Suttree Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm a christian and I can confirm that. And even then I laughed sometimes. That's to tell you how butthurt these Quran fanboys were. Right...I mean just think of the damage that could be done if one of those nutjobs had a position of influence like say, oh I don't know. George Bush? “This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”… It's been said so many times before but it's not about Christianity or Islam. It's about religious fundamentalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Clegane's head Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This is depressing news. :frown5: What's shit too is that BOTH the far right and the Islamic extremists will benefit from this while innocents will only continue to suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I am utterly horrified by the attacks on Charlie; on satire; on art; on expression. And on speech. On the bedrocks of any free society. The attack on journalists and free speech is detrimental to us all because it puts a chilling effect on all speech. It makes people hesitate before uttering what another person may consider an unwelcome thought. I couldn't quite decipher the discussion between Mormont and Ser Scott. Why should we not stand up to the terrorists and support free speech? Because we won't convince the terrorists we are right? Fine, I'm not interested in convincing them; I'm interested in convincing those that may wish to bow and cower to bullies and terrorists. I am interested in convincing those whose minds are not made up; I'm interested in winning over the hearts and minds of those whose hearts and mionds can still be won. And they are out there and, sorry to say, Mormont, you don't know who they are anymore than I do or ISIS does. But we do know one thing: open-minded people are out there and they live in places like Boston and Chicago and London and Paris and Munich and Moscow and Shanghai and Tokyo and Sao Paulo and Sidney and Mumbai and Tehran and Cairo and Mecca. The fight for the freedom to criticize and to lampoon and to satire should not be given away lightly. Muslin terrorism CANNOT take it away; only we can GIVE IT Away. Free loving people should NEVER under any circumstances give up the right to speak our individual minds, even if an individual's ideas are crude, rude, insensitive, dramatic, caustic. And if Charlie wants to make fun of the absurdity and vileness of religion, well, at least you cannot criticize Charlie for trying to pick fruit from a barren field. People everywhere should not now- as they did in 1989 when the Ayatollah offered money to suborn the murder of Salman Rushdie - try to understand the terrorists or question if what we say could get us killed. As another man far smarter than I once said: "Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt." What I am asking is that people do not "make the attempt" to appease the fanatics. Let's not quite our own voices and lets not try to understand those whose "offense" should be used as a provocation to silence others. If somebody has an idea they have every right to express it and to have it attacked by others. No sacred cows or Prophets here. Again, to quote that much smarter man: "...civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts..." It was true with the Fatwa of Rushdie; it was true with the murder of Theo van Gogh; it was true with the attacks after the Danish Cartoons; it was true with the "Innocent Muslim" movie (that may, after all, NOT inflamed Muslims at all); and it is true today. There are people out there who will find any excuse to be outraged when they stand on the step-stool on their toilet seat so they can crane their neck to peak out their window and see what is going on inside their neighbor's bedroom. And if those same people threaten us with weapons, the first step to defeat is trying to hear them out. Because they sure as Hell don't want to hear us out. (All quotes taken from "http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 It's tough because you don't want to roll over for fundamentalist nut jobs, but at the same time any action you take in response is antagonizing. So you either take it on the chin and do nothing except mourn your dead and beef up security (which brings its own host of problems) or you find a way to demonstrate that no number of attacks are going to alter the way that we do business in the West, which will in turn further antagonize extremists and possibly alienate non-extremists. Pretty much a no-win situation and I'm tired of it. Extremists should be antagonized. They should be antagonized and mocked at all times. And if they turn to violence, the retaliation should be swift and strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Extremists should be antagonized. They should be antagonized and mocked at all times. And if they turn to violence, the retaliation should be swift and strong. I agree with you 100%. But it is the path to never ending violence and you have to walk a very fine line between punishing extremism and maintaining a welcoming posture to non-extremist Muslims which we have done a terrible job of. The harder we punish and try to root out extremism, the more fuel we give for extremist rhetoric. There are many examples from the Iraq war to drone strikes to CIA torture programs where we have not done ourselves any favors in the PR department when it comes to the Muslim world. With that said, I come down on the side of those who think we should publish these cartoons everywhere. Every major newspaper should do it and they should put the images on the news. They should do it to show our own people that we aren't an entire culture of fearful risk-averse wimps and actually believe in the principles that we feel were violated by these attacks. Every single person who has grown up in a free society has had their sensibilities offended at some point. No free passes for fucking maniacs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 But it is the path to never ending violence and you have to walk a very fine line between punishing extremism and maintaining a welcoming posture to non-extremist Muslims which we have done a terrible job of. But who is more likely to encourage the actual debate and foster an atmosphere that is "a welcoming posture to non-extremist(s)" Muslim or otherwise? Those who advocate a free street corner and a soap box on which to stand? Or those with guns telling everyone who gets to talk and who will be made silent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I couldn't quite decipher the discussion between Mormont and Ser Scott. Why should we not stand up to the terrorists and support free speech? Because we won't convince the terrorists we are right? No, that wasn't the discussion at all. The discussion was, should we feel morally obliged to do something, just because terrorists object to it? Is that the best way to show we support free speech, or are there other ways? The answer is, there are other ways. Many people are engaging in them right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I hate to say this, but after hearing more details about the attack I am very sad about the leadership at the police and at the weekly. There was no security at the door, the gunmen just strolled in. The police officers were upstairs, I gather. They lost their lives, tragically, but if they had been in front maybe they could have shot the attackers. The shots at least could have given people a chance to run, if there was a back door. This is a place that had been previously firebombed and constantly had threats made against it. At the very least they could have had a locked door and a buzzer. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Charlie Hebdo and the gouaille tradition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilusmagnus Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This is a place that had been previously firebombed and constantly had threats made against it. At the very least they could have had a locked door and a buzzer. :( There was a buzzer, but they threatened an employee at gunpoint and forced her to enter the code. But these guys were soldiers, regular policemen without any armor could do nothing against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 These fascist motherfuckers... death is too good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Horza,So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Sounds a bit like the South Park approach in terms of being equal opportunity offenders, but without the preachy (yet reasonable) point that South Park usually tries to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batbob45 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 useally I not serious and avoid the general chatter forum.I heard about the attack on the Sky News Roku app. Those shooters were cowards(shooting unarm people is gutless), lack regious tolerance, and a conscience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixshells Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I hate to say this, but after hearing more details about the attack I am very sad about the leadership at the police and at the weekly. There was no security at the door, the gunmen just strolled in. The police officers were upstairs, I gather. They lost their lives, tragically, but if they had been in front maybe they could have shot the attackers. The shots at least could have given people a chance to run, if there was a back door. This is a place that had been previously firebombed and constantly had threats made against it. At the very least they could have had a locked door and a buzzer. :( The door had a code but they waited for journist to come in and threatened her at gunpoint so she would let them in. Cabu had a bodyguard but he was in the room and was killed as well. One of the journalists present during the shooting said that right after the 2011 fire they were very cautious, but that security had become more lax as nothing happened, even though they recieved daily death threats. In particular, there wasn't systematically a police car in front of the building during the editors' conference anymore since 1 or 2 months. The attackers probably noticed that when they were planning the shooting. He also said that the building was a bit easier to get into than the previous place used by the journal. The police now say they have identified 3 suspects, but haven't released their names. They have conducted several searches tonight, in Paris and near Reims. One of the suspects appears to have already spent time in prison for conspiracy to bring djihadists in Irak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 The police have now released the names of the suspects, 2 brothers in their 30s, connected to a Yemeni terrorist network, and an 18 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Reptitious Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Though I don't really agree about your view on what's martyrdom and what's not, you do have a point.This event will obviously be used (it's already starting on twitter) to feed hatred of islam, which grows stronger and stronger in our country. Marine Le Pen (National Front, extreme right) is sure to win Elections in 2017 after that...And I'm sure that was the main point of this attack: to create even more of an "us vs. them" atmosphere between Muslims living in western countries such as France and the rest of the population. The resulting alienation of moderate Muslims will be a great recruiting tool for the extremists. If we truly want to defeat the terrorists' objectives we would stand side by side with average Muslims and grieve this tragedy together.Attacking Islam in response is exactly what those terrorists are hoping for, since it will make your average Muslim living in France feel targeted, even if they strongly disagree with this act and condemn it as strongly as their non-Muslim neighbours. Seeding discord between the communities is what the terrorists want. To defeat their aim we must respond with unity and harmony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 The news here is reporting a police action is currently taking place in northern France, I believe they said Reims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Individuals who want to be offended can find offense in pretty much anything. Radicals/fundamentalists (supporting any religion/faith/ideology) always find a cause. But the radicals are not representatives of any particular religion. Not sure how much you can give in to the extremists who are minorities even among their own religion. I have spent quite a bit of time with educated devout Muslims. What I understand from my discussions with them is that they were not offended by the cartoons because they were caricatures. Many educated Muslims took offense because it was a physical portrayal of their prophet. Apparently Mohammad had explicitly asked his disciples to make sure there are no drawings or portraits of him. He had given two reasons. He wanted to be the prophet of all humanity and was concerned that his portraits will associate him with a particular race/color. The second reason is he did not want idolatry stemming from the drawings. Idolatry is one of the big no nos of Islam. I am sure some of the Muslims did take offense because of what they perceived as an attack on their prophet (just like there would be offended Christians if someone was making fun of Jesus). But this discussion was quite enlightening for me. As for the shootings, I am absolutely horrified. My condolences to the families and friends of the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 And I'm sure that was the main point of this attack: to create even more of an "us vs. them" atmosphere between Muslims living in western countries such as France and the rest of the population. The resulting alienation of moderate Muslims will be a great recruiting tool for the extremists. If we truly want to defeat the terrorists' objectives we would stand side by side with average Muslims and grieve this tragedy together.Attacking Islam in response is exactly what those terrorists are hoping for, since it will make your average Muslim living in France feel targeted, even if they strongly disagree with this act and condemn it as strongly as their non-Muslim neighbours. Seeding discord between the communities is what the terrorists want. To defeat their aim we must respond with unity and harmony. Well spoken :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.