'm afraid I can't add much to that.
This is the opinion of a Saudi exile, who was interviewed in a high profile network news program a while back:
http://www.gulfinstitute.org/this-medieval-saudi-education-system-must-be-reformed-2/ (http://www.gulfinstitute.org/this-medieval-saudi-education-system-must-be-reformed-2/)
Quote
This Medieval Saudi Education System Must Be Reformed
Posted by gulfinstadmin on April 13, 2011
By Ali Al-Ahmed
This week, BBC1's Panorama reported on the Saudi school textbooks used in over 40 Saudi schools in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The investigation found that the books contained messages of hatred, incitement of violence and other reprehensible teachings that are commonly found in the Saudi official religious discourse. I had the pleasure of participating in the programme, providing commentary on the findings.
In my years of work dedicated to promoting modernity and reform in my homeland, I have always given special attention to education as it is the foundation of social values and a major predictor of the direction in which a country is headed. Unfortunately, the Saudi government realised the same thing and has used the education system to shape societal attitudes towards the country's government and the world at large. The primary goal of Saudi education is to maintain the rule of absolute monarchy by casting it as the ordained protector of the faith, and that Islam is at war with other faiths and cultures. That's what the Saudi monarchy calls "intellectual security," maintained yet further by a ban on liberal arts education, philosophy, drama, and music.
Since January 2001, I have been writing about how Saudi religious education is dividing our country's population over the interpretation of Islam, and turning classmates into enemies because some of them view our religion in a different way. Since then, I have reviewed all the religious textbooks used in Saudi schools several times and found them to be comprised of medieval ideological indoctrination instead of offering a modern education that would prepare the student for the workplace.
The current textbooks do not spare most Muslims from the accusations of polytheism, deviance, hypocrisy, and outright apostasy. For example, the 12th grade book on "monotheism" claims that many in the Muslim world community have returned to polytheism. That could be ignored until you know what the texts teach about polytheists. In the classical Takfiri (declaring others to be outside of religion's bounds) style, the text allows for the killing of apostates and polytheists, and it does not take much to qualify as one or the other. Membership in capitalist, communist or secular groups makes you an apostate, and disagreeing with the Wahhabi/Salafi anthropomorphic characterisation of God makes you a polytheist.
The textbooks take a very aggressive stance against Jews and Christians whom it views as unbelievers and eternal enemies of Islam. And if you do not believe, or even doubt, that Christians and Jews are unbelievers, you are an infidel yourself.
Here's the link to the full Guardian article, which includes a link to the tv programme:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/26/saudi-arabia-religious-education (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/26/saudi-arabia-religious-education)
As for Mongers proposal, my answer:
http://youtu.be/3zNjQecyjE8
Unpleasant.
Quote from: Warspite on January 08, 2015, 07:11:52 PM
You'll be pleased to know that the people whose job it is to protect us from terrorists and those who seriously study the issue spend a lot of time studying this.
I am pleased :)
QuoteSo much of the literature on radicalisation is freely available it's a surprise why a lot of the Internet debate is not itself more nuanced.
Clearly you're joking. You're not actually surprised, are you?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2015, 07:26:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:25:16 PM
Unpleasant.
I can be annoying also.
It's good to have marketable skills.
My post was directed at mongers, in any case.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:34:09 PM
This reminds me what the government said about the previous Christmas attacks, it's only a series of isolated incidents committed by lunatics. One should not stigmatise.
Well they are isolated in a sense. There's no grand plan at work. But all of the recent attacks in France (and the Sidney siege) remind me of school shootings.
It's a different sort of terrorism than strapping a bomb to yourself. I think it's probably more difficult to catch in the early stages and probably more likely to inspire copycat attacks immediately afterwards. As I said before I find the attacks in France, Canada and Australia more unsettling and scary than the London or Madrid bombings.
You should tell that to the French government.
As for the attacks being scarier, that's a perception so it's not right or wrong per se but I don't find them more unsettling and scary. The opposite actually.
But then you have terrorists forgetting an ID card , drop a sneaker (tracksuit was safe I guess) and then pick it up again. Not to mention the bender fender near Colonel Fabien square (after the attack) and then forgetting clips/magazines first in the car for their Kalashnikovs and losing again some time to get them. First reports about their perfect pro organisation were off the mark.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2015, 07:24:52 PM
As for Mongers proposal, my answer:
http://youtu.be/3zNjQecyjE8
Got a chuckle out of the German dubbed Scrubs on that link.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 07:32:08 PMFirst reports about their perfect pro organisation were off the mark.
I saw this at the time from people I follow on Twitter. Basically they suggested our image of a stereotype (as a social loser who's managed to to pull it off) is so low that even the slightest show of competence and we think they're pros :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 07:32:08 PMFirst reports about their perfect pro organisation were off the mark.
I saw this at the time from people I follow on Twitter. Basically they suggested our image of a stereotype (as a social loser who's managed to to pull it off) is so low that even the slightest show of competence and we think they're pros :lol:
I was somewhat confused by some of yesterdays coverage, "Look at the grouping, these guys are professional killers ...." "They have to be expert/experience, given how AK47s jump all over the place when fired".
I guess people like 11B4V will be able to tell us what degree of training, practices is necessary is become proficient at firing an AK47, not necessarily to military standards, but enough to massacre civilians.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 07:32:08 PMFirst reports about their perfect pro organisation were off the mark.
I saw this at the time from people I follow on Twitter. Basically they suggested our image of a stereotype (as a social loser who's managed to to pull it off) is so low that even the slightest show of competence and we think they're pros :lol:
I was somewhat confused by some of yesterdays coverage, "Look at the grouping, these guys are professional killers ...." "They have to be expert/experience, given how AK47s jump all over the place when fired".
I guess people like 11B4V will be able to tell us what degree of training, practices is necessary is become proficient at firing an AK47, not necessarily to military standards, but enough to massacre civilians.
Point in the general direction and pull the trigger. Not hard.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:54:27 PM
Siege chose the Academia Real (sic) and they don't list compay :contract:
So much for you speaking Castilian and not some latin american "spanish". :(
Besides, compay is at best for both compadre and compañero so still no synonym, just a a homograph.
It's a Cuban word. And I don't use it myself.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
I wouldn't mind watching that: leading terrorists as competitive schoolgirls :mellow:
There's a wildly popular anime right now where an alien destroys 70% of the Moon in a display of power and demands to be allowed to teach at a high school for a year or he'll destroy the earth. One of the classes he will be teaching is the art of assassination. If the students fail to assassinate him by the end of the year he'll destroy the Earth anyways.
EDIT: There's also an older anime classic that has a child soldier vet of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan acting as the bodyguard of a highschool student with psychic powers, foiling kidnapping attempts by North Korean agents, terrorists, etc. Hilarity ensues as the 18 year old who spent the last ten years in Afghanistan (he was stuck there after his dad died on a business trip IIRC) tries to navigate the social landscape of a typical Japanese high school
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:57:41 PM
In light of this despicable massacre of innocent journalist just doing their job, I'd like to invite one or two posters here to reconsider their attitude towards the killing of A'l-Jazerra journalists in the Afghanistan and during the Iraq invasion.
Not entirely sure, but I think my attitude at the time was that being a war correspondent is an inherently dangerous job, and it's not terribly uncommon for people to get killed doing it. Probably mentioned something about Ernie Pyle and the old G.I. joke about bullets according war reporters the same respect they give a Lt. General.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:35:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
I wouldn't mind watching that: leading terrorists as competitive schoolgirls :mellow:
There's a wildly popular anime right now where an alien destroys 70% of the Moon in a display of power and demands to be allowed to teach at a high school for a year or he'll destroy the earth. One of the classes he will be teaching is the art of assassination. If the students fail to assassinate him by the end of the year he'll destroy the Earth anyways.
EDIT: There's also an older anime classic that has a child soldier vet of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan acting as the bodyguard of a highschool student with psychic powers, foiling kidnapping attempts by North Korean agents, terrorists, etc. Hilarity ensues as the 18 year old who spent the last ten years in Afghanistan (he was stuck there after his dad died on a business trip IIRC) tries to navigate the social landscape of a typical Japanese high school
Tim ties in anime FTW.
Mongers seems to have a fetish for trying to make people feel bad about things they said (or maybe even didn't say) in the past.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 08:51:29 PM
Tim ties in anime FTW.
That had fuck all to do with anything being discussed in this thread.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 08:51:29 PM
Tim ties in anime FTW.
That had fuck all to do with anything being discussed in this thread.
Never stooped him before. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 07:32:08 PMFirst reports about their perfect pro organisation were off the mark.
I saw this at the time from people I follow on Twitter. Basically they suggested our image of a stereotype (as a social loser who's managed to to pull it off) is so low that even the slightest show of competence and we think they're pros :lol:
I was somewhat confused by some of yesterdays coverage, "Look at the grouping, these guys are professional killers ...." "They have to be expert/experience, given how AK47s jump all over the place when fired".
I guess people like 11B4V will be able to tell us what degree of training, practices is necessary is become proficient at firing an AK47, not necessarily to military standards, but enough to massacre civilians.
Point in the general direction and pull the trigger. Not hard.
Apparently short, controlled bursts are indicative of of some sort of training. Not like derspiess going cyclic and blowing back the treeline. Or the neighbor's house. Or the neighbor's golden retriever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:54:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 07:32:08 PMFirst reports about their perfect pro organisation were off the mark.
I saw this at the time from people I follow on Twitter. Basically they suggested our image of a stereotype (as a social loser who's managed to to pull it off) is so low that even the slightest show of competence and we think they're pros :lol:
I was somewhat confused by some of yesterdays coverage, "Look at the grouping, these guys are professional killers ...." "They have to be expert/experience, given how AK47s jump all over the place when fired".
I guess people like 11B4V will be able to tell us what degree of training, practices is necessary is become proficient at firing an AK47, not necessarily to military standards, but enough to massacre civilians.
Point in the general direction and pull the trigger. Not hard.
Apparently short, controlled bursts are indicative of of some sort of training. Not like derspiess going cyclic and blowing back the treeline. Or the neighbor's house. Or the neighbor's golden retriever.
He asked enough to massacre civilians.
Yeah to be fair I bet it's easy to look like a pro against a 70-something cartoonist.
I'd say that there's some difference between having some proficiency and actually being a professional.
Enough to massacre civilians, though? I'd say an hour at the range, and some multiplayer time in Battlefield4 with Aim Assist disabled.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:35:10 PM
There's a wildly popular anime right now where an alien destroys 70% of the Moon in a display of power and demands to be allowed to teach at a high school for a year or he'll destroy the earth. One of the classes he will be teaching is the art of assassination. If the students fail to assassinate him by the end of the year he'll destroy the Earth anyways.
EDIT: There's also an older anime classic that has a child soldier vet of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan acting as the bodyguard of a highschool student with psychic powers, foiling kidnapping attempts by North Korean agents, terrorists, etc. Hilarity ensues as the 18 year old who spent the last ten years in Afghanistan (he was stuck there after his dad died on a business trip IIRC) tries to navigate the social landscape of a typical Japanese high school
First one is Assassination Classroom which will start airing either this week or the next one, and I will watch it.
Second one is Full Metal Panic? :unsure: If so, it has been sitting on my HDD forever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:54:56 PM
Apparently short, controlled bursts are indicative of of some sort of training.
Pretty much.
QuoteNot like derspiess going cyclic and blowing back the treeline. Or the neighbor's house. Or the neighbor's golden retriever.
Funny you should mention that. I did set up a small range in the back yard for Tommy & me to shoot his new Red Ryder BB gun.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 09:00:58 PM
I did set up a small range in the back yard for Tommy & me to shoot his new Red Ryder BB gun.
That shit ended for me the day Dad found a BB lodged in the house siding. :lol:
Seedy, can you lower the hammer on Timmay for fucking up this thread with his anime bullshit?
Shit, if he wants to derail a thread, he should do it the right way with an ACW hijack.
Roger that.
One issue that hasn't been discussed is the contacts needed to buy weapons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:04:54 PM
One issue that hasn't been discussed is the contacts needed to buy weapons.
:yes:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:04:54 PM
One issue that hasn't been discussed is the contacts needed to buy weapons.
:yes:
QuoteFor every one legally procured firearm in France, there are nearly two illegal ones, some of which can be purchased online. There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal guns in a nation of 65 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0107/Paris-Hebdo-attack-France-awash-with-black-market-weaponry-video
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:01:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 09:00:58 PM
I did set up a small range in the back yard for Tommy & me to shoot his new Red Ryder BB gun.
That shit ended for me the day Dad found a BB lodged in the house siding. :lol:
:lol: Yeah, well I'm not having any of that yet. His BB gun stays locked up in the gun cabinet when we're not using it, I do a range safety briefing each time before I hand him the gun, and watch him like a hawk. KEEP THAT WEAPON POINTED DOWNRANGE
Oh, and we both wear shooting glasses, something I probably would have hated as a kid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:04:54 PM
One issue that hasn't been discussed is the contacts needed to buy weapons.
:yes:
QuoteFor every one legally procured firearm in France, there are nearly two illegal ones, some of which can be purchased online. There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal guns in a nation of 65 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0107/Paris-Hebdo-attack-France-awash-with-black-market-weaponry-video
Sounds like they have a gun control problem in France.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:04:54 PM
One issue that hasn't been discussed is the contacts needed to buy weapons.
:yes:
QuoteFor every one legally procured firearm in France, there are nearly two illegal ones, some of which can be purchased online. There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal guns in a nation of 65 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0107/Paris-Hebdo-attack-France-awash-with-black-market-weaponry-video
Yeah, it's not really an issue in France, where as in the UK with better gun laws and lacking land borders getting hold of an automatic weapon is going to be difficult. Hence the illegal re-engineering of imported replica guns by criminals.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 08:51:29 PM
Tim ties in anime FTW.
That had fuck all to do with anything being discussed in this thread.
:huh:
I was responding to this conversation in which anime schoolgirl terrorism was brought up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
I wouldn't mind watching that: leading terrorists as competitive schoolgirls :mellow:
Ixnay on the anime Timmay, lest I pummel you and Mono with comfort pillows filled with soda cans. Schoolgirl terrorism. GTFO with that bullshit.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 09:10:09 PM
....
Oh, and we both wear shooting glasses, something I probably would have hated as a kid.
Well it's the the most vulnerable organ in the body and 5-10 bucks can prevent the loss of one.
I am now so old (risk averse), I've taken to wearing saftey glasses when I brush up broken glass. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:04:54 PM
One issue that hasn't been discussed is the contacts needed to buy weapons.
:yes:
QuoteFor every one legally procured firearm in France, there are nearly two illegal ones, some of which can be purchased online. There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal guns in a nation of 65 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0107/Paris-Hebdo-attack-France-awash-with-black-market-weaponry-video
Some details there I didn't know about, or really, care about. After all, what's there to discuss? If you want to acquire a weapon, you can. In general, while it's much harder to acquire firearms legally in Europe than in the US, I'm not sure it's all that more difficult to acquire them illegally. And if you're planning on using it in a terrorist attack, I'd think that even in the US you'd much rather acquire one illegally.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:16:03 PM
Ixnay on the anime Timmay, lest I pummel you and Mono with comfort pillows filled with soda cans. Schoolgirl terrorism. GTFO with that bullshit.
Might as well throw Lettow in as well.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:17:16 PMIn general, while it's much harder to acquire firearms legally in Europe than in the US, I'm not sure it's all that more difficult to acquire them illegally.
I think maybe on the continent, it's very difficult in the UK. The Economist had a story of a gang war in Birmingham that baffled police because there were injuries on both sides that came from the same gun. Turned out both gangs only access to firearms was renting them from a third party and they were actually renting the same gun, from the same third party at different times :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
QuoteFor every one legally procured firearm in France, there are nearly two illegal ones, some of which can be purchased online. There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal guns in a nation of 65 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0107/Paris-Hebdo-attack-France-awash-with-black-market-weaponry-video
[/quote]
Surely it can't be *that* easy to get your hands on an AK in France.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:17:16 PM
Some details there I didn't know about, or really, care about. After all, what's there to discuss? If you want to acquire a weapon, you can. In general, while it's much harder to acquire firearms legally in Europe than in the US, I'm not sure it's all that more difficult to acquire them illegally. And if you're planning on using it in a terrorist attack, I'd think that even in the US you'd much rather acquire one illegally.
I think what Yi is prompting is that these three mutts had the contacts necessary to score AKs, which would lead one to believe there's more than three yahoos at work here. The European weapons black market aside, considering the number of Europeans (including Frenchmen) that have returned from Iraq, Syria and Libya in recent years, maybe these kind of "lone wolf" attacks aren't quite as "lone" as they seem?
I just tossed in the article because I was surprised at the availability. I knew there was a black market for small arms, didn't know it was that big.
Loved this, though:
QuoteApplying for a gun license for hunting, target shooting, or personal protection requires not only a background check but a formal psychological evaluation. Gun licenses must be renewed every three to five years; the blacklist of those banned from owning weapons is nearly 18,000.
Can you imagine the full metal kittens the NRA would have if this logical and sensible approach was adopted here? :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:17:16 PMIn general, while it's much harder to acquire firearms legally in Europe than in the US, I'm not sure it's all that more difficult to acquire them illegally.
I think maybe on the continent, it's very difficult in the UK. The Economist had a story of a gang war in Birmingham that baffled police because there were injuries on both sides that came from the same gun. Turned out both gangs only access to firearms was renting them from a third party and they were actually renting the same gun, from the same third party at different times :lol:
Yes it's been a real success story in the UK in recent years.
Loved this piece:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie-no-youre-not-or-else-you?n_play=54ae585be4b01b0e7340591a
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:17:16 PM
Some details there I didn't know about, or really, care about. After all, what's there to discuss? If you want to acquire a weapon, you can. In general, while it's much harder to acquire firearms legally in Europe than in the US, I'm not sure it's all that more difficult to acquire them illegally. And if you're planning on using it in a terrorist attack, I'd think that even in the US you'd much rather acquire one illegally.
I think what Yi is prompting is that these three mutts had the contacts necessary to score AKs, which would lead one to believe there's more than three yahoos at work here. The European weapons black market aside, considering the number of Europeans (including Frenchmen) that have returned from Iraq, Syria and Libya in recent years, maybe these kind of "lone wolf" attacks aren't quite as "lone" as they seem?
I just tossed in the article because I was surprised at the availability. I knew there was a black market for small arms, didn't know it was that big.
Loved this, though:
QuoteApplying for a gun license for hunting, target shooting, or personal protection requires not only a background check but a formal psychological evaluation. Gun licenses must be renewed every three to five years; the blacklist of those banned from owning weapons is nearly 18,000.
Can you imagine the full metal kittens the NRA would have if this logical and sensible approach was adopted here? :lol:
In a lot of US jurisdictions, convicted felons aren't legally allowed to own weapons. Gotta be a lot more of those, not only in absolute numbers but as a percent of the population.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
QuoteFor every one legally procured firearm in France, there are nearly two illegal ones, some of which can be purchased online. There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal guns in a nation of 65 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0107/Paris-Hebdo-attack-France-awash-with-black-market-weaponry-video
Surely it can't be *that* easy to get your hands on an AK in France.
[/quote]
Open borders, former east bloc nations in the EU. Track suit wearers wouldn't have a problem getting them in.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:48:37 PM
In a lot of US jurisdictions, convicted felons aren't legally allowed to own weapons. Gotta be a lot more of those, not only in absolute numbers but as a percent of the population.
You mean all US jurisdictions. But I particularly like the part about the mandatory psychological examination.
Maybe the some of the attacks in France are a sign the ISIL is under real pressure in Syria/Iraq, and with few western boots on the ground to shoot at, this is way of getting back asymmetrically?
I don't think it's a co-incidence that these guys went about their murdering dressed like ISIL militants and seem proud/determined to remain in their 'uniform'
Also wasn't the guy who murdered the young police woman today, also dressed in black, though reportedly also wearing body armour and using an MP5 liks SMG.
I guess it'll be hard to tell directed attacks from 'lone wolf' attacks .
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:48:37 PM
In a lot of US jurisdictions, convicted felons aren't legally allowed to own weapons. Gotta be a lot more of those, not only in absolute numbers but as a percent of the population.
You mean all US jurisdictions. But I particularly like the part about the mandatory psychological examination.
That will cut down on some of the lunatics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 09:45:52 PM
Loved this piece:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie-no-youre-not-or-else-you?n_play=54ae585be4b01b0e7340591a
:bleeding:
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 09:54:53 PM
I guess it'll be hard to tell directed attacks from 'lone wolf' attacks .
I don't know that there's necessarily a huge distinction. From a French perspective it's striking that probably the area that's panicking most about destabilisation from returning Syrian fighters is the Maghreb.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 09:45:52 PM
Loved this piece:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie-no-youre-not-or-else-you?n_play=54ae585be4b01b0e7340591a
:bleeding:
Quoi? :P
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 09:54:53 PM
Maybe the some of the attacks in France are a sign the ISIL is under real pressure in Syria/Iraq, and with few western boots on the ground to shoot at, this is way of getting back asymmetrically?
Or maybe it's a sign that they're doing so well in Syria/Iraq that they have plenty of fighters to send elsewhere.
I think they will find this as an inspirational hit. Not a hit order by ISwhateverthefucktheycallthemselves
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 10:01:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 09:54:53 PM
Maybe the some of the attacks in France are a sign the ISIL is under real pressure in Syria/Iraq, and with few western boots on the ground to shoot at, this is way of getting back asymmetrically?
Or maybe it's a sign that they're doing so well in Syria/Iraq that they have plenty of fighters to send elsewhere.
The Kurds from Iraq and the PKK seem to be doing an good job, with US backing of turning Kobane into a bit of a meatgrinder for the ISIL foreign fighters. :cool:
Also.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-mideast-crisis-dempsey-idUSKBN0KH29I20150108?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-mideast-crisis-dempsey-idUSKBN0KH29I20150108?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter)
QuoteU.S. forces 'building pressure' on Islamic State: military chief
By David Alexander
WASHINGTON Thu Jan 8, 2015 5:43pm EST
Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing
(Reuters) - U.S. efforts against Islamic State militants in Iraq are "a drumbeat, a steady building pressure" on several fronts that will ultimately enable Iraqi forces to launch a counteroffensive at a time of their choosing, the top U.S. military officer said on Thursday.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces were not sitting idly in the key Iraqi cities of Baghdad or Arbil waiting until spring to launch an offensive but were actively working to weaken Islamic State in several areas.
"This is a drumbeat, a steady building pressure on ISIL along eight or nine lines of effort: counter-financing, counter-foreign fighters, counter-message as well as the military operations," he added, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.
Dempsey's spoke to reporters after meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Lieutenant General Benjamin Gantz, to discuss regional security and military cooperation as Gantz winds up his tenure as the chief of the Israel Defense Forces general staff.
Dempsey said Iraq would initiate a counter-offensive against Islamic State when Baghdad felt it was ready to conduct the necessary military operations to recapture territory and follow it with humanitarian and reconstruction efforts.
"In the meantime we're keeping steady pressure on and we're building their capacity," Dempsey said.
The Pentagon said this week that U.S. forces have hit or damaged some 3,222 Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria since August.
....
The fly in the ointment being the expectation that the Iraqi 'armed forces' will be able to do anything in the spring.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 09:53:05 PM
You mean all US jurisdictions.
Thought so, but I'm pretty much in the habit of assuming that there are some exceptions to almost any legal practice somewhere in the country.
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
I don't think these yahoos will have to worry about being taken alive. It's probably not in their plans anyway.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
Nope they need to take them alive.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
Sure there is a point. To get their friends.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:14:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
I don't think these yahoos will have to worry about being taken alive. It's probably not in their plans anyway.
In fairness these guys had a getaway car ready. Which is weird.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:14:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
I don't think these yahoos will have to worry about being taken alive. It's probably not in their plans anyway.
In fairness these guys had a getaway car ready. Which is weird.
Bingo. Not weird at all.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
In fairness these guys had a getaway car ready. Which is weird.
Bingo. Not weird at all.
Point taken, but you never know if they had other stops planned on their Jihadipalooza Tour that morning that got derailed.
When they're finally cornered, these guys will either off themselves or slug it out with the
gendarmes to the last bullet. They're not ever going to see a courtroom.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:21:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
In fairness these guys had a getaway car ready. Which is weird.
Bingo. Not weird at all.
Point taken, but you never know if they had other stops planned on their Jihadipalooza Tour that morning that got derailed.
When they're finally cornered, these guys will either off themselves or slug it out with the gendarmes to the last bullet. They're not ever going to see a courtroom.
Boston marathon bombers tried to do the same, but one still ended up captured.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:29:54 PM
Boston marathon bombers tried to do the same, but one still ended up captured.
The real Joker let himself be taken alive too. :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
When they corner these terrorists, I hope they just shot them from a distance and let them bleed out, no point in upping the risks to police by trying to detain them alive.
I disagree, actually, and not out of some sort of bleeding heart sentiment. Rather, I think them being taken alive and being subjected to a public trial and the boredom of long term incarceration is less mythologizing and less appealing to these fucks than dying as "martyrs" for their cause. In addition, getting one of them alive will give us more insight on the how and why, which is useful from a number of angles.
I'm glad, for example, that the Boston bomber fucker got taken alive.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:17:16 PM
Some details there I didn't know about, or really, care about. After all, what's there to discuss? If you want to acquire a weapon, you can. In general, while it's much harder to acquire firearms legally in Europe than in the US, I'm not sure it's all that more difficult to acquire them illegally. And if you're planning on using it in a terrorist attack, I'd think that even in the US you'd much rather acquire one illegally.
I'm pretty sure that getting a gun illegally is a lot more difficult in a place where any kind of gun ownership or possession will immediately raise a huge red flag. I know it's a popular soundbite in US that if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would guns, but there is a good reason why that soundbite is uttered only by morons.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:29:54 PM
Boston marathon bombers tried to do the same, but one still ended up captured.
Shut up.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2015, 11:12:00 PM
I know it's a popular soundbite in US that if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would guns, but there is a good reason why that soundbite is uttered only by morons.
It's simplistic, sure, but also true.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 09:10:09 PM
:lol: Yeah, well I'm not having any of that yet. His BB gun stays locked up in the gun cabinet when we're not using it, I do a range safety briefing each time before I hand him the gun, and watch him like a hawk. KEEP THAT WEAPON POINTED DOWNRANGE
Oh, and we both wear shooting glasses, something I probably would have hated as a kid.
That sucks. When I was a kid my friends and I would roam the neighborhood with BB guns shooting at unfortunate birds and fish in the canals. One neighborhood kid did get shot in the face with a BB (we had nothing to do with that).
You rules would have been a serious downer.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 10:47:39 PM
I disagree, actually, and not out of some sort of bleeding heart sentiment. Rather, I think them being taken alive and being subjected to a public trial and the boredom of long term incarceration is less mythologizing and less appealing to these fucks than dying as "martyrs" for their cause. In addition, getting one of them alive will give us more insight on the how and why, which is useful from a number of angles.
Three counterarguments:
1) I don't want to be subjected to the news coverage of their trial (that one might be a bit egoistic).
2) We have lots of experience with islamic extremists, many of which end up in custody. These aren't unique snowflakes we've never encountered before and really need to study.
3) These guys will probably get a bit of celebrity even in jail. Charles Manson hasn't really faded away. He is married iirc and probably enjoying his conjugal visits.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2015, 12:31:49 AM
When I was a kid my friends and I would roam the neighborhood with BB guns shooting at unfortunate birds and fish in the canals.
Jeffrey Dahmer liked to hurt animals as a child, too. What a coinkydink.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 12:39:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2015, 12:31:49 AM
When I was a kid my friends and I would roam the neighborhood with BB guns shooting at unfortunate birds and fish in the canals.
Jeffrey Dahmer liked to hurt animals as a child, too. What a coinkydink.
Boys with BB guns end up shooting at birds. It's just what happens.
No, that's not just what happens. Sociopath.
Yeah. Sometimes they shoot at their eyes instead.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 11:31:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2015, 11:12:00 PM
I know it's a popular soundbite in US that if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would guns, but there is a good reason why that soundbite is uttered only by morons.
It's simplistic, sure, but also true.
True? Police still have guns for sure.
Are guns really outlawed if police get to have them? :hmm:
Of course they are, and this is a silly game. The point of the slogan is that everyday law-abiding citizens, such as presumably the speaker, won't have access to guns and that criminals will. This is true. The criminals might not have as ready access as they do now, but the law-abiding citizen has even less access and if he uses it, becomes a criminal.
I always thought it was just a tautology :mellow:
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:24:31 PM
I don't recall Duque de Bragança being so feisty previously :cheers:
I think he does that when talking about language. He is a linguicist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:00:30 AM
No, that's not just what happens. Sociopath.
Harper Lee disagrees:
Quote from: Classic American Literature"When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn't teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, 'I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.'"
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:40:00 PMBut what if some of them are brought up to believe that way of conducting yourself is the correct one?
Then that's pretty fucked up. I'd be interested in looking at things that caused someone to be brought up like that. Personally, I expect it's something more nuanced than "Islam."
QuoteI wonder what take Saudi Arabian primary school eduction has on these issues?
I have no idea.
Are these particular attackers relevant or are we just talking in general? Because when you analyse the background of the attackers, there is a number of red flags there and I guess the question is to what extent they are representative of French Muslim youths in general or is their experience unique.
They are brothers, second generation immigrants from Algeria, orphaned at an early age. The older brother got involved in attending a mosque frequented by an incendiary preacher who was encouraging young Muslims to go to Iraq and fight Americans. The older brother did and was tried and sentenced to 3 years in prison upon his return in 2006 or so.
By the time he got out his younger brother was an adult and he apparently drawn him in into the fanatic "lifestyle" as it were.
Assuming the brothers, as orphans, received the same opportunities from the state as non-Muslim orphans do, the only thing that the French state could have done better is that it did not react fast enough to remove the incendiary preacher and mishandled the older brother once he got into the prison system, by treating this as a pure criminal issue and not a brain washing issue (so he should have either never been let out or should have gone through extensive reprogramming).
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Dissafected Western Muslims is one source of support; pissed off traditional Muslims already in the ME is another. The first is more worrying, even if the second was more responsible for 9/11.
It's reasonable to ask whether France has a particular problem with the former as well given that polls show 16% support for ISIS in France, increasing to 27% among the young. If it does, what are the causes.
I'm fairly sure 'insufficient secularism' is low on the list.
Wouldn't direction of immigration be relevant? It's not like Muslims emigrating to Britain, France or the US all come from the same countries or cultures.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:34:09 PM
This reminds me what the government said about the previous Christmas attacks, it's only a series of isolated incidents committed by lunatics. One should not stigmatise.
Well they are isolated in a sense. There's no grand plan at work. But all of the recent attacks in France (and the Sidney siege) remind me of school shootings.
It's a different sort of terrorism than strapping a bomb to yourself. I think it's probably more difficult to catch in the early stages and probably more likely to inspire copycat attacks immediately afterwards. As I said before I find the attacks in France, Canada and Australia more unsettling and scary than the London or Madrid bombings.
Speaking of which, wasn't the Boston marathon bombing also a case of isolated Muslim youth terrorism? It seems people are forgetting that when they are wondering why European countries get these attacks but the US apparently does not...
In terms of red flags for home grown terrorists deliquency probably matters as much as anything else.
I've said before but I'd be really interested to read about radical Islamist groups in the west and gangs, because superficially there seems a lot of similarities.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 01:53:11 AM
In terms of red flags for home grown terrorists deliquency probably matters as much as anything else.
Sorry, are you calling going to Iraq to fight with Islamist insurgents against France's ally "delinquency"? Or am I misreading you? Because if you do, that's one hell of an understatement.
That guy shouldn't have been let out until they were sure he will never go anywhere near Islamic fundamentalism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:00:25 PM
Jacob, I'm not taking you to task, but alluding to the hate-filled Saudi Arabian originated and financed 'educational' material that has found it's way into UK schools.
Based on that I wonder what innocent Saudi children are subject to in their early years?
Sure, but I don't think it's of very much relevance in France. I'd be amazed if any Saudi material got near French schools.
There is such thing as extracurricular activities. I grew up in communist Poland and the way it worked, in the morning you would go to your normal, state-mandated public school where you would learn about socialism and Lenin; and then in the afternoon you would go to a "Sunday school" type of place by the church, where a priest or a nun would teach you about Catholicism and the Pope. This created many more fundamentalist Catholics than devout communists (only when they reintroduced religion lessons to public schools in 1989, Poles started to grow more secular).
I wouldn't be surprised it could very well work like this for Muslims in France as well.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:50:32 AM
Wouldn't direction of immigration be relevant? It's not like Muslims emigrating to Britain, France or the US all come from the same countries or cultures.
Of course. As I say Maghreb countries are extremely worried about returning fighters from Syria, of which there are thousands. That's bound to have an effect in diaspora communities.
It's also, from the little reading of it I've done, the central thesis of the French Intifada - which I may have mentioned I'm reading :P
QuoteSpeaking of which, wasn't the Boston marathon bombing also a case of isolated Muslim youth terrorism? It seems people are forgetting that when they are wondering why European countries get these attacks but the US apparently does not...
I don't think anyone really makes that point anymore - I mean Canada and Australia have them too.
Having said that I do think France has a particular problem for a few reasons. It can't be blamed on multiculturalism or officialdom turning a blind eye to extremism because that's never been the French approach.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 02:00:02 AM
Having said that I do think France has a particular problem for a few reasons. It can't be blamed on multiculturalism or officialdom turning a blind eye to extremism because that's never been the French approach.
Really? It might be an outsider's perspective, but I never thought French problems are particularly bigger than British ones, for example. France simply has more Muslim immigrants, and unlike Britain, they do not necessarily concentrate in a capital but in other cities, which are less well funded for obvious reasons, but I never thought there is a worse systemic situation.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:55:45 AMSorry, are you calling going to Iraq to fight with Islamist insurgents against France's ally "delinquency"? Or am I misreading you? Because if you do, that's one hell of an understatement.
I thought he'd had minor scrapes with the law for petty crime, smoking pot etc. Similar to the older Tsarnaev brother and many other Western Muslims who've either been implicated in terrorism or tried to go abroad.
It's that thing about the guys going to fight in Syria buying Islam for Dummies before they go. As I say it may be superficial but I think that there may be lessons for anti-extremism efforts in anti-gang efforts in that it's the kids who are shoplifting and being 'delinquents' who are at pray to radical preachers and Islamist groups just as they are from gangs.
In a strange way if they were more religious it may be better because they'd probably be part of the settled community. Whenever I read pieces on these guys it's striking how many almost have conversion experiences - even Anjem Choudry who you linked to earlier, though he just sends young men off to die from the comfort of East London.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 08:51:46 PM
Mongers seems to have a fetish for trying to make people feel bad about things they said (or maybe even didn't say) in the past.
Yeah, insisting on people being consistent in their views is so banal.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 02:07:27 AM
In a strange way if they were more religious it may be better because they'd probably be part of the settled community. Whenever I read pieces on these guys it's striking how many almost have conversion experiences - even Anjem Choudry who you linked to earlier, though he just sends young men off to die from the comfort of East London.
When I was in college, I took a comparative religion course, which among other places had me going to a mosque to talk to people and see what it was all about. The immigrants there--including the imam from Egypt--seemed quite down to earth and reasonable. There were also a few converts who I talked to. They were wackjobs. The imam seemed a bit embarrassed to have those guys hanging around.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2015, 12:31:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 09:10:09 PM
:lol: Yeah, well I'm not having any of that yet. His BB gun stays locked up in the gun cabinet when we're not using it, I do a range safety briefing each time before I hand him the gun, and watch him like a hawk. KEEP THAT WEAPON POINTED DOWNRANGE
Oh, and we both wear shooting glasses, something I probably would have hated as a kid.
That sucks. When I was a kid my friends and I would roam the neighborhood with BB guns shooting at unfortunate birds and fish in the canals. One neighborhood kid did get shot in the face with a BB (we had nothing to do with that).
You rules would have been a serious downer.
If it was modern America, a cop would have put you down. :D
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 02:04:00 AM
Really? It might be an outsider's perspective, but I never thought French problems are particularly bigger than British ones, for example. France simply has more Muslim immigrants, and unlike Britain, they do not necessarily concentrate in a capital but in other cities, which are less well funded for obvious reasons, but I never thought there is a worse systemic situation.
Britain's Muslim community isn't concentrated in the capital. There's a very large, mostly Pakistani, Muslim community in almost every town in South Yorkshire and Lancashire (which is where the London bombers came from for the most part).
Again I'm biased by my reading at the minute but it seems like the amount of low-level violence in the banlieues (eg. around 40 000 cars burned out a year, pretty regular fracas with the police) would cause a British government to collapse. But in France it's just the norm. I'll let you know when I've finished reading the book :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2015, 02:14:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 02:07:27 AM
In a strange way if they were more religious it may be better because they'd probably be part of the settled community. Whenever I read pieces on these guys it's striking how many almost have conversion experiences - even Anjem Choudry who you linked to earlier, though he just sends young men off to die from the comfort of East London.
When I was in college, I took a comparative religion course, which among other places had me going to a mosque to talk to people and see what it was all about. The immigrants there--including the imam from Egypt--seemed quite down to earth and reasonable. There were also a few converts who I talked to. They were wackjobs. The imam seemed a bit embarrassed to have those guys hanging around.
Converts are always wackjobs. It's one thing to go on believing in a sky fairy because you started as a kid after you parents told you it is real. It is quite another to abandon your childhood sky fairy for another sky fairy as an adult - that's indicative of serious mental issues.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 02:18:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 02:04:00 AM
Really? It might be an outsider's perspective, but I never thought French problems are particularly bigger than British ones, for example. France simply has more Muslim immigrants, and unlike Britain, they do not necessarily concentrate in a capital but in other cities, which are less well funded for obvious reasons, but I never thought there is a worse systemic situation.
Britain's Muslim community isn't concentrated in the capital. There's a very large, mostly Pakistani, Muslim community in almost every town in South Yorkshire and Lancashire (which is where the London bombers came from for the most part).
Again I'm biased by my reading at the minute but it seems like the amount of low-level violence in the banlieues (eg. around 40 000 cars burned out a year, pretty regular fracas with the police) would cause a British government to collapse. But in France it's just the norm. I'll let you know when I've finished reading the book :lol:
Ok. :lol:
Btw Sheilbh check out the iconographic Syt posted in the other thread. France just have many more muslims than any other EU country.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:00:30 AM
No, that's not just what happens. Sociopath.
It depends, what if they live in a hunting and gathering society.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 02:25:33 AM
Btw Sheilbh check out the iconographic Syt posted in the other thread. France just have many more muslims than any other EU country.
Sure. But London's got around the same number of Muslims as the Ile-de-France and nowhere near the problems that exist in the suburbs. Which isn't to do down the problems in, say, Tower Hamlets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 02:33:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 02:25:33 AM
Btw Sheilbh check out the iconographic Syt posted in the other thread. France just have many more muslims than any other EU country.
Sure. But London's got around the same number of Muslims as the Ile-de-France and nowhere near the problems that exist in the suburbs. Which isn't to do down the problems in, say, Tower Hamlets.
To elaborate further, France has a whooping 8% of muslims in the general populace.
The US has around 2% (by comparison US black populace is around 12%).
And you people were wondering why "France seems to have a particular problem"? :lol:
But that's not what I'm saying :lol:
Why should 8% of the population be a "problem"?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 02:37:53 AM
Why should 8% of the population be a "problem"?
You were asking why France gets more attacks perpetrated by Muslims than the US.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 08:18:28 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 06:54:27 PM
Siege chose the Academia Real (sic) and they don't list compay :contract:
So much for you speaking Castilian and not some latin american "spanish". :(
Besides, compay is at best for both compadre and compañero so still no synonym, just a a homograph.
It's a Cuban word. And I don't use it myself.
It's pretty well known cf. Compay Segundo who popularised it outside the hispanophone sphere.
Glad you reverted to Hoch Kastilisch. :)
I think "comrade" is one of those words in many languages that got tainted by association. I suppose that in those countries which were neither plagued by communism (like Eastern Europe) nor had a particularly bitter rivarly with communism (like the US), it may still be used in a neutral way.
Seems the scum are about to get their tickets punched.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 04:05:41 AM
I think "comrade" is one of those words in many languages that got tainted by association. I suppose that in those countries which were neither plagued by communism (like Eastern Europe) nor had a particularly bitter rivarly with communism (like the US), it may still be used in a neutral way.
The Chinese word for "comrade" is also assicated with male homosexuality.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 04:05:41 AM
I think "comrade" is one of those words in many languages that got tainted by association. I suppose that in those countries which were neither plagued by communism (like Eastern Europe) nor had a particularly bitter rivarly with communism (like the US), it may still be used in a neutral way.
:yes:
"Kammerat" is a fairly neutral word these days.
QuoteShots have been fired and there are reports of a hostage being taken as French police close in on suspects linked to the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Several people are said to have been wounded at Dammartin-en-Goële, 35km (22 miles) from Paris, but officials denied reports of deaths.
Negotiations are now under way with police, reports say.
The development comes nearly 48 hours after the attack on the magazine's office, when 12 people were shot dead.
The heavily armed gunmen fled Paris by car after the attack.
A convoy of police vehicles has been seen heading by motorway to Dammartin-en-Goele.
Dammartin is not far from the Oise and Aisne départements where the manhunt was yesterday. It's in Seine-et-Marne, North of Paris, in Île-de-France, only slightly closer.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115)
ps: that's a few kilometres away from Roissy-CDG airport which is experienced some delays with rerouted flights.
Even left-leaning organizations in Spain don't use "camarada", but "compañero".
There's a tank on the way to the building where the terrorists are hiding. The French don't mess about.
According to iTélé news channel, quoting a local conservative MP, the Kouachi brothers want to die as martyrs. Heard from negotiations by phone at the site, a building in an industrial area.
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 05:58:24 AM
There's a tank on the way to the building where the terrorists are hiding.
Or as they say in the U.S., "A patrol car."
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 06:09:04 AM
According to iTélé news channel, quoting a local conservative MP, the Kouachi brothers want to die as martyrs. Heard from negotiations by phone at the site, a building in an industrial area.
Oh well. Sometimes you gotta give them what they want.
Quote from: Syt on January 09, 2015, 06:09:40 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 05:58:24 AM
There's a tank on the way to the building where the terrorists are hiding.
Or as they say in the U.S., "A patrol car."
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 06:22:51 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 06:09:04 AM
According to iTélé news channel, quoting a local conservative MP, the Kouachi brothers want to die as martyrs. Heard from negotiations by phone at the site, a building in an industrial area.
Oh well. Sometimes you gotta give them what they want.
It is high time they start using pigfat-covered bullets against these people.
Quote from: Syt on January 09, 2015, 06:09:40 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 05:58:24 AM
There's a tank on the way to the building where the terrorists are hiding.
Or as they say in the U.S., "A patrol car."
:D
So the Montrouge (nearby southern Paris suburb) shooting yesterday is actually linked to the Charlie Hebdo attack. The suspect has been identified, his name is Medhi C.... He knew the Kouachi brothers, since they met in the same radical mosque and was part of the same Iraq jihad connection ring.
He reportedly wanted to open fire on a TV channel before getting shooting and killing a municipal cop, i.e an unarmed one and a trainee, from the French Antilles.
The gunman had a bulletproof vest, a SMG and a handgun, just in case.
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/fusillade-%C3%A0-montrouge---une-policiere-blessee-090502150.html?nc=0 (https://fr.news.yahoo.com/fusillade-%C3%A0-montrouge---une-policiere-blessee-090502150.html?nc=0)
edit: reports of another shooting in one of the eastern entries of Paris (Porte de Vincennes near the zoo) by allegedly the same Medhi C., in a Kosher supermarket with again hostage taking. So much for European anti-semitism :(
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 07:24:53 AM
So the Montrouge (nearby southern Paris suburb) shooting yesterday is actually linked to the Charlie Hebdo attack. The suspect has been identified, his name is Medhi C.... He knew the Kouachi brothers, since they met in the same radical mosque and was part of the same Iraq jihad connection ring.
He reportedlywanted to open fire on a TV channel before getting shooting and killing a municipal cop, i.e an unarmed one and a trainee, from the French Antilles.
The gunman had a bulletproof vest, a SMG and a handgun, just in case.
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/fusillade-%C3%A0-montrouge---une-policiere-blessee-090502150.html?nc=0 (https://fr.news.yahoo.com/fusillade-%C3%A0-montrouge---une-policiere-blessee-090502150.html?nc=0)
Well, I guess it's time to round up everybody associated with the same radical mosque. I hope the French still have balls and know-how from the Algerian wars.
Same guy just shot up a jewish supermarket in Paris. The live footage from just behind the police are quite intense. Apparently hostages have been taken.
EDIT: They say here it's confirmed that at least 5 hostages have been taken.
I hope this is the wake up call the western world hears this time.
Altho, I have no idea what the path to the solution is, maybe give Iran free reign over the middle-east.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 09, 2015, 08:03:52 AM
I hope this is the wake up call the western world hears this time.
Altho, I have no idea what the path to the solution is, maybe give Iran free reign over the middle-east.
I don't think there is much we can do. Most muslims live in countries that are badly-run, with incredibly high unemployment rates and little welfare provision to ease the pain........hence the turn towards Islamic extremism. We are only getting a tiny fraction of the pain, just a little bit of collateral damage.
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:53:41 AM
Same guy just shot up a jewish supermarket in Paris. The live footage from just behind the police are quite intense. Apparently hostages have been taken.
EDIT: They say here it's confirmed that at least 5 hostages have been taken.
Fuck.
Quote
AFP Photo Department @AFPphoto · 5 min il y a 5 minutes
At least two killed in hostage drama east of Paris. Photo @MartinBureau1 #AFP
Quote
Agence France-PresseCompte certifié
@AFP
#BREAKING French police release mugshots of man and woman linked to policewoman killing
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B66TZBLCIAAkkyx.jpg:large)
Holy crap this has escalated!
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 08:36:41 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:53:41 AM
Same guy just shot up a jewish supermarket in Paris. The live footage from just behind the police are quite intense. Apparently hostages have been taken.
EDIT: They say here it's confirmed that at least 5 hostages have been taken.
Fuck.
Oh, like you give a shit.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 08:43:05 AM
Quote
AFP Photo Department @AFPphoto · 5 min il y a 5 minutes
At least two killed in hostage drama east of Paris. Photo @MartinBureau1 #AFP
Quote
Agence France-PresseCompte certifié
@AFP
#BREAKING French police release mugshots of man and woman linked to policewoman killing
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B66TZBLCIAAkkyx.jpg:large)
Oh great now they have a chick and a black guy. Next thing we know they will start a band.
I lulz'd.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 08:48:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 08:36:41 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:53:41 AM
Same guy just shot up a jewish supermarket in Paris. The live footage from just behind the police are quite intense. Apparently hostages have been taken.
EDIT: They say here it's confirmed that at least 5 hostages have been taken.
Fuck.
Oh, like you give a shit.
Raz, I don't think that's an appropriate response, to some extent you have to take posts at face value; I see know reason to doubt Marty isn't sincere in his reaction.
As a slight consequence of the hostage situation in Porte de Vincennes, traffic on the le périphérique Paris ring road, is blocked.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B66WgfbIcAEdcL6.jpg)
Duque, thanks for keeping us updated, especially as I'm finding some UK coverage rather confused. :cheers:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplantu.blog.lemonde.fr%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F01%2FLIBERTE-550.jpg&hash=a65efb6c8ba482db5e4a1497f5daaa92957815b1)
Jesus christ there is some absolutely whack-job "they had it coming" commentary out there about how the CH cartoonists constituted a racist, white elite "punching down" on an imperially subjugated minority.
There really are ideas that, as George Orwell put it, are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
Jesus christ there is some absolutely whack-job "they had it coming" commentary out there about how the CH cartoonists constituted a racist, white elite "punching down" on an imperially subjugated minority.
There really are ideas that, as George Orwell put it, are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
Is it a name individual or just some stuff being endlessly reposted on social media?
The two deaths reports are now denied by the Interior minister. (France 24 live)
One seriously wounded though, according to a police source.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 08:48:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 08:36:41 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:53:41 AM
Same guy just shot up a jewish supermarket in Paris. The live footage from just behind the police are quite intense. Apparently hostages have been taken.
EDIT: They say here it's confirmed that at least 5 hostages have been taken.
Fuck.
Oh, like you give a shit.
Raz, I don't think that's an appropriate response, to some extent you have to take posts at face value; I see know reason to doubt Marty isn't sincere in his reaction.
And why would I suddenly think that Marty's concern over the deaths of those "monstrous sky fairy worshipers" is genuine? I do believe he was genuine when he hoped that the French came down on the people in the Mosque and opined that it would be a good thing if they acted like they did in Algeria (where you know, the founder the FN tortured people). Their rights are apparently not that important. He's ignoring me now, since I pointed out he has no problem demanding people die if they bother him. He can't come up with a response to that, so he's just calls me crazy (which is true but irrelevant). He and Viking and Grallon and some others hate Muslims and become positively cheerful when feel cause to express their contempt for people they regard as inferior. I like to think I make a principled stand against bigotry. If blacks are the one's attacked, then I defend the blacks. If the Muslims are attacked, then I defend the Muslims. When the gays are attacked, I defend the gays. When it's people who are religious, then I defend them. This concept seems to confuse a lot of people here. The idea that I would defend a hated minority is simply "crazy", "trolling", or "contrarian".
Stop attention whoring raz.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20150109%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1014977697%26amp%3Bw%3D%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D700%26amp%3Bpl%3D378%26amp%3Br%3DLYNXMPEB080HS&hash=2620ba8ed43b0f67844eb0575ae3a19c3e289daa)
A helicopter with members of the French intervention forces hover above the scene of a hostage taking at an industrial zone in Dammartin-en-Goele, northeast of Paris January 9, 2015.
Houellebecq's stopped promoting his new book and has gone into hiding.
QuoteThe French novelist Michel Houellebecq, whose latest book featured on the cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on the day of the massacre at its offices, has stopped its promotion as the victims were being mourned.
Houellebecq, a friend of economist Bernard Maris, who was among the 12 people shot dead on Wednesday, was "deeply affected" and had decided to leave Paris for an unspecified rural retreat, his agent said on Thursday.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack)
Reports on French TV (France 2) that during the first talk between the anti-terror police and the hostage take in Porte de Vincennes, the hostage taker has asked for the release/free exit of the already besieged Charlie Hebdo attackers in Dammartin.
Hostage taking as a last-ditch attempt for diversion?
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 09:36:03 AM
Houellebecq's stopped promoting his new book and has gone into hiding.
QuoteThe French novelist Michel Houellebecq, whose latest book featured on the cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on the day of the massacre at its offices, has stopped its promotion as the victims were being mourned.
Houellebecq, a friend of economist Bernard Maris, who was among the 12 people shot dead on Wednesday, was "deeply affected" and had decided to leave Paris for an unspecified rural retreat, his agent said on Thursday.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack)
I don't blame him, plus if he were still doing book signings then those events would be a target for these terrorists and so he risks not only his life but other innocents.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
Jesus christ there is some absolutely whack-job "they had it coming" commentary out there about how the CH cartoonists constituted a racist, white elite "punching down" on an imperially subjugated minority.
There really are ideas that, as George Orwell put it, are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
Is it a name individual or just some stuff being endlessly reposted on social media?
A couple of bloggers and also some friends on Facebook (post-structuralist types).
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
Jesus christ there is some absolutely whack-job "they had it coming" commentary out there about how the CH cartoonists constituted a racist, white elite "punching down" on an imperially subjugated minority.
There really are ideas that, as George Orwell put it, are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
I guess they didn't check their privilege.
I don't know the significance of what's going on here but it's rather dramatic;
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fmedia%2Fglobal%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F20150109%2F20150109_9249350020150109141027.jpg&hash=f2c5fa5f9acaf217cc17112958e48550de237288)
QuoteFrench police forcibly stop at gun point young people on a scooter as they arrive near the scene of a hostage taking at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris January 9, 2015. REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal
If you're wearing an Adidas tracksuit and are on a scooter, you're asking to have the police crack down on you. That's just a fact.
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
Jesus christ there is some absolutely whack-job "they had it coming" commentary out there about how the CH cartoonists constituted a racist, white elite "punching down" on an imperially subjugated minority.
There really are ideas that, as George Orwell put it, are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
Is it a name individual or just some stuff being endlessly reposted on social media?
A couple of bloggers and also some friends on Facebook (post-structuralist types).
Yeah no surprise, it's disturbing how much traction that sort of crap gets on social media.
Late pizza delivery?
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 09:40:00 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 09:36:03 AM
Houellebecq's stopped promoting his new book and has gone into hiding.
QuoteThe French novelist Michel Houellebecq, whose latest book featured on the cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on the day of the massacre at its offices, has stopped its promotion as the victims were being mourned.
Houellebecq, a friend of economist Bernard Maris, who was among the 12 people shot dead on Wednesday, was "deeply affected" and had decided to leave Paris for an unspecified rural retreat, his agent said on Thursday.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack)
I don't blame him, plus if he were still doing book signings then those events would be a target for these terrorists and so he risks not only his life but other innocents.
Yes, if I lived in Paris I think I'd opt for a quiet night in and watch an old movie today.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 09:42:58 AM
I don't know the significance of what's going on here but it's rather dramatic;
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fmedia%2Fglobal%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F20150109%2F20150109_9249350020150109141027.jpg&hash=f2c5fa5f9acaf217cc17112958e48550de237288)
QuoteFrench police forcibly stop at gun point young people on a scooter as they arrive near the scene of a hostage taking at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris January 9, 2015. REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb.bimg.dk%2Fnode-images%2F147%2F8%2F620x411-c%2F8147015-france-shooting.jpg&hash=c461c2b2269ae928cc56af5bdcdda3f7f9ccb221)
My initial guess is a pair of local halfwits who ignored Police warnings to stay the hell away from the scene.
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:57:00 AM
My initial guess is a pair of local halfwits who ignored Police warnings to stay the hell away from the scene.
Yes, No doubt, but it's a useful illustration of the inevitable tensions there.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 09:30:27 AM
Stop attention whoring raz.
I just ignore him. I feel sorry for any poster who gets into a discussion with him. He is like a retarded grumbler (who at least is smart so even if he can be annoying, one can sometimes learn something from him).
I'm waiting for Raz to grow out of his "defender of all faith" phase before I stop glossing over his posts.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 09, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Late pizza delivery?
Very late now:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.scribblelive.com%2F2015%2F1%2F9%2F7d89a6e4-cfb8-465a-8b46-a53afffb854b_500.jpg&hash=ede60c67e95dcc5ded98614601da4a4266f72d2c)
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 09:42:58 AM
I don't know the significance of what's going on here but it's rather dramatic;
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fmedia%2Fglobal%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F20150109%2F20150109_9249350020150109141027.jpg&hash=f2c5fa5f9acaf217cc17112958e48550de237288)
QuoteFrench police forcibly stop at gun point young people on a scooter as they arrive near the scene of a hostage taking at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris January 9, 2015. REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal
The one dude has watched too many gangsta rap videos.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 09, 2015, 09:45:24 AM
Late pizza delivery?
That does remind me of the Domino's delivery guy from a couple years ago. Pizza on a scooter. Hilarious.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 09:30:27 AM
Stop attention whoring raz.
I just ignore him. I feel sorry for any poster who gets into a discussion with him. He is like a retarded grumbler (who at least is smart so even if he can be annoying, one can sometimes learn something from him).
No shit, you couldn't come up with a response to my question yesterday and hid.
Raz is such a debating terror he has forced many languish posters into hiding rather than face his intellectual might.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 09:36:03 AM
Houellebecq's stopped promoting his new book and has gone into hiding.
QuoteThe French novelist Michel Houellebecq, whose latest book featured on the cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on the day of the massacre at its offices, has stopped its promotion as the victims were being mourned.
Houellebecq, a friend of economist Bernard Maris, who was among the 12 people shot dead on Wednesday, was "deeply affected" and had decided to leave Paris for an unspecified rural retreat, his agent said on Thursday.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/michel-houellebecq-stops-promotion-novel-charlie-hebdo-attack)
His Diplomacy is going to go down. :(
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
Jesus christ there is some absolutely whack-job "they had it coming" commentary out there about how the CH cartoonists constituted a racist, white elite "punching down" on an imperially subjugated minority.
There really are ideas that, as George Orwell put it, are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
Is it a name individual or just some stuff being endlessly reposted on social media?
A couple of bloggers and also some friends on Facebook (post-structuralist types).
To paraphrase Stanislaw Lem, before Facebook, I had no idea so many of my friends are idiots.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2015, 10:11:04 AM
Raz is such a debating terror he has forced many languish posters into hiding rather than face his intellectual might.
I asked him a question that would that if he answered it would reveal him to be a hypocrite. He had no problem calling me names the post before, but with that one question he suddenly became quite. Problem is he's not Grumbler and can't stand having people talk about him without reading and commenting. So he'll ignore me for a week.
Amedy Coulibaly, the hostage taker in Porte de Vincennes, had already a conviction in an anti-terrorist case.
QuoteMore on the new suspected member of the terror cell from Angelique Chrisafis.
Amedy Coulibaly
Amedy Coulibaly Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images
Amédy Coulibaly, is 32 and from Juvisy-sur-Orge in Essonne outside Paris. He is believed to be the gunman currently holding hostages in a kosher grocery shop at Porte de Vincennes, on the eastern edge of Paris. He is also suspected of killing a French policewoman in a shoot-out in the south of Paris on Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
While still a teenager he became involved in criminality and reportedly notched up several convictions for armed robbery from 2001, when he was still a minor. The newsweekly L'Obs reported that he had met Chérif Kouachi, one of the brothers suspected of the Charlie Hebdo attack, between 2005 and 2006 when they were both inside the notorious Fleury-Mérogis prison, south of Paris. The huge prison is known for its overcrowding.
French media reported that Coulibaly had converted and become radicalised in prison.
After an initial spell in prison for armed robbery, he was reported to have then started drug-dealing and served another sentence. After that, with training as a television-fitter, he settled in Grigny in the Essonne, around 20km south-east of Paris.
He was arrested by anti-terrorist police in 2010, suspected of having taken part in a plot to aid the prison escape of Smaïn Aït Ali Belkacem, one of the key figures behind the Paris metro and train attacks in 1995.
During searches of his home, police found Kalashnikov ammunition. He received a prison sentence and is reported to have been released from prison just over a year ago.
Le Monde reported that he and Kouachi had both shared a mentor in Djamel Beghal, a radical figure who had been convicted for a planned terrorist attack on Paris. Police are also now searching for Coulibaly's partner, Hayat Boumedienne, who he lived with.
Coulibaly was the only boy in a family of ten, according to Libération, which said people who knew him had described a happy childhood and average school record. He was said to have changed at around the age of 17 as a result of people he associated with. Liberation cited an expert psychiatric report as part of a court judgement which found "no pathology" but an "immature and psychopathic personality". An expert psychologist had pointed to "his poor powers of introspection" and the "rudimentary" nature of the motivation of his actions, as well as sense of morality which was "lacking" and a wish to be "all powerful".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 10:22:44 AM
Amédy Coubaly, the hostage taker in Porte de Vincennes, had a already a conviction in anti-terrorist case.
If repeat offence pedophiles are chemically castrated, what should be done to repeat offence terrorists? Lobotomy?
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:26:00 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 10:22:44 AM
Amédy Coubaly, the hostage taker in Porte de Vincennes, had a already a conviction in anti-terrorist case.
If repeat offence pedophiles are chemically castrated, what should be done to repeat offence terrorists? Lobotomy?
Crucifixion
Images of a seemingly shocked female hostage who managed to escape in Porte de Vincennes are now shown on French TV.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:54:31 PM
Shall we guess it's all sweetness and light, cherry tree blossom, singing folk songs with their teachers, until they leave school and experience the soul destroying experience of having to be an adult?
Sounds like an anime.
I wouldn't mind watching that: leading terrorists as competitive schoolgirls :mellow:
Have you been reading this, perchance...
http://www.mangahere.co/manga/mission_school/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30739509 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30739509)
Quote
France eyewitness: 'I shook hands with shooting suspect'
2 hours ago
A salesman, known only as Didier, has told French radio that he shook hands with one of two men holding a hostage in northern France.
The men, suspected of killing 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, are in a printing business surrounded by police.
Didier claims he was there for a business meeting and mistook a man dressed in a black uniform for a member of the French security services.
The gunman apparently told him: "Go away as we do not kill civilians."
He was speaking on the French public radio station France Info.
France 24 report:
In a bizarre twist, an article, posted below, reports a meeting between Amedi (sic) Couliby and former president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009. Couliby, suspected to be the gunman in the second hostage situation, was one of several young people invited to meet the president. At the time, he expressed excitement and said he would be getting autographs for his nine sisters. He joked he would like the president to get him a job.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B66tF3YCAAAzler.jpg)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 10:29:03 AM
Images of a seemingly shocked female hostage who managed to escape in Porte de Vincennes are now shown on French TV.
I guess I should see if there are live web feeds for the French channels.
France 24 TV English feed here:
http://www.france24.com/en/livefeed/ (http://www.france24.com/en/livefeed/)
France 24 again
Kosher supermarket gunman threatens to kill hostages if police storm the Kouachi brothers currently holding one hostage in a town north of Paris (AP)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 09:28:24 AM
I like to think I make a principled stand against bigotry. If blacks are the one's attacked, then I defend the blacks. If the Muslims are attacked, then I defend the Muslims. When the gays are attacked, I defend the gays. When it's people who are religious, then I defend them. This concept seems to confuse a lot of people here. The idea that I would defend a hated minority is simply "crazy", "trolling", or "contrarian".
So, since almost any group can be a "hated minority" (even whites, for example) you defend everybody in the world regardless of the right or wrong of the situation? You don't consider the facts or issues of the case, you just jump to the defence of the "attacked" party automatically?
That's not "trolling" or "contrarian" but it could very well be "crazy".
I think a phrase along the lines of "he who defends everybody convinces nobody" might be appropriate here.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the French special forces. Hopefully they will find a way not to end this crisis Russian style while not letting the fuckers get away.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:40:19 AM
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the French special forces. Hopefully they will find a way not to end this crisis Russian style while not letting the fuckers get away.
The GIGN are competent. Below is a clip of them retaking a hijacked Air France flight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7a5D3sMJKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7a5D3sMJKM)
Damn, because of BB, I now started to misread the thread title too. :P
That's one of the deficiencies of English - the "adjective chains" can be confusing in situations like this. For example that wouldn't be an issue in Polish as depending on the meaning of the sentence, the syntax would be different.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates#block-54afc94de4b083a8830fd7d2
QuoteSky news are currently showing footage of gunshots and explosions at Dammartin-en-Goele
On TV, Smoke grenade use in Dammartin and fire weapon flashes. Assault has started.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 10:59:14 AM
On TV, Smoke grenade use in Dammartin and fire weapon flashes. Assault has started.
I know it is earlier in the thread, but is Dammartin the kosher supermarket location or the Charlie Hebdo's shooters' hideout?
I think I've never watched TV5 for so long continously.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 10:59:14 AM
On TV, Smoke grenade use in Dammartin and fire weapon flashes. Assault has started.
I know it is earlier in the thread, but is Dammartin the kosher supermarket location or the Charlie Hebdo's shooters' hideout?
CH shooters.
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 11:01:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 10:59:14 AM
On TV, Smoke grenade use in Dammartin and fire weapon flashes. Assault has started.
I know it is earlier in the thread, but is Dammartin the kosher supermarket location or the Charlie Hebdo's shooters' hideout?
CH shooters.
Yep, seems they used flashbang grenades, and some detonations followed. It's calm(er) right now. Seems it's a full scale assault with GIGN officers entering through windows.
Shots preceded the flash bangs though, so that's not a good sign.
Night is falling on Dammartin, to give one more clue of what's happening, for those without a video feed.
Explosions in Paris now too. EDIT: Near the Jewish shop.
Assault as well in Vincennes. No images.
Read that there are so many armed French police deployed that they're running short on modern weapons and are having to make use of older rifles "that date back to World War II".
AFP: The brothers are killed.
AFP: hostages freed in Porte de Vincennes. Not specifying if it was all of them.
One severely wounded gendarme (GIGN) in the first assault (Dammartin).
edit: The wounded gendarme has not a life-threatening injury.
Freed hostage as well in Dammartin. There was only one.
Amedy Coulibaly (hostage taker in Porte de Vincennes) is reported dead.
AFP reports the brothers in Dammartin went down guns blazing by leaving the building and firing on the police forces.
They're all dead apparently. And most if not all hostages are alive. Vive la France! :frog:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
Amedy Coudaly (hostake taker in Porte de Vincennes) is reported dead.
You may no longer take issue with the spelling errors of others.
Good job, France!
I'm reminded of the Onion after 9/11:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell,1445/
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 09, 2015, 11:30:55 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
Amedy Coudaly (hostage taker in Porte de Vincennes) is reported dead.
You may no longer take issue with the spelling errors of others.
Try again. That was a typo, not a spelling mistake. Nice try, though.
I keep hearing on that France 24 Live feed that the hostages are dead. Hopefully they're wrong.
EDIT: Now they're saying all hostages are alive. That's better.
Two police officers (BRI) wounded during the Porte de Vincennes assault. (LCI TV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_de_recherche_et_d%27intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_de_recherche_et_d%27intervention)
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 11:32:26 AM
I keep hearing on that France 24 Live feed that the hostages are dead. Hopefully they're wrong.
EDIT: Now they're saying all hostages are alive. That's better.
Photos from Sky News show at least 4 hostages being guided away after the explosions.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnmo.coveritlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F201501%2Fphpxlfr8x449819.jpg&hash=a532afd0d3684390a9a129e2d7e38828aff2d0ea)
Good. Hope things settle down from this point.
Assaults were launched at the same time with perfect police services cooperation i.e R.A.I.D, G.I.G.N and B.R.I squads. No guerre des polices this time some French commentators said (reference to past event between police and gendarmerie).
Still some doubt whether the Kouachi brothers knew there was a civillian in the Dammartin printing shop where they holed themselves up, so no real hostage to speak of.
Rumours have it that the chick from the Jewish shop is armed and at large.
Four hostages was killed in the jewish shop, confirmed. :(
The footage showing the assault on the shop doesn't make the French police look particularly professional. But maybe that's because I'm looking at it with unprofessional eyes.
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 11:53:10 AM
Rumours have it that the chick from the Jewish shop is armed and at large.
First, they talked of another guy then her. It's still pretty unclear.
Now, they're talking on LCI of 3 then 4 dead hostages, plus 4 severely wounded (life-threatening condition).
edit:
AFP says now 4 hostages dead as reported per Liep
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 11:53:10 AM
Rumours have it that the chick from the Jewish shop is armed and at large.
First, they talked of another guy then her. It's still pretty unclear.
Now, they're talking on LCI of 3 then 4 dead hostages, plus 4 severely wounded (life-threatening condition).
edit:
AFP says now 4 hostages dead as reported per Liep
LCI had a police source saying the chick was at large as well.
Interesting tweet
QuoteFrance Info@franceinfo
EDITION SPÉCIALE | "Des dizaines d'otages évacués de la superette de Vincennes" (source policière) franceinfo.fr/player
Dozens of hostages were freed (police source)
Good that they got the fuckers.
Still hoping that reports of dead hostages are fog-of-war-misreports :(
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
Good that they got the fuckers.
Still hoping that reports of dead hostages are fog-of-war-misreports :(
I'm afraid it's all but confirmed. The only question remaining now is whether they were executed at the beginning of the hostage taking, or during the assault. That and the fate of the female companion of Amedy Coulibaly.
DdB, you'll know. I saw reports that Hollande gave a banal press conference of generalities while the siege was still taking place. Did he? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 12:32:16 PM
DdB, you'll know. I saw reports that Hollande gave a banal press conference of generalities while the siege was still taking place. Did he? :blink:
That would be awkward but in general I wouldn't mind if a country's top guy dont have to hand-steer every god damn thing. It is a sign of a good organisation if he can say "free these hostages in the most efficient manner possible" and then just let it go.
Sure. But I can't understand why you'd give a press conference during a crisis like that unless you had something to announce. Which, apparently, he didn't :blink:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2015, 01:39:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:00:30 AM
No, that's not just what happens. Sociopath.
Harper Lee disagrees:
Quote from: Classic American Literature"When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn't teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, 'I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.'"
Atticus was an Expos fan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 12:35:07 PM
Sure. But I can't understand why you'd give a press conference during a crisis like that unless you had something to announce. Which, apparently, he didn't :blink:
Well he always seemed like an idiot, so there is that. :P
Quote from: Tamas on January 09, 2015, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 12:32:16 PM
DdB, you'll know. I saw reports that Hollande gave a banal press conference of generalities while the siege was still taking place. Did he? :blink:
That would be awkward but in general I wouldn't mind if a country's top guy dont have to hand-steer every god damn thing. It is a sign of a good organisation if he can say "free these hostages in the most efficient manner possible" and then just let it go.
I did not watch it since I did not want to inflict on myself and you all afterwards that ordeal, but that's his style, yes. It's good that the Police is well trained and competent. Can't say that about the current government unfortunately. The Union nationale is already broken with question of inviting or even allowing the FN to the huge demonstration scheduled on Sunday. The Houellebecq scenario in a weird demonstration way. Marine Le Pen is already making the most of it.
Quote from: Tamas on January 09, 2015, 12:40:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 12:35:07 PM
Sure. But I can't understand why you'd give a press conference during a crisis like that unless you had something to announce. Which, apparently, he didn't :blink:
Well he always seemed like an idiot, so there is that. :P
Well, there's this thing of just looking like an idiot and opening one's mouth to confirm it. I'll let you figure Flanby's status.
Back to topic
Update - French media report second gunman in kosher grocery in eastern #Paris was unknown male and has escaped as hostage situation ends (Sky News does not specify which medium).
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 12:41:17 PM
Marine Le Pen is already making the most of it.
I suppose that bitch has been squirting* since Wednesday.
*This assumption is made based on my admittedly limited knowledge of female anatomy and, as such, may be incorrect.
I'm glad they're dead, a pity they took three or four more innocents with them.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B67eKW3CAAAx689.jpg)
Ah, sorry guys, you're late! The 70 virgins are having a newsroom meeting with the Charlie Hebdo guys.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 09, 2015, 10:38:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 09:28:24 AM
I like to think I make a principled stand against bigotry. If blacks are the one's attacked, then I defend the blacks. If the Muslims are attacked, then I defend the Muslims. When the gays are attacked, I defend the gays. When it's people who are religious, then I defend them. This concept seems to confuse a lot of people here. The idea that I would defend a hated minority is simply "crazy", "trolling", or "contrarian".
So, since almost any group can be a "hated minority" (even whites, for example) you defend everybody in the world regardless of the right or wrong of the situation? You don't consider the facts or issues of the case, you just jump to the defence of the "attacked" party automatically?
That's not "trolling" or "contrarian" but it could very well be "crazy".
I think a phrase along the lines of "he who defends everybody convinces nobody" might be appropriate here.
Well clearly. The idea of defending a group of people who are labeled as "scum", is unconvincing to the people who hate them.
This crisis in France just keeps building. You keep hoping things will shift a bit and pressure will lessen.
I have to wonder if the French nation is going to have that confrontation we have all hoped would never come to pass. I have no idea what that is or what it may look like but we seem to be careening off in that direction. One thing is for sure: Muslims continue to be fucked by these nutcases.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 04:02:01 PM
Well clearly. The idea of defending a group of people who are labeled as "scum", is unconvincing to the people who hate them.
Whatever dude. You love attacking those people in your own backyard but are a noble champion to them thousands of miles away whatever good that does.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
This crisis in France just keeps building. You keep hoping things will shift a bit and pressure will lessen.
I have to wonder if the French nation is going to have that confrontation we have all hoped would never come to pass. I have no idea what that is or what it may look like but we seem to be careening off in that direction. One thing is for sure: Muslims continue to be fucked by these nutcases.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
:ph34r:
Yeah, but when isn't a reading of the Second Comming appropriate?
Well, outside of a wedding, that is. :D
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
I have to wonder if the French nation is going to have that confrontation we have all hoped would never come to pass. I have no idea what that is or what it may look like but we seem to be careening off in that direction. One thing is for sure: Muslims continue to be fucked by these nutcases.
Yeah, immigrant communities always seem to take it in the shorts during times of severe economic crisis, and the Age of Austerity is no different, but having a few whack job members of a community playing Holy Warrior on top of that doesn't really help things with the home crowd.
I tend to believe the conventional wisdom that the French take their ardent adherence to a secular society and their desire to retain their "Frenchness" rather seriously, so I can envision serious kickback and political pressure when it comes to shuttering the doors to certain immigrant populations. But that's just conjecture because I've never bicycled to Paris, lest I appear all proto-racist and whatnot.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F80172000%2Fjpg%2F_80172696_0af192a9-3aa1-457b-87de-e11931a0d3a6.jpg&hash=3c63e4494f0091773dc76966e922be7e578e6667)
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2015, 04:16:52 PM
Well, outside of a wedding, that is. :D
Clearly you have never met my parents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
I have to wonder if the French nation is going to have that confrontation we have all hoped would never come to pass. I have no idea what that is or what it may look like but we seem to be careening off in that direction. One thing is for sure: Muslims continue to be fucked by these nutcases.
Yeah, immigrant communities always seem to take it in the shorts during times of severe economic crisis, and the Age of Austerity is no different, but having a few whack job members of a community playing Holy Warrior on top of that doesn't really help things with the home crowd.
I tend to believe the conventional wisdom that the French take their ardent adherence to a secular society and their desire to retain their "Frenchness" rather seriously, so I can envision serious kickback and political pressure when it comes to shuttering the doors to certain immigrant populations. But that's just conjecture because I've never bicycled to Paris, lest I appear all proto-racist and whatnot.
Let us hope so. The French have already broken the hold of a dysfunctional creed over Europe. I guess it's time for them to do it again.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 04:29:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
I have to wonder if the French nation is going to have that confrontation we have all hoped would never come to pass. I have no idea what that is or what it may look like but we seem to be careening off in that direction. One thing is for sure: Muslims continue to be fucked by these nutcases.
Yeah, immigrant communities always seem to take it in the shorts during times of severe economic crisis, and the Age of Austerity is no different, but having a few whack job members of a community playing Holy Warrior on top of that doesn't really help things with the home crowd.
I tend to believe the conventional wisdom that the French take their ardent adherence to a secular society and their desire to retain their "Frenchness" rather seriously, so I can envision serious kickback and political pressure when it comes to shuttering the doors to certain immigrant populations. But that's just conjecture because I've never bicycled to Paris, lest I appear all proto-racist and whatnot.
Let us hope so. The French have already broken the hold of a dysfunctional creed over Europe. I guess it's time for them to do it again.
Mass produced 'chorley wood' bread? :unsure:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 03:54:26 PM
Compañero is more like partner, mate or companion than comrade which exists in Spanish as camarada as well.
Your Sefaradi-Judeo-Castillian connection is getting weaker and weaker, compañero. :contract:
Whoa, whoa, slow down. My command of the Iberian languages is unmatched even in the Academia Real.
Companero and camarado are synonyms.
And so is companera and camarada, in the female gender.
Companero camarado (sic) do not exist, I'll concede that the ñ is too hard to type for you but not camarado (sic).
Real Academia not Academia Real :D Btw, they only deal with Castillian, not other Iberian languages.
As for being synonyms, perfect synonyms are quite rare e.g compare, according to the Real Academia
http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=camarada (http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=camarada)
Quotecamarada.
(De cámara, por dormir en un mismo aposento).
1. com. Persona que acompaña a otra y come y vive con ella.
2. com. Persona que anda en compañía con otras, tratándose con amistad y confianza.
3. com. En ciertos partidos políticos y sindicatos, correligionario o compañero.
4. f. Compañía o junta de camaradas.
5. f. ant. batería (‖ conjunto de piezas de artillería).
6. f. ant. batería (‖ fortificación para poner a cubierto piezas de artillería).
Quotecompañero, ra.
(De compaña).
1. m. y f. Persona que se acompaña con otra para algún fin.
2. m. y f. Cada uno de los individuos de que se compone un cuerpo o una comunidad, como un cabildo, un colegio, etc.
3. m. y f. En varios juegos, cada uno de los jugadores que se unen y ayudan contra los otros.
4. m. y f. Persona que tiene o corre una misma suerte o fortuna con otra.
5. m. y f. Cosa que hace juego o tiene correspondencia con otra u otras.
6. m. y f. coloq. Persona con la que se convive maritalmente.
Exec sum, you suck at languages, maybe it's the first step to becoming a real American for you, much to the chagrin of Comte Largent. I never thought Chineses spies would suck that much :(
You're like Grey Fox now, but he does not spy at least.
Are you questioning my insuperable superb ability to speak multiple languages? Why are you such a hater? Are you muslim, or communist, or liberal?
You might think you know Spanish, but I know real Spanish. I spoke spanish before I spoke english and I did not study either, I just farted and the words came out of my mouth. Peo!!! And I could speak French too if I wanted, but I have better uses for my intelect. Bottom line, I win!
I'd not be in least bit surprised if there isn't one or more of these attacks in Europe, possibly even the UK within the next few days.
Let's hope they aren't centrally directed and the next one is in some unexpected new form.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 04:02:01 PM
Well clearly. The idea of defending a group of people who are labeled as "scum", is unconvincing to the people who hate them.
Whatever dude. You love attacking those people in your own backyard but are a noble champion to them thousands of miles away whatever good that does.
Nobody lives in my backyard. :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 04:02:01 PM
Well clearly. The idea of defending a group of people who are labeled as "scum", is unconvincing to the people who hate them.
Whatever dude. You love attacking those people in your own backyard but are a noble champion to them thousands of miles away whatever good that does.
Nobody lives in my backyard. :huh:
He means the people who cross it as a shortcut to getting to Ed Anger's lawns, which they then intentional cross in a loiteresque way.
The just want my buried coffee cans of money.
I don't know why this shit surprises me. Saw it on the Egypt thing, see it now.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 04:47:28 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 08, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 07, 2015, 03:54:26 PM
Compañero is more like partner, mate or companion than comrade which exists in Spanish as camarada as well.
Your Sefaradi-Judeo-Castillian connection is getting weaker and weaker, compañero. :contract:
Whoa, whoa, slow down. My command of the Iberian languages is unmatched even in the Academia Real.
Companero and camarado are synonyms.
And so is companera and camarada, in the female gender.
Companero camarado (sic) do not exist, I'll concede that the ñ is too hard to type for you but not camarado (sic).
Real Academia not Academia Real :D Btw, they only deal with Castillian, not other Iberian languages.
As for being synonyms, perfect synonyms are quite rare e.g compare, according to the Real Academia
http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=camarada (http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=camarada)
Quotecamarada.
(De cámara, por dormir en un mismo aposento).
1. com. Persona que acompaña a otra y come y vive con ella.
2. com. Persona que anda en compañía con otras, tratándose con amistad y confianza.
3. com. En ciertos partidos políticos y sindicatos, correligionario o compañero.
4. f. Compañía o junta de camaradas.
5. f. ant. batería (‖ conjunto de piezas de artillería).
6. f. ant. batería (‖ fortificación para poner a cubierto piezas de artillería).
Quotecompañero, ra.
(De compaña).
1. m. y f. Persona que se acompaña con otra para algún fin.
2. m. y f. Cada uno de los individuos de que se compone un cuerpo o una comunidad, como un cabildo, un colegio, etc.
3. m. y f. En varios juegos, cada uno de los jugadores que se unen y ayudan contra los otros.
4. m. y f. Persona que tiene o corre una misma suerte o fortuna con otra.
5. m. y f. Cosa que hace juego o tiene correspondencia con otra u otras.
6. m. y f. coloq. Persona con la que se convive maritalmente.
Exec sum, you suck at languages, maybe it's the first step to becoming a real American for you, much to the chagrin of Comte Largent. I never thought Chineses spies would suck that much :(
You're like Grey Fox now, but he does not spy at least.
Are you questioning my insuperable superb ability to speak multiple languages? Why are you such a hater? Are you muslim, or communist, or liberal?
You might think you know Spanish, but I know real Spanish. I spoke spanish before I spoke english and I did not study either, I just farted and the words came out of my mouth. Peo!!! And I could speak French too if I wanted, but I have better uses for my intelect. Bottom line, I win!
This discussion is so....yesterday. :P
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 04:47:28 PM
Are you questioning my insuperable superb ability to speak multiple languages? Why are you such a hater? Are you muslim, or communist, or liberal?
You might think you know Spanish, but I know real Spanish. I spoke spanish before I spoke english and I did not study either, I just farted and the words came out of my mouth. Peo!!! And I could speak French too if I wanted, but I have better uses for my intelect. Bottom line, I win!
:lol: Hilarious, keep them coming you have become my favourite payaso.
¡Fuerza con el francés, compadre! :)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
I don't know why this shit surprises me. Saw it on the Egypt thing, see it now.
Yeah Seigy and Duque duelling over language was even odder in that one, than this.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but it now seems likely the 4 victims in the supermarket siege, might have been killed in the initial taking rather than when police ended it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 04:47:28 PM
Are you questioning my insuperable superb ability to speak multiple languages? Why are you such a hater? Are you muslim, or communist, or liberal?
You might think you know Spanish, but I know real Spanish. I spoke spanish before I spoke english and I did not study either, I just farted and the words came out of my mouth. Peo!!! And I could speak French too if I wanted, but I have better uses for my intelect. Bottom line, I win!
:lol: Hilarious, keep them coming you have become my favourite payaso.
¡Fuerza con el francés, compadre! :)
Que boludo.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 05:42:38 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but it now seems likely the 4 victims in the supermarket siege, might have been killed in the initial taking rather than when police ended it.
That's what they said last time I checked on French channels, when showing the pictures of the assault with a corpse already lying on the floor during the short time when the terrorists appeared to let the police enter before opening fire.
EDIT: TV just said that some people hid in the supermarket cold-storage room without the gunman suspecting anything.
I just saw some figures on the newspaper. This magazine prints about 60,000 copies in each issue. Each one sells for 3 Euro. There are about 40 staff. Of course, the major source of income is going to be advertisements. But the sales figures still seem tiny to me, and I find it hard to believe that the entire operation is commercially viable.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 05:40:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
I don't know why this shit surprises me. Saw it on the Egypt thing, see it now.
Yeah Seigy and Duque duelling over language was even odder in that one, than this.
That's where Dguller first called me "defender of the faith". If it means that I don't agree with
QuoteQuote from: DGuller on August 17, 2013, 05:05:24 AM
The year 2013 must be one of the best years for Uncle Vlad. He must be going "I told you so" every time he turns on the news. Suddenly his policy of supporting indiscriminate slaughter of Islamist protesters doesn't seem so repulsive.
Then I'll gladly take that title.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 04:02:01 PM
Well clearly. The idea of defending a group of people who are labeled as "scum", is unconvincing to the people who hate them.
Whatever dude. You love attacking those people in your own backyard but are a noble champion to them thousands of miles away whatever good that does.
Nobody lives in my backyard. :huh:
Well it might provide a welcome change from the basement when the weather gets warmer -_-
But I wasn't being literal there.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 05:58:48 PM
Well it might provide a welcome change from the basement when the weather gets warmer -_-
But I wasn't being literal there.
Please tell me which local ethnic group I was calling scum wanted destroyed.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:57:46 PM
Then I'll gladly take that title.
Not until you start standing up for the little guy in America. It is easy to support the unwashed masses when you do not have to smell them yourself!
At least there are some recent job openings at Charlie Hebdo if anyone here on Languish can draw.
Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 05:40:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
I don't know why this shit surprises me. Saw it on the Egypt thing, see it now.
Yeah Seigy and Duque duelling over language was even odder in that one, than this.
That's where Dguller first called me "defender of the faith". If it means that I don't agree with
QuoteQuote from: DGuller on August 17, 2013, 05:05:24 AM
The year 2013 must be one of the best years for Uncle Vlad. He must be going "I told you so" every time he turns on the news. Suddenly his policy of supporting indiscriminate slaughter of Islamist protesters doesn't seem so repulsive.
Then I'll gladly take that title.
You had to go back more than a year to find a quote that could be taken out of context?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:02:02 PM
Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:02:02 PM
Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Danny DeVito?
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:02:02 PM
Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Seedy, Katmai, and that other drunk.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 06:00:28 PM
At least there are some recent job openings at Charlie Hebdo if anyone here on Languish can draw.
Dinosaur Comics guy might get paid now.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2015, 05:55:24 PM
I just saw some figures on the newspaper. This magazine prints about 60,000 copies in each issue. Each one sells for 3 Euro. There are about 40 staff. Of course, the major source of income is going to be advertisements. But the sales figures still seem tiny to me, and I find it hard to believe that the entire operation is commercially viable.
I heard the normal print run is 16,000, not 60,000.
My guess is a lot of advertising for their online edition.
Arab language cartoonists response to the shooting: http://imgur.com/a/zd5rl/
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2015, 05:55:24 PM
I just saw some figures on the newspaper. This magazine prints about 60,000 copies in each issue. Each one sells for 3 Euro. There are about 40 staff. Of course, the major source of income is going to be advertisements. But the sales figures still seem tiny to me, and I find it hard to believe that the entire operation is commercially viable.
Not advertisements. The newspaper has from the relaunch in the '90s been owned by the editor, the newspaper's big names and/or top backerss. They were somewhat supported by another leftist newspaper so they have a whopping amount of one page of ads. Free satirical press comes at a price.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 06:12:02 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2015, 05:55:24 PM
I just saw some figures on the newspaper. This magazine prints about 60,000 copies in each issue. Each one sells for 3 Euro. There are about 40 staff. Of course, the major source of income is going to be advertisements. But the sales figures still seem tiny to me, and I find it hard to believe that the entire operation is commercially viable.
I heard the normal print run is 16,000, not 60,000.
My guess is a lot of advertising for their online edition.
45,000 in 2012 seems more likely as reported by this source http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/medias/20121004.OBS4594/charlie-hebdo-triple-ses-ventes-avec-les-caricatures-de-mahomet.html (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/medias/20121004.OBS4594/charlie-hebdo-triple-ses-ventes-avec-les-caricatures-de-mahomet.html)
QuoteL'hebdomadaire satirique a vendu plus de 150.000 exemplaires de son numéro du 19 septembre, contre 45.000 habituellement.
45,000 copies sold usually
Apparently the Charlie Hebdo editor opened today's editorial meeting with, 'so anything in the news this week?' :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
Nobody lives in my backyard. :huh:
Maybe you should double-check. Just to be safe.
Well... now that this eruption of disenfranchised, 'not cuddled & pampered enough', freedom fighters have been dispatched to their long expected heavenly harem, let us all follow the enlightened example of Malthus' & co.
Verily let us commiserate with the fallen, but even more so with these poorly misunderstood mentally unstable lone wolves, issued from victimized communities, who have been pushed to such desperate acts by a lack of appeasing gestures; so typical, if it needed reminding, of our forever callous western societies...
Indeed let us sit and pontificate and prevaricate, patting our collective egos about our noble intentions; let us endlessly babble about 'root causes' while doing our utmost to never mention the only one that is glaring at us in the face.
In other words, let us be hypocritical, and smug, and condescending, and so very... Canadian about all this.
That is, until the next batch of houri-hungry 'freedom-fighters' soil their unwilling hands with the blood of filthy 'kuffar' like you and me!
But, not to worry, our gaggle of mental eunuchs disguised as fusion-powered-balls-of-light will huddle to the rescue once more, oozing good sentiments in unison, while assuring us all that more appeasement will do the trick next time!
G.
You do have a way with words grallon. I particularly like the use of alliteration; it's sparse, but it definitely adds a certain quality.
The real secret is the meter IMO. His posts are like symphonies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 06:25:28 PM
Apparently the Charlie Hebdo editor opened today's editorial meeting with, 'so anything in the news this week?' :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2015, 06:08:46 PM
You had to go back more than a year to find a quote that could be taken out of context?
That's the thread you first called me "defender of the faithful", since you used the phrase again, and that was the original context, it seemed appropriate.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:34:26 PM
You do have a way with words grallon. I particularly like the use of alliteration; it's sparse, but it definitely adds a certain quality.
I believed it's called 'Damning with faint praise' n'est-ce pas Jake? Not very flattering, yet rather ironic coming from someone whose trade is a form of art itself... Still in an era where form trumps content, I suppose I should take it as a compliment.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 05:59:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 05:57:46 PM
Then I'll gladly take that title.
Not until you start standing up for the little guy in America. It is easy to support the unwashed masses when you do not have to smell them yourself!
:huh: I thought I did.
Quote from: Grallon on January 09, 2015, 07:06:13 PM
I believed it's called 'Damning with faint praise' n'est-ce pas Jake? Not very flattering, yet rather ironic coming from someone whose trade is a form of art itself... Still in an era where form trumps content, I suppose I should take it as a compliment.
Form always trumps content :contract:
They tried appeasement in the movies and it didn't work.
Quote from: Grallon on January 09, 2015, 06:28:07 PM
Well... now that this eruption of disenfranchised, 'not cuddled & pampered enough', freedom fighters have been dispatched to their long expected heavenly harem, let us all follow the enlightened example of Malthus' & co.
Verily let us commiserate with the fallen, but even more so with these poorly misunderstood mentally unstable lone wolves, issued from victimized communities, who have been pushed to such desperate acts by a lack of appeasing gestures; so typical, if it needed reminding, of our forever callous western societies...
Indeed let us sit and pontificate and prevaricate, patting our collective egos about our noble intentions; let us endlessly babble about 'root causes' while doing our utmost to never mention the only one that is glaring at us in the face.
In other words, let us be hypocritical, and smug, and condescending, and so very... Canadian about all this.
That is, until the next batch of houri-hungry 'freedom-fighters' soil their unwilling hands with the blood of filthy 'kuffar' like you and me!
But, not to worry, our gaggle of mental eunuchs disguised as fusion-powered-balls-of-light will huddle to the rescue once more, oozing good sentiments in unison, while assuring us all that more appeasement will do the trick next time!
G.
Yeah, I guess, but we weren't really talking about Quebeci nationalists in Canada.
They've started arresting Danish douchebags applauding the attack on CH online. First time I've been glad about our new "Terrorism Law".
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
A Swedish state radio journalist felt the need to point out that the Charlie victims were not innocent. Sigh.
Swedish response generally has of course been pathetic. But since they didn't stand up to domestic Muslim terrorism it was always unlikely that they would stand up to foreign Muslim terrorism.
Edit: Corrected. I think.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 07:32:50 PM
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
Its wording is something like: "He who publicly applauds/approves a terrorist action can be fined or jailed for up to two years."
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 07:32:50 PM
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
Its wording is something like: "He who publicly applauds/approves a terrorist action can be fined or jailed for up to two years."
Sigh.
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 07:32:50 PM
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
Its wording is something like: "He who publicly applauds/approves a terrorist action can be fined or jailed for up to two years."
That's kind of vague.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 07:43:08 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 07:32:50 PM
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
Its wording is something like: "He who publicly applauds/approves a terrorist action can be fined or jailed for up to two years."
That's kind of vague.
They probably mean gaoled.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:13:40 PM
Arab language cartoonists response to the shooting: http://imgur.com/a/zd5rl/
Those are pretty good.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 06:25:28 PM
Apparently the Charlie Hebdo editor opened today's editorial meeting with, 'so anything in the news this week?' :lol:
:cheers:
Quote from: Grallon on January 09, 2015, 07:06:13 PM
I believed it's called 'Damning with faint praise' n'est-ce pas Jake? Not very flattering, yet rather ironic coming from someone whose trade is a form of art itself... Still in an era where form trumps content, I suppose I should take it as a compliment.
Your writing is somewhat flowery, but I can appreciate it. It's pretty clear that we're not going to get much out of engaging on the substance, given our relative positions.
Though of course there is a bit of a snarky undertone in as well, and the irony you mention. And in a sense, I am dismissing what you're saying by focusing on the form rather than the content. But nonetheless, I think you should take it as a compliment because your style genuinely is unique and evocative, and I do appreciate that.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 07:05:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2015, 06:08:46 PM
You had to go back more than a year to find a quote that could be taken out of context?
That's the thread you first called me "defender of the faithful", since you used the phrase again, and that was the original context, it seemed appropriate.
Thread location doesn't mean anything about context. My endorsement of Putin's murderous cynicism was obviously less than fully genuine.
The Gendarmie have their own twitter feed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Gendarmerie (https://mobile.twitter.com/Gendarmerie)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68SAEUIUAAv5Zm.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68TYeWCUAEZJwM.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68TbvOCQAI1uSO.jpg)
7h00 - 2 minutes d'assaut du #GIGN sous le feu nourri des terroristes #CharlieHebdo
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68UqM8IQAEWnac.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68TdZ6CMAAl-h_.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68Tem2CAAE8-FL.jpg)
Le #GIGN libère sain et sauf l'homme caché depuis le début dans l'imprimerie. Fin de l'assaut.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68XkaVCYAA__-U.jpg)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:10:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Seedy, Katmai, and that other drunk.
:lol: Siegy?
Practically everybody here is the little guy--even the ones that don't think they are, no matter how hard they believe.
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2015, 07:34:15 PM
A Swedish state radio journalist felt the need to point out that the Charlie victims were not innocent. Sigh.
Unless they are doing this to announce their support of the death penalty via vigilante groups I fail to see how that is relevant.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:02:02 PM
Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Minorities in Missouri.
I'm probably bigger than Katmai these days.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2015, 09:09:47 PM
I'm probably bigger than Katmai these days.
So you ignored the advice of our First Lady? :angry:
I'm not derspiess, I haven't paid any attention to her in the past 6 years. :sleep:
Just when I think I understand your vernacular you give me a half dozen posts I can't fathom, I give up. :(
:huh:
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:27:58 PM
They've started arresting Danish douchebags applauding the attack on CH online. First time I've been glad about our new "Terrorism Law".
Bleh. Wouldn't want a law like that here. We prefer our wackos to have the freedom to identify themselves.
Not a novel thought, but well put IMO:
Quote from: By Michael Deacon, The TelegraphHere's a theory. Terrorists aren't offended by cartoons. Not even cartoons that satirise the Prophet Muhammad. They don't care about satire. For all I know they may not even care about the Prophet Muhammad.
Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting.
In our angry innocence, however, we persist in thinking this is somehow about cartoons. In thinking that the terrorists "win" if we don't reproduce those cartoons, and "lose" if we do. As if, at this very moment, terrorist leaders across the West are privately wailing in anguished disbelief because satirical cartoons have been reproduced this morning in several European newspapers.("Disaster! Our plan has backfired in a way we couldn't possibly have foreseen! Ink really does beat Kalashnikovs! Satire defeats us once again!")
On the whole, I'm not sure that's very likely. I don't think the terrorists "win" if we fail to reproduce cartoons. I think the terrorists "win" if we leap up, gulp down their bait – and hate Muslims.
This is not about satire. This is beyond satire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332535/We-think-the-Paris-terrorists-were-offended-by-Charlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html
The idea that extremists strike to provoke a backlash and increase radicalization and driving towards a wider scale conflict they desire is not exactly new, I don't think.
Two questions:
1 - Does it sound reasonable to you?
2 - Does this change how we should react?
Well obviously the people most endangered by extremists are Muslims. They are killed by them in vast numbers and it is putting their culture and civilization in peril. The idea that this internal Muslim is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd but hey whatever.
Anyway I look around and I see Muslims thriving and doing well in the US like never before and nobody is hating them. Yet somehow the terrorists have not lost and been defeated, because this is not about us. If it was the terrorists would be blowing up Houston and Austin not Syria and Egypt.
It's a suicide death cult, a vanishingly small percentage join it, but enough do to perpetuate 'it'.
The ones who are groomed, seduced into it are probably already hating on society for real or largely imaginary reasons, I don't think typically they can be rescue.
Possibly the only way to combat it, is to make sure they're ridiculed in death, maybe televise the return of each body back from Iraq or Syria, treat their parents with contempt, for they will in part have played a role in moulding them into the person they became. Sufficient, so that muslim parents know to deter their sons and daughter from Jihad and probably turn them into the police at the first sign of trouble. The very small percentage of parents who don't bother, will be in some way be encouragers and complicit in the crimes their children go on to commit.
We should carry on with everyday life and not buy into the alienation narrative, as 99% of the apparently vulnerable never do any harm to society.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 07:32:50 PM
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
There is a fine line between cheering on a crime committed and inciting to one.
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2015, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2015, 07:43:08 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2015, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 07:32:50 PM
You can get arrested for cheering? Not sure I'm too fond of that law.
Its wording is something like: "He who publicly applauds/approves a terrorist action can be fined or jailed for up to two years."
That's kind of vague.
They probably mean gaoled.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2015, 12:24:42 AM
The idea that this internal Muslim is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd but hey whatever.
Does not compute. Really. I usually try to make sense of someone's post, even if they make some syntax mistake or miss words, but I completely do not understand what you are saying
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2015, 12:28:17 AM
It's a suicide death cult, a vanishingly small percentage join it, but enough do to perpetuate 'it'.
The ones who are groomed, seduced into it are probably already hating on society for real or largely imaginary reasons, I don't think typically they can be rescue.
Possibly the only way to combat it, is to make sure they're ridiculed in death, maybe televise the return of each body back from Iraq or Syria, treat their parents with contempt, for they will in part have played a role in moulding them into the person they became. Sufficient, so that muslim parents know to deter their sons and daughter from Jihad and probably turn them into the police at the first sign of trouble. The very small percentage of parents who don't bother, will be in some way be encouragers and complicit in the crimes their children go on to commit.
We should carry on with everyday life and not buy into the alienation narrative, as 99% of the apparently vulnerable never do any harm to society.
This. There may be some perverted "rationale" to the actions of Islamist terrorists, as Jake's post argues but that does not mean that we should acknowledge or accommodate that (I may be wrong but I think there is this lingering, implied view in that article that we should not react by reprinting Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I think we should do it, even if the real motives of the terrorists were different - because we need to send the message - both to others and to ourselves - that violence is never going to work in silencing us - it will always have the opposite effect).
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 12:04:30 AM
Two questions:
1 - Does it sound reasonable to you?
2 - Does this change how we should react?
1 - Yes.
2 - No.
I disagree with Mart that we should publish the cartoons to make a statement. However I think they're more or less essential context for the story, so should be published as any other image that was the ostensible justification for murder would be published.
As I say I caveat that by recognising that it's a tough choice for editors who may have real fears. If that's the case I think they should admit that because refusing to publish something for fear is a political point in itself - which is what the Jewish Chronicle did - and I think it's honest. Coming up with bien pensant nonsense like the FT did isn't right.
In terms of making a point I quite like Deacon's (ex-)colleague Tom Chivers suggestion of a newspaper actually publishing a very respectful cartoon of their own of Mohammed. I think there's too much focus on the disrespectful angle. Hebdo's Rabelaisian style probably made the cartoons more offensive but it's the image itself that's blasphemous. If there's a desire to make a point I think it's there, not on the 'duty to disrespect' side.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:02:02 PM
Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Minorities in Missouri.
You mean, blacks? I mentioned them. There aren't any Missouri French anymore, and the Osage are long gone.
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/a-saint-denis-collegiens-et-lyceens-ne-sont-pas-tous-charlie_4553048_3224.html#xtor=AL-32280515 (http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/a-saint-denis-collegiens-et-lyceens-ne-sont-pas-tous-charlie_4553048_3224.html#xtor=AL-32280515)
QuoteA Saint-Denis, collégiens et lycéens ne sont pas tous « Charlie »
Le Monde.fr | 10.01.2015 à 00h11 • Mis à jour le 10.01.2015 à 01h07 | Par Mattea Battaglia et Benoit Floc'h
Minute de silence dans uun lycée de Bayonne.
« Je ne suis pas Charlie » : la phrase était inscrite sur le colis suspect trouvé, ce vendredi 9 janvier, dans la salle des professeurs du lycée Paul-Eluard de Saint-Denis. « Il n'y avait pas de bombe, mais des câbles et un détonateur », soufflent Maryam et Marie-Hélène, deux élèves de 1re, à la sortie des cours, encore chamboulées par « cette semaine de fous ».
#JenesuispasCharlie, c'est aussi le hashtag qui a commencé à apparaître sur Twitter, ces dernières heures, comme un contre-pied – presque une provocation – face la mobilisation suscitée par l'attentat contre Charlie Hebdo, mercredi 7 janvier.
Lire : Sur les réseaux sociaux, #jesuis Charlie, flic, Ahmed, Franck...
« ILS ONT INSULTÉ L'ISLAM ET LES AUTRES RELIGIONS »
La plupart des élèves croisés, vendredi après-midi, à Saint-Denis s'y reconnaissent. Ils condamnent l'assassinat des caricaturistes... Mais presque autant que leurs caricatures. Pour tous, la vie est sacrée, mais la religion aussi. « Moi, la minute de silence, je ne voulais pas trop la faire, lâche Marie-Hélène, 17 ans, je ne trouvais pas juste de leur rendre un hommage car ils ont insulté l'islam, et les autres religions aussi. »
Ce que Maryam, sa camarade, redoute aujourd'hui, c'est « la haine qui va encore aller sur l'islam ». La jeune fille de 16 ans fait état de « filles voilées », comme elle, qui auraient été « agressées par des skinheads dans le 9-4 » (pour « 94 », département du Val-de-Marne), croit-elle savoir. Toutes deux ont tout de même respecté le temps de recueillement, jeudi 8 à midi, appelé de ses vœux par le gouvernement. « Même ceux qui ne voulaient pas sont restés silencieux », disent-elles.
« ILS AURAIENT PU NE TUER QUE LUI »
C'est aussi le cas d'Abdel, 14 ans, en 4e au collège Pierre-de-Geyter, un peu plus dans le sud de la ville. « Bien sûr que tout le monde a participé à la minute de silence, et il y avait tous les musulmans », insiste-t-il. Mais il ne cache pas sa motivation : « Je l'ai fait pour ceux qui ont été tués, mais pas pour Charlie [Charb], le mec qui a dessiné. Je n'ai aucune pitié pour lui. Il a zéro respect pour nous, les musulmans. Mais ce n'était pas la peine de tuer douze personnes. Ils auraient pu ne tuer que lui. »
Abdel n'est pas le seul collégien à penser, en dépit des débats organisés par la plupart des enseignants, un peu perdu dans le flot d'informations déversés sur les réseaux sociaux, que « Charlie » était l'unique dessinateur de l'hebdomadaire attaqué.
Difficile, pour les plus jeunes, d'articuler le respect de la vie avec ce qu'ils considèrent comme une atteinte à l'islam. « J'ai jamais vu dans ma religion qu'il fallait tuer », explique Mehdi, 16 ans, croisé avec deux camarades non loin du lycée Paul-Eluard, où tous trois étudient. « Il y a des élèves qui disent qu'à Charlie, ils l'ont cherché », le coupe Yohan. « Je ne suis pas d'accord avec le contenu [des caricatures], mais je suis contre l'attentat », affirme Yacine, avant d'ajouter : « Mais les dessinateurs, ils ne sont pas blancs dans cette affaire. »
COMPARAISON AVEC DIEUDONNÉ
C'est aussi le sentiment de quatre toutes jeunes filles de 6e à peine sorties de cours. « Des deux côtés, il y a des torts », tente Erica, qui se dit catholique comme ses amies. « Retirer la vie à douze personnes, c'est un crime contre l'humanité », croit-elle savoir, « et même s'ils l'ont un tout petit peu cherché, faut pas abuser... »
Les caricatures du Prophète, ces adolescents reconnaissent qu'ils ne les avaient jamais vues avant l'attentat. Ils se sont rattrapés depuis, prenant connaissance de tous les dessins, y compris de ceux que Charlie Hebdo n'avait pas publiés dans ses pages. « C'est de la rigolade, lâche Yacine, mais beaucoup de jeunes font la comparaison avec Dieudonné : lui, pour les quenelles, on l'a sanctionné ; pour Charlie, on invoque la liberté d'expression... »
Cette liberté d'expression, en dépit des explications que leur ont fournies leurs enseignants, reste pour la plupart des jeunes rencontrés à Saint-Denis un concept difficile à cerner, et qu'ils perçoivent comme incompatible avec leur foi. « On ne rigole pas avec la religion », affirme Allende, jeune majeur scolarisé au lycée professionnel Bartholdi, chrétien mais qui envisage une conversion. « C'est dangereux. S'ils ont tué Charlie, c'est parce qu'il ne respectait pas la religion. Ils ont attaqué l'islam, et là, ils voient un autre aspect de l'islam, la colère. Si Charlie continue, les jeunes ici vont bouger. » A ses côtés, Mohammed, majeur lui aussi, acquiesce. « La minute de silence, on l'a faite, dit-il, mais le débat avec les enseignants, je préfère pas calculer, ça va poser des problèmes si je ne suis pas d'accord. »
Du débat avec leur professeur d'anglais, Nadia et Laura, collégiennes de 4e, reconnaissent ne pas avoir tout saisi. « Il nous a parlé d'une France coupée en deux, entre croyants et pas croyants... ou que les terroristes voulaient diviser la France », hésite Nadia. Erica et ses trois copines de 6e, en revanche, se sentent plus rassurées après en avoir parlé dans le cadre scolaire. « Dans certaines familles, les discussions sont bannies, expliquent-elles. « Et puis ça fait du bien, parce que voir les rondes de police, le panneau "alerte attentat" devant le collège, et lire tout et son contraire sur Internet, ça fait peur », précise l'une des trois, en avouant avoir demandé à sa mère de l'accompagner sur les trajets.
Minute de silence : des « cas de perturbation » traités « localement », dit le ministère
« Dans la très grande majorité des cas, tout s'est bien déroulé lors de la minute de silence, jeudi 8 janvier à midi », affirme-t-on au ministère de l'éducation nationale, en précisant être encore dans l'attente de « remontées ». « Les personnels ont été à l'écoute des élèves », explique-t-on dans l'entourage de la ministre, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem. « Néanmoins, certains cas de perturbation de la minute de silence par des élèves nous ont été signalés. Ils ont été traités localement par les équipes éducatives, de manière proportionnée à la gravité des faits. »
Les syndicats d'enseignants et de chefs d'établissement sont sur la même ligne. Pour le SNUipp-FSU, majoritaire au primaire, la minute de silence a été « un moment solennel largement respecté », explique son secrétaire général, Sébastien Sihr. Pour le SE-UNSA, il y a bien eu « des difficultés ici ou là », mais « les professeurs gèrent au mieux en fonction des publics et des territoires ». Le SNPDEN, majoritaire parmi les proviseurs, évoque des « contestations moins importantes que lors de l'affaire Merah », même s'il fait état de « collègues inquiets au point, dans certains établissements, de renoncer au temps de recueillement et de débat ». Dans l'enseignement supérieur, rien à signaler, selon les présidents d'université.
En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/a-saint-denis-collegiens-et-lyceens-ne-sont-pas-tous-charlie_4553048_3224.html#7vtiVe1D7seYMC7R.99
Exec Summary
Life in a "multicultural" area, Saint-Denis (93/Seine-Saint-Denis) in the aftermath of the attacks and a (compulsory?)silence minute
I'm shocked, shocked to see than junior high schoolers in a heavily muslim area are not so keen on defending freedom of expression vs Islam and did not wait long to jump into "They had it coming" mode or at least for the editor (one calls him Charlie but it's Charb). cf. "They have insulted Islam and other religions". Not my Cabu génération indeed...
Their only somewhat good point is the Dieudonné case, the comedian known for his antisemitic troll act (best ignored but who has an identity politics background comparable to the current justice minister) declared not so long a national threat by a government in dire need of a diversion for its incompetence. Not to mention the quenelle gesture itself was not really a problem, but the government chose to create one of it.
All is well though according to a Headmaster trade union, the silence minute in tribute to the victims was less contested by the pupils than during the Merah case..
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 09:08:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2015, 07:34:15 PM
A Swedish state radio journalist felt the need to point out that the Charlie victims were not innocent. Sigh.
Unless they are doing this to announce their support of the death penalty via vigilante groups I fail to see how that is relevant.
Well it's tasteless and factually incorrect to suggest that the cartoonists were somehow guilty of something.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 01:51:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2015, 12:24:42 AM
The idea that this internal Muslim is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd but hey whatever.
Does not compute. Really. I usually try to make sense of someone's post, even if they make some syntax mistake or miss words, but I completely do not understand what you are saying
I'm pretty sure he meant to say "The idea that this internal Muslim
conflict is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2015, 02:08:54 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 12:04:30 AM
Two questions:
1 - Does it sound reasonable to you?
2 - Does this change how we should react?
1 - Yes.
2 - No.
I disagree with Mart that we should publish the cartoons to make a statement. However I think they're more or less essential context for the story, so should be published as any other image that was the ostensible justification for murder would be published.
As I say I caveat that by recognising that it's a tough choice for editors who may have real fears. If that's the case I think they should admit that because refusing to publish something for fear is a political point in itself - which is what the Jewish Chronicle did - and I think it's honest. Coming up with bien pensant nonsense like the FT did isn't right.
In terms of making a point I quite like Deacon's (ex-)colleague Tom Chivers suggestion of a newspaper actually publishing a very respectful cartoon of their own of Mohammed. I think there's too much focus on the disrespectful angle. Hebdo's Rabelaisian style probably made the cartoons more offensive but it's the image itself that's blasphemous. If there's a desire to make a point I think it's there, not on the 'duty to disrespect' side.
Didn't South Park face threats after one of their episode featured Muhammad wearing a fully covering bear costume? :D
By the way, a very good oped in the Economist this week - I could repost but Im on ipad and its a pain. It makes a point about not vilifying islam as a result (I admit my views on this point are evolving) but also says that when it comes to talking about Charlie Hebdo cartoons and freedom of expression there can be no "but".
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2015, 07:34:15 PM
A Swedish state radio journalist felt the need to point out that the Charlie victims were not innocent. Sigh.
Did he comment on how risky and offensive it was to open a Kosher grocery store?
Quote from: Legbiter on January 10, 2015, 06:06:32 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2015, 07:34:15 PM
A Swedish state radio journalist felt the need to point out that the Charlie victims were not innocent. Sigh.
Did he comment on how risky and offensive it was to open a Kosher grocery store?
I think she realized that speaking your mind isn't always a great idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgdPAEu8vA&feature=youtu.be
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 12:04:30 AM
The idea that extremists strike to provoke a backlash and increase radicalization and driving towards a wider scale conflict they desire is not exactly new, I don't think.
Two questions:
1 - Does it sound reasonable to you?
2 - Does this change how we should react?
Where I think the theory goes wrong is that it implies that the West is the target. I think the more convincing theory is that the West is just a side show in the wider war going on within Islam itself. So for example when politicians like our PM and others suggest that war has been declared on the West they miss the point badly.
So your second question isnt really relevant for the radicals. They are not attacking to create a reaction from the West. They are attacking to demonstrate to those they wish to influence within their Islamist target audience that they can and will carry out attacks.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179210/jeanmarie-le-pen-is-not-charlie-
QuoteJean-Marie Le Pen 'is not Charlie'
Founder of France's National Front Jean-Marie Le Pen "is not Charlie" but laments the deaths of 12 "compatriots" who lost their lives to terrorists' bullets on Wednesday this week.
Alluding to a hashtag that has gone viral since the deadly attack – "Je suis Charlie', "I am Charlie" -, trending on social media, the historic leader of the far-right party denounced the demonstration that has been called for Sunday bringing together Europe's main political leaders has been "orchestrated" by media - the NF was not invited to the Charlie Hebdo rally in solidarity with the victims of the three attacks that took place in France over the past days.
"The way in which all this is orchestrated reminds me of similar demonstrations of the same type that were organized with the complicity of media, like for instance in the Carpentras affair, when the National Front was accused of having desecrated a Jewish cemetery grave, being completely innocent," the controversial politician affirmed this time in reference to an attack against a Jewish cemetery back in 1996 that was linked to French far-right movements.
"And today are all Charlie. I am Charlie. Well, I am sorry, but I am not Charlie," Le Pen said adding he regretted the death of "twelve French compatriots of whom I don't want to know their political identity although I know it perfectly." He said it was the political identity of "the enemies of the National Front that not long ago demanded its dissolution."
"I will not fight to defend the spirit of Charlie, which is an anarchism-Trotskyism like spirit."
This paragraph from Matthew Parris (:wub:) is doing the rounds today. Totally agree:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6_uxs4CcAE7Ies.jpg)
Swedish free media is definitely hobbled by Islam. Papers are afraid to publish harmless cartoons FFS.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2015, 12:10:00 PM
This paragraph from Matthew Parris (:wub:) is doing the rounds today. Totally agree:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6_uxs4CcAE7Ies.jpg)
I can get behind that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2015, 12:10:00 PM
This paragraph from Matthew Parris (:wub:) is doing the rounds today. Totally agree:
It's nothing we didn't already know. Age of Reason FTW. Didn't have one? Sucks to be you.
The points made by Crazy Ivan and Crazy Canuck were actually made by Salman Rushdie in the link I posted.
By the way, it's heartwarming to see both the Pope and the Archbishop of Paris unequivocally stand with the freedom of expression and with the victims. Polish Catholic hierarchy has been much more ambiguous than that in their responses.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
That is the biggest issue, and one that saddens me. Those that are directly responsible for the scourge of political Islam are our own dear allies, the Saudis. It almost feels like we're fighting the spread of communism while being allied to Soviet Union.
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2015, 11:54:15 AM
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179210/jeanmarie-le-pen-is-not-charlie-
QuoteJean-Marie Le Pen 'is not Charlie'
Founder of France's National Front Jean-Marie Le Pen "is not Charlie" but laments the deaths of 12 "compatriots" who lost their lives to terrorists' bullets on Wednesday this week.
Alluding to a hashtag that has gone viral since the deadly attack – "Je suis Charlie', "I am Charlie" -, trending on social media, the historic leader of the far-right party denounced the demonstration that has been called for Sunday bringing together Europe's main political leaders has been "orchestrated" by media - the NF was not invited to the Charlie Hebdo rally in solidarity with the victims of the three attacks that took place in France over the past days.
"The way in which all this is orchestrated reminds me of similar demonstrations of the same type that were organized with the complicity of media, like for instance in the Carpentras affair, when the National Front was accused of having desecrated a Jewish cemetery grave, being completely innocent," the controversial politician affirmed this time in reference to an attack against a Jewish cemetery back in 1996 that was linked to French far-right movements.
"And today are all Charlie. I am Charlie. Well, I am sorry, but I am not Charlie," Le Pen said adding he regretted the death of "twelve French compatriots of whom I don't want to know their political identity although I know it perfectly." He said it was the political identity of "the enemies of the National Front that not long ago demanded its dissolution."
"I will not fight to defend the spirit of Charlie, which is an anarchism-Trotskyism like spirit."
I am sure she is standing by her principles...but in cold, political reality terms, she just totally blew any bonuses she and the NP might have gotten from all this. But then that's almost certainly a good thing anyway.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 10, 2015, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 10, 2015, 11:54:15 AM
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179210/jeanmarie-le-pen-is-not-charlie-
QuoteJean-Marie Le Pen 'is not Charlie'
Founder of France's National Front Jean-Marie Le Pen "is not Charlie" but laments the deaths of 12 "compatriots" who lost their lives to terrorists' bullets on Wednesday this week.
Alluding to a hashtag that has gone viral since the deadly attack – "Je suis Charlie', "I am Charlie" -, trending on social media, the historic leader of the far-right party denounced the demonstration that has been called for Sunday bringing together Europe's main political leaders has been "orchestrated" by media - the NF was not invited to the Charlie Hebdo rally in solidarity with the victims of the three attacks that took place in France over the past days.
"The way in which all this is orchestrated reminds me of similar demonstrations of the same type that were organized with the complicity of media, like for instance in the Carpentras affair, when the National Front was accused of having desecrated a Jewish cemetery grave, being completely innocent," the controversial politician affirmed this time in reference to an attack against a Jewish cemetery back in 1996 that was linked to French far-right movements.
"And today are all Charlie. I am Charlie. Well, I am sorry, but I am not Charlie," Le Pen said adding he regretted the death of "twelve French compatriots of whom I don't want to know their political identity although I know it perfectly." He said it was the political identity of "the enemies of the National Front that not long ago demanded its dissolution."
"I will not fight to defend the spirit of Charlie, which is an anarchism-Trotskyism like spirit."
I am sure she is standing by her principles...but in cold, political reality terms, she just totally blew any bonuses she and the NP might have gotten from all this. But then that's almost certainly a good thing anyway.
The one speaking is a he, that's the father. He likes to be provocative, but not in the Charlie Hebdo way.
Actually, the Charlie Hebdo surviving guys are not that happy with near-unanimous support in France with some even saying they "vomit" on those who now pay tribute to them, like Geert Wilders or Putin. Some others were named as well.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:49:06 PM
The points made by Crazy Ivan and Crazy Canuck were actually made by Salman Rushdie in the link I posted.
By the way, it's heartwarming to see both the Pope and the Archbishop of Paris unequivocally stand with the freedom of expression and with the victims. Polish Catholic hierarchy has been much more ambiguous than that in their responses.
They were made by Reza Aslan in his Book No God But God in around 2006. Rushdie should have attributed authorship.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:49:06 PM
By the way, it's heartwarming to see both the Pope and the Archbishop of Paris unequivocally stand with the freedom of expression and with the victims. Polish Catholic hierarchy has been much more ambiguous than that in their responses.
It is, even if the Bishop of Paris is more of a titular title in partibus infidelium.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2015, 03:57:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:49:06 PM
By the way, it's heartwarming to see both the Pope and the Archbishop of Paris unequivocally stand with the freedom of expression and with the victims. Polish Catholic hierarchy has been much more ambiguous than that in their responses.
It is, even if the Bishop of Paris is more of a titular title in partibus infidelium.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 01:51:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2015, 12:24:42 AM
The idea that this internal Muslim is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd but hey whatever.
Does not compute. Really. I usually try to make sense of someone's post, even if they make some syntax mistake or miss words, but I completely do not understand what you are saying
I left out a word. This is an internal muslim conflict. I think the idea that it is seriously impacted by what we do is just not true.
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2015, 12:12:29 PM
Swedish free media is definitely hobbled by Islam. Papers are afraid to publish harmless cartoons FFS.
That is just them being Swedish. They refused to say mean things about Hitler to.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with? Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?
Sorry, no. That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
:yeahright: Color be skeptical that's really him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
:(
This trend will only accelerate :(
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.636348
Quote
French Israelis were as shocked and saddened over the horrific attacks in Paris as Americans were about 9/11, but while we were stunned, they weren't surprised at all.
In the wake of Friday's horrific murders in a Paris kosher supermarket on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Telegraph dramatically proclaimed: "Anti-Semitism in France: the Exodus has begun."
It's an inaccurate headline. The exodus of French citizens who no longer feel safe living openly and freely as Jews in the homes and neighborhoods where they grew up hasn't simply "begun." It's well underway.
Israelis who live in my city know this well - it's happening on our doorstep. Over the past two decades, I've watched a parade of French Jews make the move into my Tel Aviv suburb of Ra'anana and become my friends and neighbors. What began as a trickle in the 1990s is now a flood. In my daughter's fifth-grade class this year, three new children arrived - all French. They were among the 7,000 French Jews who uprooted their lives and moved to Israel in 2014 -- more than double the number who came the previous year.
After this traumatic Friday - when Jews lost their lives simply because they were in a kosher supermarket, when Jewish life shut down and Jews huddled in their homes in fear, and when Grand Synagogue in Paris closed its doorson Shabbat for the first time since World War II - I can only imagine how many French children will be joining them for sixth grade.
Just as we American immigrants were glued to the television and telephones, horrified after the September 11 attacks in 2001, I watched my French friends and neighbors here follow the unfolding events and speak to their frightened family members in Paris back home after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and then, with more urgency, during the supermarket siege. They were as shocked and saddened over the tragedy as we Americans were back then, with one big difference - we were shocked and stunned, and they weren't surprised at all.
After all, it was the primary reason they are here in the first place - because openly Jewish life - attending synagogue, buying kosher food, wearing a kippa - have become incompatible with personal security.
My town has long been a magnet for affluent Western immigrants from around the world. Some leave safe and comfortable countries out of Zionist commitment - from the U.S., Canada, or Australia, or because they married Israelis, as I did. There are significant groups, however, that come to get away from difficult political and economic situations: South Africans, Argentineans, Venezuelans.
And now, the French are coming. We joked that it was "the French revolution" when they first began arriving here in noticeable numbers in the late 1990's and early 2000's, telling stories of feeling intimidated in the streets of Paris or Marseilles and the feeling that the French government was not stepping in to protect them. That sentiment reached a head with the horrific murder of Ilan Halimi in 2006.
And then there was a lull. After 2007, when Nicolas Sarkozy was elected, the number of new French neighbors and classmates slowed. When I would chat with visitors to Israel from France, they seemed confident that while they still worried about anti-Semitism, they felt the French government had the situation under better control. During that time a significant number of the early wave of French newcomers returned home after finding integrating into Israel too difficult for their families economically and culturally.
But over the past few years - as the post-Sarkozy era coincided with the rise of militant Islam in France and across Europe, and the increase in anti-Semitic incidents shot up. The faltering economy in Europe didn't help matters, either.
And so the influx has resumed full force.
Here in Ra'anana - or in Netanya or Tel Aviv - we didn't need to look at the Jewish Agency statistics to tell us that. The signs are everywhere - literally. Signs on shops that were previously only in Hebrew and English - have added French. Real estate prices are sky-high, both because of French Jews moving here and many more purchasing a home here "just in case." The park across my street from my house brims with mothers and children chattering in French on any given day.
The good news for us locals is that finding an excellent croissant - or any other form of French pastry - has become as easy as getting a good falafel.
Let's be clear - though these French Jews loved and felt connected to Israel, these families aren't necessarily burning with personal Zionist fervor. Most were as professionally and culturally tied to France as American Jews are to the United States. And to be sure - many of the French Jews who can manage financially and logistically have - and will continue to head for destinations other than Israel - New York, Florida, and Canada.
But the fact that so many do come to Israel - even as the rockets were flying in Gaza last summer - that they view it as a place where they are safe, I suppose, only emphasizes how unsafe they are feeling in France. And they're not the only ones. As the siege was unfolding in Paris, I spoke to Jo, a French friend whose child is one of the kids in my daughter's class.
Jo immigrated to Israel alone - her mother and stepfather, who isn't Jewish, still live in France, but her mother recently bought an apartment in Ra'anana, and her visits are growing longer and longer. AfteBUt r the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the whole shocking aftermath, she said, it's not only the Jews who are feeling unsafe in France.
"My mother told me that her gentile neighbors are saying that the Jews are lucky. At least we have somewhere else to go."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
What's his point? That Charlie shouldn't have ridiculed Islam because there are Muslim cops?
QuoteFrench Israelis were as shocked and saddened over the horrific attacks in Paris as Americans were about 9/11, but while we were stunned, they weren't surprised at all.
Of course not. They have dealt with these people's antics for a long time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
What's his point? That Charlie shouldn't have ridiculed Islam because there are Muslim cops?
Maybe their choice to excersie their right to free speech can/have/had a price.
Just because you can say it, doesn't mean you have to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
What's his point? That Charlie shouldn't have ridiculed Islam because there are Muslim cops?
That he identifies more with the Muslims who participate in French life and even die for it than he does with Charlie Hebdo which mocks and ridicules him.
Seems straight forward to me.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:11:58 PM
Seems straight forward to me.
I thought it was as well, but hey.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:11:58 PM
That he identifies more with the Muslims who participate in French life and even die for it than he does with Charlie Hebdo which mocks and ridicules him.
Seems straight forward to me.
"Charlie ridiculed his faith and culture" sound much more like chastisement than "difficult to identify with."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:11:58 PM
That he identifies more with the Muslims who participate in French life and even die for it than he does with Charlie Hebdo which mocks and ridicules him.
Seems straight forward to me.
"Charlie ridiculed his faith and culture" sound much more like chastisement than "difficult to identify with."
Well they did.
His faith was stupid and his culture was evil.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2015, 08:37:32 PM
Well they did.
I ridicule your faith and culture too, yet I support Raz's death in defending it. That's what makes us in the West so great, and Them Over There, not so much.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:11:58 PM
That he identifies more with the Muslims who participate in French life and even die for it than he does with Charlie Hebdo which mocks and ridicules him.
Seems straight forward to me.
"Charlie ridiculed his faith and culture" sound much more like chastisement than "difficult to identify with."
Sounds like a statement of fact to me. I don't think Charlie Hebdo would disagree, from what I understand of the magazine.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Sounds like a statement of fact to me. I don't think Charlie Hebdo would disagree, from what I understand of the magazine.
Before it was a straight forward expression of his not identifying with Charlie Hebdo, now it's just a plain statement of fact.
Yeah, I'm going to have to go with Yi here. If they had just been lauding the Muslim cop, that would be one thing. I feel like the purposeful dissociation from Charlie is sort of the wagging finger.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 08:46:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Sounds like a statement of fact to me. I don't think Charlie Hebdo would disagree, from what I understand of the magazine.
Before it was a straight forward expression of his not identifying with Charlie Hebdo, now it's just a plain statement of fact.
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:59:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 08:46:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Sounds like a statement of fact to me. I don't think Charlie Hebdo would disagree, from what I understand of the magazine.
Before it was a straight forward expression of his not identifying with Charlie Hebdo, now it's just a plain statement of fact.
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
No
Only to the ridiculous and
they not mentioning any names (Seedy, Tricky Dick, Yi), know who they are.
Good grief, Charlie 11B.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
Good grief, Charlie 11B.
:lol:
Call it like I see it
CH was stupid and it cost lives.
That's like saying we deserved 9/11 because of our relationship with Israel. Shame on you, Mr. Sworn To Defend The Constitution.
Why is this concept so hard to understand? "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 09:34:20 PM
That's like saying we deserved 9/11 because of our relationship with Israel. Shame on you, Mr. Sworn To Defend The Constitution.
CH has direct culpability in those people getting killed. Those that worked for them. The hostages later on, and the police defending their right.
Have a white person print this on a t-shirt and wear it in a predominatly black urban neighborhood.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FqITFrGhg2S4%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=127a470da5381a03b4c593b936c9188d8522c235)
1. Do they have the right to wear this? yes
2. Does that person have a right to
think this way? yes
3. Do they have the right to
voice their beliefs? yes
4. Will they get their ass beat? probably
5. Would they get killed? maybe
6. Does excersing numbers 1, 2, or 3 mean you should be beat-up and/or killed? No, because you are excersing your right.
Just because you have the right to say it, doesn't mean you should say it. You can, sure, it is
your right and there may be consequences wrongly for it.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:59:29 PM
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.
So we have two separate ideas in this tweet. One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam. Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim. So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make? What is the relationship between these two ideas?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2015, 09:35:51 PM
Why is this concept so hard to understand? "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.
I don't think, this is being disputed. At least not by me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
Good grief, Charlie 11B.
If you don't know my position on the CH episode, I could spell it out for you. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.
So we have two separate ideas in this tweet. One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam. Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim. So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make? What is the relationship between these two ideas?
My original answer still stands: of the people who were victimized by the radical Islamicist terrorists, he identifies more with the Muslim victim who was acting on behalf of French society (so not as an alien interloper or fifth columnist enemy), rather than those victims who mocked and ridiculed him and his culture.
This to me seems a reasonable enough point on its own. Are you seeing something else in the relationship between the two statements?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2015, 09:54:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2015, 09:35:51 PM
Why is this concept so hard to understand? "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.
I don't think, this is being disputed. At least not by me.
No, not by you.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 11:06:35 PM
Are you seeing something else in the relationship between the two statements?
I think he's been grading too many tests lately.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2015, 09:35:51 PM
Why is this concept so hard to understand? "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.
Yup, very simple. It's nothing but full support for the western liberal paradigm.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 11:06:35 PM
My original answer still stands: of the people who were victimized by the radical Islamicist terrorists, he identifies more with the Muslim victim who was acting on behalf of French society (so not as an alien interloper or fifth columnist enemy), rather than those victims who mocked and ridiculed him and his culture.
This to me seems a reasonable enough point on its own. Are you seeing something else in the relationship between the two statements?
I think there's a considerable amount of ambiguity.
My first read on it was, not only does he find CH's content offensive, but they and their supporters should feel even worse because a Muslim died defending them.
It could also mean he only cares about dead Muslims and is indifferent to dead nonbelievers.
It could mean he finds the cartoons offensive but supports the values and laws of the French state, as embodied by the dead policeman.
It could mean he thinks the policeman was a patsy for defending people who insulted him.
As an aside, did CH in fact "mock and ridicule" Islam? I thought they got in trouble for mocking ISIS.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:59:29 PM
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.
So we have two separate ideas in this tweet. One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam. Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim. So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make? What is the relationship between these two ideas?
Damn, are you really that dense? Read the quote in Raz's post: ""I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it".
Dead Muslim cop didn't agree with what Charlie said, but defended to his death (literally) the magazine's right to say it.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 02:04:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:59:29 PM
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.
So we have two separate ideas in this tweet. One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam. Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim. So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make? What is the relationship between these two ideas?
Damn, are you really that dense? Read the quote in Raz's post: ""I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it".
Dead Muslim cop didn't agree with what Charlie said, but defended to his death (literally) the magazine's right to say it.
Raz shoots and scores with that one. :cheers:
Fuck off dps.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:59:29 PM
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.
So we have two separate ideas in this tweet. One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam. Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim. So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make? What is the relationship between these two ideas?
To me the point is clearly "You were ridiculing my faith yet I still died for you. So I am better than you."
Which is why I also find the tweet objectionable/offensive. Both the satirists and the cop were doing their job. If we start to say it is somehow heroic of a cop to do his job and defend rights of people he disagrees with, we get to a very nasty spot.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:07:44 AM
If we start to say it is somehow heroic of a cop to do his job and defend rights of people he disagrees with, we get to a very nasty spot.
It is heroic for a cop to do his job when it involves getting shot at, whether he agrees with the victims or not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 03:23:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:07:44 AM
If we start to say it is somehow heroic of a cop to do his job and defend rights of people he disagrees with, we get to a very nasty spot.
It is heroic for a cop to do his job when it involves getting shot at, whether he agrees with the victims or not.
I am not sure - you could say some jobs involve risking your life as a part of job description (e.g. a soldier, a fire fighter or a cop) - but let's set this point aside for the sake of argument.
If this is so, then still there is no point to mention that the newspaper "ridiculed his faith", other than to engage in some guilt-tripping and finger wagging. The cop should do exactly the same whether he defends someone with whom he agrees or not - surely we can agree on that? So pointing out that he disagreed with people he defended serves no purpose other than the one already pointed out by Neil, Yi and I.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:25:54 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 03:23:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:07:44 AM
If we start to say it is somehow heroic of a cop to do his job and defend rights of people he disagrees with, we get to a very nasty spot.
It is heroic for a cop to do his job when it involves getting shot at, whether he agrees with the victims or not.
I am not sure - you could say some jobs involve risking your life as a part of job description (e.g. a soldier, a fire fighter, editor for an over the top satirist rag, or a cop) - but let's set this point aside for the sake of argument.
added one for you. :P
The cop should and does the same because he has bought into France's democratic society and ideals. As for the sign-maker, he's being a bit of a dick, but also indicating he buys into French society despite disagreements with the cartoonists.
QuoteArsonists torch German newspaper that printed Charlie Hebdo cartoons - See more at: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jan-11/283684-arsonists-have-set-fire-to-a-german-newspaper-that-printed-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-afp.ashx#sthash.faCNRoKP.dpuf
BERLIN: A building of German newspaper Hamburger Morgenpost was the target of an arson attack and two suspects were arrested, police said on Sunday.
Like many other German newspapers, Hamburger Morgenpost has printed cartoons of French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo after the deadly attack on Wednesday in Paris.
A police spokeswoman said that an incendiary device was thrown at the newspaper building in the night and documents were burned inside. Two suspects were arrested near the crime scene because they behaved in an unusual manner, she added.
The newspaper said on its web page that there were no people inside the building when the attack happened. Whether the arson attack was connected to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons was still under investigation, the paper added.
Police said state security had taken over the investigations.
So, this happened too. I would be interested to learn whether the attackers were a part of an organised terrorist cell or a couple of opportunist Muslims who decided to retaliate against the newspaper's decision to print the cartoons. Or is the politically correct view now that any Muslim who commits a terrorist act immediately becomes a terrorist and, as such, is not representative of the moderate Muslim community any more?
To paraphrase Bill Maher, if there are so many bad apples, perhaps there is something wrong with the orchard.
QuoteArsonists torch German newspaper that printed Charlie Hebdo cartoons - See more at: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jan-11/283684-arsonists-have-set-fire-to-a-german-newspaper-that-printed-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-afp.ashx#sthash.faCNRoKP.dpuf
BERLIN: A building of German newspaper Hamburger Morgenpost was the target of an arson attack and two suspects were arrested, police said on Sunday.
Like many other German newspapers, Hamburger Morgenpost has printed cartoons of French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo after the deadly attack on Wednesday in Paris.
A police spokeswoman said that an incendiary device was thrown at the newspaper building in the night and documents were burned inside. Two suspects were arrested near the crime scene because they behaved in an unusual manner, she added.
The newspaper said on its web page that there were no people inside the building when the attack happened. Whether the arson attack was connected to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons was still under investigation, the paper added.
Police said state security had taken over the investigations.
This sounds so wrong coming from Germany.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:53:12 AM
QuoteArsonists torch German newspaper that printed Charlie Hebdo cartoons - See more at: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jan-11/283684-arsonists-have-set-fire-to-a-german-newspaper-that-printed-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-afp.ashx#sthash.faCNRoKP.dpuf
BERLIN: A building of German newspaper Hamburger Morgenpost was the target of an arson attack and two suspects were arrested, police said on Sunday.
Like many other German newspapers, Hamburger Morgenpost has printed cartoons of French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo after the deadly attack on Wednesday in Paris.
A police spokeswoman said that an incendiary device was thrown at the newspaper building in the night and documents were burned inside. Two suspects were arrested near the crime scene because they behaved in an unusual manner, she added.
The newspaper said on its web page that there were no people inside the building when the attack happened. Whether the arson attack was connected to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons was still under investigation, the paper added.
Police said state security had taken over the investigations.
So, this happened too. I would be interested to learn whether the attackers were a part of an organised terrorist cell or a couple of opportunist Muslims who decided to retaliate against the newspaper's decision to print the cartoons. Or is the politically correct view now that any Muslim who commits a terrorist act immediately becomes a terrorist and, as such, is not representative of the moderate Muslim community any more?
To paraphrase Bill Maher, if there are so many bad apples, perhaps there is something wrong with the orchard.
No sane person thinks that terrorists just represent small groups of whatever collective they belong to (Muslims, Leftists, Rightists etc). There's always a pyramid. For every one who engages in terrorist attacks there's a bunch of people who have given it serious thought, and for every one of those there's a bunch of people who think that someone should definitely make terrorist attacks, and for every one of those etc etc etc. Active terrorists are just the tip of the pyramid, and with a big tip (as in Islam) there's a correspondingly big body.
A response from one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. Not bad.
QuoteJe Suis Charlie? Not so fast. A cartoonist at the Paris-based satirical magazine says surviving Charlie Hebdo employees are unimpressed by the rising tide of worldwide support.
"We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends," Bernard Holtrop, a cartoonist for the satirical weekly, told Dutch daily Volkskrant
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-scoffs-vomits-supporters-article-1.2072906
*edit* Life lesson learned: Avoid meetings.
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Which is fine - I feel exactly the same way.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Le Pen certainly wasn't pretending to be their friend though...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 05:53:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Le Pen certainly wasn't pretending to be their friend though...
She was. Her father wasn't.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 06:28:33 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 05:53:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Le Pen certainly wasn't pretending to be their friend though...
She was. Her father wasn't.
She wasn't as well but tried to exploit the situation for political purposes, like François Hollande in another way. Says one of the Charlie Hebdo members
Quote« NOUS VOMISSONS SUR TOUS CES GENS QUI, SUBITEMENT, DISENT ÊTRE NOS AMIS »
Dans Les Inrocks, le dessinateur Luz, rescapé de l'attentat du 7 janvier, estime de son côté que « la charge symbolique actuelle est tout ce contre quoi Charlie a toujours travaillé ». Il ajoute :
« C'est formidable que les gens nous soutiennent mais on est dans un contre-sens de ce que sont les dessins de 'Charlie'. (...) Cet unanimisme est utile à Hollande pour ressouder la nation. Il est utile à Marine Le Pen pour demander la peine de mort.
En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/unanimite-des-hommages-a-charlie-un-contre-sens_4553578_3224.html#4Q4pWjQ412M50TGz.99
This unanimity attitude is useful for Hollande to unite again the nation, and for Marine le Pen to ask for the return of death penalty.
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with? Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?
Sorry, no. That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.
Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.
I like the footage of the arriving heads of states at l'Élysée, they're painfully aware that it's not suppose to be a photo opportunity and they're desperately trying to fight that instinct, they don't always succeed.
Quote from: Liep on January 11, 2015, 07:43:13 AM
I like the footage of the arriving heads of states at l'Élysée, they're painfully aware that it's not suppose to be a photo opportunity and they're desperately trying to fight that instinct, they don't always succeed.
Well, they did take selfies at Nelson Mandela's funeral so... :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 11, 2015, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with? Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?
Sorry, no. That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.
Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.
I'm okay with leaving trashy cartoon printing to Europe. :)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 11, 2015, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with? Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?
Sorry, no. That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.
Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.
Seriously? Do you guys print a lot of cartoons from Botswana? Indonesia? And I'm sorry but his is not apples and oranges, The only difference is one is spreading ideas that you are receptive to and the other is spreading ideas you don't like.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 02:04:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2015, 08:59:29 PM
... yes?
His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).
I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.
Is this confusing?
I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.
So we have two separate ideas in this tweet. One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam. Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim. So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make? What is the relationship between these two ideas?
Damn, are you really that dense? Read the quote in Raz's post: ""I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it".
Dead Muslim cop didn't agree with what Charlie said, but defended to his death (literally) the magazine's right to say it.
Yeah, I have no idea what Yi is on about.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:53:12 AM
To paraphrase Bill Maher, if there are so many bad apples, perhaps there is something wrong with the orchard.
It worked! Marti has started quoting someone other than Picketty.
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
:yes:
But of course if one believes Islam and all who follow that religion are tainted in some way then one can read all kinds of other things into that very simple message.
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 10:38:07 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?
To make the point that even though they said something he didnt agree with their right to say it, ie upholding the law, is what is important.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 11, 2015, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with? Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?
Sorry, no. That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.
Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.
I don't believe it the concept of hate speech. That is to say, while obviously some speech is vile and hateful, no speech should be banned.
Letting them say what they want doesn't mean that you can't keep an eye on known radicals.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 10:38:07 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?
Contrary to everyone else, I think there was an implicit judgment of the cartoonists's work and think that's fine. The hero worship of the cartoonists reveals many who have forgotten about applying fearless disrespect.
I respect that the cartoonists thought their cartoons were relevant enough and important enough that they were willing to risk their safety in publishing them. I think it is wrong that anyone kill anyone over speech (particularly over speech so trifling as those cartoons). I also think, of the cartoons I've seen, most were pretty shoddy and tasteless*, but I don't think that it anyway diminishes that they had the right to publish them and that right should be protected. At the same time, I don't seek to glorify them as I don't really see them on the battle lines of protecting free speech. As Sheilbh's image blurb said, "There is no high noon and none is coming."
*and I can see if one didn't have the steel constitution that a Languish poster does, that one could easily be offended.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2015, 10:43:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 10:38:07 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?
To make the point that even though they said something he didnt agree with their right to say it, ie upholding the law, is what is important.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Which is fine - I feel exactly the same way.
I think they might mean Islamaphobes. :secret:
This mutual celebration of liberty and free speech in France and the West, is all good and nice, but I'm worried that's it's pulled up sharp with regards to social media and new technology; there seems to be a lot of police attention and prosecutions of people, because others have taken offence at what they posted.
I'd prefer that such people are dealt with by being ignore, much as you might do if you didn't like a particular CH editorial or cartoon, rather than the heavy hand application of vague media/hate speech laws.
I like this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7Fb3veIUAAi4Na.jpg)
Quote from: mongers on January 11, 2015, 12:53:35 PM
I'd prefer that such people are dealt with by being ignore, much as you might do if you didn't like a particular CH editorial or cartoon, rather than the heavy hand application of vague media/hate speech laws.
Absolutely agree here.
It's easy to defend free speech when you agree with what's being said, or even when you don't have an opinion one way or the other about it. It gets harder when it comes to speech you don't agree with, but if you're not willing to allow speech that you disagree with or that offends you, you're not really in favor of free speech.
Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2015, 10:49:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 10:38:07 AM
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."
Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?
Contrary to everyone else, I think there was an implicit judgment of the cartoonists's work and think that's fine. The hero worship of the cartoonists reveals many who have forgotten about applying fearless disrespect.
I respect that the cartoonists thought their cartoons were relevant enough and important enough that they were willing to risk their safety in publishing them. I think it is wrong that anyone kill anyone over speech (particularly over speech so trifling as those cartoons). I also think, of the cartoons I've seen, most were pretty shoddy and tasteless*, but I don't think that it anyway diminishes that they had the right to publish them and that right should be protected. At the same time, I don't seek to glorify them as I don't really see them on the battle lines of protecting free speech. As Sheilbh's image blurb said, "There is no high noon and none is coming."
*and I can see if one didn't have the steel constitution that a Languish poster does, that one could easily be offended.
See, I disagree with you there and it has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with the cartoons.
If we were dealing with some "civilian" Muslim risking his life to come to defend the cartoonists despite disagreeing with them - then I would see it differently. But as I have already said, it is a duty of a cop to defend citizens exercising their rights - whether he likes it or not. So pointing out that he disagreed with them has no relevance - except if one is to make an argument that somehow this makes his actions special or out of ordinary.
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
Up to 1.5 million marching in Paris. Merkel was there, too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forf.at%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fsite%2Fnews%2F2015012%2Fanschlaege_paris_trauermarsch_start_body_politiker_r.4596430.jpg&hash=ce8f93d4e41702e24272cc964ef2e3e2675fdb16)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forf.at%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fsite%2Fnews%2F2015012%2Fanschlaege_paris_trauermarsch_start_gal02_r.4596412.jpg&hash=da525398caff0650d6b378c265eb3d44d55999f1)
12,000 gathered in Vienna, as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 11:06:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Which is fine - I feel exactly the same way.
I think they might mean Islamaphobes. :secret:
Uhm, Front Nationale = Islamophobes.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker. I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
We all know you're a cop-hater, so there's no reason to belabor the point. You're missing the Big Picture here anyway, and extrapolating where there isn't a need. But that's OK because you're Eastern European, and don't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society.
But for such somebody that bleats so often over his demands for tolerance, your are one nasty, intolerant fucking queen sometimes.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker. I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.
Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
We all know you're a cop-hater, so there's no reason to belabor the point. You're missing the Big Picture here anyway, and extrapolating where there isn't a need. But that's OK because you're Eastern European, and don't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society.
But for such somebody that bleats so often over his demands for tolerance, your are one nasty, intolerant fucking queen sometimes.
If I say that cops should protect all law-abiding citizens equally, I'm a "cop-hater who doesn't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society"? :D
By the way, your post is very true to your avatar.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:40:23 PM
If I say that cops should protect all law-abiding citizens equally, I'm a "cop-hater who doesn't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society"? :D
Then I'd say it was about as accurate an observation as your premise "doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination", which seems to be nothing more than an extension of your persecution complex.
QuoteBy the way, your post is very true to your avatar.
Takes one to know one, smegma muncher. So nyah.
What, are you now saying that the majority of French muslims are ok with gay marriage? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:38:45 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker. I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.
Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.
But that's the point--the slain officer didn't make doing his job conditional. He did his job regardless of his feelings about the content of Charlie's cartoons.
Unfortunately, as you point out, you can't say that about all cops.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:48:08 PM
What, are you now saying that the majority of French muslims are ok with gay marriage? :lol:
Why are you saying that a Muslim cop would consider them an "abomination"? I mean, other than the fact that you're a overly-shrill, hyperbolic cock socket, that is.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:38:45 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker. I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.
Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.
But that's the point--the slain officer didn't make doing his job conditional. He did his job regardless of his feelings about the content of Charlie's cartoons.
Unfortunately, as you point out, you can't say that about all cops.
I am not hating on the cop - I am hating on the tweet (which clearly wasn't made by the cop). And only because Jacob, garbon & co. thought it appropriate to tout it around as a cause celebre for their side. So I am just saying the implication hidden in the tweet is troubling.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:53:10 PM
I am not hating on the cop - I am hating on the tweet (which clearly wasn't made by the cop). And only because Jacob, garbon & co. thought it appropriate to tout it around as a cause celebre for their side. So I am just saying the implication hidden in the tweet is troubling.
Would it make you feel better if Voltaire had said it instead? Because he did.
edit: Allegedly. Maybe. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2015, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:53:10 PM
I am not hating on the cop - I am hating on the tweet (which clearly wasn't made by the cop). And only because Jacob, garbon & co. thought it appropriate to tout it around as a cause celebre for their side. So I am just saying the implication hidden in the tweet is troubling.
Would it make you feel better if Voltaire had said it instead? Because he did.
edit: Allegedly. Maybe. :hmm:
Again, the distinction between the cop and "Voltaire" is that Voltaire did not have a legal duty to protect the safety of someone he disagreed with. A cop does. That's the point I have spelled out several times over in this thread.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2015, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:48:08 PM
What, are you now saying that the majority of French muslims are ok with gay marriage? :lol:
Why are you saying that a Muslim cop would consider them an "abomination"? I mean, other than the fact that you're a overly-shrill, hyperbolic cock socket, that is.
I was just quoting the Bible. Couldn't use the proper term from the Quran as my copy has not arrived yet, but I will make sure to use the right word from there in future when I get it. Can't imagine, though, it is markedly more tolerant about homosexuality than the Bible.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 02:03:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2015, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:48:08 PM
What, are you now saying that the majority of French muslims are ok with gay marriage? :lol:
Why are you saying that a Muslim cop would consider them an "abomination"? I mean, other than the fact that you're a overly-shrill, hyperbolic cock socket, that is.
I was just quoting the Bible. Couldn't use the proper term from the Quran as my copy has not arrived yet, but I will make sure to use the right word from there in future when I get it. Can't imagine, though, it is markedly more tolerant about homosexuality than the Bible.
He didn't ask you what the Quran says; he asked you about what the dead cop thought.
And obviously, none of us (including whoever sent out that tweet) actually know what he thought. I gotta think a lot of people are projecting here.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 10:15:44 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 11, 2015, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 10, 2015, 08:02:19 AM
today on our radio came the conclusion (by a cultural muslim) that one of the giant factors for this bullshit are the Saoudi-petrodollars at work in spreading their vile wahabism/salafism. And one of the actions needed to diminish the threat of more episodes like this one following is disallowing the saoudi's (or anyone like them) to fund, spread or otherwise insinuate their doctrine in our countries, or for that matter: anywhere else in the world that's not their own shithole of a country.
So our response should be to ban attempts to spread ideas we don't agree with? Sort of like how Russia has banned advocating for gay rights?
Sorry, no. That shit might fly in Europe or Quebec, but in the US we'll left idiots spout bad ideas, and counter them by advocating good ideas.
Apples and oranges, surveillance of radical imams and banning of hate speech in mosques is hardly comparable to (self)censuring cartoons in a satirical newspaper.
Given the above mentioned cartoons were seldom reprinted in the major US media (Washington Post, NYT), colour me skeptical for the much-vaunted US free speech. Free speech for self-censorship, yes.
Seriously? Do you guys print a lot of cartoons from Botswana? Indonesia? And I'm sorry but his is not apples and oranges, The only difference is one is spreading ideas that you are receptive to and the other is spreading ideas you don't like.
Basement troll a.k.a known Defender of the Faiths, islamist apologist extraordinaire, should document himself better (as in not talking about out of his ass) about Courrier International for once which is known for printing articles and cartoons from all over the world. They're not the only ones, remember when Charlie Hebdo reprinted the Mohamed cartoons from Jylland Post?
http://www.courrierinternational.com/galerie/2014/12/28/cartoons-l-annee-2014-vue-en-40-dessins-de-presse (http://www.courrierinternational.com/galerie/2014/12/28/cartoons-l-annee-2014-vue-en-40-dessins-de-presse)
2014 seen through
40 press cartoons: Mexico, South Sudan, Thailand/Lebanon, Albania for instance
Another link just for you
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2015/01/10/menaces-sur-les-cartoonistes-turcs (http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2015/01/10/menaces-sur-les-cartoonistes-turcs)
"Threats on Turkish cartoonists"
Say thanks to your beloved Erdogan :)
QuoteEn Turquie comme dans de très nombreux pays, l'attentat contre Charlie Hebdo a suscité une vague de solidarité. Notamment parmi les confrères des dessinateurs assassinés, relève le site d'information sur le Moyen-Orient Al-Monitor.
Le 7 janvier, un journaliste du magazine satirique Leman tweetait une photo de Wolinski, en pleine séance de croquis lors d'une visite à Istanbul, et demandait : "Cet homme est-il l'ennemi de l'islam ?".
Parmi les nombreuses vignettes venues de Turquie, Al-Monitor relève celle du cartooniste Musa Kart, publiée par CumHuriyet, dans laquelle il croque le président turc Erdogan, disant : "Je condamne cette attaque. Une peine de 10 ans pour ces dessinateurs aurait suffi."
Une attitude courageuse, explique Pinar Tremblay, la chroniqueuse d'Al-Monitor, car Musa Kart a déjà été poursuivi de nombreuse fois par le président. "En Turquie, les dessinateurs ne sont pas protégés, confie un autre caricaturiste. Si la liberté d'expression n'est pas garantie, certains pourraient s'inspirer de l'attaque inhumaine contre Charlie Hebdo et tenter de les reproduire".
Ils n'ont pas écouté les avertissements
Or, Pinar Tremblay s'inquiète des réactions qu'elle voit émerger dans la société turque, mais aussi dans la presse. Comme celle du journal de droite Yeni Akit. "Je n'envisagerais jamais de participer à une telle attaque, ni d'inciter quelqu'un à la violence. Mais quand on me demande si je la condamne, je réponds : attendez un instant. Parce qu'ils ont ridiculisé l'islam avec leurs dessins. Ils ont méprisé et dénigré le prophète. Leur ligne éditoriale était carrément fondée sur la moquerie. Ils n'ont pas écouté les avertissements de ceux qui les appelaient à changer de trajectoire. Alors, le jour où il leur arrive quelque chose, pourquoi s'attendre à des condamnations de notre part ?"
L'inquiétude vient aussi du web, poursuit Pinar Tremblay, où des groupes de supporters du président Erdogan, qui se font appeler "AK-trolls", c'est-à-dire les trolls [du parti] AKP" diffusent des messages déroutants. "Le pire dans ce groupe a été un tweet du compte @GizliArsiv, qui menaçait Leman : 'Que cette attaque vous serve de leçon'. A noter, relève la chroniqueuse, que les griefs de cet internaute ne concernaient pas les offenses du magazine à l'égard de l'islam ou du prophète, mais Erdogan." Enfin, si la plupart de ces "AK-trolls" sont anonymes, ce n'est pas le cas d'un chroniqueur du journal Vahdet Daily, Ibrahim Yoruk, qui a tweeté, à l'adresse d'un autre magazine satirique, Penguen : "Apprenez de leurs erreurs : il ne peut pas y avoir d'humour concernant la foi islamique."
Certes, "en Turquie, les dessinateurs ont l'habitude de la violence, y compris des incendies criminels et des tirs contre leurs bureaux, conclut Pinar Tremblay. Mais, alors que nous vivons un deuil majeur, il est effrayant de constater un tel degré de colère, aussi flagrante et insatiable."
Exec summary
- Wolinski, one the murdered cartoonists used Turkey as in inspiration
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courrierinternational.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F01%2FCharlie%2FTweetCharlie.png&hash=1062fc2b3ada8c80f97094a7e2224ab459ba7d10)
"Is this man the enemy of Islam?"
- Select Cartoon: Erdogan stating: "I condemn the Paris attack over the cartoons, 10 years in jail for those cartoonists would have been enough".
- "They had it coming" people over there as well
- Turkey also has pro-Erdogan trolls (sorry it's no longer a Languish exclusive)
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 02:26:26 PM
I gotta think a lot of people are projecting here.
A lot of people are being overly and purposefully obtuse as well, but hey, this is Languish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2015, 02:29:12 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 02:26:26 PM
I gotta think a lot of people are projecting here.
A lot of people are being overly and purposefully obtuse as well, but hey, this is Languish.
Yeah, this the Languish way.
Too many people on their high horses, occupying the high ground and taking a moral position, that there aren't enough people on the ground shovelling the shit outta the way to keep things running. :P
Astonishing that leaders from Turkey and Egypt (F.M.), amongst others repressive regimes represented, have the gall to attend this demonstration.
Especially as the same old stuff continues to roll in their countries, today:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/120051.aspx (http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/120051.aspx)
Quote
Egypt student gets 3-year jail term for atheism
Twenty-one year-old Egyptian student to appeal three year sentence for Atheism
AFP , Sunday 11 Jan 2015
An Egyptian court has sentenced a student to three years in jail for announcing on Facebook that he is an atheist and for insulting Islam, his lawyer said Sunday.
Karim El-Banna, a 21-year-old whose own father testified against him, was jailed by a court in the Nile Delta province of Baheira on Saturday, lawyer Ahmed Abdel Nabi told AFP.
"He was handed down a three-year prison sentence, and if he pays a bail of 1,000 Egyptian pounds ($ 140 or 117 euros) the sentence can be suspended until a verdict is issued by an appeals court," Abdel Nabi said, adding that an appeal was to be heard on March 9.
Abdel Nabi said his client's father had testified against his son, charging that he "was embracing extremist ideas against Islam".
Banna's name had appeared in a list of known atheists in a local daily after which his neighbours harassed him, said Ishaq Ibrahim, a researcher on religion and beliefs at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.
When Banna went to file a complaint against them at a police station, he was accused of insulting Islam and arrested, said Ibrahim, who has been tracking Banna's case.
Banna has been in custody since November.
In December 2012, a 27-year-old blogger, Alber Saber, was sentenced to three years in jail on charges of blasphemy.
And last June, a Coptic Christian man was sentenced to six years in jail for insulting Islam.
The authorities have stepped up measures, including organising workshops, to counter atheism.
Egypt's constitution outlaws insults against the three recognised monotheist religions -- Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Well, it was necessary to execute the sons of Brutus.
Hey mongers, stop with all that racism. Only because 95% of governments in predominantly Muslim countries do something does not mean any actual Muslim people actually support these actions.
Thank God the military stepped in in Egypt.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 03:45:13 PM
Hey mongers, stop with all that racism. Only because 95% of governments in predominantly Muslim countries do something does not mean any actual Muslim people actually support these actions.
Says the guy from Sarcastikstan.
Somewhat incidently, perhaps the major reason why most if not all major UK newspapers and TV channels haven't reproduced much of CH. cartoons is someone in this country has already been convicted of distributing religiously offensive cartoons.
Background, a few years ago we ceased to have Blasphemy laws, because these had been replaced by a racial and religious hatred act in 2006.
This is the second conviction for this man, it's not immediately clear which piece of legislation he was prosecuted under, but I'd be interested if any lawyer here could clarify this, as the various news reports vary somewhat from one another:
Quotehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8640048.stm
QuoteJohn Lennon Airport sexual image atheist gets Asbo
A "militant atheist" who left explicit images in a prayer room at Liverpool John Lennon Airport has been given a six-month suspended sentence.
Harry Taylor, 59, of Salford, left images of religious figures in sexual poses on three occasions in 2008.
Jurors found him guilty of causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress in March.
He was also given a five-year Anti-social Behaviour Order (Asbo) at Liverpool Crown Court.
Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue.
In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told: "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins."
Taylor, of Griffin Street, in Higher Broughton, told jurors he was sexually abused by Catholic priests as a youngster.
Insults to Islam
But he said he bore no grudge against people of faith and claimed he was merely trying to convert believers to atheism.
Some of his cartoons went far beyond exercising freedom of expression, prosecutor Neville Biddle said.
One image showed a pig excreting sausages with insults to Islam, and others linked Muslims to attacks on airports.
The chaplain at the airport was "severely distressed" by the discoveries, the court heard.
Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.
There were dramatic scenes at the sentencing hearing.
While Judge Charles James told Taylor's barrister Brigid Baillie he was considering making him pay costs, the defendant began wheezing.
Judge James adjourned the hearing for 10 minutes for a first-aider to be called.
Taylor left the court room but returned shortly afterwards.
Judge James said: "Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did, but even now you continue to maintain that you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future."
Taylor's Asbo bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place.
The six-month prison sentence was suspended for two years. Taylor was also ordered to undertake 100 hours of unpaid work and pay £250 costs.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:35:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 11:06:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.
Which is fine - I feel exactly the same way.
I think they might mean Islamaphobes. :secret:
Uhm, Front Nationale = Islamophobes.
Okay. I don't think you grasped what I said.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:38:45 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2015, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.
I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker. I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.
Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.
But that's the point--the slain officer didn't make doing his job conditional. He did his job regardless of his feelings about the content of Charlie's cartoons.
Unfortunately, as you point out, you can't say that about all cops.
I am not hating on the cop - I am hating on the tweet (which clearly wasn't made by the cop). And only because Jacob, garbon & co. thought it appropriate to tout it around as a cause celebre for their side. So I am just saying the implication hidden in the tweet is troubling.
Way less troubling than what your "side" would do about Muslims.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 11, 2015, 02:27:25 PM
Basement troll a.k.a known Defender of the Faiths, islamist apologist extraordinaire, should document himself better (as in not talking about out of his ass) about Courrier International for once which is known for printing articles and cartoons from all over the world. They're not the only ones, remember when Charlie Hebdo reprinted the Mohamed cartoons from Jylland Post?
http://www.courrierinternational.com/galerie/2014/12/28/cartoons-l-annee-2014-vue-en-40-dessins-de-presse (http://www.courrierinternational.com/galerie/2014/12/28/cartoons-l-annee-2014-vue-en-40-dessins-de-presse)
2014 seen through 40 press cartoons: Mexico, South Sudan, Thailand/Lebanon, Albania for instance
Another link just for you
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2015/01/10/menaces-sur-les-cartoonistes-turcs (http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2015/01/10/menaces-sur-les-cartoonistes-turcs)
"Threats on Turkish cartoonists"
Say thanks to your beloved Erdogan :)
QuoteEn Turquie comme dans de très nombreux pays, l'attentat contre Charlie Hebdo a suscité une vague de solidarité. Notamment parmi les confrères des dessinateurs assassinés, relève le site d'information sur le Moyen-Orient Al-Monitor.
Le 7 janvier, un journaliste du magazine satirique Leman tweetait une photo de Wolinski, en pleine séance de croquis lors d'une visite à Istanbul, et demandait : "Cet homme est-il l'ennemi de l'islam ?".
Parmi les nombreuses vignettes venues de Turquie, Al-Monitor relève celle du cartooniste Musa Kart, publiée par CumHuriyet, dans laquelle il croque le président turc Erdogan, disant : "Je condamne cette attaque. Une peine de 10 ans pour ces dessinateurs aurait suffi."
Une attitude courageuse, explique Pinar Tremblay, la chroniqueuse d'Al-Monitor, car Musa Kart a déjà été poursuivi de nombreuse fois par le président. "En Turquie, les dessinateurs ne sont pas protégés, confie un autre caricaturiste. Si la liberté d'expression n'est pas garantie, certains pourraient s'inspirer de l'attaque inhumaine contre Charlie Hebdo et tenter de les reproduire".
Ils n'ont pas écouté les avertissements
Or, Pinar Tremblay s'inquiète des réactions qu'elle voit émerger dans la société turque, mais aussi dans la presse. Comme celle du journal de droite Yeni Akit. "Je n'envisagerais jamais de participer à une telle attaque, ni d'inciter quelqu'un à la violence. Mais quand on me demande si je la condamne, je réponds : attendez un instant. Parce qu'ils ont ridiculisé l'islam avec leurs dessins. Ils ont méprisé et dénigré le prophète. Leur ligne éditoriale était carrément fondée sur la moquerie. Ils n'ont pas écouté les avertissements de ceux qui les appelaient à changer de trajectoire. Alors, le jour où il leur arrive quelque chose, pourquoi s'attendre à des condamnations de notre part ?"
L'inquiétude vient aussi du web, poursuit Pinar Tremblay, où des groupes de supporters du président Erdogan, qui se font appeler "AK-trolls", c'est-à-dire les trolls [du parti] AKP" diffusent des messages déroutants. "Le pire dans ce groupe a été un tweet du compte @GizliArsiv, qui menaçait Leman : 'Que cette attaque vous serve de leçon'. A noter, relève la chroniqueuse, que les griefs de cet internaute ne concernaient pas les offenses du magazine à l'égard de l'islam ou du prophète, mais Erdogan." Enfin, si la plupart de ces "AK-trolls" sont anonymes, ce n'est pas le cas d'un chroniqueur du journal Vahdet Daily, Ibrahim Yoruk, qui a tweeté, à l'adresse d'un autre magazine satirique, Penguen : "Apprenez de leurs erreurs : il ne peut pas y avoir d'humour concernant la foi islamique."
Certes, "en Turquie, les dessinateurs ont l'habitude de la violence, y compris des incendies criminels et des tirs contre leurs bureaux, conclut Pinar Tremblay. Mais, alors que nous vivons un deuil majeur, il est effrayant de constater un tel degré de colère, aussi flagrante et insatiable."
Exec summary
- Wolinski, one the murdered cartoonists used Turkey as in inspiration
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courrierinternational.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F01%2FCharlie%2FTweetCharlie.png&hash=1062fc2b3ada8c80f97094a7e2224ab459ba7d10)
"Is this man the enemy of Islam?"
- Select Cartoon: Erdogan stating: "I condemn the Paris attack over the cartoons, 10 years in jail for those cartoonists would have been enough".
- "They had it coming" people over there as well
- Turkey also has pro-Erdogan trolls (sorry it's no longer a Languish exclusive)
I don't think you understand that we don't fucking care about French cartoons. Not because we oppose what some French magazine says, but because it just doesn't fucking register. The only time I saw any French political cartoons discussed in the US was the run up to the Iraq war and mostly it was a bemused confusion. I remember a news show showing the covers of European papers and they had political cartoons under the main headline, and the commentator saying "I guess the French really like cartoons". I'm willing to bet the majority of people in the US don't know who the President of France is while the majority of French do know who the President of the US is. This isn't because of poor education, but because France is not a big deal. Our News papers don't carry stories about France every week. French papers do carry something about the US every week or so. Interest goes up, not down. France is for the most part beneath our notice, just as Botswana is beneath yours. Nobody here knew about the this magazine before this. I didn't. I doubt you'd find 1% of Americans who did, so we didn't notice that this magazine carried a cartoon from a danish paper or that another newspaper carried a cartoon from South Sudan.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 05:42:38 PM
I don't think you understand that we don't fucking care about French cartoons. Not because we oppose what some French magazine says, but because it just doesn't fucking register. The only time I saw any French political cartoons discussed in the US was the run up to the Iraq war and mostly it was a bemused confusion. I remember a news show showing the covers of European papers and they had political cartoons under the main headline, and the commentator saying "I guess the French really like cartoons". I'm willing to bet the majority of people in the US don't know who the President of France is while the majority of French do know who the President of the US is. This isn't because of poor education, but because France is not a big deal. Our News papers don't carry stories about France every week. French papers do carry something about the US every week or so. Interest goes up, not down. France is for the most part beneath our notice, just as Botswana is beneath yours. Nobody here knew about the this magazine before this. I didn't. I doubt you'd find 1% of Americans who did, so we didn't notice that this magazine carried a cartoon from a danish paper or that another newspaper carried a cartoon from South Sudan.
So Raz, if you're so disinterested in France (a polite assumption on my par), why are you especially posting so extensively in this thread?
You misunderstand, I didn't say I was disinterested, I said Americans were as a whole. That's why you don't see French cartoons published in American papers very often (the other obvious one, is that we don't speak French). This line of argument arose because of the suggestion that the reason this cartoon is not normally published in the US is because of inadequate freedom of speech. The more obvious reason is that nobody here knows that the magazine here exists or cares or speaks French. Same reason the Mlawi news doesn't register in France that much.
Or
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 05:58:10 PM
You misunderstand, I didn't say I was disinterested, I said Americans were as a whole. That's why you don't see French cartoons published in American papers very often (the other obvious one, is that we don't speak French). This line of argument arose because of the suggestion that the reason this cartoon is not normally published in the US is because of inadequate freedom of speech. The more obvious reason is that nobody here knows that the magazine here exists or cares or speaks French. Same reason the Mlawi news doesn't register in France that much.
Beyond that, I think we are also looking at another instance of many Euros not quite grasping the sheer size of the US, and the size of our media. For example, the Charleston (WV) Gazette is a daily newspaper with a circulation greater than that of the weekly Charlie Hebdo. The national media doesn't normally reprint editorial cartoons from the Gazette, either. Circulation figures that small simply don't register on a national level here.
Eh, I think if cartoons in the Charleston Gazette resulted in 12 people getting killed, that would be pretty newsworthy. US papers aren't reprinting the cartoons because they don't want to poke the bear. Which is completely understandable.
That isn't to say America doesn't have a stronger commitment to free speech than most European countries. There is a distinct difference between government actions limiting free speech and terrorist actions limiting free speech.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 07:12:32 PM
Eh, I think if cartoons in the Charleston Gazette resulted in 12 people getting killed, that would be pretty newsworthy. US papers aren't reprinting the cartoons because they don't want to poke the bear. Which is completely understandable.
That isn't to say America doesn't have a stronger commitment to free speech than most European countries. There is a distinct difference between government actions limiting free speech and terrorist actions limiting free speech.
We don't reprint French political cartoons that don't deal with Muslims. There is no restriction on it, it's just nobody cares. Likewise a political cartoon in the St. Louis post about Highway funding probably won't get much play in France. People are critical of Muslims all the time in the US. I imagine if you look at some of white supremacist publications you can find all sorts of cartoons about Jews, Blacks, Muslims etc. They aren't reprinted in the New York Times not out of fear of violence, but because they are viewed as poor taste. Anti-Muslim sentiment is stronger (or at least more open), but still viewed as unseemly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 07:12:32 PM
Eh, I think if cartoons in the Charleston Gazette resulted in 12 people getting killed, that would be pretty newsworthy. US papers aren't reprinting the cartoons because they don't want to poke the bear. Which is completely understandable.
Oh, OK. I thought that the complaint was about our media not reprinting French political cartoons before the attacks, not about not reprinting the cartoons that ticked the attackers off.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 05:42:38 PM
I'm willing to bet the majority of people in the US don't know who the President of France is while the majority of French do know who the President of the US is. This isn't because of poor education, but because France is not a big deal.
Mexico is a huge deal for the Texas economy. Its culture and politics have a huge influence on us. Yet we know jack fuck all about it. Hardly anybody knows or cares who the President is and what Mexicans think about things. China is a huge deal for the US. How many Americans know who the leaders of China are and what sort of cultural issues go on over there? Hardly anybody. So I find your contention that people do not know about countries because they are unimportant pretty strange. We just do not know about other countries, whatever their importance might be.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 05:42:38 PM
I'm willing to bet the majority of people in the US don't know who the President of France is while the majority of French do know who the President of the US is. This isn't because of poor education, but because France is not a big deal.
Mexico is a huge deal for the Texas economy. Its culture and politics have a huge influence on us. Yet we know jack fuck all about it. Hardly anybody knows or cares who the President is and what Mexicans think about things. China is a huge deal for the US. How many Americans know who the leaders of China are and what sort of cultural issues go on over there? Hardly anybody. So I find your contention that people do not know about countries because they are unimportant pretty strange. We just do not know about other countries, whatever their importance might be.
I'd say that the US is a bigger deal for France then China is for the US. The US is top dog, it is the hegemon. Everyone has to look up to see it. To see everyone else the US has to look down. You notice things above you more then you notice things below you. The US tends to concentrate on those countries that make trouble. Russia, Iran, North Korea etc.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2015, 05:42:38 PM
I'm willing to bet the majority of people in the US don't know who the President of France is while the majority of French do know who the President of the US is. This isn't because of poor education, but because France is not a big deal.
Mexico is a huge deal for the Texas economy. Its culture and politics have a huge influence on us. Yet we know jack fuck all about it. Hardly anybody knows or cares who the President is and what Mexicans think about things. China is a huge deal for the US. How many Americans know who the leaders of China are and what sort of cultural issues go on over there? Hardly anybody. So I find your contention that people do not know about countries because they are unimportant pretty strange. We just do not know about other countries, whatever their importance might be.
How could you not know such a debonair Head of State! :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F30%2FPresidente_Enrique_Pe%25C3%25B1a_Nieto._Fotograf%25C3%25ADa_oficial.jpg%2F640px-Presidente_Enrique_Pe%25C3%25B1a_Nieto._Fotograf%25C3%25ADa_oficial.jpg&hash=db507b4451848ff794b20b0b81a6ba7d7ca6bcfb)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2015, 08:46:52 PM
How could you not know such a debonair Head of State! :o
Only other Mexicans know who that is.
I know who that is. :nerd:
I guess you must be Mexican then. Like Tim. :alberta:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2015, 08:46:52 PM
How could you not know such a debonair Head of State! :o
Only other Mexicans know who that is.
The POTUS should wear a star-spangled sweater vest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2015, 08:52:03 PM
I know who that is. :nerd:
Obi-Juan has taught you well.
You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.
Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2015, 12:32:11 AM
You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.
Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.
They have been shown in the news. I don't think they will become a regular feature in the New Yorker though. While their cartoons are often bad, they rarely depict the President of France talking to his exposed penis. It's my understanding they tend toward crudeness. Now there may be some self-censorship in not showing cartoons about a man playing with his balls, but that's hardly "the Muslims won!!!!!1111eleven".
The President of France is Otto Skorzeny, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2015, 12:51:49 AM
The President of France is Otto Skorzeny, right?
You know how some people talk to plants to encourage them to grow? I think it's the same idea.
Quote from: mongers on January 11, 2015, 04:12:56 PM
Somewhat incidently, perhaps the major reason why most if not all major UK newspapers and TV channels haven't reproduced much of CH. cartoons is someone in this country has already been convicted of distributing religiously offensive cartoons.
Background, a few years ago we ceased to have Blasphemy laws, because these had been replaced by a racial and religious hatred act in 2006.
This is the second conviction for this man, it's not immediately clear which piece of legislation he was prosecuted under, but I'd be interested if any lawyer here could clarify this, as the various news reports vary somewhat from one another:
I doubt that's any part of the reason.
I think he was prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act which was passed in the dying days of John Major's government. It was largely in response to there not being sufficient legal recourse for the victims of stalking. It can be racially or religiously aggravated which can carry a higher sentence and moves it from a summary to an either way offence. My guess is this guy wanted a jury trial so opted for the Crown Court.
It's nothing to do with incitement to religious hatred.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 12:49:04 AMIt's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.
Americans :lol:
But yes, they do:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6xx46TCcAAK8X3.jpg)
Well, anyway, I'm looking forward to Houllebecq's Submission.
Yeah, not something a lot of American papers are going to pick up.
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2015, 12:32:11 AM
You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.
Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.
Yup, especially as some news sites (like Associated Press) went so far as to publish the slain chief editor holding up a copy of the magazine - with the contents of the cover pixeled out.
And saying that the matter is not interesting is just bizarre - this has been referenced on pretty much every American media, with extensive analytical articles on opinion media and satirical shows from Daily Show to Conon dedicating whole segments to it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 07:12:32 PM
That isn't to say America doesn't have a stronger commitment to free speech than most European countries. There is a distinct difference between government actions limiting free speech and terrorist actions limiting free speech.
I think it is debatable. I would say the accents are on different things. America has broad freedom of political speech, but is much more censoring and self-censoring when it comes to freedom of speech and expression on matters of sex and "public decency" for example.
:hmm:
FCC regulations are kind of different though, as they aren't about what you're allowed to say so much as where you're allowed to say it. Which is still a limitation on free speech, sure. But nobody is saying it's an absolute freedom.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 02:20:30 AM
:hmm:
FCC regulations are kind of different though, as they aren't about what you're allowed to say so much as where you're allowed to say it. Which is still a limitation on free speech, sure. But nobody is saying it's an absolute freedom.
Yeah but they are more restrictive than comparable tv regulations in many European countries. So the point stands.
Where Europe is definitely more restrictive, it's freedom of "religious expression". But I would say that in freedom of "artistic expression" Western Europeans are generally free-er than Americans.
Europeans are freer to show nudity. However, actual political messages are restricted. For instance in France you can't incite hatred against gays, which I'm sure you'll agree is an important component to freedom of speech.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 02:27:57 AM
Europeans are freer to show nudity. However, actual political messages are restricted. For instance in France you can't incite hatred against gays, which I'm sure you'll agree is an important component to freedom of speech.
At the risk of breaking my rule of not responding to you, isn't that exactly what I just said? :huh:
http://news.yahoo.com/hungary-pm-orban-says-immigration-threat-must-stopped-083257199.html
QuoteHungary PM Orban says immigration a threat, must be stopped
BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Immigration to Europe should be largely halted, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said late on Sunday, demanding a robust EU response to last week's killings in France.
Orban was speaking after attending a mass rally in Paris to pay tribute to 17 people killed in attacks launched by a trio of Islamist extremists, who were born in France to immigrant families.
The deadly attacks look certain to bolster anti-immigration movements around Europe, and Orban, who has called for migration curbs in the past, said it was time for Brussels to get tough.
"We should not look at economic immigration as if it had any use, because it only brings trouble and threats to European people," he told state television. "Therefore, immigration must be stopped. That's the Hungarian stance."
The only exception, he said, should be for people claiming political asylum.
"Hungary will not become a target destination for immigrants," he said. "We will not allow it, at least as long as I am prime minister and as long as this government is in power."
Orban's right-wing government was elected for a second consecutive term last year. The prime minister said minorities living in Hungary, which has a population of some 10 million, posed no particular problem.
"We do not want to see a significant minority among ourselves that has different cultural characteristics and background. We would like to keep Hungary as Hungary," he added.
According to the national statistics office (KSH), some 350,000 Hungarians live and worked abroad, most of them in Germany, Britain and Austria.
Whatever the reason many newspapers decided not to reprint the cartoons, I am quite glad "Gazeta Wyborcza" did in this weekend issue cover story.
For those not familiar, "Gazeta Wyborcza" (literally, "Election Gazette") started as a Solidarity-movement newspaper during the first free elections of 1989. They have since parted ways with more right wing and Catholic part of the movement, and generally represent "respectable/mainstream" center-left stance but very pro-atlanticist and quite pro-Israel. The common monicker given to it by the Polish right wing/Catholics is the "Kosher Gazette", alluding to the fact that its long time editor in chief (and now honorary editor in chief), an oppositionist intellectual, Adam Michnik (who was a good friend of Vaclav Havel) has Jewish roots.
They did seem to spare no sacred cows, by the way. The cover with the rabbi has him saying "Give us Palestine and we will cut the number [of Holocaust victims] from 6 to 5 million." :XD:
By the way, the policeman is not the only Muslim good guy in the story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/10/lassana-bathily_n_6448500.html
Some of the comments under the article, made apparently by Americans, suggest that if it was the same situation in America, he would have been shot by the cops. Agree/disagree? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 02:27:57 AM
Europeans are freer to show nudity. However, actual political messages are restricted. For instance in France you can't incite hatred against gays, which I'm sure you'll agree is an important component to freedom of speech.
At the risk of breaking my rule of not responding to you, isn't that exactly what I just said? :huh:
You broke that rule two pages ago.
Martinus is too much of a rebel to follow his own rules. :elvis:
I gave him a week before he'd stop ignoring me, it took a weekend.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:30:01 AM
By the way, the policeman is not the only Muslim good guy in the story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/10/lassana-bathily_n_6448500.html
Some of the comments under the article, made apparently by Americans, suggest that if it was the same situation in America, he would have been shot by the cops. Agree/disagree? :hmm:
Ridiculous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F01%2F08%2F24841F3300000578-2901681-image-m-47_1420736674571.jpg&hash=c5724a9a32357acd4b9e6ba17fc6bdcf6cbe67fc)
Ah Jahjah, the Hezbollah-member, rabblerouser and general good-for-nothing
Huh. The guy is apparently an agnostic. Guess that's not good enough.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:22:42 AM
They did seem to spare no sacred cows, by the way. The cover with the rabbi has him saying "Give us Palestine and we will cut the number [of Holocaust victims] from 6 to 5 million." :XD:
Yeah, that's a real knee slapper. :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 07:06:49 AM
Huh. The guy is apparently an agnostic. Guess that's not good enough.
you wouldn't say it from the stuff he writes in our press.
QuoteAbou Jahjah is a Social democrat and moderate Muslim, although he later revealed that he is rather a Muslim by culture and agnostic on faith.[4] He is an opponent of assimilation. He wants immigrants to be treated as full citizens who can keep their own culture, rather than being treated as guests. He was compared to the American human rights activist Malcolm X, who was also a Muslim and also opposed assimilation and the melting pot model of integration. He sees the integration of Armenians in Lebanon as the ideal model. He has said that, "America's race laws are more advanced than here. I have relatives in Detroit and they are Arab-Americans but they feel American. I don't feel European. Europe needs to make its concept of citizenship inclusive to all cultures and religions.
Arab European League[edit]
In 2000 Abou Jahjah founded the Arab European League in Antwerp, a city with a large Muslim population. He was a candidate for the AEL in the Belgian parliamentary elections in 2003. The AEL did not win any seats but the list received 17604 votes.[5] Early in 2006 Abou Jahjah announced that he will no longer be leading the AEL nor holding a leadership position.[citation needed].
Sabra and Shatila[edit]
Main article: Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre § Belgian_court_proceedings
In 2001, Abou Jahjah founded the Sabra and Shatila committee, which brought a lawsuit against former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for his alleged role in massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps during the Israel-Lebanon war in the early 1980s.[6]
9/11[edit]
He said of Arab reaction to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks that "Most of us ... felt that day something that can not be described as joy, or as happiness, but rather as that sweet revenge feeling. We all had – except that small minority- a "what goes around comes around'" attitude", but he continued that "Now, almost two months after the eleventh of September, we see things clear(er). It is terrible how criminals can cause by their acts the misery for so many people, people of their own kind and people of their alleged enemy. How violence will breed violence that will breed more violence".[7]
Controversies[edit]
Arrest[edit]
Abou Jahjah was arrested and detained for several days in 2002 after he allegedly organized riots and called for violence. The riots broke out in Borgerhout, a district of Antwerp, after a 27-year old Belgian-Moroccan was shot by his Flemish neighbor. He was acquitted from all charges on October 21, 2008. A police officer who was watching him the night of the riots said that Abou Jahjah is innocent and that the evidence against him was fabricated.[8] His arrest sparked sharp debates and dominated Belgian politics for months. He gained a lot of support among Belgian intellectuals and academics and was considered as a political prisoner. 300 personalities signed a petition demanding a more moderate approach by the government in dealing with the AEL and the issue of immigration and discrimination in the country. The case became a famous example of demonization of political activists and violation of the separation of powers. The Abou Jahjah affaire is still taught as a case study in some law schools in Belgium and Holland.
Theo van Gogh[edit]
In the Netherlands, Abou Jahjah had a row with the late film director Theo van Gogh, who was known for his opposition to Islam. After van Gogh, who was supposed to be the moderator of a debate between him and Boris Dietrich, insulted Abou Jahjah by calling him "de pooier van de profeet" ("the prophet's pimp") in front of an audience of 1000 people, Abou Jahjah left the room and refused to continue considering that a moderator should be neutral and not insult the guests. His opponent that day Boris Dietrich declared his sympathy to his position and his dismay to the behavior of Van Gogh.[9]
2006 Israel-Lebanon war[edit]
In July 2006 he announced that he would be going to Lebanon to help in whatever way he can defending his country against the attack by Israeli forces.[10] In response, Vlaams Belang leader Filip Dewinter called on the Belgian government to revoke Abou Jahjah's citizenship.[citation needed]
He wrote a book on the Israel-Lebanon war called "Diary Brussels Beirut".[11]
Return to Lebanon[edit]
Since 2007 Abou Jahjah settled in Lebanon and focused on his management career as a CEO of a large BPO company. He continued visiting Europe regularly to speak at meetings and media shows. The VRT, the Belgian-Flemish state television was even accused of sympathising with him and promoting him after it became known that the TV station paid his airplane ticket and hotel costs to attend the famous Belgian talk show Phara.[12] He is considered an authority on issues of immigration, and the Arab world. After the Arab spring, that Abou Jahjah supports adamantly, he gained intellectual credit in the West as someone who has always defended the opinion that revolution is inevitable in the Arab world. In 2008 a group of Flemish students videotaped an interview with him in which he was speaking in details about revolution in Egypt and elsewhere and expected it to happen within 5 years. Parts of the video were later shown on Belgian Television.[13] The dominating opinion in Belgium and Holland is that Abou Jahjah and his AEL were a chance to build a better understanding between communities, and that chance was missed. Many argue today that it would have been much easier and more productive to dialogue with a democrat like Abou Jahjah instead of the religious groups that appeared after he left Europe. This opinion has been outed by many people including former rivals, like former prime minister Verhofstad, the man who decreed his arrest.[14]
Popular Culture[edit]
During the year of 2002 Abou Jahjah was the most mentioned name in the Belgian Media, exceeding reference of the prime minister and the king.[15] He became a household name in Belgium and in the Netherlands, and this was reflected in hundreds of caricatures and satires. He was played by the Comedian Paul Groot in the Dutch comedy show Kopspijkers.[16] He was also a main character in the best selling novel Los of writer Tom Nagels who was later filmed in a movie directed by Jan Verheyen.[17] The name "Abou Jahjah" also was used as a protest slogan by Antwerp dock workers during a strike in clashes with the Police. It was also sang by supporters of football club RSC Anderlecht in its clashes with rivals Royal Antwerp, as a tool to provoke the Antwerp supporters. The supporters of Feyenoord Rotterdam were also using flags of the AEL to provoke the supporters of Ajax Amsterdam who use Israeli flags.
Debating skills[edit]
Abou Jahjah was called by Roderiek van Grieken of the Dutch debating institute a "perfect pure talent" in debating.[18] Also as a solo speaker, Abou Jahjah drew very large crowds and could galvanize them to his causes. The renowned linguist Professor C. Delantsheer wrote a chapter on Abou Jahjah's rhetoric in a book published by Cambridge university in 2007.[19] He had also presented a paper on the power of metaphors in the discourse of Abou Jahjah and presented it to an academical congress in Sweden.[20]
Return to Belgium[edit]
In September 2013 Abou Jahjah returned to Belgium due to the dire security situation in Lebanon. He declared that for the time being he was choosing the security of his children over all other considerations. Upon his return, several opinion makers wrote articles welcoming him back. He declared that he will be founding a new movement that will seek to defend equal rights and social justice. From January 2014 he became a weekly columnist at the prestigious newspaper "De Standaard". Soon after he was chosen as the 4th most influential Belgian of foreign origin by the Magazine "Knack" Only preceded by Prime minister Di Rupo, Meyrem Almaci and Vincent Kompany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyab_Abou_Jahjah
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7JSzwJCYAEdS2K.jpg)
:hmm:
Stuff like this makes me like the French. Like Poles, they are obnoxious on a daily basis, but if there is one thing they know how to do, it's revolutions.
Brits are the complete opposite - relatively friendly and well-meaning, but can't for the life of them orchestrate a proper uprising.
I like this new anti-clerical love Languish is feeling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2015, 12:57:34 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 11, 2015, 04:12:56 PM
Somewhat incidently, perhaps the major reason why most if not all major UK newspapers and TV channels haven't reproduced much of CH. cartoons is someone in this country has already been convicted of distributing religiously offensive cartoons.
Background, a few years ago we ceased to have Blasphemy laws, because these had been replaced by a racial and religious hatred act in 2006.
This is the second conviction for this man, it's not immediately clear which piece of legislation he was prosecuted under, but I'd be interested if any lawyer here could clarify this, as the various news reports vary somewhat from one another:
I doubt that's any part of the reason.
I think he was prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act which was passed in the dying days of John Major's government. It was largely in response to there not being sufficient legal recourse for the victims of stalking. It can be racially or religiously aggravated which can carry a higher sentence and moves it from a summary to an either way offence. My guess is this guy wanted a jury trial so opted for the Crown Court.
It's nothing to do with incitement to religious hatred.
No apparently he was convicted under "Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986."
I think fear of being stung for stirring up religious hatred Is playing a part in why our media isn't show these cartoons.
The 2006 legislation is on the books and awaiting a proper test, I think so far there's only been one person it's been applied to.
So in the next Charlie Hebdo they will feature a cartoon of Muhammad and it'll be translated to 16 languages. Bet one of those will be Arabic?
I'm sure no harm will come of it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 04:47:28 PM
Are you questioning my insuperable superb ability to speak multiple languages? Why are you such a hater? Are you muslim, or communist, or liberal?
You might think you know Spanish, but I know real Spanish. I spoke spanish before I spoke english and I did not study either, I just farted and the words came out of my mouth. Peo!!! And I could speak French too if I wanted, but I have better uses for my intelect. Bottom line, I win!
:lol: Hilarious, keep them coming you have become my favourite payaso.
¡Fuerza con el francés, compadre! :)
Payaso?
I know what that means!
Vos sois muito mas payaso que yo.
Y no me llameis "compadre", you communist sympathizer.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 09:14:29 AM
Brits are the complete opposite - relatively friendly and well-meaning, but can't for the life of them orchestrate a proper uprising.
Did a pretty decent one in 1776.
So, Mart, what's up with being a fan of revolution? Grallon often says something similar which strikes me as odd given that we are all part of a group that benefits mightily from a strong rule of law.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 09:08:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 06:10:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?
Seedy, Katmai, and that other drunk.
:lol: Siegy?
Practically everybody here is the little guy--even the ones that don't think they are, no matter how hard they believe.
I have an extremely large penis.
People call me the Three-Legged Jew.
I wear specially designed pants with an extra leg in the front.
I don't need a bat to play baseball.
I can suck my own dick without bending foward.
My load can fill a cereal bowl, and then some.
I cannot ride on motorcycles.
Last time I went to the beach....
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 10:14:59 AM
So, Mart, what's up with being a fan of revolution? Grallon often says something similar which strikes me as odd given that we are all part of a group that benefits mightily from a strong rule of law.
You mean as gays or as people who are rich?
For me, I think it is just a case of romantic sentimentality. I would have probably disliked any actual revolution. Most likely I would end up like de Sade - an early supporter who was later arrested and imprisoned because as a revolutionary judge he refused to send innocent people to the guillotine. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 10:18:01 AM
You mean as gays or as people who are rich?
Well, I meant gays. I can't speak for Grallon but I certainly am not rich - much as I wish I was. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 10:18:01 AM
For me, I think it is just a case of romantic sentimentality. I would have probably disliked any actual revolution. Most likely I would end up like de Sade - an early supporter who was later arrested and imprisoned because as a revolutionary judge he refused to send innocent people to the guillotine. :P
Ah, okay. :D :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2015, 12:32:11 AM
You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.
Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.
A very good editorial in the Globe today addressing this question.
QuoteIt's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour. And so all those who are critical of newspapers, like this one, that have chosen not to publish the more inflammatory cartoons of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo are having a terrific little time right now. They have nothing on the line as they gleefully accuse the media of heinous shortcomings in the emotional aftermath of the murders of most of Charlie Hebdo's senior editorial masthead.
Newspapers and TV stations – and, somehow by extension, their reporters – are called cowardly because they won't print or broadcast images they consider offensive. They are labelled appeasers on the grounds they are buckling under to rioters in the Islamic world who protest the publication of images considered blasphemous. "Terrorism works," say the critics who believe the sole reason an outlet would refuse to publish an offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoon is out of fear of retaliation.
How incredibly easy. How crass and pompous.
There are 12 people dead in Paris, murdered because the editors and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo stuck to their editorial guns. They printed what was their right to print, even though many wished they didn't. The government of France at one point tried to get them to tone down their provocations. But after the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed by Islamist extremists in 2011, the government gave the magazine police protection. The government supported the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish what it wanted, even though it disagreed with the content. That was courage. That took intelligence.
What doesn't require courage or intelligence is demanding proof of one's solidarity with the victims of the Paris massacre by reprinting their most offensive material. The right of Charlie Hebdo, and all the Charlie Hebdos of the world, to publish provocative, offensive, satirical cartoons must be backed without reservation. But so too must the right of other publications to make different choices – namely to defend Charlie Hebdo without embracing and endorsing everything the satirical newspaper ever did, or holding its work up as canon.
The Globe and Mail, along with The New York Times, the CBC and many other media outlets, last week chose not to reprint Charlie Hebdo's deliberately provocative cartoons. We made the same decision in 2006 after a Danish magazine was threatened by extremists for publishing cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. Both decisions were made in accordance with the newspaper's beliefs and values. Charlie Hebdo's editors lived by their values, and died for them. If there is a better way to honour them than by doing the same thing, we don't know what it is.
I think most people would agree with this, CC. I just find the Raz's claim that the cartoons are not being reprinted because this is a minor issue ignored by American media to be quite preposterous.
Hey Jacob, is that it?
6 newspapers from the entire muslim world condenm the attacks?
And 2 of them are non-muslim lebanese?
QuoteIt's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour.
I don't see how that's true. I think we'd still call it courageous if a media outlet had been threatened and attacked for something mainstream that we agreed with. Similarly people who frustrated aims of would be attackers of said hypothetical media outlet would also be looked upon as courageous. I suppose less "intellectual rigour" as you wouldn't have the cognitive dissonance factor of having to verbally support something that you despite - but that's about it as a difference.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2015, 12:59:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 12:49:04 AMIt's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.
Americans :lol:
But yes, they do:
It doesn't help that there's a loss in translation when it comes to American understanding of Hedbo, because Americans have no real equivalent to Charlie Hedbo cartoons over here. They're more akin to an underground 'zine, or something an angry 13 year old would draw. That, and they're simply not very funny, but I don't believe that's the point of them, even though you people laugh at them for some reason. Then again, the French love Jerry Lewis too, so there you go.
There's a difference between editorial cartoonists and political satire cartoonists here as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 07:12:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:22:42 AM
They did seem to spare no sacred cows, by the way. The cover with the rabbi has him saying "Give us Palestine and we will cut the number [of Holocaust victims] from 6 to 5 million." :XD:
Yeah, that's a real knee slapper. :mellow:
Yeah. :mellow:
Like I said, Jerry Lewis.
They are not funny, they are suppose to make you feel shame.
It's a shame they're not funny. :P
You are not the intended audience.
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 09:09:04 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7JSzwJCYAEdS2K.jpg)
:hmm:
Jes suis Charlie Martel? :lol:
Well, someone needs to make Seedy feel shame.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 10:29:40 AM
QuoteIt's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour.
I don't see how that's true. I think we'd still call it courageous if a media outlet had been threatened and attacked for something mainstream that we agreed with. Similarly people who frustrated aims of would be attackers of said hypothetical media outlet would also be looked upon as courageous. I suppose less "intellectual rigour" as you wouldn't have the cognitive dissonance factor of having to verbally support something that you despite - but that's about it as a difference.
It is easy to defend the right of someone to say something you agree with. One's commitment to freedom of speech is tested when defending the right of someone to say something you don't agree with. Pretty straight forward I would think.
This is pretty easy for me, really.
I don't agree with CBs stance or how they go about trying to offend for the sake of offense.
So yeah, I guess I pass the "Will you defend the rights of people to say things you don't like" test.
Kind of odd that the US didn't even send Kerry to the Paris rally.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2015, 12:59:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 12:49:04 AMIt's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.
Americans :lol:
But yes, they do:
It doesn't help that there's a loss in translation when it comes to American understanding of Hedbo, because Americans have no real equivalent to Charlie Hedbo cartoons over here. They're more akin to an underground 'zine, or something an angry 13 year old would draw. That, and they're simply not very funny, but I don't believe that's the point of them, even though you people laugh at them for some reason. Then again, the French love Jerry Lewis too, so there you go.
There's a difference between editorial cartoonists and political satire cartoonists here as well.
I think it may be a cultural difference. I understand that for the French Charlie Hebdo has been a bit of a national institution.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:06:00 AM
Well, someone needs to make Seedy feel shame.
He is a Catholic. He feels shame every time he has an erection.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2015, 12:59:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 12:49:04 AMIt's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.
Americans :lol:
But yes, they do:
It doesn't help that there's a loss in translation when it comes to American understanding of Hedbo, because Americans have no real equivalent to Charlie Hedbo cartoons over here. They're more akin to an underground 'zine, or something an angry 13 year old would draw. That, and they're simply not very funny, but I don't believe that's the point of them, even though you people laugh at them for some reason. Then again, the French love Jerry Lewis too, so there you go.
There's a difference between editorial cartoonists and political satire cartoonists here as well.
I think it may be a cultural difference. I understand that for the French Charlie Hebdo has been a bit of a national institution.
It's their MAD Magazine. :yes:
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:15:44 AM
Kind of odd that the US didn't even send Kerry to the Paris rally.
Maybe his Muslim boss didn't approve of the cartoons. :P
Quote from: Legbiter on January 12, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 09:09:04 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7JSzwJCYAEdS2K.jpg)
:hmm:
Je suis Charlie Martel? :lol:
Fixed!
Le Pen is a great troll indeed.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2015, 11:14:41 AM
This is pretty easy for me, really.
I don't agree with CBs stance or how they go about trying to offend for the sake of offense.
So yeah, I guess I pass the "Will you defend the rights of people to say things you don't like" test.
As I think would most of us. But the further point being made by the Globe editorial is that defending their right to say it does not also include repeating what they said.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the
Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:15:44 AM
Kind of odd that the US didn't even send Kerry to the Paris rally.
Yeah thought that too, who was the ranking American, an under secretary or American ambassador to France?
I agree with you.
Freedom of speech is having the possibility to offend an audience however it is also the freedom and possibility of not offending an audience.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
Well said.
Let alone just the poor taste of something like that. Perhaps France needs to re-evaluate.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
:secret: It's called "an example", Messieur Royale Assburgers.
Fuck, even Assburger literalism is catching with the ones I didn't think would suffer from it. Dense ass motherfuckers.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:15:44 AM
Kind of odd that the US didn't even send Kerry to the Paris rally.
Hasn't France suffered enough?
And yeah, I fucked up "Monsieur". :P Deal, Le Bitche'.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 11:40:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:15:44 AM
Kind of odd that the US didn't even send Kerry to the Paris rally.
Hasn't France suffered enough?
I think they didn't want to get yet another Nobel Prize.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:41:02 AM
And yeah, I fucked up "Monsieur". :P Deal, Le Bitche'.
:secret: It's "La Bitche", if you really want to be insulting :) Genders etc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 11:25:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2015, 11:14:41 AM
This is pretty easy for me, really.
I don't agree with CBs stance or how they go about trying to offend for the sake of offense.
So yeah, I guess I pass the "Will you defend the rights of people to say things you don't like" test.
As I think would most of us. But the further point being made by the Globe editorial is that defending their right to say it does not also include repeating what they said.
No argument from me. CB is a very peculiar kind of publication. Mainstream publications don't need to reprint their content in order to defend it.
The WSJ doesn't need to post porn on the front page in order to support the rights of porn producers, for example.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:36:46 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
:secret: It's called "an example", Messieur Royale Assburgers.
Fuck, even Assburger literalism is catching with the ones I didn't think would suffer from it. Dense ass motherfuckers.
I would have thought the anti-asperger Crusader would chose his examples better. Go back to enjoy CGI-explosions with Michael Bay à la Ide, will you? I'll stick with Le Samouraï.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
When was the last time Fox put up a photo of Hillary shaving her snatch? Or of Obama eating watermelon? You folks over there need to grow up.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Is an american really calling poor taste on the French?
CH is a product of a long history of dragging mofos in the gutter and calling public figures on their constant bullshit.
Pamphlets during the Ancien Regime, tracts leading to the revolution, 19th century newspapers, anti gaullists and 1968 journals like CH.
Read up. Then you'll understand why it's vital to see Le Pen shave her snatch on the front page :P Because fuck her. And fuck Mahomet.
And fuck you.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
When was the last time Fox put up a photo of Hillary shaving her snatch? Or of Obama eating watermelon? You folks over there need to grow up.
Their disinformation act is way worse than immature and crude humour (not my favourite kind btw), should be easy to see.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
When was the last time Fox put up a photo of Hillary shaving her snatch? Or of Obama eating watermelon? You folks over there need to grow up.
Their disinformation act is way worse than immature and crude humour (not my favourite kind btw), should be easy to see.
Apparently not, when was the last time the Democratic party radicals shot up a Fox New studio and killed Fox News employees?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Is an american really calling poor taste on the French?
CH is a product of a long history of dragging mofos in the gutter and calling public figures on their constant bullshit.
Pamphlets during the Ancien Regime, tracts leading to the revolution, 19th century newspapers, anti gaullists and 1968 journals like CH.
Read up. Then you'll understand why it's vital to see Le Pen shave her snatch on the front page :P Because fuck her. And fuck Mahomet.
And fuck you.
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
When was the last time Fox put up a photo of Hillary shaving her snatch? Or of Obama eating watermelon? You folks over there need to grow up.
Their disinformation act is way worse than immature and crude humour (not my favourite kind btw), should be easy to see.
Apparently not, when was the last time the Democratic party radicals shot up a Fox New studio and killed Fox News employees?
:secret:
There's a difference between Democrats and radical lslamists (despite people telling Obama is a muslim).
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
Not sure if it is relevant, but Charlie Hebdo wasn't just cartoons - they just illustrated topics covered by the magazine with these cartoons. So for example the picture of the Holy Trinity copulating with each other was an illustration to a thematic number dedicated to the "traditional Christian family model" and adoptions by gay couples.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
Unlike Americans, who are completely relaxed and non-defensive on topics such as race, for example.
In fact, I don't think any other nation on Languish is constantly accusing others of not getting some local idiosyncracy or another as much as Americans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
:yes:
Specially sons of immigrants.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:53:38 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
When was the last time Fox put up a photo of Hillary shaving her snatch? Or of Obama eating watermelon? You folks over there need to grow up.
Their disinformation act is way worse than immature and crude humour (not my favourite kind btw), should be easy to see.
Apparently not, when was the last time the Democratic party radicals shot up a Fox New studio and killed Fox News employees?
:secret:
There's a difference between Democrats and radical lslamists (despite people telling Obama is a muslim).
:secret:
I'm glad you see the fault in your comparison.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 11:12:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 10:29:40 AM
QuoteIt's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour.
I don't see how that's true. I think we'd still call it courageous if a media outlet had been threatened and attacked for something mainstream that we agreed with. Similarly people who frustrated aims of would be attackers of said hypothetical media outlet would also be looked upon as courageous. I suppose less "intellectual rigour" as you wouldn't have the cognitive dissonance factor of having to verbally support something that you despite - but that's about it as a difference.
It is easy to defend the right of someone to say something you agree with. One's commitment to freedom of speech is tested when defending the right of someone to say something you don't agree with. Pretty straight forward I would think.
Sure but there is nothing particularly courageous about that - or more courageous than say defending something that you agree with.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
Unlike Americans, who are completely relaxed and non-defensive on topics such as race, for example.
In fact, I don't think any other nation on Languish is constantly accusing others of not getting some local idiosyncracy or another as much as Americans.
So, you're saying the French are racist? Hence their acceptance of the CH cartoons.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
Unlike Americans, who are completely relaxed and non-defensive on topics such as race, for example.
In fact, I don't think any other nation on Languish is constantly accusing others of not getting some local idiosyncracy or another as much as Americans.
So, you're saying the French are racist? Hence their acceptance of the CH cartoons.
:huh:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
:yes:
Specially sons of immigrants.
We're all on the same team, fuckface. So lighten the fuck up.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2015, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 11:25:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2015, 11:14:41 AM
This is pretty easy for me, really.
I don't agree with CBs stance or how they go about trying to offend for the sake of offense.
So yeah, I guess I pass the "Will you defend the rights of people to say things you don't like" test.
As I think would most of us. But the further point being made by the Globe editorial is that defending their right to say it does not also include repeating what they said.
No argument from me. CB is a very peculiar kind of publication. Mainstream publications don't need to reprint their content in order to defend it.
The WSJ doesn't need to post porn on the front page in order to support the rights of porn producers, for example.
:yes:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:57:29 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:53:38 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
You are not the intended audience.
Then I don't see the reason for being critical of Americans for not "getting" it, or not republishing the cartoons in solidarity, fraternité, etc.
I don't think not publishing Andrea Merkel shaving her snatch on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a justified excuse to take a shot at American's so-called "freedom of speech", either.
:secret: It was not Angela Merkel in the cover Martinus used, it was Marine Le Pen. Seems this fanzine for immature, teenage-like old leftists/'68 'tards is too subtle for you.
Who cares who it was. It was still a political figure, correct? Poor taste. You all need to work on that.
Try to figure who it was, compared to Charlie Hebdo's political spectrum and then you'll be able to understand. What's next, Fox News being REALLY fair and balanced on Obama?
Mind you, I never said for this precise cartoon to be reprinted (too Franco-centric), only the ones about Mahomet. I don't see how the US public can judge if they don't see them.
As for poor taste, that's Charlie Hebdo trademark so if you had that in mind, you would have seen their Mahomet cartoons were pretty tame given their record.
When was the last time Fox put up a photo of Hillary shaving her snatch? Or of Obama eating watermelon? You folks over there need to grow up.
Their disinformation act is way worse than immature and crude humour (not my favourite kind btw), should be easy to see.
Apparently not, when was the last time the Democratic party radicals shot up a Fox New studio and killed Fox News employees?
:secret:
There's a difference between Democrats and radical lslamists (despite people telling Obama is a muslim).
:secret:
I'm glad you see the fault in your comparison.
You've just fatally wounded Yi. :(
And now for the coup de grace.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 11:59:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 11:12:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 10:29:40 AM
QuoteIt's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour.
I don't see how that's true. I think we'd still call it courageous if a media outlet had been threatened and attacked for something mainstream that we agreed with. Similarly people who frustrated aims of would be attackers of said hypothetical media outlet would also be looked upon as courageous. I suppose less "intellectual rigour" as you wouldn't have the cognitive dissonance factor of having to verbally support something that you despite - but that's about it as a difference.
It is easy to defend the right of someone to say something you agree with. One's commitment to freedom of speech is tested when defending the right of someone to say something you don't agree with. Pretty straight forward I would think.
Sure but there is nothing particularly courageous about that - or more courageous than say defending something that you agree with.
I don't think you have to agree with the cartoons to reprint them as a sign of solidarity. I am not saying those who choose not to are cowards or weaklings, but I don't think only those who openly (or secretly) agree with the cartoons would reprint them.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
Unlike Americans, who are completely relaxed and non-defensive on topics such as race, for example.
In fact, I don't think any other nation on Languish is constantly accusing others of not getting some local idiosyncracy or another as much as Americans.
So, you're saying the French are racist? Hence their acceptance of the CH cartoons.
:huh:
Glad you admit the poor taste and racism of the French. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:01:47 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
The French are incredibly defensive when it comes to French stuff, bless their hearts.
:yes:
Specially sons of immigrants.
We're all on the same team, fuckface. So lighten the fuck up.
I did not know you were the son of an immigrant, sorry. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:03:52 PM
I did not know you were the son of an immigrant, sorry. :Embarrass:
Another patty on the Assburger grille, thank you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:03:52 PM
I did not know you were the son of an immigrant, sorry. :Embarrass:
Another patty on the Assburger grille, thank you.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:03:52 PM
I did not know you were the son of an immigrant, sorry. :Embarrass:
Another patty on the Assburger grille, thank you.
It's sure hard to tell with your faux Irish act, the typical phoney hyphenated American stuff :mad:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Wait a minute. We are supposed to defend Charlie's right to be in poor taste and offensive but 11B4 is a stupid piece of shit? Seems like some take the whole defence of freedom of expression seriously only when it suits them. :P
We were talking about poor taste, not freedom of expression.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Wait a minute. We are supposed to defend Charlie's right to be in poor taste and offensive but 11B4 is a stupid piece of shit? Seems like some take the whole defence of freedom of expression seriously only when it suits them. :P
We will stop calling him a stupid piece of shit if he gets shot to death. :moon:
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Yes it's true too. He is culpable in the deaths of his co-workers, innocent civilians and police officers. What's next, you all start printing and wearing t-shirts with that CH garbage. Stupid fucks. And you all are supposed to be refined. What a joke.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:17:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:15:44 AM
Kind of odd that the US didn't even send Kerry to the Paris rally.
Maybe his Muslim boss didn't approve of the cartoons. :P
:D
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:16:33 PM
We were talking about poor taste, not freedom of expression.
You weren't.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Wait a minute. We are supposed to defend Charlie's right to be in poor taste and offensive but 11B4 is a stupid piece of shit? Seems like some take the whole defence of freedom of expression seriously only when it suits them. :P
We will stop calling him a stupid piece of shit if he gets shot to death. :moon:
I will wait for the Charlie Hebdo commando squad to come knocking. I got something waiting for them. :shifty: :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:06:00 AM
Well, someone needs to make Seedy feel shame.
He is a Catholic. He feels shame every time he has an erection.
Maybe he did in his teens. Seems doubtful now.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Yes it's true too. He is culpable in the deaths of his co-workers, innocent civilians and police officers. What's next, you all start printing and wearing t-shirts with that CH garbage. Stupid fucks. And you all are supposed to be refined. What a joke.
Lulz. So respecting any magic man in the sky thats omnipotent is your definition of refined?
You also want to respect the right of the people being offended, right? Since Charb is culpable and all. Lets all bow down to whatever crazy shit the average moron believes, because if we offend anyone, they might fucking kill us, and on top of it all, it'd be the victim's fault.
Hence: you're a stupid piece of shit.
And I'm all out of popcorn :(
Don't worry. Im pretty much done.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 12:25:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2015, 11:06:00 AM
Well, someone needs to make Seedy feel shame.
He is a Catholic. He feels shame every time he has an erection.
Maybe he did in his teens. Seems doubtful now.
I refuse to masturbate on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:09:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:03:52 PM
I did not know you were the son of an immigrant, sorry. :Embarrass:
Another patty on the Assburger grille, thank you.
It's sure hard to tell with your faux Irish act, the typical phoney hyphenated American stuff :mad:
I thought he was black?
Probably black irish :P Too dark haired not to have a little spanish in him.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Yes it's true too. He is culpable in the deaths of his co-workers, innocent civilians and police officers. What's next, you all start printing and wearing t-shirts with that CH garbage. Stupid fucks. And you all are supposed to be refined. What a joke.
Lulz. So respecting any magic man in the sky thats omnipotent is your definition of refined?
You also want to respect the right of the people being offended, right? Since Charb is culpable and all. Lets all bow down to whatever crazy shit the average moron believes, because if we offend anyone, they might fucking kill us, and on top of it all, it'd be the victim's fault.
Hence: you're a stupid piece of shit.
Apparently your not smart enough to know that CH's actions, could have and did effect the lives of other Frenchmen. They are dead and you are hiding behind, "OMG freedom of speech and expression", even if it's inflammatory. Even if there were prior indicators of violence against that CH garbage. No let's not pay attention to that. Let's continue poking the radical element in Islam
just because we can, just for the sake of my right. Then fail to take any sort of culpability.
You are a coward.
Now how your holier than thou attitude should work is,
"Before can you change your avatar. It hits home because I'm offended by it and French."
"Zuopa, I can respect that and will take it down for you." That's how civilized people
should act in my book.
Not:
"Zoupa, I have a right to express whatever I want, when I want, regardless of who or what it hurts." This my French friend is your current mode of thinking and why you can't see past your own cowardly stupidity.
Ask me and I will take it down.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:30:59 PM
Don't worry. Im pretty much done.
Insipid people like you never are.
I haven't seen Zoupa get this torqued up since the 2006 Lebanon War. You go, Zoup.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:48:17 PM
Probably black irish :P Too dark haired not to have a little spanish in him.
There was a Moor in the woodpile somewhere. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:48:23 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Yes it's true too. He is culpable in the deaths of his co-workers, innocent civilians and police officers. What's next, you all start printing and wearing t-shirts with that CH garbage. Stupid fucks. And you all are supposed to be refined. What a joke.
Lulz. So respecting any magic man in the sky thats omnipotent is your definition of refined?
You also want to respect the right of the people being offended, right? Since Charb is culpable and all. Lets all bow down to whatever crazy shit the average moron believes, because if we offend anyone, they might fucking kill us, and on top of it all, it'd be the victim's fault.
Hence: you're a stupid piece of shit.
Apparently your not smart enough to know that CH's actions, could have and did effect the lives of other Frenchmen. They are dead and you are hiding behind, "OMG freedom of speech and expression", even if it's inflammatory. Even if there were prior indicators of violence against that CH garbage. No let's not pay attention to that. Let's continue poking the radical element in Islam just because we can, just for the sake of my right. Then fail to take any sort of culpability.
You are a coward.
Now how your holier than thou attitude should work is,
"Before can you change your avatar. It hits home because I'm offended by it and French."
"Zuopa, I can respect that and will take it down for you."
That's how civilized people should act in my book.
Not:
"Zoupa, I have a right to express whatever I want, when I want, regardless of who or what it hurts." This my French friend is your current mode of thinking and why you can't see past your own cowardly stupidity.
Ask me and I will take it down.
Ask me and I will take it down?
I don't understand your way of thinking at all... I don't find your avatar disrepectful or offensive to me, I find it stupid.
Anyways. Live and let live. We won't agree on this. Cheers m8.
You know BV, the idea that threat of physical violence should stop you from expressing yourself is not exactly new. It is a tried and true concept dismissed by most of the developed world. Not by you, apparently.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:51:09 PM
I haven't seen Zoupa get this torqued up since the 2006 Lebanon War. You go, Zoup.
The symbols these cunts attacked are what hurts me the most. A journal. Police. French Jews.
I'm especially worried about the last part. More and more are moving to Israel and looking at the last 20 years who can blame them. It's incredibly sad and makes me feel ashamed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 05:16:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:30:01 AM
By the way, the policeman is not the only Muslim good guy in the story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/10/lassana-bathily_n_6448500.html
Some of the comments under the article, made apparently by Americans, suggest that if it was the same situation in America, he would have been shot by the cops. Agree/disagree? :hmm:
Ridiculous.
Not necessarily. I can recall at least one case where an escaping hostage was shot and killed by police because they mistook him for a hostage-taker, so it is within the realm of possibilities.
11BV4 takes the cake for the most stupid stance in this thread. And that's saying something.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:48:23 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
As I stated. You just confirmed it.
Confirmed what? Poor taste? Have you seen your avatar and the caption underneath it you stupid piece of shit?
Yes it's true too. He is culpable in the deaths of his co-workers, innocent civilians and police officers. What's next, you all start printing and wearing t-shirts with that CH garbage. Stupid fucks. And you all are supposed to be refined. What a joke.
Lulz. So respecting any magic man in the sky thats omnipotent is your definition of refined?
You also want to respect the right of the people being offended, right? Since Charb is culpable and all. Lets all bow down to whatever crazy shit the average moron believes, because if we offend anyone, they might fucking kill us, and on top of it all, it'd be the victim's fault.
Hence: you're a stupid piece of shit.
Apparently your not smart enough to know that CH's actions, could have and did effect the lives of other Frenchmen. They are dead and you are hiding behind, "OMG freedom of speech and expression", even if it's inflammatory. Even if there were prior indicators of violence against that CH garbage. No let's not pay attention to that. Let's continue poking the radical element in Islam just because we can, just for the sake of my right. Then fail to take any sort of culpability.
You are a coward.
Now how your holier than thou attitude should work is,
"Before can you change your avatar. It hits home because I'm offended by it and French."
"Zuopa, I can respect that and will take it down for you."
That's how civilized people should act in my book.
Not:
"Zoupa, I have a right to express whatever I want, when I want, regardless of who or what it hurts." This my French friend is your current mode of thinking and why you can't see past your own cowardly stupidity.
Ask me and I will take it down.
Ask me and I will take it down?
I don't understand your way of thinking at all... I don't find your avatar disrepectful or offensive to me, I find it stupid.
Anyways. Live and let live. We won't agree on this. Cheers m8.
Agree on what. You asking me to take it down. I have nothing invested in it.
Right. Apart from making it your avatar, the text underneath and your sig. Nothing invested.
I just now noticed Before's avatar. Wow. :blink:
Yeah, I think that is pretty fucking bullshit.
If Zoupa isn't asking you to take it down, I will. Consider yourself asked.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
11BV4 takes the cake for the most stupid stance in this thread. And that's saying something.
For believing CH has culpability, I have no problem with that stance. I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed. Bet CH thought the cartoon garbage was funny on Jan 6th.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2015, 01:12:42 PM
Yeah, I think that is pretty fucking bullshit.
If Zoupa isn't asking you to take it down, I will. Consider yourself asked.
Now Zoupa, this is how civilized people act.
Whoa, 11B4V, are you sure you are a Infantryman, a Ranger, and a Sergeant First Class, in the United States Army?
The guy that squeeze the trigger makes the kill, not ANYBODY else.
Everyone is responsible for its own actions.
I don;t care how much crap CH published.
Nobody, NOBODY, can take justice in their own hands and massacre people.
If they have a complaint against CH, take them to court.
The social contract and all that.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 01:11:30 PM
I just now noticed Before's avatar. Wow. :blink:
For some sharp folks your attention to detail is lacking. That's been up since yesterday. :rolleyes:
Hahaha, so 11B took it down?
What a puss.
Quote from: Siege on January 12, 2015, 01:22:31 PM
Whoa, 11B4V, are you sure you are a Infantryman, a Ranger, and a Sergeant First Class, in the United States Army?
The guy that squeeze the trigger makes the kill, not ANYBODY else.
Everyone is responsible for its own actions.
I don;t care how much crap CH published.
Nobody, NOBODY, can take justice in their own hands and massacre people.
If they have a complaint against CH, take them to court.
The social contract and all that.
Yes they are and
CH is culpable.
and my Army career has nothing to do with this. Nothing more than some twisted logic of your own. Berkut was the first on this forum to ask without launching a personal attack. Shows he has the balls and character to just plain ask. Nothing attached.
Quote from: Siege on January 12, 2015, 01:24:17 PM
Hahaha, so 11B took it down?
What a puss.
again you fail. I have nothing invested in it.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed.
Geez, being too open to BS lawsuits is one of the worst problems of the US justice system, maybe the worst one, and you're wishing it on another country?
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed.
Geez, being too open to BS lawsuits is one of the worst problems of the US justice system, maybe the worst one, and you're wishing it on another country?
I hope they are, yes.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
11BV4 takes the cake for the most stupid stance in this thread. And that's saying something.
For believing CH has culpability, I have no problem with that stance. I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed. Bet CH thought the cartoon garbage was funny on Jan 6th.
People are not dogs. Case dismissed.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:35:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
11BV4 takes the cake for the most stupid stance in this thread. And that's saying something.
For believing CH has culpability, I have no problem with that stance. I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed. Bet CH thought the cartoon garbage was funny on Jan 6th.
People are not dogs. Case dismissed.
Dogs are people.
And you guys seriously haven't seen his avatar and the text underneath? I only changed mine after I saw his. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:33:20 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed.
Geez, being too open to BS lawsuits is one of the worst problems of the US justice system, maybe the worst one, and you're wishing it on another country?
I hope they are, yes.
Wow. Zoupa was right; you have taken the stupidest stance in this thread.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:36:51 PM
And you guys seriously haven't seen his avatar and the text underneath? I only changed mine after I saw his. :lol:
Amazing wasnt it. :lol: I look at and read the text below peoples avatars. I find it interesting.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:36:51 PM
And you guys seriously haven't seen his avatar and the text underneath? I only changed mine after I saw his. :lol:
It's Willy Wonka, isn't it? The Gene Wilder one, not Johnny Depp?
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:33:20 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed.
Geez, being too open to BS lawsuits is one of the worst problems of the US justice system, maybe the worst one, and you're wishing it on another country?
I hope they are, yes.
Wow. Zoupa was right; you have taken the stupidest stance in this thread.
That was Marty that said that you idiot.
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:36:51 PM
And you guys seriously haven't seen his avatar and the text underneath? I only changed mine after I saw his. :lol:
It's Willy Wonka, isn't it? The Gene Wilder one, not Johnny Depp?
Lost in the sauce. :lol:
Do I need to repost what was in my avatar, now that you
sharp people are wondering? Hell Marty noticed and silently countered. :lol:
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:36:51 PM
And you guys seriously haven't seen his avatar and the text underneath? I only changed mine after I saw his. :lol:
It's Willy Wonka, isn't it? The Gene Wilder one, not Johnny Depp?
That's Berkut.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:33:20 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed.
Geez, being too open to BS lawsuits is one of the worst problems of the US justice system, maybe the worst one, and you're wishing it on another country?
I hope they are, yes.
Wow. Zoupa was right; you have taken the stupidest stance in this thread.
That was Marty that said that you idiot.
Well, whoever it was that posted it was right.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:43:00 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:36:51 PM
And you guys seriously haven't seen his avatar and the text underneath? I only changed mine after I saw his. :lol:
It's Willy Wonka, isn't it? The Gene Wilder one, not Johnny Depp?
Lost in the sauce. :lol:
Nah, my eyesight is just that bad now.
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:33:20 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:18:20 PM
I don't know what the civil litigation laws are in France, but I hope CH gets sued by the families of the innocent civilians killed.
Geez, being too open to BS lawsuits is one of the worst problems of the US justice system, maybe the worst one, and you're wishing it on another country?
I hope they are, yes.
Wow. Zoupa was right; you have taken the stupidest stance in this thread.
That was Marty that said that you idiot.
Well, whoever it was that posted it was right.
No
Quote from: Siege on January 12, 2015, 10:24:35 AM
Hey Jacob, is that it?
6 newspapers from the entire muslim world condenm the attacks?
And 2 of them are non-muslim lebanese?
I don't know. I'm not a representative of all papers in the Muslim world.
Languish at its 'finest', some initial sympathy for the French evaporates into 2003 era disdain, thread then successfully derailed by an obvius troll. :sleep:
So, my favourite two conspiracy theories.
No. 1. Promulgated by a Kremlin advisor in Russia: CIA orchestrated the attack. Unclear how that would benefit them but hey.
No. 2. Promulgated by a Polish blogger. Putin orchestrated the attack to help Marine Le Pen win the elections and she is already in his pocket.
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 01:53:28 PM
Languish at its 'finest', some initial sympathy for the French evaporates into 2003 era disdain, thread then successfully detailed by in your face troll. :sleep:
;)
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 01:53:28 PM
Languish at its 'finest', some initial sympathy for the French evaporates into 2003 era disdain, thread then successfully derailed by an obvius troll. :sleep:
It's true that nothing gets Languish juices flowing as well as some bona fide Islamist terrorism.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
So, my favourite two conspiracy theories.
No. 1. Promulgated by a Kremlin advisor in Russia: CIA orchestrated the attack. Unclear how that would benefit them but hey.
No. 2. Promulgated by a Polish blogger. Putin orchestrated the attack to help Marine Le Pen win the elections and she is already in his pocket.
Obvious concusion: Putin is in the CIA. Together, they orchestrated the attack, to divert attention.
Look up, sheeple! :D
Quote from: Syt on January 12, 2015, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:09:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:03:52 PM
I did not know you were the son of an immigrant, sorry. :Embarrass:
Another patty on the Assburger grille, thank you.
It's sure hard to tell with your faux Irish act, the typical phoney hyphenated American stuff :mad:
I thought he was black?
only blood-alcohol-level matters
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 12, 2015, 02:09:24 PM
only blood-alcohol-level matters
In that case he's as Irish as the owner of the Wind & Mills (http://www.windmills.at/) over in 6th district. :P
Although, wasn't there a Father Ted episode on that topic ... ? :hmm:
Fox News is blasting Obama for not attending the march in France. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 02:14:56 PM
Fox News is blasting Obama for not attending the march in France. :lol:
Fox and Friends was hilarious this morning.
I think it's telling that the people of France and Europe have chosen to identify with a magazine that spouted insults and an extreme version secularism rather then the Muslim man or the people at the Jewish market who were also murdered.
QuotePARIS—This weekend, in white block letters projected against the darkened upper facade of the Arc de Triomphe, one could read the words, "PARIS EST CHARLIE." Mayor Anne Hidalgo had announced on Friday that Charlie Hebdo would be made an "honorary citizen" of Paris, a title reserved, she said, "for the most illustrative defenders of human rights throughout the world."
The eight slain members of the publication, and four others who died with them, were "heroes," Hidalgo told the assembled city government that morning, fighting to uphold the right to freedom of speech. That right, she said, is "sacred."
This word seems a maladroit choice, or at least one with which Charlie Hebdo's staff, at a time of less solemnity, might have taken issue. Since its founding in 1970, the satirical magazine has delighted in transgressing the moral and aesthetic taboos of most everyone. But it has reserved a special, obsessive disdain for the world's organized religions. In 2011, after Catholic extremists in the city of Avignon vandalized "Piss Christ," the photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in urine, Charlie Hebdo produced a cover cartoon featuring rolls of toilet paper labeled "Bible," "Koran," and "Torah." The headline read: "In the shitter, all the religions."
It is the magazine's provocations toward Muslims, though, that have gained it particular notoriety; it first printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006. The notion that decency might dictate a certain sensitivity toward French Muslims, perhaps more than toward French Jews or Christians—because of their specific cultural injunctions against depictions of their prophet, or because they hail largely from the country's black and Arab post-colonial underclass, or because they already feel stigmatized by politicians, the press, and their fellow citizens—has not apparently held much truck with Charlie Hebdo's editors. On the contrary, Charlie's hope, according to its editors, is to show believers the folly of their faith. This can hardly be called an undertaking of tolerance, that other virtue of liberal democracy.
The impulse to consecrate Charlie Hebdo in a moment of horror and anger—an impulse felt far beyond France—is eminently comprehensible. But one may mourn the dead and condemn their senseless slaughter, and hail their courage in carrying out a mission in which they deeply believed, without celebrating the magazine for virtues it did not espouse.
Until the killings, Charlie Hebdo was not much celebrated or even particularly valued—publicly, at any rate—by the French, though the many slander cases brought against it came with a certain amount of publicity; as of 2012, its weekly print run was about 60,000 copies, about a tenth of what the country's most popular news weeklies sell. It is a publication that champions its speech rights with all the crude prurience and vitriol and rhetorical excess the law permits. (While the French public's tastes can allow for extremes of vulgarity, French speech law is in fact fairly restrictive, especially with respect to racist, anti-Semitic, or defamatory speech.)
Charlie Hebdo is not a racist publication, as has been widely suggested in the Anglophone press, though it does not hesitate to risk appearing so if it might draw a laugh. (A good example is a recent cartoon, noted frequently in the past few days, depicting France's black minister of justice as a monkey; the drawing was in fact meant to skewer the French racists who have portrayed her as a monkey, but those unfamiliar with French politics might be forgiven this misunderstanding.) The magazine is, however, intolerant of religion and believers of all sorts, and smug in those anticlerical convictions. Dialogue with its opponents was never of much interest, and it has repeatedly chosen to target some of France's most vulnerable inhabitants for provocation.
In September 2012, amid violent protests across the Muslim world at the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the film Innocence of Muslims, Charlie Hebdo printed several of its own depictions. One particularly vulgar cartoon showed Muhammad as a sort of porn star, naked, prostrate on his knees, his buttocks spread, his testicles and drippy penis dangling between his legs, with a star over his anus. The caption read, "Mahomet: a star is born!"
On the day of that issue's publication, reporting for The New York Times, I asked Gérard Biard, the top editor at Charlie Hebdo, to explain the choice to publish cartoons that could reasonably be expected to fan the violence. (Biard was away from Paris on the day of the killings last week.) He responded by noting that Charlie Hebdo, "an atheist paper, a secularist paper, a democratic paper," had done nothing prohibited under French law, and had made a habit of ridiculing Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Islam, however, was in need of especially caustic treatment, he argued, insofar as it has prevented its followers from full integration into French society.
"You're not supposed to use religion for your sense of identity, in any case not in a secular state," Biard said. "In principle, the Arabs in France are not Muslims," he contended—that is, Arabs in this secular, assimilationist nation are citizens like any others, and would be well served to renounce whatever attachment they may feel to Islam. "How is it going to help these people to make them believe they're Muslims?" he asked.
Biard seemed genuinely concerned about the fate of France's Arab population. Charlie Hebdo's staff are "the first to demand that they have rights," he said, referring to Arab French. But however well-meaning Charlie Hebdo's mockery of religion may be, it has succeeded in further alienating the very population it says it is seeking to advance. Muslims in France and around the world were predictably angry about the magazine's decision to publish the images of the prophet, having failed to grasp, it seems, that Charlie Hebdo had been seeking to save them from themselves. Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, told the Associated Press, "This is a disgraceful and hateful, useless and stupid provocation."
In 2012, Stéphane ("Charb") Charbonnier, the editorial director of the magazine who was killed last week, told me, "I'm sorry for the people who are shocked when they read Charlie Hebdo. But let them save two euros fifty and not read it."
Charlie Hebdo preaches a stringent interpretation of laïcité, France's illiberal official secularism, which has been used, for instance, to justify a ban on Muslim headscarves for schoolgirls and government employees. At its writing into law in 1905, laïcité was meant to ensure the separation of the French state and the Catholic Church. In recent years, however, the term has been invoked to suggest that religious practices and beliefs should be kept strictly private, in the name of le vivre ensemble, as the politicians put it, or "everyone getting along"; not coincidentally, this shifting interpretation has followed the growth of a practicing Muslim population in France. A large part of that Muslim population feels, not without reason, that the invocation of laïcité has become an expedient fig leaf for what is really anti-Muslim bigotry.
Some more moderate French call Charlie Hebdo's editors "laïcards," a pejorative term applied to the most strident ideologues of laïcité, especially those on the otherwise tolerant left. In 2012, the French sociologist and political scientist Vincent Geisser told the newspaper Libération that he saw "a form of secular Salafism," an ultra-conservative strain of Sunni Islam, in Charlie Hebdo's worldview. "Charlie Hebdo is only looking to impose its secular purity by treating everyone else as fanatics," Geisser said. Such criticism is perhaps less palatable, but no less legitimate, in the wake of Wednesday's killings. Similar critiques have begun to appear online, under the counter-hashtag #JeNeSuisPasCharlie, or "I am not Charlie."
"We are a French newspaper," Biard told me in 2012, engaged in the defense of "French" values. In an interview with the Swiss public broadcaster RTS after last week's attack on his publication, he said: "Laïcité is not just some abstract idea. It is a moral value, and I believe today, one must recognize that laïcité is perhaps the prime moral value of our Republic. Because without it, Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité isn't possible."
In the France of 2015, this sort of ideological retrenchment is hardly radical. As is the case throughout Europe, Islam is seen by many here—with the possible exception of most French Muslims themselves—as a challenge to the country's notion of itself. Biard's words, in fact, could easily have been spoken by almost any politician here, from any political party, including the far-right National Front. However radical Charlie Hebdo's mode of expression, the ideas it is promoting are not.
Charlie Hebdo's leaders had once been free-thinking outsiders—the generation of May 1968, engaged in a fight against the Catholic paternalism of the post-war French establishment. But they long ago helped usher in a new, less conservative era. In essence, they won their battle, and their more open values became those of the new establishment. (Charlie Hebdo was born from the remnants of another satirical journal, Hara-Kiri Hebdo, which had dared mock the death of General de Gaulle; for this lèse-majesté, Hara-Kiri Hebdo was banned by the French government. This was indeed a different time: an issue of Charlie Hebdo last year showed the current president, François Hollande, with his talking penis hanging out of his pants.)
From a perch of privilege, the former outsiders, who still relished the fight, turned their attention to what they perceived as threats to the values they'd helped instate—attacking the weak, in the end, as they had once attacked the powerful.
This isn't to suggest that Charlie now spares the mighty, inside its pages or out. "We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth, and Putin," one of the magazine's most prominent artists, the Dutchman Bernard Holtrop, told the Dutch daily Volkskrant amid the outpouring of support after last week's killings. "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."
Others have been more measured. Another artist, Renald Luzier, who goes by Luz, worried that the symbolism with which Charlie Hebdo has now been imbued is misguided. "This current symbolic weight is everything Charlie has always worked against: destroying symbols, knocking down taboos, setting fantasies straight," he told the French cultural magazine Les Inrockuptibles. (A black banner across the magazine's website, like those of many other French publications, reads, "Je Suis Charlie.") "It's wonderful that people are supporting us, but it's a misapprehension of what the drawings in Charlie are," Luz said.
An issue of Charlie Hebdo, the first since the killings, is scheduled for publication on Wednesday. "We're not going to do an homage edition, we're not going to do an obituary edition—Wednesday's issue will be a normal edition," Biard has vowed. If he keeps his word, it seems likely that some of the magazine's new friends, especially those outside France, will be perplexed or offended. They have read into Charlie a set of values Charlie never had.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-secularism-religion-islam/384413/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-secularism-religion-islam/384413/)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 02:14:56 PM
Fox News is blasting Obama for not attending the march in France. :lol:
:showoff:
Meh, the rally was planned Friday night for Sunday morning, Euro-time. Not a whole lot of lead time for a transatlantic jaunt, even for Joe Biden.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 02:23:29 PM
Meh, the rally was planned Friday night for Sunday morning, Euro-time. Not a whole lot of lead time for a transatlantic jaunt, even for Joe Biden.
Well there
are more important things to do.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 12:57:26 PM
The symbols these cunts attacked are what hurts me the most. A journal. Police. French Jews.
I'm especially worried about the last part. More and more are moving to Israel and looking at the last 20 years who can blame them. It's incredibly sad and makes me feel ashamed.
It's one thing to have to deal with traditional European antisemitism, let alone all the extra batshit-crazy antisemitism new immigrants are bringing with them. Not surprised more Jews are increasingly forwarding their mail.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 02:27:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 02:23:29 PM
Meh, the rally was planned Friday night for Sunday morning, Euro-time. Not a whole lot of lead time for a transatlantic jaunt, even for Joe Biden.
Well there are more important things to do.
Oh, I'm pretty sure Joe Biden doesn't have in his DayRunner he can't bump for a weekend trip to Paris. :lol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeednews/us-military-twitter-account-appears-to-be-hacked#.ca8nkK60q
QuoteU.S. Military Central Command Social Media Accounts Hacked
The Twitter account @CENTCOM had a message saying "i love you isis."
What We Know So Far
The U.S. military's @CENTCOM Twitter and YouTube accounts were hacked, BuzzFeed News has confirmed.
Several images and documents were shared from the @CENTCOM account before it was suspended.
Two ISIS propaganda videos were uploaded to Central Command's YouTube account.
The hacks came around the time President Obama delivered an address on cybersecurity.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:54:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 01:53:28 PM
Languish at its 'finest', some initial sympathy for the French evaporates into 2003 era disdain, thread then successfully detailed by in your face troll. :sleep:
;)
Cop out and cowardly. Try again.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 02:18:45 PM
I think it's telling that the people of France and Europe have chosen to identify with a magazine that spouted insults and an extreme version secularism rather then the Muslim man or the people at the Jewish market who were also murdered.
Right. Maybe you should look at some of the banners held in the marches.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 02:48:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 02:18:45 PM
I think it's telling that the people of France and Europe have chosen to identify with a magazine that spouted insults and an extreme version secularism rather then the Muslim man or the people at the Jewish market who were also murdered.
Right. Maybe you should look at some of the banners held in the marches.
Can't read French. Though the big slogan I'm seeing is "I am Charlie"
Quote from: Zoupa on January 12, 2015, 02:45:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 01:54:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 01:53:28 PM
Languish at its 'finest', some initial sympathy for the French evaporates into 2003 era disdain, thread then successfully detailed by in your face troll. :sleep:
;)
Cop out and cowardly. Try again.
No cop out.
What, that it's a typical languish thread. Or you
think I was winking at "detailed by in your face troll".
Was/is no troll. Do I need to state that IMO CH has some culpability.
and further more, I hope Obama really is looking down his nose at France and CH. I don't really even like him either. The march got the US official it deserved.
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.
No, obviously you don't. They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it. Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk. B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument. He does not view it as bravery but stupidity. His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.
I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it. But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.
As I said...
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 03:22:54 PM
As I said...
Yup, they are just like those sluts who dress provocatively or go out alone with a guy on a date. Just asking to get themselves raped. They knew the risk.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:21:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.
No, obviously you don't. They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it. Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk. B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument. He does not view it as bravery but stupidity. His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.
I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it. But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.
All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). :)
There is absolutely no difference between this stance and one that says a rape is a consequence of a woman going alone/provocatively dressed/in a bad neighbourhood etc.
One thing I did not know: the "Charlie" in Charlie Hebdo originally referred to ... Charlie Brown. [Also, a mocking reference to Charles de Gaulle].
A less controversial cartoon in general than Charlie Brown would be hard to find, in my adult lifetime. I guess things were really different in the '60s. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2015, 03:28:53 PM
One thing I did not know: the "Charlie" in Charlie Hebdo originally referred to ... Charlie Brown. [Also, a mocking reference to Charles de Gaulle].
A less controversial cartoon in general than Charlie Brown would be hard to find, in my adult lifetime. I guess things were really different in the '60s. ;)
I think the Charlie Brown reference was a cover (they were really mocking the death of de Gaulle, as the magazine that the staff originally was employed in was closed down by the government as a punitive measure for running a satire on de Gaulle's death, which itself was a response to the mainstream/government media making light of a death of 150-something people in a week before or some such).
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:21:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.
No, obviously you don't. They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it. Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk. B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument. He does not view it as bravery but stupidity. His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.
I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it. But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.
All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). :)
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 02:52:21 PM
Can't read French. Though the big slogan I'm seeing is "I am Charlie"
Lots of older Parisians carried signs, "I stand with Charlie" that were left over from late 60s/early 70s protests.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:21:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.
No, obviously you don't. They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it. Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk. B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument. He does not view it as bravery but stupidity. His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.
I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it. But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.
All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). :)
The rule you speak of has no role in a free and democratic society. B4's right to say uncomfortably things should be defended just strongly as the right Charlie had to do the same. I would hate to live in a society where it was the done thing not to say things just because it might upset people. Isnt that exactly the point all those who laud Charlie are making. Don't you see inconsistency of your position?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2015, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 02:52:21 PM
Can't read French. Though the big slogan I'm seeing is "I am Charlie"
Lots of older Parisians carried signs, "I stand with Charlie" that were left over from late 60s/early 70s protests.
doesnt that go back to the shut down concearning deGalle?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 03:46:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.
Ok, where would you draw the line on freedom of expression?
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things. That is nonsense. You can disagree with what is being said all you want. But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
And for the record - and I realise this is not an entirely rational position but it is driven by emotions - if someone showed me Charlie Hebdo cartoons two weeks ago I would probably find some of them somewhat distasteful and over the top. But exactly because these cartoonists died for that, these cartoons somehow become detached from their original meaning and become a symbol - and reprinting them becomes an act of defiance, a "fuck you" to the murderers.
I will give you another example. There is a square near I live where about 3 years ago some modern artist put together an installation - a large rainbow made of artificial flowers - in front of the Holy Saviour Church. It was not very pretty and, overall, was a bit kitsch. But then it was burned down by neonazis who saw in it a LGBT symbol and wanted to get rid of a "faggot rainbow". So by now it has been rebuilt and burned down maybe 5 or 6 times. It is no longer a kitsch piece of street art - it is a symbol of something else.
They burn the faggot rainbow. We rebuild the faggot rainbow. They murder our cartoonists. We print more cartoons. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things. That is nonsense.
:wacko:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things. That is nonsense. You can disagree with what is being said all you want. But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.
I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:54:11 PM
They burn the faggot rainbow. We rebuild the faggot rainbow. They murder our cartoonists. We print more cartoons. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.
Fair enough. But in this case the murdered cartoonists (or at least their editors) knew there was a significant risk to publishing their cartoons. It is open to debate whether that was an act of stupidity (B4's position) or bravery (yours and many others). But I see nothing wrong with having that discussion in a free and open society.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
And for the record - and I realise this is not an entirely rational position but it is driven by emotions - if someone showed me Charlie Hebdo cartoons two weeks ago I would probably find some of them somewhat distasteful and over the top. But exactly because these cartoonists died for that, these cartoons somehow become detached from their original meaning and become a symbol - and reprinting them becomes an act of defiance, a "fuck you" to the murderers.
I will give you another example. There is a square near I live where about 3 years ago some modern artist put together an installation - a large rainbow made of artificial flowers. It was not very pretty and, overall, was a bit kitsch. But then it was burned down by neonazis who saw in it a LGBT symbol and wanted to get rid of a "faggot rainbow". So by now it has been rebuilt and burned down maybe 5 or 6 times. It is no longer a kitsch piece of art - it is a symbol of something else.
Yet, when Larry Flynt was shot for publishing 'pink shots' in
Hustler ... ;)
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things. That is nonsense. You can disagree with what is being said all you want. But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.
I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.
:lol: For fuck's sake.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things. That is nonsense. You can disagree with what is being said all you want. But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.
I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.
The problem with the rape metaphor is that we have rejected the notion that what a woman wears causes her rape. In this case the editors and the government certainly knew that the publication of those cartoons would create risk. This is not blaming the victim, this is identifying the fact that they knew they were taking significant risks and published anyway. Whether you look on that decision with admiration or condemnation, you cannot ignore the fact they knew they were taking a significant risk.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:58:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:54:11 PM
They burn the faggot rainbow. We rebuild the faggot rainbow. They murder our cartoonists. We print more cartoons. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.
Fair enough. But in this case the murdered cartoonists (or at least their editors) knew there was a significant risk to publishing their cartoons. It is open to debate whether that was an act of stupidity (B4's position) or bravery (yours and many others). But I see nothing wrong with having that discussion in a free and open society.
Well, it's not like they worked for a pigeon fancier magazine that suddenly decided to "insult the Prophet". They all knew what they were getting into. As the chief editor said in an interview, if he feared about that, he would never print anything - because everything in a satirical newspaper could be offensive to someone who could kill them.
Or, are you saying they should have specifically refrained from offending Muslims only because (however islamophobic it sounds!) there is something special about Muslims that no other religion has? ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:46:54 PM
I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?
You are saying there is a rule in Western democratic countries not to say certain things. That is nonsense. You can disagree with what is being said all you want. But to suggest there is a rule against saying it is the very antithesis of Western democratic principles.
I meant it as a rule of decency, not law. Just as you don't go to a funeral to badmouth the deceased. You also do not, as a rule, blame the victim of a murder or a rape.
The problem with the rape metaphor is that we have rejected the notion that what a woman wears causes her rape. In this case the editors and the government certainly knew that the publication of those cartoons would create risk. This is not blaming the victim, this is identifying the fact that they knew they were taking significant risks and published anyway. Whether you look on that decision with admiration or condemnation, you cannot ignore the fact they knew they were taking a significant risk.
The rape metaphor is broader - it is not just about what a woman wears, but where she goes, whether she is alone, with whom she meets etc. We reject all of these because it constitutes a victim blaming and we generally believe that a woman should not live her life around a threat of rape - rather than we, as a society, should protect her from rape.
I find the analogy with the cartoonists quite apt in this - I think we reject a society where one should be afraid what one says (no matter how offensive) because one can get murdered. Such a model of a society is an anathema to our beliefs just as it is an anathema to argue that we live in a society where it is a woman's responsibility to avoid being raped.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 03:46:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.
Ok, where would you draw the line on freedom of expression?
Proportional response. Let's say instead of killing all the people, one of these Muslim gunmen just walked up to the cartoonist and said "Stop being such a fucktard", a punched the guy in the nose. In that case, the cartoonist might have had it coming. Or maybe something less violent and more French, like a bunch of people line up an shit in his mail box. Everyone should expect protection under the law even if they draw crummy cartoons.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 03:46:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.
Ok, where would you draw the line on freedom of expression?
Proportional response. Let's say instead of killing all the people, one of these Muslim gunmen just walked up to the cartoonist and said "Stop being such a fucktard", a punched the guy in the nose. In that case, the cartoonist might have had it coming. Or maybe something less violent and more French, like a bunch of people line up an shit in his mail box. Everyone should expect protection under the law even if they draw crummy cartoons.
Who has stated CH doesn't have the right of protection under the law????
BTW @ the French thing shitiing in the mail box. :lol:
Or to put it even differently - you can't have it both ways.
As I said before when I said people are not dogs - you can be culpable for provoking a deadly response generally when you are provoking a dangerous animal - usually not when you are provoking another person who takes responsibility for his or her actions (there is, of course, a spur of a moment/crime of passion type of thing but for that the provocation and the response must be instantaneous).
So either you can argue that these men were simply madmen who had nothing to do with the true Islam - in which case, there is absolutely no culpability on the side of Charlie Hebdo's staff - because you never know what can provoke a madman to murder you. For one madman, it could be a caricature of Muhammad, for another it could be you singing a specific tune. And you can't really predict that.
OR you can argue that one should know that publishing caricatures of Muhammad is more likely to get you killed than other stuff - in which case you have to conclude that a certain not statistically insignificant portion of Muslims behave like rabid dogs who can kill you if you insult them - and you should plan your life around it.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
Or to put it even differently - you can't have it both ways.
As I said before when I said people are not dogs - you can be culpable for provoking a deadly response generally when you are provoking a dangerous animal - usually not when you are provoking another person who takes responsibility for his or her actions (there is, of course, a spur of a moment/crime of passion type of thing but for that the provocation and the response must be instantaneous).
So either you can argue that these men were simply madmen who had nothing to do with the true Islam - in which case, there is absolutely no culpability on the side of Charlie Hebdo's staff - because you never know what can provoke a madman to murder you. For one madman, it could be a caricature of Muhammad, for another it could be you singing a specific tune. And you can't really predict that.
OR you can argue that one should know that publishing caricatures of Muhammad is more likely to get you killed than other stuff - in which case you have to conclude that a certain not statistically insignificant portion of Muslims behave like rabid dogs who can kill you if you insult them - and you should plan your life around it.
You can't have it both ways.
and neither can you Mr. Rule of Decency and/or Mr. Accepted Rule.
QuoteI meant it as a rule of decency, not law.
QuoteBut it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out
by your own statements CH should not have published those cartoons. To what, do you apply your rules? Which BTW, they (CH) do have the right to publish them however stupid/inflammatory their cartoons are.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:08:39 PM
The rape metaphor is broader - it is not just about what a woman wears, but where she goes, whether she is alone, with whom she meets etc. We reject all of these because it constitutes a victim blaming and we generally believe that a woman should not live her life around a threat of rape - rather than we, as a society, should protect her from rape.
I don't know. The Cammy P line of thinking suggests that we should be curious as to why a young woman would got to a frat house to drink and then move up into a frat guy's bedroom - but not think that the guy would interpret that as a desire, on her part, to have sexual relations with him. The line of thought goes onto say that of course, he should be punished fully if she wasn't consenting to sex but that said woman did have a role to play (much in the same way that you don't leave your keys on the hood of your car) / perhaps what happened in this situation is a woman who had sex that she regrets.
I think it's extremely unlikely that any of the cartoonists regret being murdered.
As if France has not suffered enough
QuoteSecretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.
:lol:
Even Mexico sent a señor official.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:25:06 PM
Even Mexico sent a señor official.
You be in rare form sir.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:24:22 PM
As if France has not suffered enough QuoteSecretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.
:lol:
Lurch is a nice guy.
He should do a Larry David and come pretending he thought the rally was on Tuesday. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:08:39 PM
The rape metaphor is broader - it is not just about what a woman wears, but where she goes, whether she is alone, with whom she meets etc. We reject all of these because it constitutes a victim blaming and we generally believe that a woman should not live her life around a threat of rape - rather than we, as a society, should protect her from rape.
I find the analogy with the cartoonists quite apt in this - I think we reject a society where one should be afraid what one says (no matter how offensive) because one can get murdered. Such a model of a society is an anathema to our beliefs just as it is an anathema to argue that we live in a society where it is a woman's responsibility to avoid being raped.
well that is where you go badly wrong. We do go into depth to determine in the case of an alleged rape as to whether the act was consensual or not. We don't just convict someone because there is an allegation that the act was non consensual.
If you reject a society where one should be afraid that what one says might get them murdered then you are rejecting reality. Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did. You seem to be ignoring my posts where I say whether you admire their decision to publish knowing it created that risk or not, it is silly to wish away the fact that the risk was real.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did.
Case closed.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did.
Case closed.
Exactly. If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered. Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out. If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did.
Case closed.
Exactly. If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered. Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out. If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.
I see clearly that they were murdered because they made harmless cartoons and not because insane Muslims are extremely and unacceptably criminally violent.
AND they dressed as sluts.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:24:22 PM
As if France has not suffered enough QuoteSecretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.
:lol:
He is the Secretary of State, and speaks fluent French. Why would France be suffering, cum guzzler?
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did.
Case closed.
Exactly. If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered. Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out. If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.
I see clearly that they were murdered because they made harmless cartoons and not because insane Muslims are extremely and unacceptably criminally violent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fthumbnail%2F1286.gif&hash=1b98d0a103b92d74c8772e7a00ca488c93b1a63b)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 04:24:22 PM
As if France has not suffered enough QuoteSecretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.
:lol:
He is the Secretary of State, and speaks fluent French. Why would France be suffering, cum guzzler?
Fox is besides themselves over this. :lmfao:
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 04:41:58 PM
Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did.
Case closed.
Exactly. If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered. Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out. If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.
I see clearly that they were murdered because they made harmless cartoons and not because insane Muslims are extremely and unacceptably criminally violent.
If you can't accept that there is a link between what was published and the attack then I am not sure what can be done to remove that logical block.
Bob Beckel given "The Five" the business. Bless you Bob.
I can clearly see the point the Brain is making.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
I can clearly see the point the Brain is making.
Of course you can. You have a double standard. :P
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/al-jazeera-leak-charlie-hebdo-emails
So, to the "moderate Muslims" at Al Jazeera this is just a clash of two extremisms, one with guns and one with pens...
#theyjustdontgetit
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
I can clearly see the point the Brain is making.
Yes, we can all see it. But it has the same problem as the point you were making. It ignores the reality that the editors and the French government knew there was a risk in publishing the cartoons. They tried to address that risk because they understood the link. But for some reason, based on an ill conceived comparison with rape, you and Brain want to pretend there is no link.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:19:48 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/al-jazeera-leak-charlie-hebdo-emails
So, to the "moderate Muslims" at Al Jazeera this is just a clash of two extremisms, one with guns and one with pens...
#theyjustdontgetit
Marty there are plenty of non-muslims working at AJ.
I also expect some fall out from this with possible resignation, because that position isn't reconcilable with the support for their own imprisoned journalists.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:19:48 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/al-jazeera-leak-charlie-hebdo-emails
So, to the "moderate Muslims" at Al Jazeera this is just a clash of two extremisms, one with guns and one with pens...
#theyjustdontgetit
:)
Quote"Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response – however illegitimate – is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you."
New issue is out.
Mohammed on the cover. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:27:26 PM
New issue is out.
Mohammed on the cover. :lol:
Can you translate. Other than the known slogan.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 05:08:09 PM
Bob Beckel given "The Five" the business. Bless you Bob.
Missed that. What happened?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
I can clearly see the point the Brain is making.
Yes, we can all see it. But it has the same problem as the point you were making. It ignores the reality that the editors and the French government knew there was a risk in publishing the cartoons. They tried to address that risk because they understood the link. But for some reason, based on an ill conceived comparison with rape, you and Brain want to pretend there is no link.
Maybe a better analogy is with teaching children how to cross the road, with the issue being nowadays there are more and more fanatical muslims driving around at breakneck speed. We can build ring roads and 6 lane highways to 'contain' them, but children still face a challenge crossing the road even though they're not just 'recklessly' running across the roads.
Maybe best to shepard kids around in family cars or just limit their outdoor city trips to the nearby park.
Of course there was a time before the islamist motor cars, but then the threat to children was from christian driven hackney cabs and in those days there was very little 'enlightenment' on the highways.
Over his head "All is Forgiven" and he is obviously holding the iconic "I am Charlie" sign. It has several different interpretations, depending on who is forgiving whom I guess.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 05:08:09 PM
Bob Beckel given "The Five" the business. Bless you Bob.
Missed that. What happened?
Basic gist.
Bob was getting ganged up on by the other four as usual. He started drilling them on US military strikes on ISIS and how the CH Head of State Marchers have done nothing.
Quote"Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response – however illegitimate – is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you."
That is not an unreasonable statement, or even a false statement. In fact, it's not too far in principle from what Oliver Wendell Holmes would've said.
I don't know, I think it's a basic test of being able to function in society. If what someone says, no matter what it is, is considered justification to kill then you don't make the cut. As horrible as this tragedy is it's better to have agitators like CH then to stay quiet and build up a thin skinned population that is likely to become extremely dangerous on a flimsy pretext.
Quote from: frunk on January 12, 2015, 05:52:51 PM
I don't know, I think it's a basic test of being able to function in society. If what someone says, no matter what it is, is considered justification to kill then you don't make the cut. As horrible as this tragedy is it's better to have agitators like CH then to stay quiet and build up a thin skinned population that is likely to become extremely dangerous on a flimsy pretext.
What proof do we have that having agitators prevents this thin skinned population? :yeahright:
Ok, just catching up with the thread, wondering what is so offensive to people about Jeff Bridges in True Grit. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 05:57:08 PM
What proof do we have that having agitators prevents this thin skinned population? :yeahright:
There's a few fewer now.
More specifically, the vast majority of Moslems in France have chosen not to attack CH so clearly they are not that thin skinned. It's the idiotic few that are the problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest.
So if somebody brutally murdered the South Park people you would say South Park bears some of the responsibility? I mean sure they are crude and offensive but that is no crime worthy of a death sentence.
Quote from: frunk on January 12, 2015, 05:59:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 05:57:08 PM
What proof do we have that having agitators prevents this thin skinned population? :yeahright:
There's a few fewer now.
So, none?
Yeah Marty posted it a few posts above you.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2015, 06:12:06 PM
Yeah Marty posted it a few posts above you.
It seems like each time I check Languish another 10 pages have been written in this thread, so I gave up trying to keep up. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 05:58:00 PM
Ok, just catching up with the thread, wondering what is so offensive to people about Jeff Bridges in True Grit. :hmm:
Would you like me to post it? For ref that is.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 05:58:00 PM
Ok, just catching up with the thread, wondering what is so offensive to people about Jeff Bridges in True Grit. :hmm:
He's ornery and cusses too much.
Plus: crappy costume design.
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 06:16:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2015, 06:12:06 PM
Yeah Marty posted it a few posts above you.
It seems like each time I check Languish another 10 pages have been written in this thread, so I gave up trying to keep up. :P
I'm following it, but I'm just happy that for once I'm not in the middle of it.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 05:58:00 PM
Ok, just catching up with the thread, wondering what is so offensive to people about Jeff Bridges in True Grit. :hmm:
Would you like me to post it? For ref that is.
Sure.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:17:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 05:58:00 PM
Ok, just catching up with the thread, wondering what is so offensive to people about Jeff Bridges in True Grit. :hmm:
Would you like me to post it? For ref that is.
Sure.
My avatar for over 24 hours before anyone said anything.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10925507_10205488607325788_5448826596134574790_o.jpg)
I think the real tragedy in all of this is this clusterfuck of a thread.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
My avatar for over 24 hours before anyone said anything.
:secret: That's because most people don't really pay attention to avatars.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:27:50 PM
I think the real tragedy in all of this is this clusterfuck of a thread.
It has turned into the Hougoumont of threads.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:27:50 PM
I think the real tragedy in all of this is this clusterfuck of a thread.
That's a glass half empty attitude.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:28:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
My avatar for over 24 hours before anyone said anything.
:secret: That's because most people don't really pay attention to avatars.
See, this I find strange. I look at and read the captions if I notice (usually do) a change by someone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 05:41:39 PM
Quote"Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response – however illegitimate – is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you."
That is not an unreasonable statement, or even a false statement. In fact, it's not too far in principle from what Oliver Wendell Holmes would've said.
The unreasonable part is that the offensive cartoons were all about the artists. Of course it was about the artists; all art is about the artists.
The false part is that virtually no one contests the right to publish offensive material. When Jylland Post published the Mohammed cartoons quite a few people contested it quite vigorously.
But it does demonstrate, at least to me, an attempt to grapple with conflicting ideas. (As opposed to the other sound byte quoted in the link, which is a pure and simple attempt at moral equivalence.) This internal debate in the Muslim community on how to think about satire of Islam could end up being the great upside of this attack.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:27:50 PM
I think the real tragedy in all of this is this clusterfuck of a thread.
That's a glass half empty attitude.
Very Russian of him.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:27:50 PM
I think the real tragedy in all of this is this clusterfuck of a thread.
It is who we are.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:31:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:28:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
My avatar for over 24 hours before anyone said anything.
:secret: That's because most people don't really pay attention to avatars.
See, this I find strange. I look at and read the captions if I notice (usually do) a change by someone.
I saw it, but I also saw the trolling and stayed clear.
CBS actually showed the new cover on the Evening news.
I think I suffered a mild heart attack.
Now we have right wing germans on the news. HITLER BONER
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 06:38:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:31:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:28:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
My avatar for over 24 hours before anyone said anything.
:secret: That's because most people don't really pay attention to avatars.
See, this I find strange. I look at and read the captions if I notice (usually do) a change by someone.
I saw it, but I also saw the trolling and stayed clear.
No intent of trolling on what my basic position is.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
No intent of trolling on what my basic position is.
You could put the same caption on the picture of a dead convenience store owner. After all, everyone knows that if you open a convenience store it has a chance of being robbed. And maybe a cop will killed during the robbery.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
No intent of trolling on what my basic position is.
You could put the same caption on the picture of a dead convenience store owner. After all, everyone knows that if you open a convenience store it has a chance of being robbed. And maybe a cop will killed during the robbery.
Why would I do that. The convenience store has a right to sell slurpees and two day old hotdogs. They shouldnt be shot for it. :huh:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
No intent of trolling on what my basic position is.
You could put the same caption on the picture of a dead convenience store owner. After all, everyone knows that if you open a convenience store it has a chance of being robbed. And maybe a cop will killed during the robbery.
Why would I do that. The convenience store has a right to sell slurpees and two day old hotdogs. They shouldnt be shot for it. :huh:
And you should be shot for drawing cartoons? Nope, I'm staying clear.
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 06:47:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
No intent of trolling on what my basic position is.
You could put the same caption on the picture of a dead convenience store owner. After all, everyone knows that if you open a convenience store it has a chance of being robbed. And maybe a cop will killed during the robbery.
Why would I do that. The convenience store has a right to sell slurpees and two day old hotdogs. They shouldnt be shot for it. :huh:
And you should be shot for drawing cartoons? Nope, I'm staying clear.
Of course not, who said that?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:48:10 PM
Of course not, who said that?
You say the dead French dude is culpable. How is he culpable and the convenience store owner is not? They both had the right to do what they did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 06:53:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 06:48:10 PM
Of course not, who said that?
You say the dead French dude is culpable. How is he culpable and the convenience store owner is not? They both had the right to do what they did.
Oh a convenience store is inflammatory, I forgot. :rolleyes:
and to be clear CH had the right to publish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 06:32:53 PM
This internal debate in the Muslim community on how to think about satire of Islam could end up being the great upside of this attack.
I bet the ones with the most guns and suicide vests win.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2015, 06:28:59 PM
:secret: That's because most people don't really pay attention to avatars.
I've got my eyes on you. <_<
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:00:32 PM
Oh a convenience store is inflammatory, I forgot. :rolleyes:
I was unaware of that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:05:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:00:32 PM
Oh a convenience store is inflammatory, I forgot. :rolleyes:
I was unaware of that.
It is the attempted tie in you posted.
Their is a dual character to crudely offensive speech. On the one hand it represents a kind of free ridership on the notion of free speech, because in the traditional Enlightenment view the guarantee of freedom of expression is meant to ensure the potential for a free rational dialogue. That it also say may protect lewd cartoons about Marine le Pen's possible shaving activities (or disgusting fantasies about Jerry Caldwell's sexual proclivities) is an unintentional side effect on this view.
On the other hand, for freedom of speech to be made concrete in the real world, there must be clear public demonstrations that speech may proceed without risk of sanction. In that sense, the Hustlers and Charlie Hebdos play a key role because by causing the public authorities to explicitly or implicitly defend their excesses, in a quasi Talmudic effort to put a broad and comprehensive wall around what otherwise might be vague and uncertain boundaries free speech - they thereby place free expression beyond contestation.
So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance. What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.
I was with you Minksy until your misuse of they're.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:06:43 PM
It is the attempted tie in you posted.
No it's not. I wrote, in a language that you ostensibly read, that the convenience store owner created a risk that an armed robbery will be committed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
If you can't accept that there is a link between what was published and the attack then I am not sure what can be done to remove that logical block.
Of course there's a link. But even if it was a stupid decision to publish the cartoons in light of the known risk, that doesn't make CH morally culpable for the murders, and it certainly shouldn't make the magazine liable to other victims of the attacks for civil damages.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2015, 07:08:18 PM
Their is a dual character to crudely offensive speech. On the one hand it represents a kind of free ridership on the notion of free speech, because in the traditional Enlightenment view the guarantee of freedom of expression is meant to ensure the potential for a free rational dialogue. That it also say may protect lewd cartoons about Marine le Pen's possible shaving activities (or disgusting fantasies about Jerry Caldwell's sexual proclivities) is an unintentional side effect on this view.
On the other hand, for freedom of speech to be made concrete in the real world, there must be clear public demonstrations that speech may proceed without risk of sanction. In that sense, the Hustlers and Charlie Hebdos play a key role because by causing the public authorities to explicitly or implicitly defend their excesses, in a quasi Talmudic effort to put a broad and comprehensive wall around what otherwise might be vague and uncertain boundaries free speech - they thereby place free expression beyond contestation.
So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance. What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.
Under this theory is still acceptable to shit in the cartoonist mailbox? Or throw a pie at them?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:16:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:06:43 PM
It is the attempted tie in you posted.
No it's not. I wrote, in a language that you ostensibly read, that the convenience store owner created a risk that an armed robbery will be committed.
Put it in context of you're statements;
QuoteYou could put the same caption on the picture of a dead convenience store owner. After all, everyone knows that if you open a convenience store it has a chance of being robbed. And maybe a cop will killed during the robbery.
QuoteYou say the dead French dude is culpable. How is he culpable and the convenience store owner is not? They both had the right to do what they did
Your attempt to tie in the convenience store is stupid. Again tell me, how is the convenience store inflammatory? You can come up with something better.
But the I guess this attack on CH came out of the blue, right. A shock, eh? There is no history of prior incidents with Muslims...hmm.
CH has culpability
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 07:33:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2015, 07:08:18 PM
Their is a dual character to crudely offensive speech. On the one hand it represents a kind of free ridership on the notion of free speech, because in the traditional Enlightenment view the guarantee of freedom of expression is meant to ensure the potential for a free rational dialogue. That it also say may protect lewd cartoons about Marine le Pen's possible shaving activities (or disgusting fantasies about Jerry Caldwell's sexual proclivities) is an unintentional side effect on this view.
On the other hand, for freedom of speech to be made concrete in the real world, there must be clear public demonstrations that speech may proceed without risk of sanction. In that sense, the Hustlers and Charlie Hebdos play a key role because by causing the public authorities to explicitly or implicitly defend their excesses, in a quasi Talmudic effort to put a broad and comprehensive wall around what otherwise might be vague and uncertain boundaries free speech - they thereby place free expression beyond contestation.
So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance. What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.
Under this theory is still acceptable to shit in the cartoonist mailbox? Or throw a pie at them?
The former over the latter would be my preference.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:37:03 PM
But the I guess this attack on CH came out of the blue, right. A shock, eh? There is no history of prior incidents with Muslims...hmm.
CH has culpability
It came out of the blue exactly to the extent the convenience store robbery did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:37:03 PM
But the I guess this attack on CH came out of the blue, right. A shock, eh? There is no history of prior incidents with Muslims...hmm.
CH has culpability
It came out of the blue exactly to the extent the convenience store robbery did.
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Quote
2006
Controversy arose over the publication's edition of 9 February 2006. Under the title "Mahomet débordé par les intégristes" ("Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"), the front page showed a cartoon of a weeping Muhammad saying "C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons" ("it's hard being loved by jerks"). The newspaper reprinted the twelve cartoons of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and added some of their own. Compared to a regular circulation of 100,000 sold copies, this edition enjoyed great commercial success. 160,000 copies were sold and another 150,000 were in print later that day.
In response, French President Jacques Chirac condemned "overt provocations" which could inflame passions. "Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided", Chirac said. The Grand Mosque, the Muslim World League and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF) sued, claiming the cartoon edition included racist cartoons.[14] A later edition contained a statement by a group of twelve writers warning against Islamism.[15]
The suit by the Grand Mosque and the UOIF reached the courts in February 2007. Publisher Philippe Val contended "It is racist to imagine that they can't understand a joke," but Francis Szpiner, the lawyer for the Grand Mosque, explained the suit: "Two of those caricatures make a link between Muslims and Muslim terrorists. That has a name and it's called racism."[16]
Future president Nicolas Sarkozy sent a letter to be read in court expressing his support for the ancient French tradition of satire.[17] François Bayrou and future president François Hollande also expressed their support for freedom of expression. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) criticized the expression of these sentiments, claiming that they were politicizing a court case.[18]
On 22 March 2007, executive editor Philippe Val was acquitted by the court.[19] The court followed the state attorney's reasoning that two of the three cartoons were not an attack on Islam, but on Muslim terrorists, and that the third cartoon with Muhammad with a bomb in his turban should be seen in the context of the magazine in question, which attacked religious fundamentalism.[20]
Debris outside the paper's offices following the November 2011 attack
2011 attack
The paper's controversial 3 November 2011 issue, renamed "Charia Hebdo" (a reference to Sharia law) and "guest-edited" by Muhammad, depicted Muhammad saying: "100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing."
In the early hours of 2 November 2011, the newspaper's office in the 20th arrondissement[21][22] was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The attacks were presumed to be linked to its decision to rename a special edition "Charia Hebdo", with Muhammad listed as the "editor-in-chief".[23] The cover, featuring a cartoon of Muhammad by Luz (Renald Luzier), had circulated on social media for a couple of days.
Charb was quoted by AP stating that the attack might have been carried out by "stupid people who don't know what Islam is" and that they are "idiots who betray their own religion". Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, said his organisation deplores "the very mocking tone of the paper toward Islam and its prophet but reaffirms with force its total opposition to all acts and all forms of violence."[24] François Fillon, the prime minister, and Claude Guéant, the interior minister, voiced support for Charlie Hebdo,[22] as did feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who criticised calls for self-censorship.[25]
2012
In September 2012, the newspaper published a series of satirical cartoons of Muhammad, some of which featured nude caricatures of him.[26][27] Given that this issue came days after a series of attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East, purportedly in response to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims, the French government decided to increase security at certain French embassies, as well as to close the French embassies, consulates, cultural centers, and international schools in about 20 Muslim countries.[28] In addition, riot police surrounded the offices of the magazine to protect it against possible attacks.[27][29][30]
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius criticised the magazine's decision, saying, "In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined. In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?"[31] The U.S. White House stated "a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this."[32] However, the newspaper's editor defended publication of the cartoons, saying, "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation."
Lest we forget the recent one.
Quote2015 attack
Journalists, policemen, and emergency services in the street of the shooting, a few hours after the January 2015 attack
The Je suis Charlie ("I am Charlie") slogan became an endorsement of freedom of speech and press.
Main article: Charlie Hebdo shooting
On 7 January 2015, two Wahhabi Islamist gunmen[35] (directed by an "Al Qaeda cell in Yemen"[36]) forced their way into and opened fire in the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, killing twelve, including staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski,[37] economist Bernard Maris and two police officers, and wounding eleven, four of them seriously.[38][39][40][41][42][43]
During the attack, the gunmen shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) and also "the Prophet is avenged".[35] To Sigolène Vinson, a female visitor to the offices, one of the attackers said "I'm not killing you because you are a woman and we don't kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu'ran and wear a veil".[44] President François Hollande described it as a "terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity".[45] The two gunmen were identified as Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi, French Muslim brothers of Algerian descent.[46][47][48][49]
Well dont forget about the hostages in the deli connected to this.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Plenty of prior incidents. Plenty of convenience store robberies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Plenty of prior incidents. Plenty of convenience store robberies.
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
I disagree that these guys are culpable for the shooting in any legal or morale way. I will accept that offensive behavior has some consequences though I think it can only be limited to "protest behavior", such as the aforementioned defecation in a postal repository. I had suggested a punch in the nose, but I retract that. I think should only be acceptable when some jerk gets in your face and starts insulting you. For instance if someone were to come up to garbon, calling him a fag and making monkey sounds, I think the law could look the other way if he garbon kicked this guys ass. If this guy just published a magazine that was racist and homophobic I don't think garbon could go over and kick the editors ass.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 07:51:07 PM
I disagree that these guys are culpable for the shooting in any legal or morale way. I will accept that offensive behavior has some consequences though I think it can only be limited to "protest behavior", such as the aforementioned defecation in a postal repository. I had suggested a punch in the nose, but I retract that. I think should only be acceptable when some jerk gets in your face and starts insulting you. For instance if someone were to come up to garbon, calling him a fag and making monkey sounds, I think the law could look the other way if he garbon kicked this guys ass. If this guy just published a magazine that was racist and homophobic I don't think garbon could go over and kick the editors ass.
Of course he
should not. He could and my money would be on him.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Plenty of prior incidents. Plenty of convenience store robberies.
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
Keeping cash stored "inflames" robbers.
Yeah, I bet garbon is a scrapper.
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Plenty of prior incidents. Plenty of convenience store robberies.
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
Keeping cash stored "inflames" robbers.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
No I don't. This is the first time you've asked.
The convenience store is not inflammatory. It is a high risk target for armed robbers. If you operate a convenience store, robbers will find it tempting. Perhaps you will die. Perhaps a cop will die performing his duty. That doesn't make the store owner culpable for those deaths.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Plenty of prior incidents. Plenty of convenience store robberies.
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
Keeping cash stored "inflames" robbers.
:rolleyes:
Yes, that was basically my response to your avatar. :p
I don't think garbon should go around beating up retarded people.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 07:58:38 PM
I don't think garbon should go around beating up retarded people.
Oh, I don't know. I think he might enjoy it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:57:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
No I don't. This is the first time you've asked.
Christ almighty Yi Post #1260 :rolleyes:
QuoteThe convenience store is not inflammatory.
Of course it's not, hence you're attempt to tie it in to CH is stupid.
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 07:25:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
If you can't accept that there is a link between what was published and the attack then I am not sure what can be done to remove that logical block.
Of course there's a link. But even if it was a stupid decision to publish the cartoons in light of the known risk, that doesn't make CH morally culpable for the murders, and it certainly shouldn't make the magazine liable to other victims of the attacks for civil damages.
I agree. And that is a very good counter argument to the claim made by B4. My simple point was ignoring the link, whether one admires the decision to publish or not is a bit daft. Indeed asserting there is no link devalues the heroic quality of the act because if they were not aware of the danger they were putting themselves in by publishing then there can be no heroism.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 08:02:03 PM
Christ almighty Yi Post #1260 :rolleyes:
Woops. My bad.
QuoteOf course it's not, hence you're attempt to tie it in to CH is stupid.
Maybe not much point in continuing if you're not even going to respond to my posts.
Hey, this thread got stupid and this time it wasn't my fault! :)
I'm a bit behind in this thread. What was 11B4V's avatar?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2015, 08:08:09 PM
I'm a bit behind in this thread. What was 11B4V's avatar?
Scroll back a few.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2015, 08:08:09 PM
I'm a bit behind in this thread. What was 11B4V's avatar?
1232
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 08:04:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 08:02:03 PM
Christ almighty Yi Post #1260 :rolleyes:
Woops. My bad.
QuoteOf course it's not, hence you're attempt to tie it in to CH is stupid.
Maybe not much point in continuing if you're not even going to respond to my posts.
I respect your take on it, but don't agree. IMO they have culpability in this. CC also has a very good, if not the best point.
I'd like to thank Eleven Before for keeping my popcorn popper popping. That's some kind of impressing reasoning. He actually has Raz arguing on the side of the angels! :lmfao:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2015, 08:08:09 PM
I'm a bit behind in this thread. What was 11B4V's avatar?
It said that the guys who were murdered were culpable for their own deaths. Many found it offensive, (actually I did as well, but in the spirit of 'Je Suis Charlie', I didn't say anything about it).
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 08:26:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2015, 08:08:09 PM
I'm a bit behind in this thread. What was 11B4V's avatar?
It said that the guys who were murdered were culpable for their own deaths. Many found it offensive, (actually I did as well, but in the spirit of 'Je Suis Charlie', I didn't say anything about it).
I think he's seen it by now.
Grumbler probably has the butteriest keyboard in America.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 08:29:36 PM
Grumbler probably has the butteriest keyboard in America.
He should watch his salt and cholesterol intake. I would not want to be culpable in his untimely demise if he didn't.
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 12, 2015, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 07:41:37 PM
So, there was no prior incidents against CH for their garbage?
Plenty of prior incidents. Plenty of convenience store robberies.
You have not answered how the convenience store is inflammatory. You continue to dodge.
Keeping cash stored "inflames" robbers.
:rolleyes:
Yes, that was basically my response to your avatar. :p
Better than shooting someone over it, eh.
Pretty poor showing by the Obama administratoin, but I've not heard any criticism from the French on the issue.
Quote
.....
In a Monday afternoon press conference, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said Mr Obama wished he could have attended, but the "onerous and significant" security preparations for a presidential visit require more than the 36-hour advance notice the White House received.
He added, however: "It's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile."
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30755237 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30755237)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 08:31:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 08:29:36 PM
Grumbler probably has the butteriest keyboard in America.
He should watch his salt and cholesterol intake. I would not want to be culpable in his untimely demise if he didn't.
People who would put butter on popcorn would put catchup on a hot dog. :yuk:
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2015, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 08:31:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 08:29:36 PM
Grumbler probably has the butteriest keyboard in America.
He should watch his salt and cholesterol intake. I would not want to be culpable in his untimely demise if he didn't.
People who would put butter on popcorn would put catchup on a hot dog. :yuk:
You are one of those snobs. :yuk:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2015, 09:53:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2015, 09:45:55 PM
People who would put butter on popcorn would put catchup on a hot dog. :yuk:
You are one of those snobs. :yuk:
Told ya, man. Shards of glass.
In my fridge I have 5 different kinds of ketchup and 3 different kinds of catsup.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:21:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.
No, obviously you don't. They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it. Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk. B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument. He does not view it as bravery but stupidity. His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.
I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it. But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.
All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). :)
The rule you speak of has no role in a free and democratic society. B4's right to say uncomfortably things should be defended just strongly as the right Charlie had to do the same. I would hate to live in a society where it was the done thing not to say things just because it might upset people. Isnt that exactly the point all those who laud Charlie are making. Don't you see inconsistency of your position?
There is no inconsistency here at all.
Marty isn't demanding that 11B shut up, or suggesting that any kind of force, legal or otherwise, ought to be used to stop him from speaking his mind.
He is just not agreeing with him.
There is no connection between the general concept of freedom of speech and criticizing speech.
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 11:30:17 AM
Yeah thought that too, who was the ranking American, an under secretary or American ambassador to France?
It's a disgrace. As Fareed Zakaria put it, this is what Vice-Presidents are for :lol:
QuoteNo argument from me. CB is a very peculiar kind of publication. Mainstream publications don't need to reprint their content in order to defend it.
I agree. I don't think it's worth reprinting it to make a point. As the Art Goldhammer piece makes clear this sort of cartoon is a part of an old French tradition. It's more like Viz than satire in this country and, no wonder it gives dowager Countess like Americans the vapers.
But shouldn't they publish it for context? These cartoons are part of a news story. It seems to me that it's like writing about an art exhibition without reproducing any of the art, or writing about anti-semitic cartoons in the Middle East without showing them. The story doesn't make sense without them.
The reason to reprint the cartoons isn't to defend that content, it's to explain an act of terrorism in response to them.
In terms of offensiveness I have far more trouble with the number of papers (every British one I think) which used the photo of the policeman about to be killed on the pavement.
QuoteMohammed on the cover. :lol:
I quite like that. Particularly the way they've taken on their own sacralisation.
QuoteBut it does demonstrate, at least to me, an attempt to grapple with conflicting ideas. (As opposed to the other sound byte quoted in the link, which is a pure and simple attempt at moral equivalence.) This internal debate in the Muslim community on how to think about satire of Islam could end up being the great upside of this attack.
Is the issue satire and offensiveness or blasphemy? I'm not sure it's clear yet.
Quote from: mongers on January 12, 2015, 05:24:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2015, 05:19:48 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/al-jazeera-leak-charlie-hebdo-emails
So, to the "moderate Muslims" at Al Jazeera this is just a clash of two extremisms, one with guns and one with pens...
#theyjustdontgetit
Marty there are plenty of non-muslims working at AJ.
I also expect some fall out from this with possible resignation, because that position isn't reconcilable with the support for their own imprisoned journalists.
I know that there are non-muslims at AJ. The articles presents it as a divide between Western journalists and journalists who are Muslim/are from Muslim countries though.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 12, 2015, 05:52:51 PM
I don't know, I think it's a basic test of being able to function in society. If what someone says, no matter what it is, is considered justification to kill then you don't make the cut. As horrible as this tragedy is it's better to have agitators like CH then to stay quiet and build up a thin skinned population that is likely to become extremely dangerous on a flimsy pretext.
What proof do we have that having agitators prevents this thin skinned population? :yeahright:
Because social exposure to something increases tolerance to it. That's the entire premise behind LGBT movement, for example.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2015, 07:08:18 PM
So the crude offensive speakers are both hero (even if unintentional) and pest, and which aspect predominates depends on circumstance. What the killers in Paris did was to put the pest-like aspect into perspective as less significant and bring to the fore the heroic quality; in that sense they ironically but predictably frustrated their own purpose.
Exactly. That's the point I was making about these cartoons now becoming a symbol of something else.
Zizek on the subject. As Tim Stanley put it as ever a random assortment of ideas: some good, some bad, most unjustified. But interesting and right on liberalism and how Islamism has risen as the secular Gods failed in the Muslim world:
QuoteSlavoj Žižek on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Are the worst really full of passionate intensity?
How fragile the belief of an Islamist must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper, says the Slovenian philosopher.
BY SLAVOJ ZIZEK PUBLISHED 10 JANUARY, 2015 - 21:31
Now, when we are all in a state of shock after the killing spree in the Charlie Hebdo offices, it is the right moment to gather the courage to think. We should, of course, unambiguously condemn the killings as an attack on the very substance our freedoms, and condemn them without any hidden caveats (in the style of "Charlie Hebdo was nonetheless provoking and humiliating the Muslims too much"). But such pathos of universal solidarity is not enough – we should think further.
Such thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with the cheap relativisation of the crime (the mantra of "who are we in the West, perpetrators of terrible massacres in the Third World, to condemn such acts"). It has even less to do with the pathological fear of many Western liberal Leftists to be guilty of Islamophobia. For these false Leftists, any critique of Islam is denounced as an expression of Western Islamophobia; Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwa condemning him to death, etc. The result of such stance is what one can expect in such cases: the more the Western liberal Leftists probe into their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam. This constellation perfectly reproduces the paradox of the superego: the more you obey what the Other demands of you, the guiltier you are. It is as if the more you tolerate Islam, the stronger its pressure on you will be . . .
This is why I also find insufficient calls for moderation along the lines of Simon Jenkins's claim (in The Guardian on January 7) that our task is "not to overreact, not to over-publicise the aftermath. It is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror" – the attack on Charlie Hebdo was not a mere "passing accident of horror". it followed a precise religious and political agenda and was as such clearly part of a much larger pattern. Of course we should not overreact, if by this is meant succumbing to blind Islamophobia – but we should ruthlessly analyse this pattern.
What is much more needed than the demonisation of the terrorists into heroic suicidal fanatics is a debunking of this demonic myth. Long ago Friedrich Nietzsche perceived how Western civilisation was moving in the direction of the Last Man, an apathetic creature with no great passion or commitment. Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security, an expression of tolerance with one another: "A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. 'We have discovered happiness,' - say the Last Men, and they blink."
It effectively may appear that the split between the permissive First World and the fundamentalist reaction to it runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth, and dedicating one's life to some transcendent Cause. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called "passive" and "active" nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. William Butler Yeats' "Second Coming" seems perfectly to render our present predicament: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. "The best" are no longer able fully to engage, while "the worst" engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.
However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers' way of life. If today's so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist's search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.
It is here that Yeats' diagnosis falls short of the present predicament: the passionate intensity of the terrorists bears witness to a lack of true conviction. How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper? The fundamentalist Islamic terror is not grounded in the terrorists' conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of global consumerist civilization. The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior. This is why our condescending politically correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentment. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the fundamentalists are already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack is precisely a dose of that true 'racist' conviction of their own superiority.
The recent vicissitudes of Muslim fundamentalism confirm Walter Benjamin's old insight that "every rise of Fascism bears witness to a failed revolution": the rise of Fascism is the Left's failure, but simultaneously a proof that there was a revolutionary potential, dissatisfaction, which the Left was not able to mobilize. And does the same not hold for today's so-called "Islamo-Fascism"? Is the rise of radical Islamism not exactly correlative to the disappearance of the secular Left in Muslim countries? When, back in the Spring of 2009, Taliban took over the Swat valley in Pakistan, New York Times reported that they engineered "a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants". If, however, by "taking advantage" of the farmers' plight, The Taliban are "raising alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal," what prevents liberal democrats in Pakistan as well as the US to similarly "take advantage" of this plight and try to help the landless farmers? The sad implication of this fact is that the feudal forces in Pakistan are the "natural ally" of the liberal democracy...
So what about the core values of liberalism: freedom, equality, etc.? The paradox is that liberalism itself is not strong enough to save them against the fundamentalist onslaught. Fundamentalism is a reaction – a false, mystifying, reaction, of course - against a real flaw of liberalism, and this is why it is again and again generated by liberalism. Left to itself, liberalism will slowly undermine itself – the only thing that can save its core values is a renewed Left. In order for this key legacy to survive, liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left. THIS is the only way to defeat fundamentalism, to sweep the ground under its feet.
To think in response to the Paris killings means to drop the smug self-satisfaction of a permissive liberal and to accept that the conflict between liberal permissiveness and fundamentalism is ultimately a false conflict – a vicious cycle of two poles generating and presupposing each other. What Max Horkheimer had said about Fascism and capitalism already back in 1930s - those who do not want to talk critically about capitalism should also keep quiet about Fascism - should also be applied to today's fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk critically about liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 07:51:07 PM
I disagree that these guys are culpable for the shooting in any legal or morale way. I will accept that offensive behavior has some consequences though I think it can only be limited to "protest behavior", such as the aforementioned defecation in a postal repository. I had suggested a punch in the nose, but I retract that. I think should only be acceptable when some jerk gets in your face and starts insulting you. For instance if someone were to come up to garbon, calling him a fag and making monkey sounds, I think the law could look the other way if he garbon kicked this guys ass. If this guy just published a magazine that was racist and homophobic I don't think garbon could go over and kick the editors ass.
Yeah, as I said before, a (proportionate) violent response to a provocation can only be excused if the response is immediate and, for all purposes, near-automatic. If response involves a plot to commit violence, it is never an excusable response to a provocation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 07:25:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
If you can't accept that there is a link between what was published and the attack then I am not sure what can be done to remove that logical block.
Of course there's a link. But even if it was a stupid decision to publish the cartoons in light of the known risk, that doesn't make CH morally culpable for the murders, and it certainly shouldn't make the magazine liable to other victims of the attacks for civil damages.
I agree. And that is a very good counter argument to the claim made by B4. My simple point was ignoring the link, whether one admires the decision to publish or not is a bit daft. Indeed asserting there is no link devalues the heroic quality of the act because if they were not aware of the danger they were putting themselves in by publishing then there can be no heroism.
I think the point is that discussing that link is intellectually infertile, so to speak - it does not contribute anything to a discussion, as every action carries some sort of a risk (as Yi points out, operating a convenience store carries a risk of it being robbed) and allows people like B4 to argue moral or legal culpability.
Woohoo, I have the same poetic associations as Zizek! :showoff:
QuoteUltra-Orthodox Jewish Newspaper Edits Female World Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March
by Tina Nguyen | 1:16 pm, January 12th, 2015
Yesterday's historic march across Paris included over 40 world leaders expressing solidarity for France after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but if you read this Haredi newspaper, you'd believe that none of them were women.
The image that ran on the front page of the Israeli newspaper The Announcer edited two female world leaders out of the image, originally provided by wire service GPO: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. A third woman in a blue scarf who we can't identify was also photoshopped out.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.mediaite.com%2Fmed%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Fparis-leader-march-large.jpg&hash=0947480eebc36513a096f4e1298d6659cd9e6c02)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.mediaite.com%2Fmed%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Fharedi-paper.jpg&hash=e68002da4f31782033682644bb2621940d7049b0)
:lmfao:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.444.hu%2Ftumblr_ni3he0SK2T1t2kyqeo1_1280.jpg&hash=8d0cd024ce1072d1a297784d12a4a18ec1ef6417)
What's the issue here?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 07:20:14 AM
What's the issue here?
Cynical people don't actually know what crowds look like from above.
Quote from: Warspite on January 13, 2015, 08:12:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 07:20:14 AM
What's the issue here?
Cynical people don't actually know what crowds look like from above.
Typically they don't look like a hundred bigwigs who are cordoned off from the masses by security.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 13, 2015, 08:17:54 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 13, 2015, 08:12:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 07:20:14 AM
What's the issue here?
Cynical people don't actually know what crowds look like from above.
Typically they don't look like a hundred bigwigs who are cordoned off from the masses by security.
And nothing suggests that the bigwigs thought it looked like they walked with the rest of the masses as they walked a completely different route. Besides there were aerial cams that filmed it all live so there really is no issue.
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2015, 01:38:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 12, 2015, 05:52:51 PM
I don't know, I think it's a basic test of being able to function in society. If what someone says, no matter what it is, is considered justification to kill then you don't make the cut. As horrible as this tragedy is it's better to have agitators like CH then to stay quiet and build up a thin skinned population that is likely to become extremely dangerous on a flimsy pretext.
What proof do we have that having agitators prevents this thin skinned population? :yeahright:
Because social exposure to something increases tolerance to it. That's the entire premise behind LGBT movement, for example.
:huh:
In the case of the LGBT movement, social exposure is used as a way of combating negative preconceived notions that people may hold of gay people. It uses the premise that if people see more out, gay people (more that are their family and friends), they are more likely to see how gay people are similar to them and less likely to hold onto simplistic views like gay people are disgusting perverts (Neil notwithstanding).
I don't see how that would work in the case of these cartoons, as it seems to me that repeated exposure would just confirm perceptions that they are puerile and offensive (with little to redeem them).
Also, as an aside, I don't really think we want people making more shitty cartoons. :P
Quote from: Liep on January 13, 2015, 08:33:12 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 13, 2015, 08:17:54 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 13, 2015, 08:12:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 07:20:14 AM
What's the issue here?
Cynical people don't actually know what crowds look like from above.
Typically they don't look like a hundred bigwigs who are cordoned off from the masses by security.
And nothing suggests that the bigwigs thought it looked like they walked with the rest of the masses as they walked a completely different route. Besides there were aerial cams that filmed it all live so there really is no issue.
Yeah, seriously, did anyone think that dozens of world leaders would just be let out into a crowd? Complaining about such photo-ops is like complaining that German officers in American movies speak accented English. Yeah, they would speak German in real life, but in real life they wouldn't let anyone film them while they discussed secret evil plans.
Specially for Ed Anger: Daily Mail:
QuoteMoroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV
The Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam has said Muslim immigrants who do not appreciate the way of life in Western civilisations can 'f*** off'.
Ahmed Aboutaleb, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 15, spoke out in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last week.
Appearing on live television just hours after the shootings, Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who 'do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave'.
Labour politician Ahmed Aboutaleb, a former journalist who was appointed mayor of the Dutch city in 2008, is known for his straight-forward stance on integration.
The 53-year-old won the praise of London-mayor Boris Johnson over his comments last week, attacking fellow Muslims who move to Western nations and refuse to accept the way of life.
'It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,' Mayor Aboutaleb told Dutch current affairs program Nieuwsuur (Newshour).
'But if you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake pack your bags and leave.
'If you do not like it here because some humorists you don't like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.
This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at'.
'My hero': London Mayor Boris Johnson said Aboutaleb was 'straight to the point'
Mayor Aboutaleb grew up the son of an imam in northern Morocco, but moved to the Netherlands in 1976.
After working as a reporter he became a civil servant before being appointed State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment in 2007.
When he was appointed mayor of Rotterdam, the second largest city in the country with a population of more than 610,000, he became the first immigrant in such a position in the Netherlands.
Mayor Aboutaleb, who represents the Dutch Labour Party, de Partij van de Arbeid, has long had a no-nonsense approach to immigration and integration.
Speaking to the Observer shortly after his appointment he said his message to immigrants is 'stop seeing yourself as victims, and if you don't want to integrate, leave'.
This week, London Mayor Boris Johnson hailed Mayor Aboutaleb as his 'hero' and 'straight to the point'.
'That is the voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire,' Mr Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph.
'If we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear - and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice.'
:worthy:
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2015, 10:30:52 AM
Specially for Ed Anger: Daily Mail:
The next question is: which football jersey to get? Sparta, Feyenoord or Excelsior?
Well said Mr Mayor :cool:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2015, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2015, 10:30:52 AM
Specially for Ed Anger: Daily Mail:
The next question is: which football jersey to get? Sparta, Feyenoord or Excelsior?
FC Twente
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2015, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 13, 2015, 10:43:28 AM
FC Twente
That ain't Rotterdam.
It is too early for me to do research. So I picked the dutch club that has an partnership with the Dayton Dutch Lions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
Why are we having this discussion?
It is ok to be critical and even blasphemous of christians and jews, but not ok of doing the same about muslims because they would come and... kill you?
Freedom of religion does not include forcing people to observe whatever religion you happen to follow. How ridicoulous would be of me to force everybody in Languish to circuncise and observe Shabbat, but is it ok to force people to have special treatment for Mohammed?
How many movies are out there that show mohammed?
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2015, 11:30:12 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here? They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen. That is why more protection was provided to them. That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway. I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication. But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.
Why are we having this discussion?
It is ok to be critical and even blasphemous of christians and jews, but not ok of doing the same about muslims because they would come and... kill you?
Freedom of religion does not include forcing people to observe whatever religion you happen to follow. How ridicoulous would be of me to force everybody in Languish to circuncise and observe Shabbat, but is it ok to force people to have special treatment for Mohammed?
How many movies are out there that show mohammed?
:cheers:
Bottom line, freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.
Muslims have no right to force their observance of Mohammed on the rest of us.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 07:20:14 AM
What's the issue here?
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10917335_10203644783662666_8553846858353014324_n.jpg?oh=0c39fc8c42e39f90f5c984455033b9ec&oe=55209F48)
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2015, 11:30:12 AM
Why are we having this discussion?
Because people get to talk about thing which even you disagree with.
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2015, 11:30:12 AM
How ridicoulous would be of me to force everybody in Languish to circuncise and observe Shabbat,
Yet you force us to watch you type shitfaced until you pass out in a pool of your own Zima vomit.
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
I like ketchup and mustard on hot dogs, as well as onions and relish, and chili and cheese, and whatnot. Because I believe there is room under the big hot dog tent for all condiments, regardless of their color.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Agreed it is the most disturbing revelation of character to date. And Marti has been back posting for some time now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2015, 12:01:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
I like ketchup and mustard on hot dogs, as well as onions and relish, and chili and cheese, and whatnot. Because I believe there is room under the big hot dog tent for all condiments, regardless of their color.
Is this supposed to be some kind of allegorical message about kinky sex and racial equality?
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2015, 12:24:41 PM
Is this supposed to be some kind of allegorical message about kinky sex and racial equality?
Go smell some rubbing alcohol and wake up in nothing but pasties and wingtips somewhere in Saskatchewan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2015, 12:29:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2015, 12:24:41 PM
Is this supposed to be some kind of allegorical message about kinky sex and racial equality?
Go smell some rubbing alcohol and wake up in nothing but pasties and wingtips somewhere in Saskatchewan.
I hope you mean indoors. Sleeping in pasties and wingtips outdoors in Saskatchewan this time of year could be fatal.
I don't know what is pasties and wingtips.
I assume it is some Seedy slang for black people and gays.
Yeah, Siege. Blacks and gays.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Ketchup - or at least the over-sweetened Heinz variety that you get everywhere, is an abomination and has no place on food for grownups.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2015, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Ketchup - or at least the over-sweetened Heinz variety that you get everywhere, is an abomination and has no place on food for grownups.
:rolleyes:
Though I prefer Hunt's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2015, 09:53:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2015, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 08:31:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2015, 08:29:36 PM
Grumbler probably has the butteriest keyboard in America.
He should watch his salt and cholesterol intake. I would not want to be culpable in his untimely demise if he didn't.
People who would put butter on popcorn would put catchup on a hot dog. :yuk:
You are one of those snobs. :yuk:
:yeah:
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2015, 12:25:18 AM
In my fridge I have 5 different kinds of ketchup and 3 different kinds of catsup.
Case: rested. :contract:
This business about ketchup on hot dogs is a affront to the memory of the deceased journalists, to all of France, and indeed to civilization.
The only condiment that properly belongs on a hot dog is whole grain mustard, either from Dijon or Meaux (Pommery). If proper brands of whole grain are unavailable due to the deplorable state of culinary understanding in your local area, than a proper brand of smooth but spicy mustard (such as that served at Papaya King) is a barely acceptable substitute.
The placement of ketchup, catsup, or any red colored saucy like substance on a hot dog is an abomination even worse than referring to sparking wine produced outside of Champagne, as "champagne" and likewise is a mark of irremediable barbarity and uncouthness.
Hear, hear.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2015, 01:47:00 PM
This business about ketchup on hot dogs is a affront to the memory of the deceased journalists, to all of France, and indeed to civilization.
The only condiment that properly belongs on a hot dog is whole grain mustard, either from Dijon or Meaux (Pommery). If proper brands of whole grain are unavailable due to the deplorable state of culinary understanding in your local area, than a proper brand of smooth but spicy mustard (such as that served at Papaya King) is a barely acceptable substitute.
The placement of ketchup, catsup, or any red colored saucy like substance on a hot dog is an abomination even worse than referring to sparking wine produced outside of Champagne, as "champagne" and likewise is a mark of irremediable barbarity and uncouthness.
I think it is time for you to leave America, commie. :blurgh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2015, 01:47:00 PM
This business about ketchup on hot dogs is a affront to the memory of the deceased journalists, to all of France, and indeed to civilization.
The only condiment that properly belongs on a hot dog is whole grain mustard, either from Dijon or Meaux (Pommery). If proper brands of whole grain are unavailable due to the deplorable state of culinary understanding in your local area, than a proper brand of smooth but spicy mustard (such as that served at Papaya King) is a barely acceptable substitute.
The placement of ketchup, catsup, or any red colored saucy like substance on a hot dog is an abomination even worse than referring to sparking wine produced outside of Champagne, as "champagne" and likewise is a mark of irremediable barbarity and uncouthness.
:o
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Good try diverting the attention from you.
The most disturbing thing in this thread is your 180 degree turning against all the principles of freedom that we all thought you represented and held dear to your treacherous heart. Very disappointed.
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2015, 01:52:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Good try diverting the attention from you.
The most disturbing thing in this thread is your 180 degree turning against all the principles of freedom that we all thought you represented and held dear to your treacherous heart. Very disappointed.
:lmfao:
I will state my position on this anytime you like.
Get a sense of humor you fucking brainwashed non-naturalized unAmerican conspiracy thinking unimaginative fucktard. My sun doesn't rise and shine off what people think of me here. Let alone you.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 02:01:41 PM
My sun doesn't rise and shine off what people think of me here.
Mine does. :cry:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
If I were world dictator, I'd ban ketchup. Never in the history of humanity as something so outrageous been produced. Beurk.
Quote from: viper37 on January 13, 2015, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
If I were world dictator, I'd ban ketchup. Never in the history of humanity as something so outrageous been produced. Beurk.
You don't have to eat it, if you don't want to. :huh:
Quote from: viper37 on January 13, 2015, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
If I were world dictator, I'd ban ketchup. Never in the history of humanity as something so outrageous been produced. Beurk.
So much Ketchup hate. :(
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2015, 02:20:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 13, 2015, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
If I were world dictator, I'd ban ketchup. Never in the history of humanity as something so outrageous been produced. Beurk.
You don't have to eat it, if you don't want to. :huh:
True that is your right.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2015, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Ketchup - or at least the over-sweetened Heinz variety that you get everywhere, is an abomination and has no place on food for grownups.
See, this is the Canadian spirit. People know their food in this country. Before BB, I had lost hope on my Canadian brothers (&sisters), but it seems not everyone's greatest culinar experience in this country involved Tim Hortons. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2015, 01:47:00 PM
This business about ketchup on hot dogs is a affront to the memory of the deceased journalists, to all of France, and indeed to civilization.
The only condiment that properly belongs on a hot dog is whole grain mustard, either from Dijon or Meaux (Pommery). If proper brands of whole grain are unavailable due to the deplorable state of culinary understanding in your local area, than a proper brand of smooth but spicy mustard (such as that served at Papaya King) is a barely acceptable substitute.
The placement of ketchup, catsup, or any red colored saucy like substance on a hot dog is an abomination even worse than referring to sparking wine produced outside of Champagne, as "champagne" and likewise is a mark of irremediable barbarity and uncouthness.
mustard and relish. Ideally, dijon, but regular stuff can do too.
Once again, Languishites proves their superiority to the rest of the world.
By the way, the US government also got grilled by Jon Stewart for not attending. I guess it's the first time ever he and Fox News agreed on something. :D
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2015, 02:39:41 PM
By the way, the US government also got grilled by Jon Stewart for not attending. I guess it's the first time ever he and Fox News agreed on something. :D
I missed that.
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2015, 02:20:23 PM
You don't have to eat it, if you don't want to. :huh:
McDonald's gives free keptchup with fries but charges 0,50$ for BBQ sauce :mad:
Someone must stop this insanity!
;)
Quote from: viper37 on January 13, 2015, 02:21:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2015, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Ketchup - or at least the over-sweetened Heinz variety that you get everywhere, is an abomination and has no place on food for grownups.
See, this is the Canadian spirit. People know their food in this country. Before BB, I had lost hope on my Canadian brothers (&sisters), but it seems not everyone's greatest culinar experience in this country involved Tim Hortons. :)
You know, the idea of a tomato-based condiment is a good one. I could even see putting it on a hotdog.
But the trouble is with the modern formulations of ketchup on the market. All I can taste is sweet. You might as well be putting syrup on your food as use ketchup.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2015, 03:00:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 13, 2015, 02:21:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2015, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
Ketchup - or at least the over-sweetened Heinz variety that you get everywhere, is an abomination and has no place on food for grownups.
See, this is the Canadian spirit. People know their food in this country. Before BB, I had lost hope on my Canadian brothers (&sisters), but it seems not everyone's greatest culinar experience in this country involved Tim Hortons. :)
You know, the idea of a tomato-based condiment is a good one. I could even see putting it on a hotdog.
But the trouble is with the modern formulations of ketchup on the market. All I can taste is sweet. You might as well be putting syrup on your food as use ketchup.
Yeah I just made some 'pizza sauce' and the sweetest thing that went into it was a small onion, oh and I guess a pinch of basil might be considered 'sweet' by some.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2015, 01:47:00 PM
This business about ketchup on hot dogs is a affront to the memory of the deceased journalists, to all of France, and indeed to civilization.
The only condiment that properly belongs on a hot dog is whole grain mustard, either from Dijon or Meaux (Pommery). If proper brands of whole grain are unavailable due to the deplorable state of culinary understanding in your local area, than a proper brand of smooth but spicy mustard (such as that served at Papaya King) is a barely acceptable substitute.
The placement of ketchup, catsup, or any red colored saucy like substance on a hot dog is an abomination even worse than referring to sparking wine produced outside of Champagne, as "champagne" and likewise is a mark of irremediable barbarity and uncouthness.
When terrorists attacks Kraft 'Foods' inc HQ, I guess we'll know who was behind it.
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2015, 02:39:41 PM
By the way, the US government also got grilled by Jon Stewart for not attending. I guess it's the first time ever he and Fox News agreed on something. :D
I'm pretty sure the French will get over it, and that the non-stop intelligence sharing and cooperation that has been going on behind the scenes since the day of the attack is appreciated more.
I would never put ketchup on any food (except hotdogs) but I defend the right of others to make that mistake. However the line is crossed by eating hotdogs without ketchup. It is not only an affront to good taste, it is an assault on our very way of life. JR and his followers have just declared war on the West. We must root them out by all means possible.
Quote from: viper37 on January 13, 2015, 02:59:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2015, 02:20:23 PM
You don't have to eat it, if you don't want to. :huh:
McDonald's gives free keptchup with fries but charges 0,50$ for BBQ sauce :mad:
Someone must stop this insanity!
;)
I always liked their buffalo and hot mustard sauce with their chicken compost nuggets.
If you order a "dead indian in a canoe with blood, shit and vomit" it'll get you the common Danish serving of a hotdog which includes ketchup, mustard, roasted onions and pickled cucumber.
Eat it with a "Congolese beer" (ie. cocoa).
Might be racist, but it's good.
I always thought that you were a bunch of godless heretics for thinking that Heinz is too sweet but ever since I've stopped drinking Coca-cola and Pepsi, I've started to see(taste) what you guys are talking about.
Don't order Negro Sweat in Sweden. People will know what you mean but it is a socially unacceptable choice of words.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 03:32:19 PM
I always thought that you were a bunch of godless heretics for thinking that Heinz is too sweet but ever since I've stopped drinking Coca-cola and Pepsi, I've started to see(taste) what you guys are talking about.
My intake of those types of drinks are near zero. Very bad for ya.
It took 4 years but I went from a 6-pack a day to 0.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 03:32:19 PM
I always thought that you were a bunch of godless heretics for thinking that Heinz is too sweet but ever since I've stopped drinking Coca-cola and Pepsi, I've started to see(taste) what you guys are talking about.
:yes:
Now let me tell you about Edmund Burke...
:lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2015, 03:32:19 PM
I always thought that you were a bunch of godless heretics for thinking that Heinz is too sweet but ever since I've stopped drinking Coca-cola and Pepsi, I've started to see(taste) what you guys are talking about.
My intake of those types of drinks are near zero.
Same.
Coke Zero. :yuk:
Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2015, 03:43:52 PM
Coke Zero. :yuk:
I think it is the best diet soda to approximate the full figured one. But no, I generally don't drink that either.
Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2015, 03:14:10 PM
When terrorists attacks Kraft 'Foods' inc HQ, I guess we'll know who was behind it.
Nonsense. I firmly oppose the use of violence in this context. Icy disdain accompanied by commanding hauteur is the proper weapon of choice.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2015, 03:15:52 PM
I would never put ketchup on any food (except hotdogs) but I defend the right of others to make that mistake. However the line is crossed by eating hotdogs without ketchup. It is not only an affront to good taste, it is an assault on our very way of life. JR and his followers have just declared war on the West. We must root them out by all means possible.
And you, sir, have proven yourself the fellow traveler, the enabler, the veritable useful idiot of the ketchup slathering conspiracy. For you have just enough wisdom to recognize the error, and yet then proceed to lead into innermost sanctums of good taste your catsuppy sausages, like a Trojan Horse filled with rancid red condiment, ready to be sprung on unsuspecting innocents.
Better dead than red.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2015, 05:59:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2015, 03:14:10 PM
When terrorists attacks Kraft 'Foods' inc HQ, I guess we'll know who was behind it.
Nonsense. I firmly oppose the use of violence in this context. Icy disdain accompanied by commanding hauteur is the proper weapon of choice.
That probably would have been better tool in the charlie incident.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2015, 05:59:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2015, 03:14:10 PM
When terrorists attacks Kraft 'Foods' inc HQ, I guess we'll know who was behind it.
Nonsense. I firmly oppose the use of violence in this context. Icy disdain accompanied by commanding hauteur is the proper weapon of choice.
That probably would have been better tool in the charlie incident.
Maybe though I've not seen french-speakers to respond well when given a dose of their own medicine.
On CNN the chair of the House Intel Committee said "it is his understanding" that one of the Hebdo shooters was in Yemen, where he was a roommate of the underwear bomber, the US informed France of this, who then kept him under surveillance for 4 years, and just lifted the surveillance 6 months ago because of lack of activity on his part.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:46:06 AM
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10917335_10203644783662666_8553846858353014324_n.jpg?oh=0c39fc8c42e39f90f5c984455033b9ec&oe=55209F48)
Can't. Look. Away.
That is GangstaKitty every night. Seedy is the dog.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
The most disturbing thing in this thread is Grumbler's aversion to ketchup on hot dogs. The ramifications of this is monstrous and disturbing. That's like nachos with no cheese. Spaghetti with no noodles. Or combination pizza with no cheese where all the delicious toppings just roll around in the box.
I'm not a fan of ketchup on anything. I prefer Mustard, Mayonnaise or French Dressing as my condiments of choice.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2015, 09:20:19 PM
I prefer Mustard, Mayonnaise or French Dressing as my condiments of choice.
Not salsa? :(
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2015, 06:11:35 PM
Maybe though I've not seen french-speakers to respond well when given a dose of their own medicine.
Well, if they are martyred by a cartoonist they accomplish their goal.
Tamas' picture is at least better than this front page, which looks like the end of the world's worst romcom:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7GaXTkIQAMx5EA.jpg)
Worst...or best?
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
Well, that's Vall and Hollande for you, they hold a grudge against this comedian with a history of antisemitic trolling, best ignored as under Sarkozy, (quenelle is not a big issue IMO), so they exploit the situation for political purposes. This most unpopular government has a justice minister who tried to ban a book because it spoke in detail about the intra-african and oriental (turco-arab) slave trade. So yes, this government is no friend of freedom of expression, but they only represent themselves, until the next election.
Besides, they only opened an investigation, Dieudonné has not been arrested yet, Dieudonné has been sued a lot of the times and at worst got fines, mostly for tax reasons (tax dodging).
edit: checking from French sources they really placed Dieudonné in custody. It's nice to see where this government's priorities are :rolleyes:
This is in fact an irony - the US is probably the country with the broadest freedom of speech (although I am not sure what the situation is now with various anti-terrorism and anti-bullying laws), and yet noone attended the march - whereas pretty much every leader marching there came from a country where you can get jailed for saying certain things. And it's not just Saudi Arabia or Turkey (which both sent a high ranking official) but Poland (where you can get jailed for "offending religious sensibilities" aka "blasphemy").
We are also on the other side of the world.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2015, 07:18:36 AM
We are also on the other side of the world.
I didn't mean it as a blame, more like a genuine irony.
It's ironic we're on the other side of the world.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2015, 07:18:36 AM
We are also on the other side of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_hgSBOA1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_hgSBOA1o)
:lol:
The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo had people lining up for it and was completely sold out.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 09:46:33 AM
:lol:
The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo had people lining up for it and was completely sold out.
Shareholders and creditors of failing magazines everywhere are taking note ... :hmm: :P
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 09:46:33 AM
:lol:
The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo had people lining up for it and was completely sold out.
It usually has a 60k run, apparently they printed 5 millions this week. I'd buy one.
Buzzfeed had that 700k sold out today and that they are planning print run of 5 mil (originally had been 3 mil for this issue)
Do they have an English language version?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2015, 09:58:13 AM
Do they have an English language version?
Yes, it's out in English and something like 8 other languages too. I don't know if it'll be distributed in America, but you can buy it on ebay!
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2015, 09:58:13 AM
Do they have an English language version?
Yes, it's out in English and something like 8 other languages too. I don't know if it'll be distributed in America, but you can buy it on ebay!
It is probably not too difficult to BT a free copy.
I wonder if this will translate into a revived circulation, long-term, or if it is a one-time thing.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 14, 2015, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2015, 09:58:13 AM
Do they have an English language version?
Yes, it's out in English and something like 8 other languages too. I don't know if it'll be distributed in America, but you can buy it on ebay!
It is probably not too difficult to BT a free copy.
I think people are mostly interested in showing their support. Hard to say that you've done that if you pirated it. :D
Did Turkey's PM discuss this with Hollande at Sunday's march? :P
http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2015/01/14/turkey-court-orders-block-on-websites-with-charlie-hebdo-cover
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 03:51:17 AM
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
... but... but... satire? Free speech?
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2015, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 03:51:17 AM
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
... but... but... satire? Free speech?
So much for free speech. Now Obama has a real reason for not sending Lurch.
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 03:51:17 AM
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
One would think it would be the defenders of free speech who would think this a bit hypocritical. Freedom of speech haters would likely applaud silencing speech not deemed to be acceptable.
Meanwhile, back at the villians' hideout...
QuoteFrosty fatwa: Saudi cleric bans snowmen
Washington Post
Do you want to build a snowman? You'd love to? Well, that's too bad — at least according to Saudi Arabia's Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid, a prominent cleric.
With snow covering the highland areas of Tabuk province in Saudi Arabia, there's not much else to do with the fluffy white stuff other than build snowmen and snow camels.
But with photos of snowpeople and snow camels popping up everywhere, Munajjid made it clear that Islamic teachings strictly prohibit the practice.
Asked whether the unusually snowy winter in Saudi Arabia meant that parents could build snowmen with their children, Munajjid delivered the bad news.
"It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun," Munajjid wrote on his Web site, according to Reuters.
He also pointed out that making images of humans and animals — anything with a "soul" — is strictly off-limits.
"God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on," he added.
If you think that sounds slightly depressing, you're not alone.
"We have snow for fleeting days, maybe even hours, and there is always someone who wants to rob us of the joy and the fun," wrote a blogger identified by Gulf News as Mishaal. "It seems that the only thing left for us is to sit down and drink coffee."
But Munajjid has his supporters.
"It [building snowmen] is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," wrote one person, according to Reuters.
In the wake of the raucous debate on social media sparked by his fatwa, Munajjid weighed in again and walked back his comments — sort of.
On Twitter, Munajjid noted that snow objects can be made, so long as they don't have human or animal features. Specifically, a model with no head and obliterated features is perfectly fine.
"The model should be like the scarecrow with no features sculpted into the face that is used by farmers to scare away birds," he wrote, according to Gulf News. "It could also be similar to some shapes that are used to warn people about roadworks. There is no problem with the shapes that children build since children need to play and to have fun, especially in areas where snowfall is scarce."
And for those who were wondering, the prohibitions also apply to gingerbread men and other human-shaped winter treats.
"The ban, condoned by religious scholars, also covers models of people and animals made of sweets and paste, not just snow, if their facial features are clearly sculpted," Munajjid added. "This means that if the model has no head or the facial features are obliterated, then there is no ban on it."
Sounds like a blast.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 12:14:42 PM
Meanwhile, back at the villians' hideout...
QuoteFrosty fatwa: Saudi cleric bans snowmen
Washington Post
Do you want to build a snowman? You'd love to? Well, that's too bad — at least according to Saudi Arabia's Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid, a prominent cleric.
With snow covering the highland areas of Tabuk province in Saudi Arabia, there's not much else to do with the fluffy white stuff other than build snowmen and snow camels.
But with photos of snowpeople and snow camels popping up everywhere, Munajjid made it clear that Islamic teachings strictly prohibit the practice.
Asked whether the unusually snowy winter in Saudi Arabia meant that parents could build snowmen with their children, Munajjid delivered the bad news.
"It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun," Munajjid wrote on his Web site, according to Reuters.
He also pointed out that making images of humans and animals — anything with a "soul" — is strictly off-limits.
"God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on," he added.
If you think that sounds slightly depressing, you're not alone.
"We have snow for fleeting days, maybe even hours, and there is always someone who wants to rob us of the joy and the fun," wrote a blogger identified by Gulf News as Mishaal. "It seems that the only thing left for us is to sit down and drink coffee."
But Munajjid has his supporters.
"It [building snowmen] is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," wrote one person, according to Reuters.
In the wake of the raucous debate on social media sparked by his fatwa, Munajjid weighed in again and walked back his comments — sort of.
On Twitter, Munajjid noted that snow objects can be made, so long as they don't have human or animal features. Specifically, a model with no head and obliterated features is perfectly fine.
"The model should be like the scarecrow with no features sculpted into the face that is used by farmers to scare away birds," he wrote, according to Gulf News. "It could also be similar to some shapes that are used to warn people about roadworks. There is no problem with the shapes that children build since children need to play and to have fun, especially in areas where snowfall is scarce."
And for those who were wondering, the prohibitions also apply to gingerbread men and other human-shaped winter treats.
"The ban, condoned by religious scholars, also covers models of people and animals made of sweets and paste, not just snow, if their facial features are clearly sculpted," Munajjid added. "This means that if the model has no head or the facial features are obliterated, then there is no ban on it."
Sounds like a blast.
Does that mean gingerbread men are out.??? :(
QuoteAnd for those who were wondering, the prohibitions also apply to gingerbread men and other human-shaped winter treats.
I never knew Saudi Arabia had a place where it snows.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 12:08:48 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 03:51:17 AM
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
One would think it would be the defenders of free speech who would think this a bit hypocritical. Freedom of speech haters would likely applaud silencing speech not deemed to be acceptable.
Oh yes, them too. But guys like Ahmadinejad and such has never failed an opportunity to point out when the West doesn't live up to the West's own high standards.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 14, 2015, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2015, 09:58:13 AM
Do they have an English language version?
Yes, it's out in English and something like 8 other languages too. I don't know if it'll be distributed in America, but you can buy it on ebay!
It is probably not too difficult to BT a free copy.
I think people are mostly interested in showing their support. Hard to say that you've done that if you pirated it. :D
Yeah it's like pirating the Interview. You have bad taste AND help the terrorists win.
Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2015, 09:58:13 AM
Do they have an English language version?
Yes, it's out in English and something like 8 other languages too. I don't know if it'll be distributed in America, but you can buy it on ebay!
i'd buy it in Arabic
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 12:36:26 PM
Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?
I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?
Touchy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 12:08:48 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 03:51:17 AM
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
One would think it would be the defenders of free speech who would think this a bit hypocritical. Freedom of speech haters would likely applaud silencing speech not deemed to be acceptable.
Well, I don't like it. As I said already, most of the leaders who were at the march come from countries which limit free speech.
Quote"We have snow for fleeting days, maybe even hours, and there is always someone who wants to rob us of the joy and the fun," wrote a blogger identified by Gulf News as Mishaal. "It seems that the only thing left for us is to sit down and drink coffee."
Looks like someone who wants to get their 1,000 lashes. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 12:48:26 PM
Touchy.
No doubt.
But CC has a different perspective, what with being a product of a liberal western democratic heritage that, unlike Islam, makes certain cultural allowances, like masturbation and Sadie Hawkins dances.
Quote"The ban, condoned by religious scholars, also covers models of people and animals made of sweets and paste, not just snow, if their facial features are clearly sculpted," Munajjid added. "This means that if the model has no head or the facial features are obliterated, then there is no ban on it."
Maybe their obsession with beheadings is some form of a desperate plea for broader artistic expression that just doesn't translate well to other cultures? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2015, 12:49:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 12:08:48 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 14, 2015, 03:51:17 AM
So the only French comedian I've heard about has been arrested for saying: "Je suis Charlie Coulibaly." Dieudonne seems immediately like a douchebag, but arresting him for that comment might give the freedom of speech haters a reason to call France for hypocrites. :hmm:
EDIT: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor
One would think it would be the defenders of free speech who would think this a bit hypocritical. Freedom of speech haters would likely applaud silencing speech not deemed to be acceptable.
Well, I don't like it. As I said already, most of the leaders who were at the march come from countries which limit free speech.
Yes, you are firmly in the camp of supporting free speech so long as you agree with it.
I meant I don't like France investigating that guy for saying something offensive. :huh:
Now this can't upset anyone.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmultimedia.pol.dk%2Farchive%2F00905%2Fhebdo_tegning_6_905884a.png&hash=88828301dbad86b224499d8df8b324ddb9823df1)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 12:18:12 PM
QuoteAnd for those who were wondering, the prohibitions also apply to gingerbread men and other human-shaped winter treats.
Lol, I read about someone/group in the US wanting to ban gingerbread men because it was sexist, or at least ban the term. Maybe gingerbread person?? :D
Gingerbread? Ugh.
And here is why Jesuits are the best! :pope:
The article, unfortunately in French only:
QuoteLa revue jésuite Etudes publie des caricatures de Charlie Hebdo
Etudes a publié sur son site Internet des caricatures de Charlie Hebdo visant l'Eglise catholique. Une manière de rendre hommage aux victimes de l'attentat et un trait d'humour audacieux de la part d'une revue jésuite.
La rédaction de la revue jésuite Etudes s'est associée à l'hommage aux victimes de l'attentat de Charlie Hebdo en publiant sur son site Internet des caricatures du journal saritique moquant l'Eglise catholique. Un geste fort de la part de la revue jésuite, qui enjoint de "ne pas céder à la peur" et plaide pour "une société plurielle."
Sur les quatres unes reproduites sur le site web d'Etudes, on peut voir le pape Benoît XVI dans les bras d'un garde suisse, avec la mention "Enfin libre", ou encore le pape François accoutré d'un slip à plumes rose, au carnaval de Rio, accompagné de ces mots : "Prêt à tout pour racoler des clients", en référence aux Journées mondiales de la Jeunesse qu'il a présidées en 2013 au Brésil.
"Nous avons fait le choix de mettre en ligne quelques caricatures de Charlie Hebdo qui se rapportent au catholicisme. C'est un signe de force que de pouvoir rire de certains traits de l'institution à laquelle nous appartenons, car c'est une manière de dire que ce à quoi nous sommes attachés est au-delà des formes toujours transitoires et imparfaites" écrit la rédaction. "L'humour dans la foi est un bon antidote au fanatisme et à un esprit de sérieux ayant tendance à tout prendre au pied de la lettre". Chapeau !
Read more at http://www.atlantico.fr/atlantico-light/revue-etudes-publie-caricatures-charlie-hebdo-1951536.html#pj8eretHAHeuCtrG.99
Executive summary:
A Jesuit magazine, "Etudes", publishes these cartoons by Charlie Hebdo:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbi.gazeta.pl%2Fim%2Fcd%2F74%2F10%2Fz17255885Q%2CMagazyn--Etudes--przedrukowal-kilka-z-karykatur--C.jpg&hash=c7f1915fcc05cfafc5609c9326f56523dff352c4)
with this commentary:
Quote"We have decided to put online a few cartoons of Charlie Hebdo that relate to Catholicism. It is a sign of strength to be able to laugh at some institution traits to which we belong, because it is a way to say that what we value is beyond the always transient and imperfect forms. The humor in faith is a good antidote to fanaticism and a spirit of seriousness tend to take everything literally."
Do you know French Marty?
You're more fickle-minded than a 12 year old girl, Marti.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Do you know French Marty?
I studied it for 4 year at high school so can decode text (albeit painstakingly). I used online translate to translate that commentary and simply corrected some errors, though. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 03:30:51 PM
You're more fickle-minded than a 12 year old girl, Marti.
I'm not. I'm just complex. I have always had a soft spot for Catholicism, especially in its Western, enlightened form. If you spent some time listening to what Polish bishops have to say you would understand why I am sometimes so anti-religious.
Plus, in Catholic countries, you never really grow out of it. It's like Diderot and Voltaire - they weren't atheists, they were lapsed Catholics. :P
I just had a realisation that I would love to start learning French again. I couldn't start with a new language (I started German few years ago and just couldn't do it) but going back to French would be cool. Especially as it is such a beautiful language.
Start with duolingo, Marti.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2015, 03:32:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 03:30:51 PM
You're more fickle-minded than a 12 year old girl, Marti.
I'm not. I'm just complex. I have always had a soft spot for Catholicism, especially in its Western, enlightened form. If you spent some time listening to what Polish bishops have to say you would understand why I am sometimes so anti-religious.
Plus, in Catholic countries, you never really grow out of it. It's like Diderot and Voltaire - they weren't atheists, they were lapsed Catholics. :P
Oh, I get that. You wouldn't get so torqued up about it if you didn't have such a deep upbringing in what formally rejects such a fundamental aspect of who you are.
It's not that complex at all, it's actually kinda right out of the standard Catholic homo playbook. :P
Quote from: Zanza on January 14, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
Start with duolingo, Marti.
I've been using that. :)
These Syrian kids are going to be in trouble:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20150114%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1016304743%26amp%3Bw%3D976%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D%26amp%3Bpl%3D%26amp%3Br%3D2015-01-14T200509Z_4_GM1EB1802ZK01_RTRMADP_0_MIDEAST-STORM&hash=936995e69f7d232e7e5dd8da488641ab06a17ca7)
Quote
Syria's refugees in the cold.
Reuters / Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Boys build a snowman during a winter storm in Jabal al-Zawiya, in the southern countryside of Idlib January 7, 2015. REUTERS/Stringer
Somebody's gonna get popped in the head by a Kazakh 15 year old.
Fuck this shit.
Marty speaks French now?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 04:02:39 PM
Somebody's gonna get popped in the head by a Kazakh 15 year old.
Or ambushed with snowballs by Skayt Farkarias.
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2015, 04:09:29 PM
Fuck this shit.
Marty speaks French now?
World just doesn't make sense anymore :(
France on guard:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20150113%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1016034399%26amp%3Bw%3D976%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D%26amp%3Bpl%3D%26amp%3Br%3D2015-01-13T210729Z_4_PM1EB1D12PI01_RTRMADP_0_FRANCE-SHOOTING&hash=37376fdb009a09f77bc50640b28a003f59e9973a)
Quote
Reuters / Tuesday, January 13, 2015
French soldiers prepare their equipment at the Satory military base, near Paris, as part of the highest level of "Vigipirate" security plan after last week's Islamic militants attacks, January 13, 2015. REUTERS/Charles Platiau
Meanwhile on the exact same news page, when the French and West gave into the threat of Islamic extremists:
Dakar crash
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20150113%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1016059201%26amp%3Bw%3D976%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D%26amp%3Bpl%3D%26amp%3Br%3D2015-01-13T232513Z_2_GM1EB1B0JE901_RTRMADP_0_RALLYING-DAKAR&hash=af2c4f76f25a55d0ed8c47e6d3bd1e45ab27b17a)
Quote
Reuters / Saturday, January 10, 2015
Argentine Juan Manuel Silva and Pablo Sisterna crash and roll their Mercedes car during the 7th stage of the Dakar Rally from Iquique to Uyuni, January 10, 2015. REUTERS/Daniel Rodrigo
Meanwhile back at the hospital's day room...
Texas gun rights group reenacts Paris massacre with 'armed civilian' — and everyone still dies
QuoteGun Owners Participate In Simulation Of Paris Massacre
January 13, 2015 9:00 PM
PLANO (CBSDFW.COM) – A group called The Truth About Guns organized a simulation of last week's terrorist attack in Paris. They hoped to learn how things may have played out differently at Charlie Hebdo, or any other mass shooting.
"It's the one people are Monday morning quarterbacking at the moment," said group member Nick Leghorn. "It's interesting to see how people react under stress. It's not what you'd expect people do."
Volunteers took turns on a set designed to look like the offices of the French satirical weekly magazine. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, volunteers played the role of armed civilian.
"He started shooting – and I started shooting," said volunteer Linda Cruz.
Time and time again, the armed civilian "dies" – shot by a round that marks him or her with paint.
In only two cases volunteers were able to take out one of two gunmen in the process.
"Still got killed but did better than I thought I would," said father of four, Parks Matthew. He was curious to see what protective instincts may kick in.
"If I'm in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do? I know now I'm not gonna just fall on my kids and protect them, I need to advance on the threat," said Matthew.
Twelve volunteers participated in the exercise. Only one survived after running away. No one was able to take out both shooters.
Your live, local, late-breaking News You Can Use piece on the local CBS affiliate--
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/01/13/gun-owners-participate-in-simulation-of-paris-massacre/
Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference. :)
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2015, 04:09:29 PM
Fuck this shit.
Marty speaks French now?
Apparently not.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2015, 03:36:35 PM
I just had a realisation that I would love to start learning French again. I couldn't start with a new language (I started German few years ago and just couldn't do it) but going back to French would be cool. Especially as it is such a beautiful language.
German's weird with me. I hear people speak it, and these days I'm starting to get the gist of what they are trying to say. It's like putting together a heavily accented English.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 05:33:18 PM
Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference. :)
Well, duh. To think that untrained civilians would stand much of a chance against a gunman is a fantastical daydream, not reality. The gunman knows he'll be shooting people that day, the civilian doesn't. When you balance it against the increased risk of death from various causes that always follows the presence of guns, the policy of Afghanistaning civilians doesn't make any sense. Then again, few pro-gun arguments do, and none of them are utilitarian or pragmatic.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2015, 06:00:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 05:33:18 PM
Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference. :)
Well, duh. To think that untrained civilians would stand much of a chance against a gunman is a fantastical daydream, not reality. The gunman knows he'll be shooting people that day, the civilian doesn't. When you balance it against the increased risk of death from various causes that always follows the presence of guns, the policy of Afghanistaning civilians doesn't make any sense. Then again, few pro-gun arguments do, and none of them are utilitarian or pragmatic.
I didn't mean to suggest that it was a surprise - just that they inadvertently created evidence to harm their cause.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 04:02:39 PM
Somebody's gonna get popped in the head by a Kazakh 15 year old.
That kid looked ten. He was barely taller than the waist of the guy he was standing next to.
Shame on Channel 4 news for leading with the CH story, but not even showing a 1-2 second still of today's front cover.
Later on in the news programme viewers are 'warned' -
"My report begins with pictures of them buying the magazine."
:hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 12:41:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 12:36:26 PM
Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?
I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?
In fairness to Yi, the WP article Seedy posted does have a quote from a Muslim saying that building snowmen "promotes lustiness and eroticism".
If you're saying that you think building snowmen is erotic, I think it's fair to ask if there is anything you don't find erotic.
I'd also suggest that you're a pervert, and the problem is you, not the snowmen.
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2015, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 12:41:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 12:36:26 PM
Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?
I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?
In fairness to Yi, the WP article Seedy posted does have a quote from a Muslim saying that building snowmen "promotes lustiness and eroticism".
If you're saying that you think building snowmen is erotic, I think it's fair to ask if there is anything you don't find erotic.
I'd also suggest that you're a pervert, and the problem is you, not the snowmen.
Sure but he should be calling out the idiocy of the statement. Not a whole religious group simply because the person who made the silly statement is also part of that group. When a Christian says something stupid you won't catch Yi generalizing to all Christians. Probably because he knows a lot of Christians that wouldn't appropriately be described in that way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2015, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2015, 12:41:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 12:36:26 PM
Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?
I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?
In fairness to Yi, the WP article Seedy posted does have a quote from a Muslim saying that building snowmen "promotes lustiness and eroticism".
If you're saying that you think building snowmen is erotic, I think it's fair to ask if there is anything you don't find erotic.
I'd also suggest that you're a pervert, and the problem is you, not the snowmen.
Sure but he should be calling out the idiocy of the statement. Not a whole religious group simply because the person who made the silly statement is also part of that group. When a Christian says something stupid you won't catch Yi generalizing to all Christians. Probably because he knows a lot of Christians that wouldn't appropriately be described in that way.
Fair enough. Yi might have also missed the fact that that particular quote wasn't from the cleric who issued the ruling, but from a random reply on his website. As I read it, the cleric was more concerned about idolatry than eroticism. Not that I don't find the idea that someone building a snowman is then going to worship it a bit strange.
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Interesting BBC panarama programme about the coming fight within the British Muslim community over it's direction and moderate Muslims talk about the spread of extremism with the community. Well worth seeing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Yes it does.
I think with his previous outburst, some of those were contrary to Frances anti-Semitism laws and so it's understandable that conviction was sought, but as you say this new instance looks hypocritical.
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2015, 09:30:11 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Yes it does.
I think with his previous outburst, some of those were contrary to Frances anti-Semitism laws and so it's understandable that conviction was sought, but as you say this new instance looks hypocritical.
Just having anti-Semitism laws or hate speech laws is hypocritical if you want to promote free speech.
I remember threads in which Euros were shocked that under American law, the truth of a slander or libel is an absolute defense, while I was shocked to learn that in (most? all?) European countries that's not the case. Geez, that was one of the bedrocks of our conception of free speech while we were still British colonies.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Yep. Alas, je suis Dieudonne :(
Incidentally on US papers/news sources publishing the pictures I totally agree with this by the NYT public editor:
QuoteWith New Charlie Hebdo Cover, News Value Should Have Prevailed
By MARGARET SULLIVAN JANUARY 14, 2015 8:00 AM January 14, 2015 8:00 am 713 Comments
Readers responded passionately, and in large numbers, to my post last week about The Times's decision not to publish the now-famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. (In fact, I've never had more comments on a post or column.)
A vast majority of readers were critical of The Times's decision, feeling strongly that both because of news value and in order to reinforce free speech and show solidarity with a publication under attack, The Times should have published them.
Just Monday, a new decision came along and The Times stayed with its earlier determination, showing no image of the new cover of Charlie Hebdo, which features a tearful Muhammad, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign, with a tagline that says "All is forgiven." Instead, a Times article described the cover image and linked to an article that showed the cover illustration.
But that's of little help to the print readers, who — if their only news source was The Times — could have gone through this whole tumultuous week without much sense of what the offending cartoons look like. That does them a disservice.
I can understand why The Times would not have published "the most incendiary images," as the executive editor, Dean Baquet, described them last week. He felt those extreme cartoons would not have been necessary to illustrate the story about the terrorist attack that killed eight members of the satirical newspaper's staff. (The Times did publish a number of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but none that pictured Muhammad; in addition, a short documentary video, published by the opinion side in The Times last week, showed the cartoons.)
Mr. Baquet made a tough call, which included safety concerns for Times staff, especially those in international posts. (Those concerns are far from frivolous; just days ago, a German newspaper's office was firebombed after it published the cartoons following the attack, and now new concerns have arisen about reprisals.)
I certainly don't think that decision was "cowardly," as many have charged. Mr. Baquet told me repeatedly in recent days that he was paying attention to reader comments on last week's blog post, and that he found them thoughtful and, in many cases, eloquent. He also passed along to me examples of correspondence from readers who thanked him for The Times's restraint and sensitivity last week.
In my post last week, I called for a review of The Times's standards, which Mr. Baquet told me were the basis for not publishing any examples of the Muhammad cartoons. One question, surely, is whether guidelines on offensive images are applied rigorously across the board; many readers have doubted this. Another is at what point news judgment ought to trump the likelihood of offending some readers.
I asked Mr. Baquet on Tuesday if he had considered changing course — as some media organizations did, including The Wall Street Journal and the news pages of the The Washington Post — in order to publish the image of the new edition's cover. He told me that he had thought about it but decided against it, in keeping with his original thinking.
Here's my take: The new cover image of Charlie Hebdo is an important part of a story that has gripped the world's attention over the past week.
The cartoon itself, while it may disturb the sensibilities of a small percentage of Times readers, is neither shocking nor gratuitously offensive. And it has, undoubtedly, significant news value.
With Charlie Hebdo's expanded press run of millions of copies for this post-attack edition, and a great deal of global coverage, the image is being seen, judged and commented on all over the world. Times readers should not have had to go elsewhere to find it.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Can we say a civilization has spent itself into irrelevancy when it proclaims with one hand principles that it violates without conscious volition with the other?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 14, 2015, 11:09:59 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Can we say a civilization has spent itself into irrelevancy when it proclaims with one hand principles that it violates without conscious volition with the other?
G.
Now who is hating on French speakers?
A civilization is not a monolithic entity.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 11:27:26 PM
Now who is hating on French speakers?
I'm certain I speak for everyone when I say we would all appreciate if you could please pop in some more pills, and try to regain control of your shallowness, before you post next... <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 14, 2015, 11:48:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 11:27:26 PM
Now who is hating on French speakers?
I'm certain I speak for everyone when I say we would all appreciate if you could please pop in some more pills, and try to regain control of your shallowness, before you post next... <_<
G.
:huh:
Misplaced certainty is a hallmark of fanaticism.
Grallon's anti-garbonism has reached fanatical proportions? :hmm:
I am not certain of very many things, but I do have a high level of confidence that Grallon does not "speak for everybody"
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
But now you are doing exactly what CC just accused Yi of doing - treating all "West" as a monolith. I doubt the staff of CH approves of the arrest of Dieudonne (by the way, hasn't someone already said he was not arrested, just being "investigated"?)
Also, remember that when CH reprinted Mohammed cartoons few years ago, the reaction of the French government was more akin to that of CC and B4. So in a sense they are consistent and hate freedom the same way Canadian lawyers do.
Sheilbh's article touches on a valid point, which I think many people here who were critical of Charlie Hebdo are missing.
The extremist Muslims are not *just* threatening violence if someone publishes, say, a caricature of Mohammad being naked and on all fours, sucking a dick of a little boy and being fucked in the ass by a goat.
The extremist Muslims are threatening violence if someone publishes a drawing of a bearded human wearing a turban and standing still, if it is implied he is/may be Mohammed.
So, a question to B4 and others - is your position that publications that know what's good for them, should refrain from ever drawing the latter, because otherwise they should expect getting attacked?
The latest Charlie Hebdo cover is a good example. There is absolutely nothing remotely offensive about it to an average person - yet there are Muslims out there who are already saying that it is "troubling" that the "offensive trend continues".
If only Muslims had more Cecil B. DeMille flicks in their culture, maybe they wouldn't have such hang-ups over idolatry. "Morty at the studio says the Prophet stays in the picture, no matter what Chuck Heston thinks!"
OTOH they do embrace idiotry.
Quote from: Martinus on January 15, 2015, 01:34:17 AM
The extremist Muslims are threatening violence if someone publishes a drawing of a bearded human wearing a turban and standing still, if it is implied he is/may be Mohammed.
So, a question to B4 and others - is your position that publications that know what's good for them, should refrain from ever drawing the latter, because otherwise they should expect getting attacked?
The latest Charlie Hebdo cover is a good example. There is absolutely nothing remotely offensive about it to an average person - yet there are Muslims out there who are already saying that it is "troubling" that the "offensive trend continues".
Mohammed is literally a dick in the Charlie Hebdo cover so it's fairly offensive.
But I agree. As I say my view is that there's no point in publishing the cartoons in solidarity if they don't already match the style of that paper (the NYT: 'In cartoons, offence found') but they should be published as part of the news story in newspapers and on news channels.
However I do think that aside from offence there is a bigger issue of blasphemy which perhaps should be addressed by a paper publishing a very respectful sketch of Mohammed. See the furore and counter-furore of Maajid Nawaz tweeting a Jesus and Mo cartoon ( http://www.jesusandmo.net/ ).
To be honest, I havent realised he was a dick until you told me. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2015, 10:49:12 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
Yep. Alas, je suis Dieudonne :(
Incidentally on US papers/news sources publishing the pictures I totally agree with this by the NYT public editor:
QuoteWith New Charlie Hebdo Cover, News Value Should Have Prevailed
By MARGARET SULLIVAN JANUARY 14, 2015 8:00 AM January 14, 2015 8:00 am 713 Comments
Readers responded passionately, and in large numbers, to my post last week about The Times's decision not to publish the now-famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. (In fact, I've never had more comments on a post or column.)
A vast majority of readers were critical of The Times's decision, feeling strongly that both because of news value and in order to reinforce free speech and show solidarity with a publication under attack, The Times should have published them.
Just Monday, a new decision came along and The Times stayed with its earlier determination, showing no image of the new cover of Charlie Hebdo, which features a tearful Muhammad, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign, with a tagline that says "All is forgiven." Instead, a Times article described the cover image and linked to an article that showed the cover illustration.
But that's of little help to the print readers, who — if their only news source was The Times — could have gone through this whole tumultuous week without much sense of what the offending cartoons look like. That does them a disservice.
I can understand why The Times would not have published "the most incendiary images," as the executive editor, Dean Baquet, described them last week. He felt those extreme cartoons would not have been necessary to illustrate the story about the terrorist attack that killed eight members of the satirical newspaper's staff. (The Times did publish a number of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but none that pictured Muhammad; in addition, a short documentary video, published by the opinion side in The Times last week, showed the cartoons.)
Mr. Baquet made a tough call, which included safety concerns for Times staff, especially those in international posts. (Those concerns are far from frivolous; just days ago, a German newspaper's office was firebombed after it published the cartoons following the attack, and now new concerns have arisen about reprisals.)
I certainly don't think that decision was "cowardly," as many have charged. Mr. Baquet told me repeatedly in recent days that he was paying attention to reader comments on last week's blog post, and that he found them thoughtful and, in many cases, eloquent. He also passed along to me examples of correspondence from readers who thanked him for The Times's restraint and sensitivity last week.
In my post last week, I called for a review of The Times's standards, which Mr. Baquet told me were the basis for not publishing any examples of the Muhammad cartoons. One question, surely, is whether guidelines on offensive images are applied rigorously across the board; many readers have doubted this. Another is at what point news judgment ought to trump the likelihood of offending some readers.
I asked Mr. Baquet on Tuesday if he had considered changing course — as some media organizations did, including The Wall Street Journal and the news pages of the The Washington Post — in order to publish the image of the new edition's cover. He told me that he had thought about it but decided against it, in keeping with his original thinking.
Here's my take: The new cover image of Charlie Hebdo is an important part of a story that has gripped the world's attention over the past week.
The cartoon itself, while it may disturb the sensibilities of a small percentage of Times readers, is neither shocking nor gratuitously offensive. And it has, undoubtedly, significant news value.
With Charlie Hebdo's expanded press run of millions of copies for this post-attack edition, and a great deal of global coverage, the image is being seen, judged and commented on all over the world. Times readers should not have had to go elsewhere to find it.
I dunno. I'm of the camp that you can support freedom of speech without republishing what the controversy is about - it all depends on whether the thing being published is, in fact, subjectively impolite to a significant group.
For example, I myself am not offended by porn; I don't think porn should be illegal to publish; however, I acknowledge that, to some, porn is impolite in public. When Larry Flynt of Hustler was shot by an assassin during his obsenity trial, that would certainly be news - nasty as Flynt is, that was a significant moment for free speech. But if I was publishing a newspaper, I would not necessarily have republished the porn pics that were the subject of his trial (even assuming that there was no question of my being arrested for doing so) - even though, otherwise, the readers would be left somewhat in the dark as to what the controversy was about.
OTOH, you don't want politeness to absoluely rule, or you would be able to publish nothing. As always, it's a balancing act. I'd be more willing, I think, to cut some slack for the sensitivities of minority groups that have traditionally had a rough time at the hands of the majority - for example, if Native Americans sincerely held the view that pics of native grave artifacts were upsetting, I'd refrain from displaying them in a publication to the general public, even though as an amateuer into archaeology and anthropology I find them most interesting and not in any way "gratuitously offensive".
Quote from: Martinus on January 15, 2015, 01:22:52 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 14, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.
But now you are doing exactly what CC just accused Yi of doing - treating all "West" as a monolith. I doubt the staff of CH approves of the arrest of Dieudonne (by the way, hasn't someone already said he was not arrested, just being "investigated"?)
Also, remember that when CH reprinted Mohammed cartoons few years ago, the reaction of the French government was more akin to that of CC and B4. So in a sense they are consistent and hate freedom the same way Canadian lawyers do.
I think the correction that his arrest was really an investigation was retracted, that it was an actual arrest (hardly his first).
And I'm sure the CH staff are 100% on the side of Dieudonne: I don't question their anti-censorship bona fides.* (Not to mention they seem to share a certain amount of aesthetic strategy, i.e. trying to inhabit what remains of the genuinely outrageous in this day and age, even as it endangers them personally, as well as a trajectory of believing more intensely in their strategy's righteousness the more approaches sheer trolling).
I'm addressing the comment to the participants in the whole public spectacle that opposes "Western" liberty and freedom of expression and "Muslim" extremism and intolerance -- including the officially-adopted "Je suis Charlie"-dom of the French government at this moment in time.
*EDIT: Though they did lead a charge to get the FN banned as a political party, didn't they? Of course that's electoral politics, so one can distinguish, but still a little discordant with the current image...
France is "tackling hate speech" in the wake of this tragedy, reports the BBC:
Quote
Controversial French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala has been detained by police for a Facebook comment appearing to back Paris gunman Amedy Coulibaly.
His is one of dozens of cases opened by authorities in a crackdown on condoning or threatening terrorism.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said words of hatred and contempt had to be fought with the "utmost vigour".
Dieudonne already has convictions for inciting anti-Semitism and the courts banned several one-man shows last year.
A judicial source quoted by AFP news agency said he was due to be released on Wednesday evening but would face trial at a later date.
[snip]
Some fast-track custodial sentences have already been handed down under anti-terror legislation passed last November
A man of 22 was jailed on Tuesday for a year for posting a video mocking one of the three murdered policemen
A drunk driver was given four years in prison after making threats against the police who arrested him
Three men in their twenties were jailed in Toulouse for condoning terrorism
A man of 20 was jailed in Orleans for shouting "long live the Kalash[(nikov]" at police in a shopping centre
[snip]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30811401
Also, German government wants to introduce wider collection of telecommunications data to prevent such attacks like in Paris.
As cynics point out, they want basically the same legislation as France, in order to prevent attacks like in France. :hmm:
***** CHICK TRACT DRIVE BY *****
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.chick.com%2Ftractimages67491%2F0042%2F0042_02.gif&hash=3df64279bde2bfcd39982f91e266648b89bc7e77)
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2015, 06:00:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 05:33:18 PM
Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference. :)
Well, duh. To think that untrained civilians would stand much of a chance against a gunman is a fantastical daydream, not reality. The gunman knows he'll be shooting people that day, the civilian doesn't. When you balance it against the increased risk of death from various causes that always follows the presence of guns, the policy of Afghanistaning civilians doesn't make any sense. Then again, few pro-gun arguments do, and none of them are utilitarian or pragmatic.
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Armed civilians thinking anyone who looks like a "Muslim" could be a terrorist - what could possibly go wrong?
Fewer hipsters and "lumbersexuals"?
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2015, 06:00:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 05:33:18 PM
Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference. :)
Well, duh. To think that untrained civilians would stand much of a chance against a gunman is a fantastical daydream, not reality. The gunman knows he'll be shooting people that day, the civilian doesn't. When you balance it against the increased risk of death from various causes that always follows the presence of guns, the policy of Afghanistaning civilians doesn't make any sense. Then again, few pro-gun arguments do, and none of them are utilitarian or pragmatic.
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
I don't think that can be found anywhere in the works of the Founding Fathers.
Black Muslim gets French citizenship early due to CH shootings: http://news.yahoo.com/malian-hero-jewish-shop-attack-french-nationality-150004952.html
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Actually, being armed gives you a sense of responsability that you normally don't have. I do not get carried away into stupid arguments when I'm packing. I drive defensively and I am far more corteous than when I'm flat bellied. Road rage is for the weak and unarmed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Armed civilians thinking anyone who looks like a "Muslim" could be a terrorist - what could possibly go wrong?
Even the numbers of civies carrying by ccw's is a low percentage of the population. Rather inconsequential really, even to make an effective argument for an armed populace. Do you as a civilian really want to be engaging those fuck nards when responding units are arriving???????? Do you think that is a brilliant plan? You are most and likely going to get dead.
FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Armed civilians thinking anyone who looks like a "Muslim" could be a terrorist - what could possibly go wrong?
Even the numbers of civies carrying by ccw's is a low percentage of the population. Rather inconsequential really, even to make an effective argument for an armed populace. Do you as a civilian really want to be engaging those fuck nards when responding units are arriving???????? Do you think that is a brilliant plan? You are most and likely going to get dead.
Exactly. :)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Armed civilians thinking anyone who looks like a "Muslim" could be a terrorist - what could possibly go wrong?
Even the numbers of civies carrying by ccw's is a low percentage of the population. Rather inconsequential really, even to make an effective argument for an armed populace. Do you as a civilian really want to be engaging those fuck nards when responding units are arriving???????? Do you think that is a brilliant plan? You are most and likely going to get dead.
FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf)
If I was carrying when something like this went down, I do think I would at least see if I could come up with a way of taking them by surprise, perhaps.
Of course, the difficulty in hitting a human target with a handgun at anything more than very short range is pretty problematic. It would be very hard to get to a range short enough to make a surprise kill without being seen.
edit: What I mean is, even if you are a cop with reasonable training, and this is going down and the bad guys don't even know you are there, it would STILL be very hard to do more than increase the body count by one (your own). Still, I think I would be compelled to try at least...
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
Still, I think I would be compelled to try at least...
You have watched Die Hard one too many times. :P
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
If I was carrying when something like this went down, I do think I would at least see if I could come up with a way of taking them by surprise, perhaps.
Tackle first, then shoot.
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 05:25:21 PM
Actually, being armed gives you a sense of responsability that you normally don't have. I do not get carried away into stupid arguments when I'm packing. I drive defensively and I am far more corteous than when I'm flat bellied. Road rage is for the weak and unarmed.
You are not a typical civilian. You've received more training and experienced hostile situations with firearms than probably 99.999% of the population. I'd trust you walking around with a gun, even with your PTSD, over some numbnut who decided he needed to carry to express his rights.
You understand that responsibility because you've learned to, but it doesn't innately happen when someone picks up a weapon.
While watching the video of the terrorist killing the cop, I was thinking that it would have been a good thing if the person with the camera had had a rifle instead.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf
:lol: John R. Lott, Sr, President. Give me a fucking break. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 06:48:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf
:lol: John R. Lott, Sr, President. Give me a fucking break. :lol:
:huh: Is there anything wrong with the basic numbers in regards to the conversation at hand?
Would this suit your tastes
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Page 75
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
If I was carrying when something like this went down, I do think I would at least see if I could come up with a way of taking them by surprise, perhaps.
Of course, the difficulty in hitting a human target with a handgun at anything more than very short range is pretty problematic. It would be very hard to get to a range short enough to make a surprise kill without being seen.
edit: What I mean is, even if you are a cop with reasonable training, and this is going down and the bad guys don't even know you are there, it would STILL be very hard to do more than increase the body count by one (your own). Still, I think I would be compelled to try at least...
I would hide in a dumpster and then accidentally shoot myself when the police arrived.
Quote from: dps on January 15, 2015, 06:45:36 PM
While watching the video of the terrorist killing the cop, I was thinking that it would have been a good thing if the person with the camera had had a rifle instead.
Terrorists generally want the publicity that comes with being recorded. Civilians pointing rifles at them are another thing. If someone was carrying around a rifle they would probably also be dead.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 06:51:53 PM
:huh: Is there anything wrong with the basic numbers in regards to the conversation at hand?
Would this suit your tastes
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Page 75
I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.
But it's nice to see that statistics quack Lott is still running around spouting the same shitty math for 30 years. And he won an election, to boot! El Presidente!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 07:29:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 06:51:53 PM
:huh: Is there anything wrong with the basic numbers in regards to the conversation at hand?
Would this suit your tastes
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Page 75
I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.
But it's nice to see that statistics quack Lott is still running around spouting the same shitty math for 30 years. And he won an election, to boot! El Presidente!
I don't care what gun nutter crap he's spinning :P. The pages for state permits are what are applicable to the conversation at hand.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 07:29:35 PM
I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.
:hmm: :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2015, 07:34:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 07:29:35 PM
I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.
:hmm: :huh:
:lol: Here we go.
I'm not even sure you can get a list of people with gun permits in this state. When the state gave the feds some of these ists to cross examine with lists of mental patients the General Assembly damn near impeached the governor.
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2015, 07:34:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 07:29:35 PM
I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.
:hmm: :huh:
Personally, I think it's the rise in the global water levels. Water levels go up, crime goes down. Just like Mr. Lott's graph on concealed carry going up, crime going down. Graphs are fun!
It's abortions/lead paint/Freakanometry!
Quote from: Malthus on January 15, 2015, 09:06:49 AM
I dunno. I'm of the camp that you can support freedom of speech without republishing what the controversy is about - it all depends on whether the thing being published is, in fact, subjectively impolite to a significant group.
For example, I myself am not offended by porn; I don't think porn should be illegal to publish; however, I acknowledge that, to some, porn is impolite in public. When Larry Flynt of Hustler was shot by an assassin during his obsenity trial, that would certainly be news - nasty as Flynt is, that was a significant moment for free speech. But if I was publishing a newspaper, I would not necessarily have republished the porn pics that were the subject of his trial (even assuming that there was no question of my being arrested for doing so) - even though, otherwise, the readers would be left somewhat in the dark as to what the controversy was about.
OTOH, you don't want politeness to absoluely rule, or you would be able to publish nothing. As always, it's a balancing act. I'd be more willing, I think, to cut some slack for the sensitivities of minority groups that have traditionally had a rough time at the hands of the majority - for example, if Native Americans sincerely held the view that pics of native grave artifacts were upsetting, I'd refrain from displaying them in a publication to the general public, even though as an amateuer into archaeology and anthropology I find them most interesting and not in any way "gratuitously offensive".
As I say I don't think this necessarily matters as a defence of free speech - except of course as a defence of the free speech of the Muslims who haven't shot people over blasphemous images whose opinion we don't seek and is often dictated instead by the men of violence. So we assume Muslims are universally offended by this but we are ultimately taking the opinion of murderers to get that view. I don't think we should accept the extremists argument that this necessarily is of such overwhelming offence to Muslims until other Muslims actually voice an opinion.
But the issue I have is the duty of a newspaper/broadcaster to their consumers.
For me the Larry Flynt analogy doesn't work. Everyone excepts there are limits on obscene speech and just because he's shot during an obscenity trial doesn't make his porn part of the story.
The analogy I'd use is if a loony fanatic Catholic killed Andres Serrano and the gallery director, say Nicholas Serota, over a gallery showing Piss Christ. I think it's difficult to explain that story on TV or print without showing Piss Christ - albeit with an explanation of why people may find it offensive.
The recent story is ever worse because it was about Charlie Hebdo's new edition with its frontpage. The entire subject of the story is that image. So if the gallery re-opens a week later and puts Piss Christ in pride of place that is the story. It's absurd to describe that with words. The NYT I think acknowledges this is newsworthy by, despite the offence caused, including it on their website.
Obviously context matters. I can understand not wanting to put any of these images on the front page*. I don't necessarily think it's necessary for, say, breakfast news shows to have any of these images. But if you're MSNBC, or Sky News you're a serious broadcaster whose entire purpose is to report the news. Your audience is tuning in for things of news value and these images are sufficiently newsworthy to hold up a copy of Charlie Hebdo then I think you owe it to your viewers not to pixellate that out. If you're the NYT (with your pompous 'all the news that's fit to print' slogan) then I think you should treat your readers with a similar level of seriousness and assume they can take the images.
As I say I have a different opinion for, say, South Park or the Jewish Chronicle who have both said relating to this sort of image that they won't publish because they're afraid there could be violent consequences.
*Having said that I don't think front pages know much decency, in the UK 8 papers included the image of the policeman about to be shot on their front page which I find troubling:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6yHQVaCAAAsDNW.jpg)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2015, 09:56:54 PM....
*Having said that I don't think front pages know much decency, in the UK 8 papers included the image of the policeman about to be shot on their front page which I find troubling:
....
Yes I too found that troubling as you didn't need photographic or evidence to understand the brutality of executing/finishing off an injured man with a shot to the head.
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2015, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2015, 09:56:54 PM....
*Having said that I don't think front pages know much decency, in the UK 8 papers included the image of the policeman about to be shot on their front page which I find troubling:
....
Yes I too found that troubling as you didn't need photographic or evidence to understand the brutality of executing/finishing off an injured man with a shot to the head.
Yet the government has cracked down on consensual BDSM images....................I just cannot see the logic :hmm:
My idiotic work filter apparently blocks access to a thread if you say "p o r n" in it.
Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 04:36:34 AM
My idiotic work filter apparently blocks access to a thread if you say "p o r n" in it.
An idea has formed. :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2015, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 04:36:34 AM
My idiotic work filter apparently blocks access to a thread if you say "p o r n" in it.
An idea has formed. :hmm:
All it would mean is that I will then post more from home. :P
I found some good porn, anyone want to look at some porn
Honestly, I'd rather not discuss porn with Martinus anyway. :hmm:
It seems someone has taken hostages in a post office in Paris.
Quote from: Syt on January 16, 2015, 07:38:55 AM
It seems someone has taken hostages in a post office in Paris.
Yup.
It's already over, he surrendered.
Quote from: Maladict on January 16, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's already over, he surrendered.
I'm not quite sure how the obvious cheap jibe works when someone surrenders
to the French. :hmm:
Italian terrorists? Interesting.
"The suspect turned out to be a 31-year-old 'depressed and unstable' local man on medication who had 'romantic problems'."
So which one of you was it then?
Quote from: Brazen on January 16, 2015, 09:40:36 AM
"The suspect turned out to be a 31-year-old 'depressed and unstable' local man on medication who had 'romantic problems'."
So which one of you was it then?
Not me, as one of those descriptors fits me. :ph34r:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7555961/john-kerry-james-taylor
America, WTF?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2015, 09:46:17 AM
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7555961/john-kerry-james-taylor
America, WTF?
Certainly wasn't authorized by me. :angry:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2015, 09:46:17 AM
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7555961/john-kerry-james-taylor
America, WTF?
The US really needs a new director of comms. :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2015, 09:56:54 PM
As I say I don't think this necessarily matters as a defence of free speech - except of course as a defence of the free speech of the Muslims who haven't shot people over blasphemous images whose opinion we don't seek and is often dictated instead by the men of violence. So we assume Muslims are universally offended by this but we are ultimately taking the opinion of murderers to get that view. I don't think we should accept the extremists argument that this necessarily is of such overwhelming offence to Muslims until other Muslims actually voice an opinion.
Fair - but my impression is that Muslims typically *don't* like depictions of Mohammed. If it is true that, in fact, they don;t care much, then the issue of politeness doesn't arise.
QuoteBut the issue I have is the duty of a newspaper/broadcaster to their consumers.
This is a factor - to my mind, to be balanced by politeness (or good taste). As you say below, pics of a guy shooting a cop in the head could well be in bad taste/impolite. Examples abound: another is the child sex murders we had here, where the psycho took pics of the kids begging for their lives - that would be highly offensive to print, even if it was a very significant part of the story.
QuoteFor me the Larry Flynt analogy doesn't work. Everyone excepts there are limits on obscene speech and just because he's shot during an obscenity trial doesn't make his porn part of the story. The analogy I'd use is if a loony fanatic Catholic killed Andres Serrano and the gallery director, say Nicholas Serota, over a gallery showing Piss Christ. I think it's difficult to explain that story on TV or print without showing Piss Christ - albeit with an explanation of why people may find it offensive.
Why not? To me, it's a part - what makes this guy's porn so different from other porn, that people would kill over it?
The issue, to me, is that *we* are more likely to find porn disturbing or in bad taste - but care not a bit about pics of Mohammed. There is a certain inherent subjectivity about that.
QuoteThe recent story is ever worse because it was about Charlie Hebdo's new edition with its frontpage. The entire subject of the story is that image. So if the gallery re-opens a week later and puts Piss Christ in pride of place that is the story. It's absurd to describe that with words. The NYT I think acknowledges this is newsworthy by, despite the offence caused, including it on their website.
It may well be that the newsworthiness of a particular image outweighs any impoliteness, and so you publish it. My only issue is that having such a balancing exercise isn't somehow an admission that you are soft on free speech.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2015, 09:46:17 AM
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7555961/john-kerry-james-taylor
America, WTF?
Lol, I thought that Kerry would finally find his niche as Secretary of State, and finally be gone as one of my State's Senators, but he doesn't seem to be doing so well there either. <_<
I guess Charlie Hebdo is also responsible for the death of these 4 presumably innocent Africans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30853305
Quote from: Liep on January 16, 2015, 05:21:03 PM
I guess Charlie Hebdo is also responsible for the death of these 4 presumably innocent Africans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30853305
From the link
QuoteA number of churches and the French cultural centre were among several buildings raided and set alight.
The churches were also responsible for the new Charlie Hebdo issue as well as the French cultural Centre I guess. Niger, please...
I wonder what the Charlie-guys would say to churches being burned down because of them. :hmm:
Quote from: Liep on January 16, 2015, 05:28:47 PM
I wonder what the Charlie-guys would say to churches being burned down because of them. :hmm:
Good.
Quote from: Liep on January 16, 2015, 05:28:47 PM
I wonder what the Charlie-guys would say to churches being burned down because of them. :hmm:
Not what they meant by irreverence?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 16, 2015, 03:10:38 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2015, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2015, 09:56:54 PM....
*Having said that I don't think front pages know much decency, in the UK 8 papers included the image of the policeman about to be shot on their front page which I find troubling:
....
Yes I too found that troubling as you didn't need photographic or evidence to understand the brutality of executing/finishing off an injured man with a shot to the head.
Yet the government has cracked down on consensual BDSM images....................I just cannot see the logic :hmm:
Brits enjoying being caned isn't news.
With this kind of rhetoric, she might just win.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/marine-le-pen-france-was-attacked-by-islamic-fundamentalism.html
Lire en français (Read in French) » (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/marine-le-pen-la-france-a-ete-attaquee-par-le-fondamentalisme-islamiste.html)
Quote
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
To Call This Threat by Its Name
Marine Le Pen: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism
Lire en français (Read in French) »
By MARINE LE PENJAN. 18, 2015
53 minutes ago
Paris — "To misname things is to add to the world's unhappiness." Whether or not Albert Camus really did utter these words, they are an astonishingly apt description of the situation in which the French government now finds itself. Indeed, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius no longer even dares pronounce the real name of things.
Mr. Fabius will not describe as "Islamists" the terrorists who on Wednesday, Jan. 7, walked into the offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, right in the heart of Paris. Nor will he use "Islamic State" to describe the radical Sunni group that now controls territory in Syria and Iraq. No reference can be made to "Islamic fundamentalism," for fear that Islam and Islamism might get conflated. The terms "Daesh" and "Daesh cutthroats" are to be favored instead, even though in Arabic "Daesh" means the very thing to be hidden: "Islamic State."
Let us call things by their rightful names, since the French government seems reluctant to do so. France, land of human rights and freedoms, was attacked on its own soil by a totalitarian ideology: Islamic fundamentalism. It is only by refusing to be in denial, by looking the enemy in the eye, that one can avoid conflating issues. Muslims themselves need to hear this message. They need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly.
Yet this distinction can only be made if one is willing to identify the threat. It does our Muslim compatriots no favors to fuel suspicions and leave things unspoken. Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam, and Muslims themselves must fight it at our side.
Once things are called what they are, the real work begins. Nothing has been done yet. Whether from the right or the left, one French administration after another has failed to size up the problem or the task to be accomplished. Everything must be reviewed, from the intelligence services to the police force, from the prison system to the surveillance of jihadist networks. Not that the French security services have let us down: They proved their courage and determination again during the Jan. 9 hostage crisis in a kosher grocery near the Porte de Vincennes in Paris. However their actions have been hobbled by a series of mistakes committed by the powers that be.
These mistakes must also be called by their names. I will mention only three, but they are of crucial importance.
First, the dogma of the free movement of peoples and goods is so firmly entrenched among the leaders of the European Union that the very idea of border checks is deemed to be heretical. And yet, every year tons of weapons from the Balkans enter French territory unhindered and hundreds of jihadists move freely around Europe. Small surprise then that Amedy Coulibaly's machine gun came through Belgium, as the Walloon media have reported, or that his partner Hayat Boumeddiene fled to Syria under the nose of law enforcement.
Second, the massive waves of immigration, both legal and clandestine, our country has experienced for decades have prevented the implementation of a proper assimilation policy. As Hugues Lagrange, a sociologist at the French National Center for Scientific Research (C.N.R.S.), has argued, culture has a major influence on the way immigrants relate to French society and its values, on issues such as the status of women and the separation of state and religious authority.
Without a policy restricting immigration, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to fight against communalism and the rise of ways of life at odds with laïcité, France's distinctive form of secularism, and other laws and values of the French Republic. An additional burden is mass unemployment, which is itself exacerbated by immigration.
Third, French foreign policy has wandered between Scylla and Charybdis in the last few years. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy's intervention in Libya, President François Hollande's support for some Syrian fundamentalists, alliances formed with rentier states that finance jihadist fighters, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia — all are mistakes that have plunged France into serious geopolitical incoherence from which it is struggling to extricate itself. Incidentally, Gerd Müller, Germany's federal minister of economic cooperation and development, deserves praise for having the clear-sightedness, like the Front National, of accusing Qatar of supporting jihadists in Iraq.
These mistakes are not inevitable. But to rectify them, we must act quickly. The Union Pour Un Mouvement Populaire and the Parti Socialiste have called for a committee to investigate the recent terrorist attacks. That will hardly solve matters. "If you want to bury a problem, set up a committee," the French statesman Georges Clémenceau once said.
For now, one emergency measure can readily be put into action: Stripping jihadists of their French citizenship is an absolute necessity. In the longer run, most important, national border checks must be reinstated, and there should be zero tolerance for any behavior that undermines laïcité and French law. Without such measures, no serious policy for combating fundamentalism is possible.
France has just gone through 12 days it will never forget. After pausing to grieve its dead, it then rose up to defend its rights. Now the French people, as if a single person, must put pressure on their leaders so that these days in January will not have been in vain. From France's tragedy must spring hope for real change. The petty logic of political parties cannot be allowed to stifle the French people's legitimate aspirations to safety and liberty.
We, the French, are viscerally attached to our laïcité, our sovereignty, our independence, our values. The world knows that when France is attacked it is liberty that is dealt a blow. I began by saying that we must call things by their names. I will end by saying that some names speak for themselves. The name of our country, France, still rings out like a call to freedom.
________
Marine Le Pen is president of the Front National party in France. This essay was translated by Edward Gauvin from the French.
QuoteStripping jihadists of their French citizenship is an absolute necessity.
Doesn't this go against a bunch of international treaties?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2015, 07:53:46 AM
QuoteStripping jihadists of their French citizenship is an absolute necessity.
Doesn't this go against a bunch of international treaties?
If they have only French citizenship, yes.
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2015, 07:53:46 AM
QuoteStripping jihadists of their French citizenship is an absolute necessity.
Doesn't this go against a bunch of international treaties?
Under international agreements you are not permitted to remove citizenship if it would render a person stateless but it's rather hard to enforce.
Yeah, a much better solution from the legal perspective would be to deprive them of public rights (such as voting rights) for their life times.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
I did, but all it got was a "Niger, please".
Oh I missed that, sorry. I wonder whether this is also work of extremists and has nothing to do with "moderate Muslims".
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
:huh:
How is it a surprise they are angry? We keep, as rightfully our right, insulting their beloved prophet.
I had a colleague today who asked if he could display the Charlie Hebdo front page in the front window of his train. I hope he gets fired.
Quote from: Liep on January 19, 2015, 12:01:20 PM
I had a colleague today who asked if he could display the Charlie Hebdo front page in the front window of his train. I hope he gets fired.
I hope that when he comes back to gun down your work HQ, you are safe and sound.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2015, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 19, 2015, 12:01:20 PM
I had a colleague today who asked if he could display the Charlie Hebdo front page in the front window of his train. I hope he gets fired.
I hope that when he comes back to gun down your work HQ, you are safe and sound.
Why thank you, that's sweet and reassuring.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
:huh:
How is it a surprise they are angry? We keep, as rightfully our right, insulting their beloved prophet.
You'd think that they would be more concerned about stuff like ISIL or Boko Haram.
Also, the Pope has made comments actually saying that violence in response to "insults" is permitted. So much for a cool Pope.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 09:36:45 AM
Yeah, a much better solution from the legal perspective would be to deprive them of public rights (such as voting rights) for their life times.
The conservatives indeed suggested reestablishing the "indignité nationale" sanction (used against collabos after 44-45) and the PS, in a dramatic advance, said it was ok to discuss it.
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2015/01/15/l-ump-veut-retablir-une-mesure-d-indignite-nationale-pour-les-terroristes_4557066_823448.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2015/01/15/l-ump-veut-retablir-une-mesure-d-indignite-nationale-pour-les-terroristes_4557066_823448.html)
What will be actually done remains to be seen, of course.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
:huh:
How is it a surprise they are angry? We keep, as rightfully our right, insulting their beloved prophet.
You'd think that they would be more concerned about stuff like ISIL or Boko Haram.
Also, the Pope has made comments actually saying that violence in response to "insults" is permitted. So much for a cool Pope.
Boko Haram doesn't go around killing westerners in Paris.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
:huh:
How is it a surprise they are angry? We keep, as rightfully our right, insulting their beloved prophet.
You'd think that they would be more concerned about stuff like ISIL or Boko Haram.
Also, the Pope has made comments actually saying that violence in response to "insults" is permitted. So much for a cool Pope.
He doesn't hate the people I hate! The monster!
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2015, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
I cant be arsed but surprised noone is reporting the outburst of "Muslim street" protests against Charlie Hebdo in Africa and Middle East. Kinda explains why they don't care about Boko Haram.
:huh:
How is it a surprise they are angry? We keep, as rightfully our right, insulting their beloved prophet.
You'd think that they would be more concerned about stuff like ISIL or Boko Haram.
Also, the Pope has made comments actually saying that violence in response to "insults" is permitted. So much for a cool Pope.
Boko Haram doesn't go around killing westerners in Paris.
he's talking about the mooslimbs in places where Boko Haram and IS are killing people (but obviously not the exact same places lest there be a lot more dead) not protesting against that slaughter. It's as if some frechman drawing a mohammed-cartoon is far worse to them than their fellow muslims killing 1000s.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2015, 04:31:55 PM
he's talking about the mooslimbs in places where Boko Haram and IS are killing people (but obviously not the exact same places lest there be a lot more dead) not protesting against that slaughter. It's as if some frechman drawing a mohammed-cartoon is far worse to them than their fellow muslims killing 1000s.
what is the survival rate of those who protest against IS or Boko Haram in places where they are actively killing non followers?
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Also, the Pope has made comments actually saying that violence in response to "insults" is permitted. So much for a cool Pope.
Good grief. He's the head of one of the world's major religious denominations. Of course he's going to say it's not nice to insult others' faiths. The fuck you'd think he'd say, the joke about two Jews and a Muslim who walk into a bar?
He could say turn the other cheek.
That's a response to insults; he said not to be insulting in the first place.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 19, 2015, 05:19:08 PM
That's a response to insults; he said not to be insulting in the first place.
Did you read Marti's post before responding to it, or just jump in with the reflex Catholic reaction? Because the statement above indicates that you didn't actually read what Marti wrote, at all. Please play again.
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2015, 05:38:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 19, 2015, 05:19:08 PM
That's a response to insults; he said not to be insulting in the first place.
Did you read Marti's post before responding to it, or just jump in with the reflex Catholic reaction? Because the statement above indicates that you didn't actually read what Marti wrote, at all. Please play again.
I jumped in with the reflex "you're full of shit, Marti" reaction. And why the fuck do I have to read what Marti wrote anyway, since whatever he writes is shrilly inaccurate hyperbole anyway? He heard from a fag who heard from a queen that read it in
This Week In Rimming Illustrated that the Pope said it's OK to murder people, which everybody knows that's not what he said.
Yeah, I didn't get "it's okay to murder people" from the Pope's statement, whatever Marti might have written in his post.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2015, 05:17:23 PM
He could say turn the other cheek.
Always be on the lookout for opportunities to preach the message of jesus to the infidel muslims.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2015, 10:56:50 PM
Always be on the lookout for opportunities to preach the message of jesus to the infidel muslims.
At least in this case, it sure as hell wouldn't hurt.
And lets not forget Muslims claim to revere Jesus as a true prophet. :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 19, 2015, 05:14:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Also, the Pope has made comments actually saying that violence in response to "insults" is permitted. So much for a cool Pope.
Good grief. He's the head of one of the world's major religious denominations. Of course he's going to say it's not nice to insult others' faiths. The fuck you'd think he'd say, the joke about two Jews and a Muslim who walk into a bar?
His exact quote:
Quote"You can't provoke, you can't insult the faith of others, you can't make fun of faith."
"I think both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights," he said, adding that he was talking specifically about the Paris killings. "Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good ... we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending," he said.
"It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [he] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it's normal."
He later retracted that he wasn't excusing violence but not sure how otherwise one is to read the last part I bolded.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2015, 10:25:08 PM
Yeah, I didn't get "it's okay to murder people" from the Pope's statement, whatever Marti might have written in his post.
Good that I didn't say he said "it's okay to murder people". :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2015, 01:30:35 AM
Quote"It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [he] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it's normal."
He later retracted that he wasn't excusing violence but not sure how otherwise one is to read the last part I bolded.
If you read the mess like a personal story from the pope's everyday life, then sure.
I would punch Marty for a lot less. Actually Marty and I had a talk about this. Planning to punch someone for something they have written is wrong. Punch some jack ass who is provoking you on the street is okay.
I say let's get Raz to fly to Poland or Marty to fly to Missouri, both of you put boxing gloves on and go at it. Make sure to record the fight and share it on the forum.
So the Pope says if you talk about his mother, you can expect a punch in the nose. Holy shit, stop the presses.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
So the Pope says if you talk about his mother, you can expect a punch in the nose. Holy shit, stop the presses.
You know that there is such a thing as context, right?
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2015, 07:51:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
So the Pope says if you talk about his mother, you can expect a punch in the nose. Holy shit, stop the presses.
You know that there is such a thing as context, right?
Not on Languish there isn't.
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2015, 07:51:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
So the Pope says if you talk about his mother, you can expect a punch in the nose. Holy shit, stop the presses.
You know that there is such a thing as context, right?
Yes but here that context suggests that the Pope isn't saying violence is permitted in response to insults. He is saying that one "must not" do so but nonetheless it is a natural human response to certain insults.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2015, 11:54:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2015, 07:51:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
So the Pope says if you talk about his mother, you can expect a punch in the nose. Holy shit, stop the presses.
You know that there is such a thing as context, right?
Yes but here that context suggests that the Pope isn't saying violence is permitted in response to insults. He is saying that one "must not" do so but nonetheless it is a natural human response to certain insults.
The context is that Martinus doesn't understand context. This is a completely uncontroversial statement from the Pope, one that many of us have probably expressed in passing to friends and family. The Pope clearly isn't condoning violence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 07:54:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2015, 07:51:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
So the Pope says if you talk about his mother, you can expect a punch in the nose. Holy shit, stop the presses.
You know that there is such a thing as context, right?
Not on Languish there isn't.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utne.com%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FImages%2FUTR%2FEditorial%2FBlogs%2FPolitics%2FWhy%2520the%2520Environments%2520Trashed%2520Youre%2520Broke%2520and%2520Wars%2520Drag%2520On%2Fcorporate-power-10.gif&hash=c95c9eab372b19f6bdec5c29368227ca92e9d256)
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 04:36:32 PM
Dude, the point is that the prescence of an armed civilian population would make the terrorists think twice. They always try to maximize their chances by choosing soft targets.
It also increases the chances of something stupid happening when one of the now armed civilians only thinks once.
Armed civilians thinking anyone who looks like a "Muslim" could be a terrorist - what could possibly go wrong?
Even the numbers of civies carrying by ccw's is a low percentage of the population. Rather inconsequential really, even to make an effective argument for an armed populace. Do you as a civilian really want to be engaging those fuck nards when responding units are arriving???????? Do you think that is a brilliant plan? You are most and likely going to get dead.
FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf)
If I was carrying when something like this went down, I do think I would at least see if I could come up with a way of taking them by surprise, perhaps.
Of course, the difficulty in hitting a human target with a handgun at anything more than very short range is pretty problematic. It would be very hard to get to a range short enough to make a surprise kill without being seen.
edit: What I mean is, even if you are a cop with reasonable training, and this is going down and the bad guys don't even know you are there, it would STILL be very hard to do more than increase the body count by one (your own). Still, I think I would be compelled to try at least...
I think you can do a lot with a handgun against terrorists.
1) With some simple training you can become combat effective with a handgun within 50m. That is reasonable range to take out terrorists in a urban enviroment, especially inside a building. Take cover as the shooting begins, deep breathe and carefully scan for targets. Upon target detection select the target most dangeorous to YOU while side tracking the other targets. Carefully adquire target number one. Engage target with at least two rounds. After you fire your position is giving away so quick adquire and engage the other targets until they are all on the ground and bleeding. After that reload no matter if you still have round in your mag, stand up, and at walking speed, not running, move toward the targets while engaging any that still moves. When you are on top of them empty your mag on them, then kick the weapons away from the dead bodies. Secure location nearest covered position from a kneeling position just in case there are more jihadis, and wait for police to arribe. Upon police nearing your position drop your weapon on the ground, show your empty hands to the police and identify to the police while not blocking their field of view.
2- Even if you cannot effectively engage the jihadis droping them, your fire will suppress their position and eliminate their freedom of movement, allowing time for nearby civilians to escape. Something as simple as firing a few rounds from your gun would make the jihadis to abandon their plan A, forcing them into their contigency plans, which are not their prefered course of action.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 01:55:37 PM
I think you can do a lot with a handgun against terrorists.
1) With some simple training you can become combat effective with a handgun within 50m. That is reasonable range to take out terrorists in a urban enviroment, especially inside a building. Take cover as the shooting begins, deep breathe and carefully scan for targets. Upon target detection select the target most dangeorous to YOU while side tracking the other targets. Carefully adquire target number one. Engage target with at least two rounds. After you fire your position is giving away so quick adquire and engage the other targets until they are all on the ground and bleeding. After that reload no matter if you still have round in your mag, stand up, and at walking speed, not running, move toward the targets while engaging any that still moves. When you are on top of them empty your mag on them, then kick the weapons away from the dead bodies. Secure location nearest covered position from a kneeling position just in case there are more jihadis, and wait for police to arribe. Upon police nearing your position drop your weapon on the ground, show your empty hands to the police and identify to the police while not blocking their field of view.
2- Even if you cannot effectively engage the jihadis droping them, your fire will suppress their position and eliminate their freedom of movement, allowing time for nearby civilians to escape. Something as simple as firing a few rounds from your gun would make the jihadis to abandon their plan A, forcing them into their contigency plans, which are not their prefered course of action.
Siege, think about all the training that you have done in order to do what you do. Do you think it likely that a civillian is going to do enough training to be able to respond in the manner you suggest?
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 02:02:40 PM
Siege, think about all the training that you have done in order to do what you do. Do you think it likely that a civillian is going to do enough training to be able to respond in the manner you suggest?
sure, all it takes is 50 minutes training! ;)
Seriously, this is the most likely scenario:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/
"Training does not matter, only experience."
Or so told me an Iraqi company commander back in 2010 when I was trying to get him and his leutenants to train with us on counter-sniper operations. I wonder if they survived ISIS.
Rosa Klebb had a more mature view.
I am a little hard pressed to see what good a side arm would do in case someone blows up the building you are in.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2015, 03:44:46 PM
I am a little hard pressed to see what good a side arm would do in case someone blows up the building you are in.
Fulfilling the gun nut oath "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"?
Would the gun survive the explosion intact?
I wonder if they can take the gun from your hand if you are alive but the hand is is across the room.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2015, 04:49:11 PM
I wonder if they can take the gun from your hand if you are alive but the hand is is across the room.
:hmm: I guess it depends on how warm it is?
Can they sew those back on? If so, you can put it on ice and pry the gun out then.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2015, 04:59:48 PM
Can they sew those back on? If so, you can put it on ice and pry the gun out then.
If you think about it, that saying probably wasn't meant to cover the traumatic amputation situation. Whether you can pry the gun from that hand or not is largely immaterial; you can always just take the gun with the hand attached to it with you, and work on it methodically in the comfort of your own home.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2015, 06:13:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2015, 04:59:48 PM
Can they sew those back on? If so, you can put it on ice and pry the gun out then.
If you think about it, that saying probably wasn't meant to cover the traumatic amputation situation. Whether you can pry the gun from that hand or not is largely immaterial; you can always just take the gun with the hand attached to it with you, and work on it methodically in the comfort of your own home.
Handy to know.
Somewhat ineffectual 'lone wolf/nutter/wanker' attack on French soldiers guarding a Jewish centre in Nice:
QuoteFrench soldiers wounded in Nice Jewish centre attack
A man wielding a knife has attacked three soldiers patrolling outside a Jewish community centre in Nice, in the south of France.
The soldiers were wounded and police said the assailant was captured.
Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi told French TV that a second man had been arrested in connection with the stabbing.
The attacker was expelled from Turkey last week and questioned upon his return, French media reported.
France has been on high alert since last month's terror attacks in Paris by three Islamist gunmen, in which 17 people were killed.
After the attacks, 10,500 soldiers were deployed outside sensitive sites including Jewish and Muslim centres as well as media buildings.
The soldiers attacked in Nice were guarding a building in the city's Massena square which houses the Jewish community centre and a Jewish radio station.
The attacker had been travelling on the tram without a ticket, but left the tram when ticket collectors approached him and he then targeted the soldiers.
He slashed one soldier in the cheek, injured another in the leg and a third on the chin, reports said.
He tried to escape but was caught by a shop owner, tram workers and police patrolling nearby.
...
Full item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31118020 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31118020)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F80762000%2Fjpg%2F_80762001_80756188.jpg&hash=0b12a3b022e67fdde32ab81f7491fd0693a36748)
Quote
Police on guard outside the Jewish Community Centre in Nice as part of France's heightened security presence
I like the fact members of the public got involved in catching him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/paris-bans-filming-of-action-movies-in-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attacks-10026471.html
QuoteParis bans filming of action movies in wake of Charlie Hebdo attacks
Restrictions have been placed on filming action movies in Paris following the recent terrorist attacks.
Police officials have revealed fears that "actors in uniform could be targets for terrorists" in the wake of the attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which left 20 dead including three gunmen.
The French capital has long been a favourite for filmmakers. But police chase scenes through the city, such as the one outside the Louvre featured in Luc Besson's Lucy, could now be a thing of the past.
"There's a problem with these action-type scenes, as the actors in uniform could be targets for terrorists," Sylvie Barnaud, the police official who grants outside filming permission in Paris, told The Associated Press.
"Also, the actors could pose confusion for the general public - during this highly sensitive period."
Scenes featuring religious sites or schools are also banned under the emergency security plans.
Several productions have already been disrupted, including one called Flics Tout Simplement, which translates as "Simply Cops", which was supposed to include a scene with police outside a school.
"Yes, we were meant to film this scene. But it wasn't allowed. Of course, we have to respect the new rules, and we changed the production plan," said film director Stephan Guillemet.
Sylvie Barnaud said she did not know how long the restrictions would be in place.
William Trillaud, set fixer for the movie Lucy which stars Scarlett Johansson, said: "Had Luc Besson wanted to film this now, it would be impossible."
Action movies filmed partly in Paris include the Bourne Identity, Taken, The Edge of Tomorrow starring Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise, Ronin and the Da Vinci Code.
France needs some new blood.
Luc Besson is getting old.
He was cool back when he was nailing Brooke Shields. I guess she was his "inspiration".
QuoteFrench soldiers wounded in Nice Jewish centre attack
Is there another, Nasty Jewish centre, too?
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2015, 11:08:10 AM
QuoteFrench soldiers wounded in Nice Jewish centre attack
Is there another, Nasty Jewish centre, too?
Ah, a mongers-like post. :P
For $12,000 I'll draw just about any picture you want
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/iran-group-launches-12-000-contest-cartoons-deny-holocaust-n300626
QuoteIran Group Launches $12,000 Contest for Cartoons That Deny Holocaust
TEHRAN — A global cartoon competition based on the theme of Holocaust denial was launched in Iran Thursday in response to the Charlie Hebdo magazine cover that featured a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, the official news agency Fars reported.
Organized by Tehran-based House of Cartoons and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex, the contest sets out questions for entrants to address in their artwork, including: "If the West says that freedom of speech has no borders then why don't they let historians and experts properly research the Holocaust?" and "Why should the Palestinian people pay for the Holocaust?"
All cartoons must be submitted by April Fools' Day because "April 1 is the day of big lies, and the Holocaust is a big lie that the Zionists invented to suppress the Palestinians," said Masoud Shojaei-Tabatabaii, head of House of Cartoons and one of the competition's organizers.
Holocaust denial is common in certain quarters Iran - most notably by former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - and for some lawmakers it is appears to be almost an oath of allegiance. However, both President Hassan Rouhani and foreign ministers Mohammad Javad Zarif have publicly rejected Holocaust denial.
It is the second such competition of its kind. In 2006, there were violent protests outside the Danish embassy in Tehran in response to a Danish newspaper depicting the Prophet Muhammad. In response, Iran launched its first holocaust denial cartoon contest and a holocaust denial conference that was attended by American ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and many neo-Nazis.
Fars said the winner will receive a cash prize of $12,000, the runner-up $8,000 and third place $5,000.
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2015, 11:08:10 AM
QuoteFrench soldiers wounded in Nice Jewish centre attack
Is there another, Nasty Jewish centre, too?
Damn you Marty!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2015, 12:12:55 PM
Quote"Why should the Palestinian people pay for the Holocaust?"
The Palestinian people are paying for losing a war. People act like the West went over and gave the Jews something. We merely approved what had already been done, which we also did in many other fait accomplis.
I hear this a lot from African-American nationalist types 'we suffered more than the Jews and we were never given a state'. Whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 12:50:08 PM
I hear this a lot from African-American nationalist types 'we suffered more than the Jews and we were never given a state'. Whatever.
The hell they weren't. We gave them Liberia; problem was most of them didn't want it.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 01:06:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 12:50:08 PM
I hear this a lot from African-American nationalist types 'we suffered more than the Jews and we were never given a state'. Whatever.
The hell they weren't. We gave them Liberia; problem was most of them didn't want it.
And the people that went there are way worst of than the people that stayed in the "racist" USA.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 01:06:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 12:50:08 PM
I hear this a lot from African-American nationalist types 'we suffered more than the Jews and we were never given a state'. Whatever.
The hell they weren't. We gave them Liberia; problem was most of them didn't want it.
LOL, "We".
How is the US not "we?"
How is derspiess an 18th century Quaker abolitionist group?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
How is derspiess an 18th century Quaker abolitionist group?
How is he not? :huh:
I thought the establishment of Liberia and the transfer of ex-slaves was an act of US policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 01:21:11 PM
I thought the establishment of Liberia and the transfer of ex-slaves was an act of US policy.
Well you'd be wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 01:21:11 PM
I thought the establishment of Liberia and the transfer of ex-slaves was an act of US policy.
Its complicated. It obviously was never a policy, but the backers hoped if enough ex-slaves voluntarily did it than it might be a great way to end the 'black people are here' problem. I believe it was a private effort that involved many important people in the government.
Of course only a few thousand ex-slaves took up the offer which effectively killed off the colonialist movement. I have always been curious about what happened next. It seems the colonists and the indigenous peeps did not get along very well. Maybe I should find out in honor of black history month.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2015, 12:12:55 PM
Quote"Why should the Palestinian people pay for the Holocaust?"
The Palestinian people are paying for losing a war. People act like the West went over and gave the Jews something. We merely approved what had already been done, which we also did in many other fait accomplis.
I hear this a lot from African-American nationalist types 'we suffered more than the Jews and we were never given a state'. Whatever.
It's not exactly like it was something the British even wanted to do. But if it makes them feel better, we can say that the Arabs are paying because they forced 800k Jews out of their home and attacks on Jews in the Levant prior during WWII and before.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:25:06 PM
I have always been curious about what happened next.
I read an article about it in The Atlantic a while back, written by a descendent of freed slaves.
The new guys showed up, the locals got pissed, they fought a battle, the new guys won. They became the light-skinned, educated elite, and the locals became the field niggers. That's the way things were until that coup by Sgt. Doe(?).
Great news, Europe--you're one step closer to being Jew-free.
QuoteA month after kosher market attack, French Jews plan an exodus
By Griff Witte February 7 at 3:39 PM
Washington Post
SAINT-MANDÉ, France — For all her 30 years, Jennifer Sebag has lived in a community that embodies everything modern Europe is supposed to be.
Inclusive, integrated, peaceful and prosperous, the elegant city of Saint-Mandé — hard against Paris's eastern fringe — has been a haven for Jews like Sebag whose parents and grandparents were driven from their native North Africa decades ago by anti-Semitism.
"I've always told everyone that here, we are very protected. It's like a small village," Sebag said.
But in an instant on the afternoon of Jan. 9, Sebag's refuge became a target. A gunman who would later say he was acting on behalf of the Islamic State walked into her neighborhood's kosher market and opened fire, launching a siege that would leave four hostages dead — all of them Jewish.
A month later, the Jews of Saint-Mandé are planning for a possible exodus from what had once appeared to be the promised land.
In homes, in shops and in synagogues guarded night and day by soldiers wielding assault rifles, conversations are dominated by an agonizing choice: stay in France and risk becoming the victim of the next attack by Islamic extremists, or leave behind a country and a community that Jews say they are proud to call home.
The French government has scrambled to persuade them not to go, aware that if Jews see little future for themselves in Saint-Mandé — where Muslims, Christians and Jews have long lived in harmony — then there's no chance for the European ideal of interfaith coexistence.
And yet, for a rapidly rising number of Jews, here in Saint-Mandé and across France, the decision has already become clear.
"The question is not will they leave or won't they leave," said Alain Assouline, a prominent Saint-Mandé doctor and president of a Jewish community center. "The question has become when they will leave."
For Sebag, her husband and their three young sons, the answer is within months. After pondering a move for economic reasons, the attack on a market where they regularly shop erased all doubts.
They will travel this summer from the only home they have ever known to Israel, where they have no close friends or relatives, where they don't speak the language, and where war flares all too regularly. There they will start anew, much as Sebag's grandparents did decades ago.
"They came here from Morocco and Tunisia because France was a wonderful country," said Sebag, a cheery real estate agent who lives with her family in an airy, prewar apartment overlooking one of Saint-Mandé's chic shopping districts. "They made all sorts of sacrifices, and we've had a really nice life here — until today."
The attack on the kosher market was the last in a three-day series of radical Islamist assaults that traumatized the nation. By the end, 17 victims lay dead, including much of the staff at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
But of all the communities affected, France's half-million Jews have perhaps felt the consequences most acutely.
French Jews were already on edge by the time Amedy Coulibaly, a 32-year-old small-time criminal and son of Malian immigrants, took hostages at the Hyper Cacher grocery on the border of Paris and Saint-Mandé.
Anti-Semitism had been rising in France, as it had across Europe. In Britain last year, for instance, there were more than 1,100 anti-Semitic incidents recorded, double the number from 2013, according to data released Thursday by the Jewish nonprofit Community Security Trust.
But the fears of rising violence have been especially pronounced in France after a 2012 attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse that left a teacher and three students dead.
The Jewish Agency, which encourages immigration to Israel, says the number of French Jews leaving for Israel each year had been steady at about 2,000 until 2013, when it hit 3,400. Last year, it jumped to more than 7,000 — making France the leading contributor of immigrants to Israel and marking the first time that more than 1 percent of a Western nation's Jewish population has left for Israel in a single year, according to Avi Mayer, a spokesman for the Jewish Agency.
Since the Hyper Cacher attack, calls to the Jewish Agency's Paris office have more than tripled, Mayer said, and the agency is predicting that 15,000 French Jews will move to Israel in 2015.
Many others will choose to leave for the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and beyond.
At the kosher butcher's shop two doors down from the still-shuttered Hyper Cacher one recent day, the talk focused on whether to go, and where.
"My husband's ready, but not me," a young woman picking up a chicken told the butcher. "I was in Tel Aviv in July, and I watched rockets fly into the sea. I wouldn't feel safe there, either."
The butcher, a 20-year-old named Aaron Sultan, said he and his fiancee are deciding where to start their life together and are leaning toward Israel.
"My parents left Tunisia during the Yom Kippur War [in 1973]. My mom tells the story that they fled for France when the Arabs were at their door, ready to kill them," said Sultan, who wears a black kippah, or prayer cap, atop his close-cropped dark-brown hair.
Now he is preparing to flee France, but his parents are reluctant. "I've asked my mom, 'Do we wait for the same thing here? Until the Arabs are at our door, ready to kill us?' " said Sultan, who spent the afternoon of the attack hiding on the shop floor as the crack of bullets pierced the air a few yards away. "It's hard to leave, but when we don't feel safe, we have no choice."
The government has tried to reassure the country's Jews by dispatching more than 10,000 camouflage-clad troops to guard "sensitive sites," including synagogues and Jewish schools and community centers. Three soldiers guarding one such center were attacked Tuesday by a knife-wielding assailant in the southern city of Nice.
Far from comforting, the troops' presence has become for many Jews a symbol of their vulnerability.
"It's more stressful than reassuring," said Sebag, who walks past the troops each day as she drops her kids at preschool. Even with all the threats facing Israel, she notes, soldiers are not regularly deployed to defend toddlers.
And yet, Saint-Mandé Mayor Patrick Beaudoin said, the country also needs to defend its Jewish population at all costs. "They belong to this country. France needs them," he said.
A mass exodus from Saint-Mandé could be ruinous for a city where about a third of its 22,000 residents are Jewish and where the faith's roots run deep. The formidable white stone walls of one of the area's main synagogues have been standing for the past century.
The community has changed in recent years, with the original Ashkenazi Jews — those with European origins — supplemented by an influx of Sephardic Jews from North Africa.
Muslims from North Africa have also begun to make the area home, adding to a national Muslim population of about 5 million, though their community in Saint-Mandé is considerably smaller than the Jewish one. By nearly all accounts, the new arrivals have been welcomed to the city, with Jews and Muslims befriending one another and going into business together. Assouline, the doctor and Jewish community center leader, has two partners in his practice: one Catholic, the other Muslim.
Jewish residents of Saint-Mandé say the problem of Islamic extremism doesn't exist here. But as they discovered Jan. 9, it's not far away, either, lurking in the less-salubrious suburbs, where last month's attackers had their roots.
"We can't say that these are jihadists imported from Iraq or Syria," said Marc Krief, rabbi at the Synagogue of Vincennes - Saint-Mandé. "They were French citizens. They grew up in the suburbs. They went to the local mosques. They learned their way of thinking from here."
Krief said he has told his congregants that if they want to leave France for economic or cultural reasons, they should go ahead. But he does not want them fleeing in fear when the scourge of anti-Semitism is global.
"I don't see a country in the world that's safe enough," Krief said. "In Israel, there's war. In the United States, there could be another terrorist attack. It wouldn't change anything to leave."
And yet, given the lessons of Jewish history, the impulse to leave Europe amid increasingly ominous warning signs runs strong.
"Personally, I have faith in our community. I'm an optimist," said Assouline, who intends to stay. "But whenever I say that, there's always someone who reminds me, 'In 1933, there were two types of Jews: the pessimists and the optimists. The pessimists left and went to the U.S. The optimists ended up in the death camps.' "
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 08, 2015, 12:47:16 PM
Great news, Europe--you're one step closer to being Jew-free.
What would you expect the French to have done differently?
I have a hard time believing that French Jews are actually being pushed out of France, as opposed to getting radicalized themselves with a Zionist ideal. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2015, 12:12:55 PM
For $12,000 I'll draw just about any picture you want
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/iran-group-launches-12-000-contest-cartoons-deny-holocaust-n300626
QuoteIran Group Launches $12,000 Contest for Cartoons That Deny Holocaust
TEHRAN — A global cartoon competition based on the theme of Holocaust denial was launched in Iran Thursday in response to the Charlie Hebdo magazine cover that featured a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, the official news agency Fars reported.
Organized by Tehran-based House of Cartoons and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex, the contest sets out questions for entrants to address in their artwork, including: "If the West says that freedom of speech has no borders then why don't they let historians and experts properly research the Holocaust?" and "Why should the Palestinian people pay for the Holocaust?"
All cartoons must be submitted by April Fools' Day because "April 1 is the day of big lies, and the Holocaust is a big lie that the Zionists invented to suppress the Palestinians," said Masoud Shojaei-Tabatabaii, head of House of Cartoons and one of the competition's organizers.
Holocaust denial is common in certain quarters Iran - most notably by former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - and for some lawmakers it is appears to be almost an oath of allegiance. However, both President Hassan Rouhani and foreign ministers Mohammad Javad Zarif have publicly rejected Holocaust denial.
It is the second such competition of its kind. In 2006, there were violent protests outside the Danish embassy in Tehran in response to a Danish newspaper depicting the Prophet Muhammad. In response, Iran launched its first holocaust denial cartoon contest and a holocaust denial conference that was attended by American ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and many neo-Nazis.
Fars said the winner will receive a cash prize of $12,000, the runner-up $8,000 and third place $5,000.
Actually, a picture from a cover of Charlie Hebdo (with an Orthodox Jew saying "In exchange for Palestine, we will go down 1 million of Holocaust victims") would be a strong entry. :P
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 01:38:40 PM
I have a hard time believing that French Jews are actually being pushed out of France, as opposed to getting radicalized themselves with a Zionist ideal. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Yeah, a European anti-semite would say something like that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishjournal.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatured%2Fcov-shoahhebdo.jpg&hash=63c5c36d2b4873d38adacbf939f9d85d40cca177)
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:10:22 PM
Actually, a picture from a cover of Charlie Hebdo (with an Orthodox Jew saying "In exchange for Palestine, we will go down 1 million of Holocaust victims") would be a strong entry. :P
Yup...in Europe the Holocaust is the joke that just keeps giving.
We managed to dodge Jewrope but we may still get Eurabia.
Meanwhile in Germany:
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-Judge-Torching-of-Synagogue-not-motivated-by-anti-Semitism-390294
Next they might say the Reichstag fire was not motivated by politics.
Good on Volker Beck for calling it a disgrace, though.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:16:04 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishjournal.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatured%2Fcov-shoahhebdo.jpg&hash=63c5c36d2b4873d38adacbf939f9d85d40cca177)
Joe le Corbeau is an extreme right-wing cartoonist, close to Dieudonné, and this cover is a pastiche of Charlie Hebdo cf. CHARLO Hebdo
Charlo(t) meaning a clown
http://www.directmatin.fr/france/2014-01-29/qui-est-joe-le-corbeau-le-dessinateur-proche-de-dieudonne-653162 (http://www.directmatin.fr/france/2014-01-29/qui-est-joe-le-corbeau-le-dessinateur-proche-de-dieudonne-653162)
edit: proper word used and French link added
Oh. It was legitimately printed by many international media as Charlie Hebdo cover. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:30:56 PM
Oh. It was legitimately printed by many international media as Charlie Hebdo cover. :P
Did they blur it too?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 08, 2015, 02:34:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:30:56 PM
Oh. It was legitimately printed by many international media as Charlie Hebdo cover. :P
Did they blur it too?
Nope. I saw it first in Jerusalem Post.
I thought the idea was that "Look, they make fun of everybody and only Muslims are stupid".
I guess this is much a weaker case if, in fact, they made fun of everybody except for the Jews. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:21:11 PM
Meanwhile in Germany:
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-Judge-Torching-of-Synagogue-not-motivated-by-anti-Semitism-390294
Glad to see the JP trying to write stories as badly as a British newspaper. There is a huge difference between a judge not finding a defendant guilty of a hate crime, and a judge stating that the defendants absolutely were not motivated by hate. The JP missed that distinction completely. The JP at least got it right that some Green party deputy can read minds and state with certainty what motivated the defendants.
From the Grauniad
Local police forces on the watch :)
QuoteUK police force apologises for taking details of Charlie Hebdo readers
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/09/wiltshire-police-apologise-details-charlie-hebdo-readers (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/09/wiltshire-police-apologise-details-charlie-hebdo-readers)
QuoteWiltshire force says it has deleted from its system details of four people who bought copies of magazine from a newsagent
A British police force has apologised after an officer told a newsagent to hand over details of customers who purchased copies of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.
Wiltshire police confirmed that one of their officers visited a newsagent in Corsham, Wiltshire, to ask for the names of four customers who ordered the commemorative "survivors' issue" of the magazine.
The incident came to light when Anne Keat, 77, who bought the special issue from that newsagent, wrote a letter to the Guardian to warn people that wearing badges emblazoned with je suis Charlie may attract police interest.
In the letter, which was published on Monday, Keat wrote: "Your offer of commemorative badges in support of journalistic freedom highlighting je suis Charlie prompts me to suggest a degree of caution following my experience. Tongue in cheek, I asked my helpful newsagents to obtain a copy of the edition of Charlie Hebdo issued after the dreadful massacre in Paris, if indeed a copy was ever available in north Wiltshire.
Charlie Hebdo buyers attract police interest
Letter: A member of Her Majesty's police service visited the newsagent, requesting the names of the four customers who had purchased Charlie Hebdo
"To my surprise, a copy arrived last Wednesday week and although the standard of content in no way matches that of the Guardian I will cherish it. However, two days later a member of Her Majesty's police service visited said newsagent, requesting the names of the four customers who had purchased Charlie Hebdo. So beware, your badges may attract police interest in your customers."
In a statement, Wiltshire police apologised to "the members of the public who may be affected by this" and said they had deleted the details from their system.
A spokeswoman said: "Following the terrorism incident in Paris, France on 7 January 2015, Wiltshire police undertook an assessment of community tensions across the county. As part of this work, local sector policing teams were asked to be mindful of business premises, in particular newsagents who may be distributing the Charlie Hebdo magazine and to consider that these shops may be vulnerable.
"There was no specific threat nationally and nothing to suggest newsagents in particular would be vulnerable."
She continued: "A police officer visited a local shop and post office in Corsham to make an assessment of community tensions and, if appropriate, encourage the newsagent's owner to be vigilant. During this conversation the officer requested information about subscribers to the Charlie Hebdo magazine.
"Wiltshire police would like to apologise to the members of public who may be affected by this. Information relating to this specific incident has been permanently and securely disposed of.
"Wiltshire police are confident that the police officer's intention was purely around enhancing public safety and ensuring that the newsagent was advised appropriately."
It is understood that the officer involved has been given a "word of advice" but will not face disciplinary action. The force said it had received no complaints about the incident.
Angus Macpherson, the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, described the incident as "unfortunate". He added: "I would like to welcome the statement issued today by Wiltshire police.
"The public should be reassured that Wiltshire police tasked officers across the county to assess community tensions in the aftermath of the shootings in Paris.
"It is unfortunate that an officer – no doubt acting with the best of intentions – requested details from a newsagent of customers who had bought Charlie Hebdo magazine.
"I am reassured that the force have taken the right action and permanently and securely disposed of the information gathered.
"I am satisfied that there was no intention on the part of the force to seek to inhibit the circulation of Charlie Hebdo."
Speaking to the Guardian on Monday, Keat said it was "ridiculous" that police officers had asked for her details, but she said she didn't think it was a big deal.
"I think it was a non-event really. It's nothing particularly exciting," she said. "The reason I sent the letter to the Guardian was not so much the police – although that was an element of it – it was that on Saturday you advertised two badges to do with Charlie Hebdo. If the police visit because I bought Charlie Hebdo, what are they going to do if everyone starts buying these badges?"
Keat said that after sending the letter she feared she may have been the victim of a hoax, but she now believed the police visit was genuine. "I think they did turn up. The reason for that I can't tell you, only they can tell you that," she said.
"The thing I regret most is that I said the Guardian was much better. What I should have said was that Steve Bell is a much better satirist than Charlie Hebdo. He's a much better satirist than the whole of Charlie Hebdo put together."
A worker at the nearby newsagent Hawthorn Stores said she had been inundated with calls from the media all day and she was not prepared to comment on the police visit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20150217%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1025794012%26amp%3Bw%3D976%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D%26amp%3Bpl%3D%26amp%3Br%3D2015-02-17T172507Z_31274_LR2EB2G10H40D_RTRMADP_0_GERMANY-CULTURE&hash=428756d5697d165a8b999cb075ad6bd0f79a88f7)
QuoteReuters / Monday, February 16, 2015
A carnival float with a papier-mache caricature drives past revelers during the traditional Rose Monday carnival parade in Duesseldorf, Germany February 16, 2015. The words read: "You can't kill satire." REUTERS/Ina Fassbender
If I was one of those mythical moderate Muslims, I'd seriously begin to worry that my 'brand' was forever associated with death, destruction, murder, rape, terrorism... and start being concerned about the massive ill will rapidly accruing everywhere with each demonstration of such barbarity...
But perhaps they all have faith that Islam will triumph in the end, absolving them all of their crimes?
G.
Do you genuinely believe that there are no moderate muslims, Grallon?
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 08:01:58 PM
Do you genuinely believe that there are no moderate muslims, Grallon?
Do you really want an answer Jake?
I'll say the devout Muslim cannot be moderate as he believes in absolutes; between him and the terrorist there's a difference in degree only. He may not strap himself with explosives, they're humans after all, but quietly applauds when someone else does and infidels die.
However I'm quite aware there are plenty of people, raised within Islam, that don't give much of a fuck about the preachings of the imams... Like I said I know and work with several such, who are actually just as horrified by the extremes their 'brethren' will go to in their quest for purity as we are.
The problem lies in that they always have their death cult absolutism to fall back on, should they ever become dissatisfied with anything they disapprove of, become frustrated with or wish to reject the responsibility of their own flaws on...
Thus a Muslim, born and bred, or converted, is always suspicious; because you cannot help but wonder when will the next ticking bomb go off, and if it'll be you that's on the death toll when it happens!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 08:24:52 PM
I'll say the devout Muslim cannot be moderate as he believes in absolutes; between him and the terrorist there's a difference in degree only.
Wow, now there's an internally inconsistent sentence.
Quote from: dps on February 17, 2015, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 08:24:52 PM
I'll say the devout Muslim cannot be moderate as he believes in absolutes; between him and the terrorist there's a difference in degree only.
Wow, now there's an internally inconsistent sentence.
Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.
Quote from: dps on February 17, 2015, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 08:24:52 PM
I'll say the devout Muslim cannot be moderate as he believes in absolutes; between him and the terrorist there's a difference in degree only.
Wow, now there's an internally inconsistent sentence.
Do you doubt Muslim terrorists are devout?
G.
:huh: That's not even close to what he's criticizing about your sentence.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 17, 2015, 09:23:29 PM
:huh: That's not even close to what he's criticizing about your sentence.
If one man is a devout Muslim cursing kuffars about their ungodly ways yet otherwise doing nothing about it, and his neighbor is another devout Muslim cursing kuffars about their ungodly ways that also decapitates/shoots/strangles/blows them (off) *because* of their ungodly ways, then obviously the difference between both is one of means and thus one of degrees...
To me both of them seem equally suspicious and dangerous... But don't let that infringe on your little comfy mindscape you imbecile! <_<
G.
:lol: Yes, insulting me for pointing out your strawman (or lack of comprehension, not sure which) is bound to convince me.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 17, 2015, 09:52:31 PM
Yes, insulting me for pointing out your strawman (or lack of comprehension, not sure which) is bound to convince me.
Rest assured that I am not trying to convince anyone here about anything since I know it's entirely pointless; I've already written about the 'zeitgeist' of the place, which, as I've demonstrated, has nothing to do with logic or rationality.
Muslims are all guilty, through actions or omissions, it makes no difference.
G.
Hey, you shared a movie that you thought demonstrated salient points with us once. Was the name of the film "Zeitgeist"?
Only a Muslim deals in absolutes!
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 10:04:27 PM
Rest assured that I am not trying to convince anyone here about anything since I know it's entirely pointless; I've already written about the 'zeitgeist' of the place, which, as I've demonstrated, has nothing to do with logic or rationality.
Muslims are all guilty, through actions or omissions, it makes no difference.
Yes, this place is a hotbed of Islamopologism.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2015, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 10:04:27 PM
Rest assured that I am not trying to convince anyone here about anything since I know it's entirely pointless; I've already written about the 'zeitgeist' of the place, which, as I've demonstrated, has nothing to do with logic or rationality.
Muslims are all guilty, through actions or omissions, it makes no difference.
Yes, this place is a hotbed of Islamopologism.
Just look at my avatar!
Hamsausageandbacon, sister.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:21:11 PM
Meanwhile in Germany:
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-Judge-Torching-of-Synagogue-not-motivated-by-anti-Semitism-390294
I can never make it through a Jerusalem Post article. Knowing the comment section is just a few scrolls away--it is hard to ready the article without looking down to see the massive trainwreck.
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 07:59:15 PM
If I was one of those mythical moderate Muslims, I'd seriously begin to worry that my 'brand' was forever associated with death, destruction, murder, rape, terrorism... and start being concerned about the massive ill will rapidly accruing everywhere with each demonstration of such barbarity...
But perhaps they all have faith that Islam will triumph in the end, absolving them all of their crimes?
Nah they are pretty worried about it. And the counter is denouncing these guys as 'not true Muslims' which is the same strategy Christians and others use in these kinds of scenarios.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 07:31:29 PM
QuoteReuters / Monday, February 16, 2015
A carnival float with a papier-mache caricature drives past revelers during the traditional Rose Monday carnival parade in Duesseldorf, Germany February 16, 2015. The words read: "You can't kill satire." REUTERS/Ina Fassbender
Well, that's better. I read one pro-Charlie Hebdo Carnival float was censored in Cologne, home of one the biggest German carnivals. For security reasons officially, of course.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/koeln-koelner-karneval-stoppt-charlie-hebdo-wagen-a-1015583.html (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/koeln-koelner-karneval-stoppt-charlie-hebdo-wagen-a-1015583.html)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2015, 11:43:34 PM
Hamsausageandbacon, sister.
I'm not your sister, cracker jack.
Good. No prohibition on me fucking the shit out of you then.
Save it for prisoner's night out with the ladies, Shawshank.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2015, 12:46:09 PM
Save it for prisoner's night out with the ladies, Shawshank.
I think Mack Folsom Prison closed a few years ago. :(
This thread got a little weird. :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2015, 05:55:37 PM
This thread got a little weird. :unsure:
The Languish story.
Looks like these folks might want to invest in some security
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2015-02-14/manga-version-of-koran-to-be-published-in-japan/.84441
QuoteManga Version of Koran to Be Published in Japan
posted on 2015-02-14 00:00 EST
Manga de Dokuha series released Old, New Testament in 2010
Team Banmikasu's manga adaptation of the Koran, Manga de Dokuha: Koran (Reading Through with Manga: The Koran), will ship in Japan on Sunday. The adaptation of the Islamic religious text will be the latest installment in Japanese publisher East Press' Manga de Dokuha series of classic literature.
East Press describes the book on its website:
The Koran is the foundation of the daily life and ideology of people who believe in the teachings of Islam. The name Islam is often heard in the daily news, but because we Japanese aren't usually familiar with it, a perverted image [of Islam] as abstemious or linked to terrorism is liable to persist. So what kind of teachings do [Muslims] actually believe in? What are they thinking about? To understand the modern international community and Islam, let's try to experience the scriptures where all that is written down.
The Manga de Dokuha series launched in 2007 and includes 133 famous works by Japanese and international authors. Popular books in the series include the manga version of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf and an adaptation of Karl Marx's Das Kapital treatise. The series released manga of the Old Testament and New Testament, the two sections of the Christian Bible, in 2010.
The East Press series' debut title was Osamu Dezai's No Longer Human novel that JManga, a platform for reading legal manga online, added in 2011. JManga also added Variety Art Works' version of the Manga de Dokuha series' The Word of Buddha in 2012. North American publisher One Peace Books released the series' versions of Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, Herman Melville's Moby-Dick, James Joyce's Ulysses, and H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds novels in 2012.
The Bible has previously received several manga adaptations, including Tyndale House Publishers' Manga Bible in 2007.
Well hopefully not, that would rather undermine Manga's goal to stop the Japanese from associating Islam with Terrorism.
But I don't think the Japanese really register to Jihadists.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Well hopefully not, that would rather undermine Manga's goal to stop the Japanese from associating Islam with Terrorism.
But I don't think the Japanese really register to Jihadists.
Save for the two they murdered in cold blood within the last few weeks.
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2015, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Well hopefully not, that would rather undermine Manga's goal to stop the Japanese from associating Islam with Terrorism.
But I don't think the Japanese really register to Jihadists.
Save for the two they murdered in cold blood within the last few weeks.
I think there were circumstances around that...but point taken.
Quote from: Grallon on February 17, 2015, 08:24:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 08:01:58 PM
Do you genuinely believe that there are no moderate muslims, Grallon?
Do you really want an answer Jake?
I'll say the devout Muslim cannot be moderate as he believes in absolutes; between him and the terrorist there's a difference in degree only. He may not strap himself with explosives, they're humans after all, but quietly applauds when someone else does and infidels die.
However I'm quite aware there are plenty of people, raised within Islam, that don't give much of a fuck about the preachings of the imams... Like I said I know and work with several such, who are actually just as horrified by the extremes their 'brethren' will go to in their quest for purity as we are.
The problem lies in that they always have their death cult absolutism to fall back on, should they ever become dissatisfied with anything they disapprove of, become frustrated with or wish to reject the responsibility of their own flaws on...
Thus a Muslim, born and bred, or converted, is always suspicious; because you cannot help but wonder when will the next ticking bomb go off, and if it'll be you that's on the death toll when it happens!
G.
and you think that is exclusive to muslims? I could make the exact same comparison with the left. Lots of people approve of violent actions in the name of anti-capitalism, lots of people find excuses for these people, even the tribunals refuse to take seriously the threat that represent radical socialism on our society.
I'd say the difference between the people throwing bricks in windows and thrashing everything on their way is minial compared to those who stay silent, or even nurture these radical feelings, as the PQ did.
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2015, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Well hopefully not, that would rather undermine Manga's goal to stop the Japanese from associating Islam with Terrorism.
But I don't think the Japanese really register to Jihadists.
Save for the two they murdered in cold blood within the last few weeks.
Well. One of them.
The other was regarded as a trouble making idiot who is responsible for the other one getting killed.
But yeah. It's mutual too. In japan there's really not all that much awareness of Islam at all.
:(
http://www.firstpost.com/world/bangladeshs-charliehebdo-moment-writer-avjit-roy-murdered-with-machetes-for-being-un-islamic-2125191.html
QuoteBangladesh's #CharlieHebdo moment: Writer Avjit Roy murdered with machetes for being 'un-Islamic'
Feb 27, 2015 13:22 IST
Dhaka: A prominent American blogger of Bangladeshi origin was hacked to death with machetes by unidentified assailants in Dhaka on Thursday, police said, with the atheist writer's family claiming he had received numerous threats from Islamists.
The body of Avijit Roy, founder of Mukto-Mona (Free-mind) blog site which champions liberal secular writing in the Muslim-majority nation, was found covered in blood after the attack which also left his wife critically wounded.
"He died as he was brought to the hospital. His wife was also seriously wounded. She has lost a finger," local police chief Sirajul Islam said.
The couple were on a bicycle rickshaw, returning from a bookfair, when two assailants stopped and dragged them onto a sidewalk before striking them with machetes, local media reported citing witnesses.
Roy, said to be around 40, is the second Bangladeshi blogger to have been murdered in two years and the fourth writer to have been attacked since 2004.
The body of Avijit Roy lies in a morgue. AFP.
The body of Avijit Roy lies in a morgue. AFP.
Hardline Islamist groups have long demanded the public execution of atheist bloggers and sought new laws to combat writing critical of Islam.
"Roy suffered fatal wounds in the head and died from bleeding... after being brought to the hospital," doctor Sohel Ahmed told reporters.
Police have launched a probe and recovered the machetes used in the attack but could not confirm whether Islamists were behind the incident.
But Roy's father said the writer, a US citizen, had received a number of "threatening" emails and messages on social media from hardliners unhappy with his writing.
"He was a secular humanist and has written about ten books" including his most famous "Biswasher Virus" (Virus of Faith), his father Ajoy Roy told AFP.
'Easiest target'
The Center for Inquiry, a US-based charity promoting free thought, said it was "shocked and heartbroken" by the brutal murder of Roy.
"Dr. Roy was a true ally, a courageous and eloquent defender of reason, science, and free expression, in a country where those values have been under heavy attack," it said in a statement.
Roy's killing also triggered strong condemnation from his fellow writers and publishers, who lamented the growing religious conservatism and intolerance in Bangladesh.
"The attack on Roy and his wife Rafida Ahmed is outrageous. We strongly protest this attack and are deeply concerned about the safety of writers," Imran H. Sarker, head of an association for bloggers in Bangladesh, told AFP.
Pinaki Bhattacharya, a fellow blogger and friend of Roy, claimed one of the country's largest online book retailers was being openly threatened for selling Roy's books.
"In Bangladesh the easiest target is an atheist. An atheist can be attacked and murdered," he wrote on Facebook.
Atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider was hacked to death in 2013 by members of a little known Islamist militant group, triggering nationwide protests by tens of thousands of secular activists.
After Haider's death, Bangladesh's hardline Islamist groups started to protest against other campaigning bloggers, calling a series of nationwide strikes to demand their execution, accusing them of blasphemy.
The secular government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reacted by arresting some atheist bloggers.
The government also blocked about a dozen websites and blogs to stem the furore over blasphemy, as well as stepping up security for the bloggers.
Bangladesh is the world's fourth-largest Muslim majority nation with Muslims making up some 90 per cent of the country's 160 million people.
A tribunal has recently handed down a series of verdicts against leading Islamists and others for crimes committed during the war of independence from Pakistan in 1971.
AFP
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titanic-magazin.de%2Ftypo3temp%2Fpics%2Fdf712dcbec.jpg&hash=ff3b56772b825804006fb44337e6040bb24a1616)
"Hooray freedom of speech!"
"Satire is allowed everything - Kurt Tucholsky"
"President Gauck - why did he jack off into Merkel's hand bag?"
Quote from: viper37 on February 24, 2015, 01:38:58 PM
lots of people find excuses for these people, even the tribunals refuse to take seriously the threat that represent radical socialism on our society.
:rolleyes:
QuoteI'd say the difference between the people throwing bricks in windows and thrashing everything on their way is minial compared to those who stay silent, or even nurture these radical feelings, as the PQ did.
You are confusing things and are seriously delusional if you equate PQ radicals - whatever that is - and Muslim scums who can turn murderous at the drop of a hat since their death cult allows/applauds it.
G.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 18, 2015, 08:50:35 AM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 07:31:29 PM
QuoteReuters / Monday, February 16, 2015
A carnival float with a papier-mache caricature drives past revelers during the traditional Rose Monday carnival parade in Duesseldorf, Germany February 16, 2015. The words read: "You can't kill satire." REUTERS/Ina Fassbender
Well, that's better. I read one pro-Charlie Hebdo Carnival float was censored in Cologne, home of one the biggest German carnivals. For security reasons officially, of course.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/koeln-koelner-karneval-stoppt-charlie-hebdo-wagen-a-1015583.html (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/koeln-koelner-karneval-stoppt-charlie-hebdo-wagen-a-1015583.html)
Well, the fact is - and quite understandeably - that actions of terrorists do and will have chilling effect on speech or action of those who want to criticise Islam.
One of my concerns is if we go suddenly start to treat Islam differently simply to avoid being murdered then why wouldn't fanatics from other religions also want to see their religion similarly "respected"? I know some of those fundy Christians and nationalist Hindus can get pretty wacky.
It seems logical. Though perhaps for various reasons I am unaware of this would never be an issue.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2015, 09:15:21 AM
One of my concerns is if we go suddenly start to treat Islam differently simply to avoid being murdered then why wouldn't fanatics from other religions also want to see their religion similarly "respected"? I know some of those fundy Christians and nationalist Hindus can get pretty wacky.
It seems logical. Though perhaps for various reasons I am unaware of this would never be an issue.
That's what happens when you allow religion to creep back into the public sphere when it should be kept at bay in the private one. <_<
G.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2015, 09:15:21 AM
One of my concerns is if we go suddenly start to treat Islam differently simply to avoid being murdered then why wouldn't fanatics from other religions also want to see their religion similarly "respected"? I know some of those fundy Christians and nationalist Hindus can get pretty wacky.
It seems logical. Though perhaps for various reasons I am unaware of this would never be an issue.
I am not sure what's your point. Just to avoid confusion, I was not saying it's a good thing - quite the opposite. But it happens.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2015, 01:30:51 PM
I am not sure what's your point. Just to avoid confusion, I was not saying it's a good thing - quite the opposite. But it happens.
What was confusing about my point? It is something I have been thinking about for awhile, your post just reminded me of it.
I am well aware you were not saying it was a good thing.
Quote from: Grallon on February 27, 2015, 07:13:31 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 24, 2015, 01:38:58 PM
lots of people find excuses for these people, even the tribunals refuse to take seriously the threat that represent radical socialism on our society.
:rolleyes:
QuoteI'd say the difference between the people throwing bricks in windows and thrashing everything on their way is minial compared to those who stay silent, or even nurture these radical feelings, as the PQ did.
You are confusing things and are seriously delusional if you equate PQ radicals - whatever that is - and Muslim scums who can turn murderous at the drop of a hat since their death cult allows/applauds it.
G.
Did any member of PQ kill someone for political reasons?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2015, 02:14:12 PM
Did any member of PQ kill someone for political reasons?
PQ, no, as far as I'm aware. The FLQ certainly did. Bombings, kidnappings and murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis
I like how the Canadian government was led by 'Pierre' and the radical terrorist Quebec nationalists were led by 'Paul'.
Yes I know 'Paul' can also be a French name.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2015, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2015, 01:30:51 PM
I am not sure what's your point. Just to avoid confusion, I was not saying it's a good thing - quite the opposite. But it happens.
What was confusing about my point? It is something I have been thinking about for awhile, your post just reminded me of it.
I am well aware you were not saying it was a good thing.
Ok sorry. :)
I have some stories to tell but cannot share for professional reasons. :(
4 people have been picked up for questioning in relation to the Jewmarket attack. One of them is a female cop in a counterintelligence unit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 12:14:14 PM
4 people have been picked up for questioning in relation to the Jewmarket attack. One of them is a female cop in a counterintelligence unit.
Wow, we'll see if any of this pans out. Seems pretty disturbing if it was a cop, especially in a counterintelligence unit which I would think requires some security clearance.
Surprised this hasn't gotten any buzz here.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32409253
QuoteFrance police arrest man 'planning to attack churches'
8 hours ago
From the section Europe
French police have arrested a man suspected of planning an attack on "one or two churches" in a Paris suburb, the country's interior minister has said.
Sid Ahmed Ghlam, a 24-year-old Algerian national, was detained on Sunday in Paris after he apparently shot himself by accident and called an ambulance.
He is also being questioned over the murder of a woman on Sunday.
France has stepped up security in the wake of recent attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices and a Jewish supermarket.
Ghlam was known to security services as having expressed a wish to travel to Syria to fight with Islamist militants, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.
When police arrived at the scene on Sunday, they followed a trail of blood to the suspect's car, where they found weapons and notes on potential targets.
The documents established "beyond doubt" that Ghlam planned on attacking churches, said Mr Cazeneuve.
"Several war weapons, hand guns, ammunition [and] bullet-proof vests," were found in his car and home, the minister added.
Documents linked to al-Qaeda and Islamic State were also found at his apartment, the Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said. A contact in Syria had advised Ghlam to target churches, he added.
The authorities have carried out security checks on the suspect twice in recent years but did not uncover anything to justify further investigation.
Victim
It is not known yet what link the man has to the murdered woman, Aurelie Chatelain, who was found dead in her car in Villejuif, a Paris suburb, on Sunday.
Passers-by discovered her body as smoke poured out of the car from an overheating laptop.
The 32-year-old was visiting the Paris area to attend a training course.
"Our thoughts and sorrow are with her relatives, her family, and her daughter now deprived of her presence." said Mr Cazeneuve.
Hundreds of French citizens have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside militants, with many at home with links to recruitment cells.
"Terrorists are targeting France to divide us," French Prime Minister Manuel Valls warned on Wednesday.
Is he a Muslim?
Apparently he started his reign of terror by cleverly shooting himself. Definitely a trend to be encouraged. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:20:20 PM
Apparently he started his reign of terror by cleverly shooting himself. Definitely a trend to be encouraged. :)
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:20:20 PM
Apparently he started his reign of terror by cleverly shooting himself. Definitely a trend to be encouraged. :)
Maybe we can stop saying the terrorists are winning? ;)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 23, 2015, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
Is he a Muslim?
posing the question is answering it.
His fully veiled sister claims he is not a radical muslim. Glad to know it :)