Charlie Hebdo

ballysmate

ugo.santalucia wrote:

For as long as the politicians keep using the word "evil", terrorism will thrive and flourish.

They don't seem to be concerned about the reasons why vulnerable minds get radicalised and choose murder and suicide as a way of life, but rather find someone to blame, some "evil" to eradicate and exterminate. What needs to be eradicated to erase the threat of terrorism are two things, both of which the goverments are responsible and accountable for

1) Ignorance via education

2) Social inequality

I am sure that there are millions of citizens in the inner cities who suffer from social inequality and poor education. We don't have a Geordie People's Front or a Scouse Separatist Movement, planning atrocities do we?
There are people from one population group in particular that are posing a threat.
Care to hazard a guess from which group they come?


As for choosing suicide as a way of life, as Josie Wales said,'Dying ain't much of a living boy!'

Edit Of course that should be Josey. Josie was his sister.

RDW

johnfinch wrote:

Maybe we can just ban idiocy? :idea:

But how could we then draft legislation that would not also make the Bottom Bracket totally illegal?

DeVlaeminck

Ballysmate wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

For as long as the politicians keep using the word "evil", terrorism will thrive and flourish.

They don't seem to be concerned about the reasons why vulnerable minds get radicalised and choose murder and suicide as a way of life, but rather find someone to blame, some "evil" to eradicate and exterminate. What needs to be eradicated to erase the threat of terrorism are two things, both of which the goverments are responsible and accountable for

1) Ignorance via education

2) Social inequality

I am sure that there are millions of citizens in the inner cities who suffer from social inequality and poor education. We don't have a Geordie People's Front or a Scouse Separatist Movement, planning atrocities do we?
There are people from one population group in particular that are posing a threat.
Care to hazard a guess from which group they come?

Walk about parts of Liverpool at night though and you'll feel more threatened than you ever have by islamist terrorists !

I think the question is what turns the disenfranchised into extremists and for me it comes back to the disagreement I had with Rick about ideology - are ideologies purely a product of socio-economic-political circumstances or whether they have an important causal role in generating extremism.

Of course not all extremists come from poor backgrounds or lives where you can imagine they feel disenfranchised and Bin Laden is probably the prime example but you'd guess that he's the exception rather than the rule. Solving social inequality is a biggy but I reckon we could do more with education - the growth of faith schools (of all faiths not just Muslim) can't be a positive move.

ballysmate

Social inequality?
Isis fighters seem to be fighting for the right to go back to Medieval times. Hows that work then?

DeVlaeminck

I don't follow your point - nobody is suggesting islamists are trying to solve social inequality - just that social inequality contributes to letting extremism to flourish.

ugo.santalucia

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't follow your point - nobody is suggesting islamists are trying to solve social inequality - just that social inequality contributes to letting extremism to flourish.

This.

Let's not forget education. Unfortunately deprived areas have low standard schools.

ballysmate

Please bear with me, perhaps I am not at my brightest this morning.
You reckon that the root causes of terrorism are social inequality and poor education. Both of these ills apply to all ethnic and religious groups, but only members of one group turn to terrorism.
You say they feel social inequality but when they take up arms it is not to fight social equality.

As these two ills affect all groups of society, perhaps you could explain predominantly members from only one group turn to terrorism?

pliptrot

As we have discussed idiocy and ignorance, here's a really depressing manifestation of these in supposedly well-educated non-muslims......

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-30773297

ukiboy

That is really ignorant and stupid, however, freedom of speech means exactly that.
If someone climbed on their soapbox in Hyde Park on Speakers Corner and spouted views that are directly opposed to the established and accepted views of the politically correct left wing Islington elite they would soon get a visit from a Met copper enquiring as to their motives...

IMHO freedom of speech means exactly that.. So views that challenge multi culturalism, gay rights, political correctness etc HAVE to also be accepted and tolerated otherwise it demeans and negates the concept of free speech..

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Of course not all extremists come from poor backgrounds or lives where you can imagine they feel disenfranchised and Bin Laden is probably the prime example but you'd guess that he's the exception rather than the rule. Solving social inequality is a biggy but I reckon we could do more with education - the growth of faith schools (of all faiths not just Muslim) can't be a positive move.

The extremists wish to do away with education for the majority, and women in particular.
How would you square that circle?

ugo.santalucia

PBlakeney wrote:

The extremists wish to do away with education for the majority, and women in particular.
How would you square that circle?

I think the point being made is that in the absence of a fertile soil with uneducated and easily manipulated individuals, terrorism would not flourish... at the end of the day it's not Osama Bin Laden that blow himself up, it's probably some brainwashed ignorant individual who was an easy target. Without the manpower, there is no terrorism

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The extremists wish to do away with education for the majority, and women in particular.
How would you square that circle?

I think the point being made is that in the absence of a fertile soil with uneducated and easily manipulated individuals, terrorism would not flourish... at the end of the day it's not Osama Bin Laden that blow himself up, it's probably some brainwashed ignorant individual who was an easy target. Without the manpower, there is no terrorism

That may reduce the "home grown" element but I fear that the problem is worldwide and U.K. education would be an Elastoplast on an amputation. No amount of U.S. education would have stopped 9/11.

mamba80

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The extremists wish to do away with education for the majority, and women in particular.
How would you square that circle?

I think the point being made is that in the absence of a fertile soil with uneducated and easily manipulated individuals, terrorism would not flourish... at the end of the day it's not Osama Bin Laden that blow himself up, it's probably some brainwashed ignorant individual who was an easy target. Without the manpower, there is no terrorism

is this a proven fact or just wishful thinking?
the west has already given many migrants a fantatstic way of life compared to the home lands of their parents and that inc healthcare and education, i think casting these people as brain dead ignorant peasants is just ridiculous, as is suggesting that the use of the word Evil is somehow to blame, is there another word to describ the summary executions of innocent people or the kidnap of 300 school girls.

pinno

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The extremists wish to do away with education for the majority, and women in particular.
How would you square that circle?

I think the point being made is that in the absence of a fertile soil with uneducated and easily manipulated individuals, terrorism would not flourish... at the end of the day it's not Osama Bin Laden that blow himself up, it's probably some brainwashed ignorant individual who was an easy target. Without the manpower, there is no terrorism

Yep, manipulated by clerics in some sort of power fetish.

You don't explain why the vast majority of downtrodden poorly educated millions populating slums globally don't turn to terrorism. Crime perhaps, but not terrorism.

I think that there is something inherently wrong with the upbringing of these people. They have an inherent egotism that knows no bounds fuelled by a fanaticism that borders on a madness. It is also mixed in with misogyny.
He who doth protest too much ?

slowmart

An interesting and illuminating link on the drivers of Islamist extremism but heavy going all the same


http://fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/roots.pdf

pinno

Slowmart wrote:

An interesting and illuminating link on the drivers of Islamist extremism but heavy going all the same


http://fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/roots.pdf

Could you summarise a little? I did download it but farq me.

slowmart

In the 1970's the IRA were quick to realise a bomb in London was worth far more in terms of impact and publicity than a dozen in Northern Ireland.

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


I doubt the reporting has become better which means a concerted worldwide escalation by Islamic extremists during 2014….

mr_goo

" Islam belongs to Germany " - Chancellor Angela Merkel - Monday 12th January 2015.
A quote and date to put in the history books.

ballysmate

The latest cover.



Untill the moderator team get the go-ahead from BikeRadar staff that they are comfortable with their website hosting potentially inflammatory pictures please refrain from posting the hebdo front cover. Once we get an answer either way we'll let you know.
BR are ok with some caveats

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

The latest cover.

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q- ... lable.jpeg

Untill the moderator team get the go-ahead from BikeRadar staff that they are comfortable with their website hosting potentially inflammatory pictures please refrain from posting the hebdo front cover. Once we get an answer either way we'll let you know.

Is that a serious remark or a tongue in cheek comment?

ballysmate

I posted a link to the image published in the Guardian.
Please go to the Guardian to view image.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... t-muhammad


Can't believe what just happened.

ballysmate

What the hell is happening? I usually am quite contemptuous of THe Guardian but at least they have got a pair. Other publications, including this one, sadly seem to have been castrated.

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

I posted a link to the image published in the Guardian.
Please go to the Guardian to view image.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... t-muhammad


Can't believe what just happened.

I seem to recall a certain toothbrush moustachioed gent imposing censorship back in the 20th century. Is that what we are going back to?

What would the moderators/publishing company owners be more comfortable with? images of the Islamic State flag? A symbol of barbarism and murder or a cartoon lampooning a fairytale?

Bl88dy madness.

BikeRadar moderator

Given firms who republish certain Charlie hebdo pictures have been attacked for doing so, it makes sense for the website owners and employees of this website to decide whether they are willing to host pictures of that nature or not.

The moderators have asked the question to the staff of BR and will let you know what the response is.

mr_goo

ballysmate

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.
But in a wider context, doesn't it show that Islam is receiving greater consideration than any other group?
No one baulks at publishing a cartoon of Jesus for instance. In fact I have seen such on this site. although possibly offensive to Christians. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I have no truck with Jesus nor Mohammed.
When is this country going to grow a pair and stop pandering to one group lest they cause offence?

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.
But in a wider context, doesn't it show that Islam is receiving greater consideration than any other group?
No one baulks at publishing a cartoon of Jesus for instance. In fact I have seen such on this site. although possibly offensive to Christians. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I have no truck with Jesus nor Mohammed.
When is this country going to grow a pair and stop pandering to one group lest they cause offence?

arran77

Mr Goo wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.
But in a wider context, doesn't it show that Islam is receiving greater consideration than any other group?
No one baulks at publishing a cartoon of Jesus for instance. In fact I have seen such on this site. although possibly offensive to Christians. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I have no truck with Jesus nor Mohammed.
When is this country going to grow a pair and stop pandering to one group lest they cause offence?

+1

There is no defence for what those barbarians did in France and people need to take a stand and let it be said.

laurentian

Ballysmate wrote:

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.
But in a wider context, doesn't it show that Islam is receiving greater consideration than any other group?
No one baulks at publishing a cartoon of Jesus for instance. In fact I have seen such on this site. although possibly offensive to Christians. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I have no truck with Jesus nor Mohammed.
When is this country going to grow a pair and stop pandering to one group lest they cause offence?

The point is that the depiction of The Prophet is specifically forbidden and offensive in Islam (as far as I understand it). The depiction of Jesus is absolutely not forbidden by Christianity.

Depiction of Mohammed is offensive and upsetting to all Muslims - not just the nutters with the Semtex and AK47s. For that reason, I question why anyone would want to publish the cartoon(s) and deliberately upset about 1.6 billion of their fellow human beings. Whether they are Jihadis or peace loving moderates (as I'm sure the vast majority are) - It's hardly the way to build bridges.

I personally haven't got a problem with annoying, insulting, lampooning or satirizing and, indeed eradicating those that would kill and maim in the name of their God (or anything else for that matter) its the deliberate and willful upsetting of the majority, not the extreme minority that I have a problem with.

ballysmate

I find parts of the Koran and I have to say, the Bible offensive.
How many copies of these books are published and circulated.
If you are to ban the publications of pictures of prophets and religious icons, can we not have these offensive books withdrawn as they are offensive to atheists? Of course not. But where would you draw the line?