Charlie Hebdo

letap73

bdu98252 wrote:

I think ISIS and Al Queda should have some business decision making process before setting out on their next great plan. In this case they have killed a number of people and increased the circulation of the paper which they find so offensive by a factor of 10. They have even managed to drive international sales in new regions. This is the definition of an own goal.

I would offer my services but I think they may be a rather big bunch of twats with limited IQ.

ISIS and Al Queda want Jihad, an uprising of Muslims against other cultures. The leaders of ISIS and Al Queda are not stupid they recruit disillusioned and at times easily manipulated people to commit atrocities which then the West responds to. The increased circulation of the paper may lead to radicalisation of a few more Muslims to commit more atrocities to which the West can respond to. ISIS and AL Queda succeed when more and more westerners view the 1.6 billion population of Muslims warily and division between cultures ever widens. Al Queda made a fortune by shorting the world stock market days before 9/11 - that is not the action of people with limited intelligence.

slowmart

VTech wrote:

Pross wrote:

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

Exactly.
Instead they chose to cause even further offence knowing full well what the outcome could be.

Arguably the original is more powerful as the act is in the name of Islam and Mohammad. In equal measure you have to show extremists who would subjugate the majority in the doctrine of their own narrow beliefs that violence will not shape our society.

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

Pross wrote:

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

Exactly.
Instead they chose to cause even further offence knowing full well what the outcome could be.

What was the outcome?
A bit of media hype. A bit of internet chat. An increased print volume and sales. Then it will fade away into the next story.
Actually, it managed to eclipse other more important stories but there will be others.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

VTech wrote:

Pross wrote:

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

Exactly.
Instead they chose to cause even further offence knowing full well what the outcome could be.

What was the outcome?
A bit of media hype. A bit of internet chat. An increased print volume and sales. Then it will fade away into the next story.
Actually, it managed to eclipse other more important stories but there will be others.

No, I would suggest that more lives will be lost. I think that a reprisal will happen and someone will pay the ultimate price needlessly.

slowmart

VTech wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

VTech wrote:

Pross wrote:

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

Exactly.
Instead they chose to cause even further offence knowing full well what the outcome could be.

What was the outcome?
A bit of media hype. A bit of internet chat. An increased print volume and sales. Then it will fade away into the next story.
Actually, it managed to eclipse other more important stories but there will be others.

No, I would suggest that more lives will be lost. I think that a reprisal will happen and someone will pay the ultimate price needlessly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Is ... st_attacks

Get your head out of the sand, if it wasn't cartoons it would be something else. These extremists are at war with our values and everything we stand for. It really is that simple.

And "needlessly" is emotive and implies that the staff of Charlie Hebdo where somehow culpable in their own murder?

Why let extremists shape our lawful actions?

ballysmate

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech, there are several ways you can fight a pernicious ideology. The most peaceful ways are with the spoken word and the pen, or in this case pencil. The response to this peaceful approach was violence and death. Which side caused the most offence.
If you remove the right to speak out or to pick up a pen, what are you left with? What sort of country are you left with?


As you travel the world you would naturally adapt your behaviour in accordance with local expectations.
I live in a liberal democracy where free speech is held dear and would expect anyone who comes to settle here to respect our views.
If anyone can't do that and wishes to reject our society, then I think the Mayor of Rotterdam put it perfectly.

If the spoken and written word are not to be used to fight for freedom of thought, which measures would you suggest? You keep spouting what we shouldn't do but what avenue would you leave open.

morstar

Couple of points.

I don't think the Beeb should show the cartoons and this is not contradictory to upholding the need for free speech. If a feminist shot up the Offices of The Sun (gaudy red top daily comic) for topless pictures...
I would not expect the BBC to show the next topless picture they publish despite fully expecting them to defend the principle of free speech.

Secondly, this isn't all about Islam believe it or not. It is primarily anti west rebellion and Islam is a common vehicle.
Imagine 1979, UK is in a total mess at hands of Labour, people vote Conservative as it is the antithesis of Labour. Many are true Conservatives, many more are aligning themselves to an organisation that stands as a credible alternative to the incumbent. Vice versa 1997. I know these are very different levels of engagement but the human behaviours are consistent. Many jihadists are anti western values first and foremost. Islam is a uniting force of convenience. Not all jihadists are anywhere as devout as they may espouse. Throw in the completely random warrior mentality of violent thugs just looking for a cause to which they can align themselves and many perfectly decent muslim folk find themselves pariahs through no fault of their own.
Supposing a muslim ideology replaces western democracy as the primary global ideology. Will the world then be united? Will it bollocks! Islam will simply fracture into a whole load of different tribes.

It's not Islam that's the problem. It's people.

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Couple of points.

I don't think the Beeb should show the cartoons and this is not contradictory to upholding the need for free speech. If a feminist shot up the Offices of The Sun (gaudy red top daily comic) for topless pictures...
I would not expect the BBC to show the next topless picture they publish despite fully expecting them to defend the principle of free speech.

Secondly, this isn't all about Islam believe it or not. It is primarily anti west rebellion and Islam is a common vehicle.
Imagine 1979, UK is in a total mess at hands of Labour, people vote Conservative as it is the antithesis of Labour. Many are true Conservatives, many more are aligning themselves to an organisation that stands as a credible alternative to the incumbent. Vice versa 1997. I know these are very different levels of engagement but the human behaviours are consistent. Many jihadists are anti western values first and foremost. Islam is a uniting force of convenience. Not all jihadists are anywhere as devout as they may espouse. Throw in the completely random warrior mentality of violent thugs just looking for a cause to which they can align themselves and many perfectly decent muslim folk find themselves pariahs through no fault of their own.
Supposing a muslim ideology replaces western democracy as the primary global ideology. Will the world then be united? Will it ****! Islam will simply fracture into a whole load of different tribes.

It's not Islam that's the problem. It's people.

Or people that happen to be members of predominantly one faith. How can you take Islam out of the equation?

morstar

Ballysmate wrote:

Or people that happen to be members of predominantly one faith. How can you take Islam out of the equation?

Assume Islam didn't exist but all else in the world was the same. The Jihadis would be causing trouble behind a different cause.

My point about the UK elections was to demonstrate how people align themselves to causes they don't necessarily fit well with against a common enemy.

A lot of 1979 Conservative voters are not natural conservatives.
A lot of 1997 Labour voters were not natural Labour supporters.
These people aligned themselves to an ideology that is a credible alternative to the status quo.

Why are blue collar workers aligning themselves to UKIP who support a flat rate income tax? One dimensional human behaviour.

It is anti west, Islam is the vehicle that has been hijacked. Do I like Islam, no, it bears no relevance to my secular existence.

slowmart

two more in paradise tonight, or not

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

It's not Islam that's the problem. It's people.

Sadly, I agree with this position and it is why I believe that there will never be true World peace.

In the meantime, the Western culture has a common enemy.

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Or people that happen to be members of predominantly one faith. How can you take Islam out of the equation?

Assume Islam didn't exist but all else in the world was the same. The Jihadis would be causing trouble behind a different cause.

My point about the UK elections was to demonstrate how people align themselves to causes they don't necessarily fit well with against a common enemy.

A lot of 1979 Conservative voters are not natural conservatives.
A lot of 1997 Labour voters were not natural Labour supporters.
These people aligned themselves to an ideology that is a credible alternative to the status quo.

Why are blue collar workers aligning themselves to UKIP who support a flat rate income tax? One dimensional human behaviour.

It is anti west, Islam is the vehicle that has been hijacked. Do I like Islam, no, it bears no relevance to my secular existence.

You seriously can't be comparing voting Tory/Labour with waging a terrorist campaign? Regardless of political affiliations, casting a vote in a democratic election is what we do in our society. It is fundamental to our way of life.
IS, a credible alternative to the status quo? You serious?

morstar

Is this wilful misinterpretation? That's what jihadis do.

I already highlighted the difference in scale between politics and terrorism but used a moderate example to show how behaviours are inconsistent with purported ideals.

And no, I don't perceive IS as a credible alternative but evidently plenty do. If you live in Afghanistan or Iraq, it's just another group of idealists bringing death and misery.

My last analogy in defence of Islam. The football league never promoted or encouraged hooliganism but a huge number of violent thugs hijacked the game to suit theirs violent agendas.

Like I say, a people problem.

finchy

morstar wrote:

Assume Islam didn't exist but all else in the world was the same. The Jihadis would be causing trouble behind a different cause.

Why are you so certain about this? As I have already posted, religion exacerbates the problem massively by:

1) Giving a much large pool of potential recruits to participate in what are essentially local conflicts.
2) Giving people a reason to believe that fighting is virtuous in itself rather than simply a means to an end. i.e. die in battle and God/Allah/Odin shall reward you in the afterlife.
3) Taking away or reducing the fear of dying in conflict. Something that will become increasingly pertinent as lifespans increase.
4) Providing organisations that can fill peoples heads with shite on a weekly basis from childhood.

slowmart

johnfinch wrote:

morstar wrote:

Assume Islam didn't exist but all else in the world was the same. The Jihadis would be causing trouble behind a different cause.

Why are you so certain about this? As I have already posted, religion exacerbates the problem massively by:

1) Giving a much large pool of potential recruits to participate in what are essentially local conflicts.
2) Giving people a reason to believe that fighting is virtuous in itself rather than simply a means to an end. i.e. die in battle and God/Allah/Odin shall reward you in the afterlife.
3) Taking away or reducing the fear of dying in conflict. Something that will become increasingly pertinent as lifespans increase.
4) Providing organisations that can fill peoples heads with shite on a weekly basis from childhood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYo49R_ZS0

Religion, race, politics, greed, resource, status. Pick any of the vehicles and you'll find individuals who have no hesitation in using extreme violence for their ends.

Jasper's sketch is perfect, whatever vehicle, even a bus and some nut job is bound to use it to travel somewhere, anywhere….

ballysmate

Re: Charlie Hebdo
Postby morstar » Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:04 pm

Is this wilful misinterpretation? That's what jihadis do.

What jihadis do?
I disagreed with your analogy and said so. Are you comparing me with a jihadi for disagreeing?
But you can rest safely in your bed tonight as I won't be coming round to your house with an AK47. You see, that's what jihadis do.

ddraver

not all about you bally....

finchy

Slowmart wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

morstar wrote:

Assume Islam didn't exist but all else in the world was the same. The Jihadis would be causing trouble behind a different cause.

Why are you so certain about this? As I have already posted, religion exacerbates the problem massively by:

1) Giving a much large pool of potential recruits to participate in what are essentially local conflicts.
2) Giving people a reason to believe that fighting is virtuous in itself rather than simply a means to an end. i.e. die in battle and God/Allah/Odin shall reward you in the afterlife.
3) Taking away or reducing the fear of dying in conflict. Something that will become increasingly pertinent as lifespans increase.
4) Providing organisations that can fill peoples heads with shite on a weekly basis from childhood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYo49R_ZS0

Religion, race, politics, greed, resource, status. Pick any of the vehicles and you'll find individuals who have no hesitation in using extreme violence for their ends.

Jasper's sketch is perfect, whatever vehicle, even a bus and some nut job is bound to use it to travel somewhere, anywhere….

I agree, but my argument is that religion makes it EASIER to recruit extremists to your cause, and that the difference between religious extremism and political extremism will grow more apparent as time goes by.

EDIT: Wars over resources, on the other hand, may continue to be significant.

bdu98252

letap73 wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

I think ISIS and Al Queda should have some business decision making process before setting out on their next great plan. In this case they have killed a number of people and increased the circulation of the paper which they find so offensive by a factor of 10. They have even managed to drive international sales in new regions. This is the definition of an own goal.

I would offer my services but I think they may be a rather big bunch of twats with limited IQ.

ISIS and Al Queda want Jihad, an uprising of Muslims against other cultures. The leaders of ISIS and Al Queda are not stupid they recruit disillusioned and at times easily manipulated people to commit atrocities which then the West responds to. The increased circulation of the paper may lead to radicalisation of a few more Muslims to commit more atrocities to which the West can respond to. ISIS and AL Queda succeed when more and more westerners view the 1.6 billion population of Muslims warily and division between cultures ever widens. Al Queda made a fortune by shorting the world stock market days before 9/11 - that is not the action of people with limited intelligence.

If this was really the case then the individuals shorting the market would have been easy to track and ask to explain their actions. Multiple convictions would have followed and heads would have rolled. I have not seen any of this from America the land of the lawyer.

bompington

bdu98252 wrote:

letap73 wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

I think ISIS and Al Queda should have some business decision making process before setting out on their next great plan. In this case they have killed a number of people and increased the circulation of the paper which they find so offensive by a factor of 10. They have even managed to drive international sales in new regions. This is the definition of an own goal.

I would offer my services but I think they may be a rather big bunch of twats with limited IQ.

ISIS and Al Queda want Jihad, an uprising of Muslims against other cultures. The leaders of ISIS and Al Queda are not stupid they recruit disillusioned and at times easily manipulated people to commit atrocities which then the West responds to. The increased circulation of the paper may lead to radicalisation of a few more Muslims to commit more atrocities to which the West can respond to. ISIS and AL Queda succeed when more and more westerners view the 1.6 billion population of Muslims warily and division between cultures ever widens. Al Queda made a fortune by shorting the world stock market days before 9/11 - that is not the action of people with limited intelligence.

If this was really the case then the individuals shorting the market would have been easy to track and ask to explain their actions. Multiple convictions would have followed and heads would have rolled. I have not seen any of this from America the land of the lawyer.

Hoax, needless to say: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

morstar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrR5xUydJm8

Essentially this is an eloquent response to a lot of the Islam generalisations used in the thread and no doubt pubs and work canteens all over the place.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrR5xUydJm8

Essentially this is an eloquent response to a lot of the Islam generalisations used in the thread and no doubt pubs and work canteens all over the place.

Very eloquent and accurate. It probably does address some of the arguments going on in pubs and canteens.
However, it does not address the issue of here and now in that we are under threat from violent extremists who happen to claim to be Muslim. It is exactly the same as when we were under threat from Irish Christians.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrR5xUydJm8

Essentially this is an eloquent response to a lot of the Islam generalisations used in the thread and no doubt pubs and work canteens all over the place.

Very eloquent and accurate. It probably does address some of the arguments going on in pubs and canteens.
However, it does not address the issue of here and now in that we are under threat from violent extremists who happen to claim to be Muslim. It is exactly the same as when we were under threat from Irish Christians.

Exactly, which is why it is incredibly foolish and stupid to mock them knowing how they would react.

I will give you an example.

Someone on this forum goes onto the Al Jazeera forum and makes a claim with a link to some of the comments in this thread, (showing contempt for Mohamed which actually has happened). I can GUARANTEE that because a post would have been made it would become very dangerous for the posters of the threads as we all know it is very easy to trace people of these types of forums.

Some people on this forum should realise just how dangerous it can be to do certain things. The implications of some of the posts typed by members here is far greater reaching than a mod banning you for arguing on the forum I can assure you all.

BTW, I am in no way claiming the things these people do is in any way right, I think they are some of the worst people to have ever been born but that doesn't/wouldnt make it right to mock their religious beliefs.

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

Wrote concerns

So we just kowtow to the extremist's demands out of fear?
That is the logical conclusion to your points.
Note that I deliberately specified fear instead of respect.
I can respect others but I refuse to kowtow to terrorists.

ballysmate

Fully endorse PB's stance above.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrR5xUydJm8

Essentially this is an eloquent response to a lot of the Islam generalisations used in the thread and no doubt pubs and work canteens all over the place.

Very eloquent and accurate. It probably does address some of the arguments going on in pubs and canteens.
However, it does not address the issue of here and now in that we are under threat from violent extremists who happen to claim to be Muslim. It is exactly the same as when we were under threat from Irish Christians.

Yes it is an eloquent response to some generalisations.
No one can seriously suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or if you prefer, extremists. But the problem is that these terrorists draw legitimacy from Islam. It is surely in the Islamic community's best interests to denounce, isolate and help to neutralise the terrorists? All too often we hear people excuse their actions on the grounds that they were provoked, defending Islam or not true Muslims.
In the 30s, the Nazis were a minority extremist group and I wouldn't be surprised if people across Europe were saying, "They don't speak for real Germans". The sentiment was true, they didn't speak for all Germans, all Germans weren't Nazis. The German people had the power to halt the Nazis but missed the opportunity. The rest, they say, is history.
I should have the right to say that Islam, Christianity, Judaism or whatever is superstitious nonsense without feeling fear of violence. In the same way, a devout believer can denounce me as an infidel or whatever without fear of reprisal. All I ask is the same rights and consideration.

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

Fully endorse PB's stance above.

I also heard you fully endorse PB when he's bent over.

finchy

I've just watched the video, and although he is right to say that MUSLIMS should not be treated as all being the same, he doesn't really get into the question of whether violence is justified according to the Koran (I'm sure that's not a debate that can be had in a 6 minute interview).

If you are going to debate this question based on theological grounds, you'd need to do it something like this:

The perpetrators of the (...) atrocity believed their actions to be justified because of (...) in the Koran. I believe that they are misinterpreting the Koran based on (...). I think that my interpretation is superior to their interpretation because (...).

I agree with him that Muslims will interpret the Koran in different ways according to local tradition, political and socio-economic conditions, their own personality, family, intellect, etc. BUT I don't agree that any religion which has a central text which is given as a guide to how to act can be said to be a neutral influence in the lives of its adherents. People base all sorts of beliefs and actions on the contents of holy books. Just a few off the top of my head:

Actions: Circumcision, diet, fasting, clothing, punishment, forgiveness, sacrifice.
Beliefs: Creation stories, the afterlife, reincarnation, caste.

Now while all of these will be adapted in different ways, sometimes ignored, sometimes taken to extremes, I can also see that people will base their choices on the contents of (insert the name of a religious book here).

I also disagree with the idea that anyone holding religious views extending to justifying acts of violence is just some bully who would find some other reason if religion didn't exist. For example, when I was at university I had a lot of North African friends and following an honour killing in London, I was discussing the issue with them. They told me that honour killing was not only justified by the Koran, but was actually an obligation if a female family member were to marry outside of Islam (I don't know whether this is true or not, but they had all been taught that it was). They even said that they might kill their own sisters. They viewed it very much as a last resort, preferring first of all to try to persuade the man to convert to Islam, failing that trying to talk the sister out of the relationship, if that fails then threatening to kill them and in the very last instance killing both. What image comes to your mind when I tell you that story? Snarling fundamentalists? Seething fanatics? Simple-minded morons? They were none of these, they were polite, friendly young men who never did anyone any harm, despised Islamic fundamentalism and were generally very respectful to women. Unfortunately they had also been taught that they should act in a totally abhorrent way in certain circumstances. The same goes for African Christians and some Jews that I knew. They weren't bad people, but two decades of being preached to about how "this is a sin, that's a sin, we must punish sinners harshly or face damnation ourselves"/"God told us that the land of Israel is for the Jews and the Jews alone, we must drive the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip" had left them with a whole load of warped ideas that I truly believe they would not entertain were they not religious.

Just so I don't have to answer any strawman arguments afterwards, I'm not saying that all religious people are like this, I don't think that a world without religion would be one without conflict, etc.

pblakeney

Finesilver24 wrote:

However, I am astounded at the double standards of the media. While pontificating about censorship and how it should be acceptable to offend people, you can't say c*nt on primetime TV, in case it causes offence. So, a muslim is allowed to be offended by the portrayal of a sacred (but made up) character, but I am protected from offence by banning a naughty word. Bizarre.

Does a Saturday night at 9:20 on Channel 4 count?
Ray Winstone in The Sweeney.

bianchimoon

VTech wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrR5xUydJm8

Essentially this is an eloquent response to a lot of the Islam generalisations used in the thread and no doubt pubs and work canteens all over the place.

Very eloquent and accurate. It probably does address some of the arguments going on in pubs and canteens.
However, it does not address the issue of here and now in that we are under threat from violent extremists who happen to claim to be Muslim. It is exactly the same as when we were under threat from Irish Christians.

Exactly, which is why it is incredibly foolish and stupid to mock them knowing how they would react.

I will give you an example.

Someone on this forum goes onto the Al Jazeera forum and makes a claim with a link to some of the comments in this thread, (showing contempt for Mohamed which actually has happened). I can GUARANTEE that because a post would have been made it would become very dangerous for the posters of the threads as we all know it is very easy to trace people of these types of forums.

Some people on this forum should realise just how dangerous it can be to do certain things. The implications of some of the posts typed by members here is far greater reaching than a mod banning you for arguing on the forum I can assure you all.

BTW, I am in no way claiming the things these people do is in any way right, I think they are some of the worst people to have ever been born but that doesn't/wouldnt make it right to mock their religious beliefs.

Al jazeera is a news organisation I somehow doubt, even if they had a forum they would be interested in the views of random cyclists who regard freedom of speech and thought as something to fight for as opposed to killing for the right to stop cartoons being published.