Charlie Hebdo

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.............
I could go on.

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

But it is exclusive to religion.
That is the problem. Men writing books, men stupid enough to believe in them and to take them to the extreme.

If the gods are as powerful as claimed, then why do they need man to fight their battles?
Maybe it is not their battles, or maybe they don't exist.

Can' t recall what religion Bader Meinhoff came from.

pblakeney

florerider wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.............
I could go on.

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

But it is exclusive to religion.
That is the problem. Men writing books, men stupid enough to believe in them and to take them to the extreme.

If the gods are as powerful as claimed, then why do they need man to fight their battles?
Maybe it is not their battles, or maybe they don't exist.

Can' t recall what religion Bader Meinhoff came from.

No need as it is a new tangent that you have just started. And they are history.
May as well bring up Welsh nationalists burning houses.

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.............
I could go on.

Point is, it's not exclusive to Islam. So stop saying it is. That just fuels prejudice which is the cause of all this grief in the first place.

But it is exclusive to religion.
That is the problem. Men writing books, men stupid enough to believe in them and to take them to the extreme.

If the gods are as powerful as claimed, then why do they need man to fight their battles?
Maybe it is not their battles, or maybe they don't exist.

Can' t recall what religion Bader Meinhoff came from.

No need as it is a new tangent that you have just started. And they are history.
May as well bring up Welsh nationalists burning houses.

And the Basques, and Catalans, and Northern League. Too many exceptions to prove the rule maybe.

pblakeney

florerider wrote:

And the Basques, and Catalans, and Northern League. Too many exceptions to prove the rule maybe.

The Basques and Catalans may at least be current.
But they tend to keep their "protests" within the relevant regions.
Religion knows no borders.

davelakers

The cartoons were not published "just to offend", they were published because some religious nutjobs told them they couldn't.

A big brave "fuck you" to anyone who thinks that they have a right to try and impose their bullshit on others.

Nothing gives you the right to be sheltered from offence. Least of all being a follower of one of the many sky fairies that have come and gone since the beginning of humanity.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

And the Basques, and Catalans, and Northern League. Too many exceptions to prove the rule maybe.

The Basques and Catalans may at least be current.
But they tend to keep their "protests" within the relevant regions.
Religion knows no borders.

Tell that to people in Northern Ireland...

Wunnunda

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

And the Basques, and Catalans, and Northern League. Too many exceptions to prove the rule maybe.

The Basques and Catalans may at least be current.
But they tend to keep their "protests" within the relevant regions.
Religion knows no borders.

Tell that to people in Northern Ireland...

And while you're at it, ask 'em if internment works....

MisterMuncher

Was just about to post the Wiki link for Operation Demetrius, Britain's previous experiment with internment. Definition of insanity and all that.

florerider

davelakers wrote:

The cartoons were not published "just to offend", they were published because some religious nutjobs told them they couldn't.

A big brave "fark you" to anyone who thinks that they have a right to try and impose their bullshit on others.

Nothing gives you the right to be sheltered from offence. Least of all being a follower of one of the many sky fairies that have come and gone since the beginning of humanity.

Nearly missed the self deprecation in the second sentence

Very cleverly written for a northerner.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

And the Basques, and Catalans, and Northern League. Too many exceptions to prove the rule maybe.

The Basques and Catalans may at least be current.
But they tend to keep their "protests" within the relevant regions.
Religion knows no borders.

Tell that to people in Northern Ireland...

Tell what?
They kept it within the relevant regions.
Religion knows no borders.
I stand by those statements.

slowmart

florerider wrote:

davelakers wrote:

The cartoons were not published "just to offend", they were published because some religious nutjobs told them they couldn't.

A big brave "fark you" to anyone who thinks that they have a right to try and impose their bullshit on others.

Nothing gives you the right to be sheltered from offence. Least of all being a follower of one of the many sky fairies that have come and gone since the beginning of humanity.

Nearly missed the self deprecation in the second sentence

Very cleverly written for a northerner.

Yes, pity a southern illiterate can't spell, mind you, low hanging fruit when it comes to your subjective threshold of clever…

verylonglegs

Sadly I think this is not entirely too unrealistic.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... LGXKXs2vIb

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

And the Basques, and Catalans, and Northern League. Too many exceptions to prove the rule maybe.

The Basques and Catalans may at least be current.
But they tend to keep their "protests" within the relevant regions.
Religion knows no borders.

Tell that to people in Northern Ireland...

Tell what?
They kept it within the relevant regions.

I stand by those statements.

http://www.newsecuritylearning.com/inde ... om-the-ira

The tentacles of terrorism spread across borders and find aligned interests and the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend while not universally correct is certainly a platform for convenience.

Think Libya and arms, Columbia, arms and drugs, The US for fund raising and arms.

ballysmate

Dimbleby shows the BBC's lack of backbone.
Free speech?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... ebdo-cover

florerider

Slowmart wrote:

florerider wrote:

davelakers wrote:

The cartoons were not published "just to offend", they were published because some religious nutjobs told them they couldn't.

A big brave "fark you" to anyone who thinks that they have a right to try and impose their bullshit on others.

Nothing gives you the right to be sheltered from offence. Least of all being a follower of one of the many sky fairies that have come and gone since the beginning of humanity.

Nearly missed the self deprecation in the second sentence

Very cleverly written for a northerner.

Yes, pity a southern illiterate can't spell, mind you, low hanging fruit when it comes to your subjective threshold of clever…

Product of my northern education maybe?

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.newsecuritylearning.com/inde ... om-the-ira

The tentacles of terrorism spread across borders and find aligned interests and the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend while not universally correct is certainly a platform for convenience.

Think Libya and arms, Columbia, arms and drugs, The US for fund raising and arms.

But the IRA were not a threat to Libya, Columbia or the U.S., or anywhere out of the U.K. for that matter.
Still standing.

Anyway, you could only be proving my point of religion knowing no borders. Please continue.

slowmart

Ballysmate wrote:

Dimbleby shows the BBC's lack of backbone.
Free speech?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... ebdo-cover

Indeed and given The Independent editor, Amol Rajans' decision and the remainder of the British press not to publish the cartoons in question could be construed as a win for the terrorists. The New York Times took a similar line.

finchy

Slowmart wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Dimbleby shows the BBC's lack of backbone.
Free speech?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... ebdo-cover

Indeed and given The Independent editor, Amol Rajans' decision and the remainder of the British press not to publish the cartoons in question could be construed as a win for the terrorists. The New York Times took a similar line.

If the editors choose to publish the cartoons, they will be endangering the lives of all their staff. While I hate the fact that we have de facto censorship concerning certain elements of Islam in this country, I can fully understand why they take this line and don't blame them at all. Let's face it, none of us on here would walk around Bradford with a placard displaying the cartoons, would we?

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.newsecuritylearning.com/inde ... om-the-ira

The tentacles of terrorism spread across borders and find aligned interests and the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend while not universally correct is certainly a platform for convenience.

Think Libya and arms, Columbia, arms and drugs, The US for fund raising and arms.

But the IRA were not a threat to Libya, Columbia or the U.S., or anywhere out of the U.K. for that matter.
Still standing.

Anyway, you could only be proving my point of religion knowing no borders. Please continue.

Warrenpoint In Ireland?

My reference was to their activities and that was contained in their area of operation. And you last point regarding borders and religion is like saying night follows day :roll:

pblakeney

Why not?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=charl ... d=0CC0QsAQ

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

My reference was to their activities and that was contained in their area of operation. And you last point regarding borders and religion is like saying night follows day :roll:

Which is why the World is as it is today.
Religion causing problems worldwide with no boundaries.
For there to be peace we would have to do away with both.

florerider

Slowmart wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Dimbleby shows the BBC's lack of backbone.
Free speech?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... ebdo-cover

Indeed and given The Independent editor, Amol Rajans' decision and the remainder of the British press not to publish the cartoons in question could be construed as a win for the terrorists. The New York Times took a similar line.

I wonder where the balance lies between not publishing and having some concept of them winning, and not publishing because it's better not to give them any excuse for any indignation or self righteousness, oxygen of publicity and all that. Many extreme organisations look for excuses to do things they are inclined to do regardless, as it "justifies" their actions. Why give them that justification, especially when the cartoon would not be newsworthy without the reaction.

slowmart

florerider wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Dimbleby shows the BBC's lack of backbone.
Free speech?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... ebdo-cover

Indeed and given The Independent editor, Amol Rajans' decision and the remainder of the British press not to publish the cartoons in question could be construed as a win for the terrorists. The New York Times took a similar line.

I wonder where the balance lies between not publishing and having some concept of them winning, and not publishing because it's better not to give them any excuse for any indignation or self righteousness, oxygen of publicity and all that. Many extreme organisations look for excuses to do things they are inclined to do regardless, as it "justifies" their actions. Why give them that justification, especially when the cartoon would not be newsworthy without the reaction.

Simply by letting the terrorists define our behaviour provides them oxygen and cartoons cannot justify murder.

rick_chasey

It's all very well saying we're Charlie Hebdo, and it's all very well saying that we need to keep preserving free speech etc.

But I don't know many people who have the balls to go out and be deliberately provocative to a section of people who will literally kill you for doing so, to prove a point about free speech. You're putting you, your colleagues and your family at risk.

I don't know anyone who is Charlie Hedbo, because I don't know anyone who can handle that. I certainly can't.

Some leadership would be nice. Someone who does have the stones, but perhaps better articulation that Chalie had...

It's worth protecting, but it's a bit easy just to say 'we should't give in' - it's not our necks on the line.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's all very well saying we're Charlie Hebdo, and it's all very well saying that we need to keep preserving free speech etc.

But I don't know many people who have the balls to go out and be deliberately provocative to a section of people who will literally kill you for doing so, to prove a point about free speech. You're putting you, your colleagues and your family at risk.

I don't know anyone who is Charlie Hedbo, because I don't know anyone who can handle that. I certainly can't.

Some leadership would be nice. Someone who does have the stones, but perhaps better articulation that Chalie had...

It's worth protecting, but it's a bit easy just to say 'we should't give in' - it's not our necks on the line.

Try going to Dresden on Monday.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's all very well saying we're Charlie Hebdo, and it's all very well saying that we need to keep preserving free speech etc.

But I don't know many people who have the balls to go out and be deliberately provocative to a section of people who will literally kill you for doing so, to prove a point about free speech. You're putting you, your colleagues and your family at risk.

I don't know anyone who is Charlie Hedbo, because I don't know anyone who can handle that. I certainly can't.

Some leadership would be nice. Someone who does have the stones, but perhaps better articulation that Chalie had...

It's worth protecting, but it's a bit easy just to say 'we should't give in' - it's not our necks on the line.

That's what I just said ya bloody plagiarist.

rick_chasey

I basically copied an FT column I read, so yeah .

finchy

I don't read FT, can you provide me with a link, please? I want to sue them for copyright infringement just after I've sued you.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

I don't read FT, can you provide me with a link, please? I want to sue them for copyright infringement just after I've sued you.

If you can get passed the firewall: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6ddff0c2-95c4 ... z3OSlr7TZA

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's all very well saying we're Charlie Hebdo, and it's all very well saying that we need to keep preserving free speech etc.

But I don't know many people who have the balls to go out and be deliberately provocative to a section of people who will literally kill you for doing so, to prove a point about free speech. You're putting you, your colleagues and your family at risk.

I don't know anyone who is Charlie Hedbo, because I don't know anyone who can handle that. I certainly can't.

Some leadership would be nice. Someone who does have the stones, but perhaps better articulation that Chalie had...

It's worth protecting, but it's a bit easy just to say 'we should't give in' - it's not our necks on the line.

Try going to Dresden on Monday.

That would be brave, an Englishman going to Dresden and telling them not to give into to someone trying to change their way of life, especially through terror.