Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Manoli on January 09, 2015, 12:41:48 pm
-
With the news that the suspected perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the other murders are now deceased, time to extend sympathies to all French and francophile members and condolences to the victims' families.
(http://wpmedia.montrealgazette.com/2015/01/global-reaction-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-french-newspaper.jpg?w=600)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B66Gd-kCIAA4zV_.jpg:large)
-
Europe, particularly France and Germany, absolutely needs urgent distraction like this from the horrendous economic blowbacks from Washington-enforced economic war against Russia.
-
... time to extend sympathies to all French and francophile members and condolences to the victims' families.
+1
Attack on French liberties is an attack on our liberties as well. We will defeat the ideology behind the attack and its medieval mindset.
-
+ 1
Thanks, Slobodan
-
We will defeat the ideology behind the attack and its medieval mindset.
How? The Western leaders and media are still in denial.
-
+1
Attack on French liberties is an attack on our liberties as well. We will defeat the ideology behind the attack and its medieval mindset.
+1
-
How? The Western leaders and media are still in denial.
Right, Rajan. Nobody in the West is willing to face the facts and deal with reality.
-
+1. I keep wishing to hear more clerics raise their voices against these acts, but I guess I have to wait longer.
-
How can any one nation or 'the west' be at fault for the actions of those 2 thin skinned losers with guns ??
If they had walked into those offices and had a sit-down protest maybe.. ;)
My sympathies to the victims and their families who were guilty of nothing.
-
In the meantime, cartoonists in America remain fearless freedom fighters, under the watchful eye of our own PC Taliban:
-
+1 to Manoli, Slobo, David, RSL...everyone, actually.
The word is that one of the 2 brothers had an apartment full of child porn. Like the 9/11 perpetrators with their Vegas whores on 9/10. It's a death cult, hiding behind all manner of obfuscation, hypocrisy, false piety, misogyny, fraud, etc.
Here's a link to the some of the 'offending' Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2012/09/charlie-hebdo-to-publish-new-mohammed.html
-
“If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”
- Ben Franklin
-
+1
Attack on French liberties is an attack on our liberties as well. We will defeat the ideology behind the attack and its medieval mindset.
+1
-
“If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”
- Ben Franklin
Ben was right, but it's not the thinking that's the problem, it's the not thinking of fundamentalists that is the problem. Thinking stops where dogmas start. And it's not limited to religion ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
What happened was obviously 100% wrong. However there is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to offend? Fanatics don't like being targeted and not being rational means they will react to being lampooned. Unfortunately the French cartoonists have possibly went from free speech to offending. Difficult to differentiate. As stated by myself....the actions of the terrorists were 100% wrong. :'(
-
Ben was right, but it's not the thinking that's the problem, it's the not thinking of fundamentalists that is the problem. Thinking stops where dogmas start. And it's not limited to religion ...
Cheers,
Bart
So, so true, Bart.
The problem, as currenly evident in Germany and mid-West USA, is that the middle ground disappears and we drive the debate to the extremes.
The problem is not one particular religion. It may be all religions. But, more particularly, it is fundamentalism - irrespective of which religion or political belief that fundamentalism is attached to.
Fundamentalist Christianity is every bit as evil and dangerous as fundamentalist Islam. Extreme-right politics are as dangerous as extreme-left.
-
Today the imam of the mosk nearby the Charlie Hebdo office stated:
'God says whoever insults me does that out of ignorance... if somebody feels insulted they can go to court"
Personally i would like to see that imams all over the world come together to unitedly condemn all terrorist actions that are carried out in the name of the Islam.
-
+1
+1
Attack on French liberties is an attack on our liberties as well. We will defeat the ideology behind the attack and its medieval mindset.
-
Fundamentalist Christianity is every bit as evil and dangerous as fundamentalist Islam.
You may not like fundamentalist Christians, but right now at least, that's a philosophical, and potentially dangerous element in western society, vs. the kinetic, 'currently killing thousands' danger posed by Islamism. Re-post when the American abortion clinics start blowing up again, or when the Methodists start bombing nightclubs and killing Muslim children in the name of Jesus or John the Baptist, his Prophet....peace be upon him.
-
The world would be better and safer if everyone could learn and practice tolerance, respect and keep an open mind, hoping to learn from others and their differing views. Humanity has never seen that ideal society and probably never will. War and (various types of) terrorism seem a (major?) factor of human nature.
While understanding the motivation behind such atrocities can help us understand human behavior, we will never come to consensus as to the causes. We are individuals and different (except that one guy in The Life of Brian) and that is a good thing. We must all learn tolerance.
If more persons react radially when they feel offended, even this forum could lose a number of members. Always a loss.
-
The world would be better and safer if everyone could learn and practice tolerance, respect and keep an open mind, hoping to learn from others and their differing views. We must all learn tolerance.
Who is 'we'? On the continuum of 'people who need to be more tolerant', where do these bloodthirsty killers lie?
Limp platitudes and entreaties about peace, freedom and tolerance are worthless when there is wanton slaughter on the streets, in the offices, schools and cafes of Paris, Sydney, Peshawar, and soon....God forbid....a city near you.
"2000 dead in fresh Boko Haram attacks"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria
-
What happened was obviously 100% wrong. However there is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to offend?
Of course the right to free speech doesn't mean that anything goes. However, some dogmatic folk are offended by things that makes no logical sense, at all. The earlier fire bombing of Charlie Hebdo was caused by a so-called depiction of the so-called prophet by Kurt Westergaard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Westergaard) that Charlie published a copy of as solidarity with Kurt. Why are Muslims 'offended' by that Cartoon? They claim that it was Muhammad himself who said that no images of him were to be made. And they stick to defend that dogma, even with non-Muslims.
Because they stopped thinking, they do not understand that Muhammad said that, because he didn't want people idolizing him instead of Allah. And look what happened, people stopped thinking, started idolizing the prophet and made his words into law, no (critical) thinking allowed ... Feeling(!) offended apparently doesn't require to understand the message or the reasoning, or maybe it's mandatory to not understand?
Another issue is that the principle of Secularism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) is not embraced by many religious fundamentalists of all creeds. Also, Western European countries went though "an age of Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)", and many ideas from that Enlightenment formed a basis for the later French Revolution (that's why free speech is a big deal in France and other Western European countries). The fundamental right to question authority, also sparked a Scientifc revolution.
But there are those who prefer to remain ignorant, and feel(!) offended, followed by an urge to dictate that ignorance to others ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mezzoduomo, I’m not saying I have an answer to terrorism in today’s world. But I understand that those examples you mentioned stem from different motivations, different groups of people, the crimes are all hideous but shouldn’t be thrown into one bucket. There are no simple answers to matters as complicated as today’s global acts of terrorism. There is no Axis of Evil as some simpletons want us to believe. But the replies to such acts need to be well planned and must have a goal – not only a short-term one. Far to many reactions have effects which outlive the term of office of the leader(s) initiating them.
I wish I had answers, I wish there was a wise old man or an oracle who had correct answers. But I read too much hate and blindness in some responses. That will never solve any problems, immediate or for the future.
-
I am now wondering how long it is till the thread gets locked? Hopefully it can remain civilised?
-
I am now wondering how long it is till the thread gets locked? Hopefully it can remain civilised?
Define civilized ..., nobody posted any cartoons that others might feel to be offending, yet.
Although Slobodan's posted cartoon was undoubtedly borderline, to some ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
But I understand that those examples you mentioned stem from different motivations, different groups of people, the crimes are all hideous but shouldn’t be thrown into one bucket.
I agree that there are no easy answers. But as to your statement above, I would only suggest that according to all the perpetrators...there IS a common bucket, a common motivation: Islamist Fundamentalism.
-
There were two French police officers killed too. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Clarissa
-
There were two French police officers killed too. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Clarissa
+1.
-
Craig Paul Roberts, who is a former member of Washington insiders and power elite, observes from totally different perspectives, disagrees with the narratives spoon-fed by MSM and argues on his blog:
There are two ways to look at the alleged terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
One is that in the English speaking world, or much of it, the satire would have been regarded as “hate speech,” and the satirists arrested. But in France Muslims are excluded from the privileged category, took offense at the satire, and retaliated.
Why would Muslims bother? By now Muslims must be accustomed to Western hypocrisy and double standards. Little doubt that Muslims are angry that they do not enjoy the protections other minorities receive, but why retaliate for satire but not for France’s participation in Washington’s wars against Muslims in which hundreds of thousands have died? Isn’t being killed more serious than being satirized?
Another way of seeing the attack is as an attack designed to shore up France’s vassal status to Washington…France is suffering from the Washington-imposed sanctions against Russia. Shipyards are impacted from being unable to deliver Russian orders due to France’s vassalage status to Washington, and other aspects of the French economy are being adversely impacted by sanctions that Washington forced its NATO puppet states to apply to Russia.
[…]
The Roman question is always: Who benefits? The answer is: Not France, not Muslims, but US world hegemony. US hegemony over the world is what the CIA supports. US world hegemony is the neoconservative-imposed foreign policy of the US.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-tsarnaevs-trial-qui-bono/
-
Ben was right, but it's not the thinking that's the problem, it's the not thinking of fundamentalists that is the problem. Thinking stops where dogmas start. And it's not limited to religion ...
Cheers,
Bart
Adorno says it better than Franklin, "The poor are prevented from thinking by the discipline of others, the rich by their own."
-
There were two French police officers killed too. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Clarissa
Three.
#jesuispolicier
#jesuisclarissa
#jesuisfranck
#jesuisahmed
-
One is that in the English speaking world, or much of it, the satire would have been regarded as “hate speech,” and the satirists arrested.
Not in England, and I suspect not in America either.
Another way of seeing the attack is as an attack designed to shore up France’s vassal status to Washington…
Yes, quite. It's hard to imagine a couple of French Islamic fanatics having any other motive for mass murder, isn't it, really?
Jeremy
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/policymic-images/6hzjsoa5hdo9cukzb5ku2zbstpespmfwmyfj6stykenckzv3hoqpb7ovlgwrhafs.jpg)
-
... It's hard to imagine a couple of French Islamic fanatics having any other motive for mass murder, isn't it, really?...
Ah, Jeremy, my good mate, you didn't get it... It wasn't them, it was CIA dressed as them, you see, practicing for months to shout "Allah Akbar" without a Yankee accent ;)
-
The problem is not one particular religion.
To paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar, "before deceiving others you must have taken great pains to deceive yourself."
-
+1 to Manoli, Slobo, David, RSL...everyone, actually.
The word is that one of the 2 brothers had an apartment full of child porn. Like the 9/11 perpetrators with their Vegas whores on 9/10. It's a death cult, hiding behind all manner of obfuscation, hypocrisy, false piety, misogyny, fraud, etc.
Here's a link to the some of the 'offending' Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2012/09/charlie-hebdo-to-publish-new-mohammed.html
It would be interesting to see the response if a version of the 'And my buttocks, you like them, my buttocks?' cartoon depicting Christ was printed in a magazine in a Christian Fundamentalist part of the USA. ( Or a version depicting The Virgin Mary in Latin America ).
It's also interesting to ask yourself what the young guys ( and it's almost always young guys ) who carry out these attacks or join ISIS, Al Quaeda etc would be doing otherwise: Probably working in a low paid factory job or the family shop in a dull provincial town. Joining these organisations can bring them adventure, power & status which they'd never achieve otherwise. Western youth has the safety valve of being able to join a death metal band, spend a summer partying in Ibiza etc...
My sympathies to anyone affected by the events in Paris.
Graeme
-
It would be interesting to see the response if a version of the 'And my buttocks, you like them, my buttocks?' cartoon depicting Christ was printed in a magazine in a Christian Fundamentalist part of the USA...
No, it wouldn't be interesting to see the response... because it's been done (http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/) and there was... no response (other than, perhaps, shaking heads).
As for the "buttocks" reference, it shall be understood in its French context, as it was a reference and a direct quote from a Brigitte Bardot movie.
-
It would be interesting to see the response if a version of the 'And my buttocks, you like them, my buttocks?' cartoon depicting Christ was printed in a magazine in a Christian Fundamentalist part of the USA. ( Or a version depicting The Virgin Mary in Latin America ).
There's plenty of stuff around the US that many Christians (and others) find offensive. Piss Christ might be one of the more notorious, due to Federal funding. But there's loads more, easily found online. Side note: The gutless AP has recently taken down images of Piss Christ, due to....what, exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
We know what the response is to this sort of thing whenever its aimed at anyone except extreme Muslims. A few speeches, maybe the odd boycott, and nothing more. Its ok to ridicule and 'blaspheme' Christianity, because Christians largely do nothing about it. Nobody dies, that's for sure.
Try being 'blasphemous' (against Islam, of course) in Pakistan
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/11/05/361740085/christian-couple-killed-by-mob-in-latest-pakistan-blasphemy-case
-
... Fundamentalist Christianity is every bit as evil and dangerous as fundamentalist Islam...
My own sense of public decorum, the rules of this forum, and the sheer respect I have for its owners, prevent me from saying what I really think of that statement.
-
My own sense of public decorum, the rules of this forum, and the sheer respect I have for its owners, prevent me from saying what I really think of that statement.
You can always outsource it -
http://youtu.be/Xj58TavOIqg
-
... However there is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to offend?...
Of course the right to free speech doesn't mean that anything goes...
If by "anything goes" you mean very, very, very few exceptions that the Supreme Court of the US has allowed, mostly to deal with an imminent and personal threat of violence, than you would be right, Bart. Otherwise, it is pretty much "anything goes."
And Stamper, the right to offend is an inseparable part of the right to free speech. If only "proper" words are allowed, it ain't free speech. If only politically correct words are allowed, it ain't free speech.
-
You can always outsource it -
http://youtu.be/Xj58TavOIqg
While I agree with Bill Maher, I said something similar on my Facebook page before his statements went public:
"Funny how the PC media goes to great lengths trying to hide, in news summaries, the fact that it was a Muslim terrorist attack. If you don't go beyond the news summary, you wouldn't know. Thanks god for Fox News (I never thought I'd say that), the only one calling a spade a spade."
-
After this attack, I'm more disappointed than ever.
These cowardly murders never should have occurred, but I thought to myself OK--it's an attack on a media outlet. Maybe the largely leftist media will finally stop making excuses for islam and stop contorting itself to try to say that all religions are equally worthy of respect.
In recent years for instance, most people in the media believe in equal rights for women.
But islam gets a pass.
The Taliban blows up girls' schools... "Oh well, we made them angry with Western Imperialism."
Female genital mutilation continues to be practiced... "Well, it's not all muslims doing it, and Jews and others circumcise baby boys, so, hey."
Girls and women are treated like property ... "Well, that's their traditional way of life."
I'd been hoping over the last couple days, with an issue so allegedly close to journalists' own hearts, that journalists would finally collectively say that enough was enough, we don't live in the eighth century anymore, and it's time to expose islam for what it is: a violent, misogynistic belief system that gives cover to terrorism. So far I haven't had much luck. It's "not all muslims think that way", it's "well, when you offend people, that comes with a risk", it's "muslims who grow up in the West often grow up in poverty, so what they do isn't their fault, it's society's fault".
I'm about ready to give up.
-
If by "anything goes" you mean very, very, very few exceptions that the Supreme Court of the US has allowed, mostly to deal with an imminent and personal threat of violence, than you would be right, Bart. Otherwise, it is pretty much "anything goes."
With the right of free speech, comes the obligation to use it wisely.
There is also a difference between insulting for the sake of insulting, and e.g. exposing hypocrisy by using a sensitive subject in a satirical context which could be perceived as an insult. There are also degrees of sophistication in insults, and this (http://www.bizbag.com/Churchill/poison.htm) is one of my all time favorites.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Probably working in a low paid factory job or the family shop in a dull provincial town...
Once again, it is someone else's fault. We are not paying them enough and we are not entertaining them enough. No matter how "dull" that provincial town is, and how low that job is paid, the overall quality of life is centuries (often literally) ahead of the places they (or their parents) left behind. Besides, if they despise western values so much, who's stopping them from returning to places where their preferred lifestyle flourishes. instead of trying to turn their hew homeland into a caliphate?
-
I don't understand why the vast majority of people are looking at this in a vacuum. Things do not happen in a vacuum. These events are nothing more than blowback from interventionism in the middle east for the last 100 years.
While this does not justify any violence people need to start thinking about why things happen and be more contrarian towards politicians and the media; they are all pushing their own agendas.
It is clear that this is how the inhabitants of the ME deal with their problems and what we get for sticking our noses in their business is the same treatment they give each other. Politicians never do anything before it's too late (and most in the west are profiteering on instability in the ME); this is going to escalate into something very ugly over the next century.
As for the fundamentalist christianity rebuttals - the pendulum swings both ways. A few centuries ago it was the christians behaving in this way and the islamic empires were tolerant. Now it's the reverse. In the future it may swing around in a completely different direction. Human nature never changes, the idea of a 'modern' world is BS. As long as ego exists so will war.
This is the only decent article I found
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-brothers-campaign-of-terror-can-be-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html
-
With the right of free speech, comes the obligation to use it wisely.
No, Bart, that's fundamentally misguided. Free means free. There's no obligation to use it in any way at all, wisely or otherwise. Whoever is privileged to define "wisely" takes on the role of negating freedom of speech.
There is no right to live free from offence. Voltaire's assertion that "I disagree with every word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is often quoted, but that doesn't diminish its epitomisation of the nature of free speech.
Jeremy
-
Ah, Jeremy, my good mate, you didn't get it... It wasn't them, it was CIA dressed as them, you see, practicing for months to shout "Allah Akbar" without a Yankee accent ;)
Ah, of course. I get it now. God, I'm slow at times.
Jeremy
-
... A few centuries ago it was the christians behaving in this way...
Yes, agreed, but at the same time, this is the whole point, as Islamists seem to be a few centuries late to the party.
-
I don't understand why the vast majority of people are looking at this in a vacuum... These events are nothing more than blowback from interventionism in the middle east for the last 100 years...
Oh, we are not, we just find that argument true, but irrelevant, at best, and pathetic at worst. As a matter of fact, our forum member shawnino, in post #42, preempted your argument:
The Taliban blows up girls' schools... "Oh well, we made them angry with Western Imperialism."
EDIT: Corrected for the post number.
-
... but some speech is free-er...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
-
Oh, we are not, we just find that argument true, but irrelevant, at best, and pathetic at worst. As a matter of fact, our forum member shawnino, in post #46, preempted your argument:
That's not the same point. My point is that the reason these attacks are happening in the west (and Kenya) are that we have interfered with them. If we hadn't interfered, the taliban would still be blowing up the girls' schools but they would not be trying to blow the rest of us up. And speaking of imperialism, who armed and trained the taliban?
post #46 for me shows up as kikashi; regardless, he mentions Voltaire. Voltaire's Candide makes a point that everything is cause and effect. It is ridiculous to think that there is no reason for these attacks other than 'they hate our freedoms'. We have forcefully included ourselves in their society and we are being treated the same as they treat each other, indeed, they kills tens of thousands in the Middle East, and are only killing dozens outside it. The worst is a long way from coming.
It really annoys me that the bigoted response after these attacks seems to focus on the Sikhs who, ironically, have been fighting extremist Islam for 600 years and were practically borne as a rebellion to it.
-
Yes, agreed, but at the same time, this is the whole point, as Islamists seem to be a few centuries late to the party.
You miss the point. It's all swings and roundabouts, we all take turns being the idiot at the party. Human nature does not change so it does not matter how late or early anyone is. Historically this is a very peaceful period in humanity.
-
No, Bart, that's fundamentally misguided. Free means free. There's no obligation to use it in any way at all, wisely or otherwise. Whoever is privileged to define "wisely" takes on the role of negating freedom of speech.
And herein lies the crux of the matter. Wisely is not the same a politically correct! Using it wisely is using it effectively. There is nothing effective about stifling the discussion by intentionally insulting for the sake of insulting. Effective is raising questions about the validity of opposing (or even one's own) opinions. This can be done in provocative ways, to provoke a reaction, and to not have 'the others' entrench in their preconceived/misguided notions. Entrenchment means no-progress can be made, a stale-mate at best, and that's not wise (unless one is afraid of losing the confrontation).
Cheers,
Bart
-
... post #46 for me shows up as...
My bad... should have said #42.
-
... It is ridiculous to think that there is no reason for these attacks other than 'they hate our freedoms'...
That's a straw-man argument. Who among us, on this forum, used that simpletonistic logic? Or blamed the Sikhs?
As for the "reasons," if someone runs toward me with a weapon, with the intent to kill, I am not going to analyze the reasons, I am going to do whatever is possible to neutralize the threat first. Any analysis as to why, rests upon me staying alive.
-
That's not the same point. My point is that the reason these attacks are happening in the west (and Kenya) are that we have interfered with them. If we hadn't interfered, the taliban would still be blowing up the girls' schools but they would not be trying to blow the rest of us up.
There's no basis for that.
They want to establish a worldwide caliphate, not merely enslave their own women.
-
....Historically this is a very peaceful period in humanity.
OK, I feel so much better now! And I'm sure this is very comforting to the 9/11 families, the London transport families, the families of Peshawar, Sydney, the Christians in the path of ISIS in Iraq, the families of the schoolgirls in Nigeria, the thousands killed just running their Sunday errands in Iraq and Syria, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
There's no possibility that these 3 French butchers had any semblance of historical awareness of Algeria's colonial period, blah, blah, blah. They got sucked into a death cult by a preacher, period. Are we supposed to just ignore their self-professed motivations, in favor of convoluted socio-economic and historical theories that neither they nor their sponsors have ever mentioned? Rubbish.
-
I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I've been sucked in. There is a difference in meaning for certain common words between the West and the Middle East. First understand that Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and English are very euphemistic languages. For example, for centuries important documents in the english-speaking world were written in Latin. The meaning of some words can change based on a number of characteristics. Greek, on the other hand, is a very concrete language which is why the New Testament was written in Greek. Now for an example. And this is an example and not a sermon so spare me the indignation. Christ, at the last supper, commanded the disciples to "do this in remembrance of me." What does remembrance, remember, memory mean? Well in the West, we interpret it roughly "to look back fondly." However that is most certainly not the meaning in the Middle East. In Middle Eastern cultures it means to experience again as if for the first time. That is what Christ was commanding and that is what the people understood and understand to this day. Okay, so what effect does that have? It means that there is a culture of people who will avenge a perceived affront from hundreds of years ago with their very being, their treasure, their lives, everything. I know that I have struggled to understand why people would be willing to wager their life to avenge an affront. Why can't they just say meh and shrug their shoulders or shake their heads and turn away? Well their culture won't allow it. Does that mean that every Middle Easterner is going to strap on a suicide vest and go after Frenchmen? No, but a certain segment will. Does it mean that free speech provokes them to violence? No. It is their culture that provokes them to violence. At the very foundation of Western culture is the notion that free speech is sacred and if there is any hierarchy to freedom, then political and religious speech is at the top. Anything less is not free. Our civilization is based on the sacred trust that the free expression of ideas is unencumbered or it is not free. Anything less is some degree of totalitarianism. And that is a slippery slope. And no, you shouldn't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
-
If by "anything goes" you mean very, very, very few exceptions that the Supreme Court of the US has allowed, mostly to deal with an imminent and personal threat of violence, than you would be right, Bart. Otherwise, it is pretty much "anything goes."
And Stamper, the right to offend is an inseparable part of the right to free speech. If only "proper" words are allowed, it ain't free speech. If only politically correct words are allowed, it ain't free speech.
In respect to the right to offend I think you have been practising it for years? ;) :)As to free speech it is in reality a myth. There are laws of defamation and punch in the mouth to deter people from free speech. I don't know about the USA but there are people in the UK who are getting jailed for trolling on the internet for practising "free speech" The French cartoonists paid with their lives but was it really worth it?
-
Breaking news.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts
And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?
-
Breaking news.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts
And before anybody objects the man has a point???
Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?
After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?
Guise? Are you suggesting that someone forced him to express what he did, or forced him to only tell halftruths as a disinformation strategy?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?
Guise? Are you suggesting that someone forced him to express what he did, or forced him to only tell halftruths as a disinformation strategy?
Cheers,
Bart
That is your expressed opinion. He expressed his. "free speech" ?
-
No, it wouldn't be interesting to see the response... because it's been done (http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/) and there was... no response (other than, perhaps, shaking heads).
That's good to hear.
As for the "buttocks" reference, it shall be understood in its French context, as it was a reference and a direct quote from a Brigitte Bardot movie.
Before my time. Beatrice Dalle was my Gallic Screen Goddess of choice.
Graeme
-
Once again, it is someone else's fault. We are not paying them enough and we are not entertaining them enough. No matter how "dull" that provincial town is, and how low that job is paid, the overall quality of life is centuries (often literally) ahead of the places they (or their parents) left behind. Besides, if they despise western values so much, who's stopping them from returning to places where their preferred lifestyle flourishes. instead of trying to turn their hew homeland into a caliphate?
Totally agree I wasn't defending them, Slobodan. Just saying that for a a few nobodies this whole jihad thing is an opportunity to do something 'exciting'with their crappy lives.
Graeme
-
I don't know about the USA but there are people in the UK who are getting jailed for trolling on the internet for practising "free speech"
You run the risk of misinterpreting the UK position here, Stamper.
The position in Britain is that there is a right to Free Speech, within the law.
In other words, there are laws that restrict Free Speech in specified conditions and circumstances. For example the laws of libel/slander, the laws on inciting racial hatred or the laws on behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
-
I find you post contradictory. Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law. In reality that isn't possible and that is what I am trying to point out. You are stating Free Speach with restrictions which is imo an oxymoron. It can't be free and restricted at the same time?
-
That is your expressed opinion. He expressed his. "free speech" ?
I asked you two questions:"Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?" and "Guise?", I did not express an opinion.
Maybe if you could answer the questions, it then becomes possible to express an opinion about whatever you were specifically referring to, instead of having to guess.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I find you post contradictory. Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law. In reality that isn't possible and that is what I am trying to point out. You are stating Free Speach with restrictions which is imo an oxymoron. It can't be free and restricted at the same time?
Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, is the classic example of where free speech must have limits. You can't simply go around saying whatever you like & expect no come-backs. So you're free to say things that are slanderous, but the injured party is then free to sue you for damages. You're free to say things that might cause a breach of the peace, but the police are then free to arrest you & charge you accordingly.
-
Breaking news.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts
And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?
This guy is entitled to his opinion. Next week, instead of blaming the CIA, he'll probably blame aliens from the planet Mongo.
But here's the difference: neither the CIA, nor the FBI, nor the Tea Party, nor anybody else is going to send some uneducated slob with a suicide vest and the promise of virgins in the afterlife to this guy's house to blow him to pieces because he expressed his opinion.
Iran has had its own insurgents, including the MEK.
Try hanging out in Teheran and telling all and sundry that you think the latest MEK attack was actually a false-flag deal perpetrated by the government's Revolutionary Guard.
You might be wrong. You might be right. Either way, you'll be hanging from a crane.
-
Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law.
?????
When it comes to Free Speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), "Most people" seem to understand that there are some forms of conduct that are not allowed by law:
Every government restricts speech to some degree. Common limitations on speech relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.
The term "offense principle" is also used[1] to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.
As usual, differences of opinion can be submitted to a court of law for a judgement.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't you love it when the debate reaches new heights of "My Wikipedia quote has a bigger dick than your Wikipedia quote"?
-
Don't you love it when the debate reaches new heights of "My Wikipedia quote has a bigger dick than your Wikipedia quote"?
At this stage, the only missing ingredient is Isaac.
;D ;D Just a joke, Isaac....relax. ;D ;D
-
Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, is the classic example of where free speech must have limits. You can't simply go around saying whatever you like & expect no come-backs. So you're free to say things that are slanderous, but the injured party is then free to sue you for damages. You're free to say things that might cause a breach of the peace, but the police are then free to arrest you & charge you accordingly.
That is like saying "You are free to commit murder, but if you do and if you are caught, there will be legal consequences."
Not really a view that advances the debate very much.
I do appreciate that, here in UK, our "freedoms" tend to be more extensive than in USA or much of Europe (apart from Scandinavia) but our right to exercise those freedoms is still subject to the rule of law. So, perhaps we should be saying no more than "our laws in UK are less restrictive....".
Happily, given the location of this discussion, our freedoms (or should that be lack of restrictions) in relation to photography still seem to be favourable compared to many other countries.
-
In respect to the right to offend I think you have been practising it for years? ;) :)As to free speech it is in reality a myth. There are laws of defamation and punch in the mouth to deter people from free speech...
I imagine that if I said "Your blacks seem clipped" in a bar, you and any other Scot worth his salt (kilt?) would have punched me in the mouth after such an offensive statement? ;)
-
... here in UK, our "freedoms" tend to be more extensive than in USA...
Huh!?
-
"Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?"
— Marx and Engels
In France, I'm told, the fact is that Prisons Are Full of Muslims:
This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html
-
That is like saying "You are free to commit murder, but if you do and if you are caught, there will be legal consequences."
Which was my point. Any freedom has to be set against the impact it has on other people's rights & freedoms. The idea that free speech is only free when you don't need to think about others, is nonsense.
-
Huh!?
Well we don't need permits to take photogrpahs in national parks :)
-
I think the essential point here is that offensive and slanderous comments should be allowed in the interests of free speech, provided such comments have a factual basis. It is up to the person who feels offended to take action within the law if he/she knows the offensive comments to have no factual basis.
Human nature is such that people can be offended by the utterance of true comments about themselves, or others whom they highly regard, so to ban all comments on the basis they could or might be offensive is simply not rational and democratic.
The great Irish writer and poet, Oscar Wilde, represents an example. He was having a homosexual affair with the high-society Lord Alfred when homosexuality was illegal in Britain. Lord Alfred's father learned about the affair, got angry and called Oscar a Sodomite.
Oscar was extremely offended and no doubt worried about the effect such a comment would have on his reputation and success as a writer, so against good advice he initiated a private prosecution against Lord Alfred's father who was subsequently arrested and charged with criminal libel.
Unfortunately for Oscar, his lover's father had the resources to investigate Oscar's background and past activities. During the course of 3 trials it became clear that Oscar Wilde really was a Sodomite (or homosexual), so he was the one who was jailed.
For the confused, freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of behavior and activity. We are not, and certainly should not, be free to murder anyone, even if he happens to be guilty of committing a capital offense.
-
I think the essential point here is that offensive and slanderous comments should be allowed in the interests of free speech, provided such comments have a factual basis.
"Allowed"? And who decides that? Some might say that the "Holy Father" and "Allah" have no factual basis. Is that offensive and slanderous?
-
Totally agree I wasn't defending them, Slobodan. Just saying that for a a few nobodies this whole jihad thing is an opportunity to do something 'exciting'with their crappy lives.
Here's a thought, say you fancy being a serial killer/mass murderer and are not sure how to best go about it or don't fancy getting caught. Then why not join the local terrorist group where people will help you with your murderous tendencies and even supply you with weapons.
Eamon Collins, who joined the IRA for political reasons became disillusioned with his comrades in the struggle as it became clear that some of them simply liked killing people. The 'struggle' was simply an excuse to hurt people. He wrote about his time in the IRA in the fascinating book Killing Rage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Rage-Eamon-Collins/dp/1862070474). I gather that some of the IRA went back to being gangsters after the ceasefire.
-
At this stage, the only missing ingredient is Isaac.
;D ;D Just a joke, Isaac....relax. ;D ;D
At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.
-
At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.
What!? How dare you to offend us!?
-
Do you really believe there is so called freedom in this setup? I don't and that's why I call it Gulag.
-
At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.
Boring, predictable...just Isaac being Isaac. ;)
-
Look in a mirror.
-
What!? How dare you to offend us!?
I'm offended as well. So whatever might happen henceforth is someone else's fault.
-
I'm offended as well. So whatever might happen henceforth is someone else's fault.
Not "someone" else's fault...
"EVERYONE" else's fault.
-
With the right of free speech, comes the obligation to use it wisely.
There is also a difference between insulting for the sake of insulting, and e.g. exposing hypocrisy by using a sensitive subject in a satirical context which could be perceived as an insult. There are also degrees of sophistication in insults, and this (http://www.bizbag.com/Churchill/poison.htm) is one of my all time favorites.
Cheers,
Bart
Churchill had something of a penchant for putting down those who disagreed with him. I can't remember the names of those involved but a playwright, critical of Churchill, once sent him two tickets to his opening night, inviting him to bring a friend, "if he had one". Churchill declined the offer saying that , "I can't make the first night but will get to the second, if there is one."
-
Not "someone" else's fault...
"EVERYONE" else's fault.
WRONG - it's Americans fault... :D ;D
-
What could have happened if the cartoons were for the French Jews?
-
What could have happened if the cartoons were for the French Jews?
Nothing. They already had plenty of cartoons ridiculing Jews, Catholics, the Pope. Pretty much equal opportunity offenders.
-
I asked you two questions:"Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?" and "Guise?", I did not express an opinion.
Maybe if you could answer the questions, it then becomes possible to express an opinion about whatever you were specifically referring to, instead of having to guess.
Cheers,
Bart
I stated my thoughts in the reply previous to your post. Here it is.
I find your post contradictory. Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law. In reality that isn't possible and that is what I am trying to point out. You are stating Free Speech with restrictions which is imo an oxymoron. It can't be free and restricted at the same time?
No need to guess. That is the thrust of my thinking.
Bart did you think I was being serious when I posted this?
Breaking news.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts
And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?
-
At this stage, the only missing ingredient is intelligent discourse.
Of which you won't be contributing any of it, not in the past, the present or the future? ;) :)
-
"Allowed"? And who decides that? Some might say that the "Holy Father" and "Allah" have no factual basis. Is that offensive and slanderous?
Quite, and as humans we have this natural belief that there is some great arbitrating force that automatically sides with our right and proper way of thinking. You might call it 'God' in fact.
-
Bart did you think I was being serious when I posted this?
Breaking news.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts
And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?
I assume you were serious posting it (although I assume the Iranian link was used to demonstrate their one-sided view, and right to express it, even though their own citizens are not allowed, but it is unclear which of the points that Roberts raises you wanted to enter in the discussion. Of course he is entitled to his opinions and publishing them (which is how he seems to make his living, publishing articles). I noted that he has an Economically oriented background, so most of his points are based on that angle.
Now, what Roberts is doing is gather supporting 'evidence' for his conspiracy theory. But by doing so he is selective, and he is missing (or leaving out) the other mechanisms at work. Obviously, looking at the European situation from a distance may explain part of that shortcoming, but I presume it's more because it would undermine his theory. And as always, a more balanced analysis wouldn't sell as well as a conspiracy theory ...
One of the big challenges in Europe at the moment is that most countries have become immigration countries, and in particular from immigrants that have difficulty with integrating in society, due to their cultural background. Countries like France have even bigger difficulties, because of their specific cultural system where amongst others hierarchy plays a big role. This makes it easy for cultural minorities (many from former colonies) to become and remain marginalized. Mixed with some intolerant cultural backgrounds, that produces a volatile combustible mix which is exploited by fundamentalists to radicalize youths (some carefully selected vulnerably folks can radicalize in a few weeks time). And true, the geopolitical machinations of the USA (but there are others as well) do not help either.
But there is a difference between (indirectly) adding fuel and the CIA orchestrating the whole Paris tragedy. If you listen to the 'discussion' (that was recorded over an open phone-line by reporters) with the man who held hostages in a kosher grocery store, it is quite clear that the guy got radicalized by others than the CIA ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Allowed"? And who decides that?
What's 'allowed' and 'not allowed' is determined by the laws of the country. In Australia, laws are changed and created through a democratic process. Whatever one's religion, one must abide by the laws of the country one is in, however ridiculous those laws may seem, or suffer the consequences.
Some might say that the "Holy Father" and "Allah" have no factual basis. Is that offensive and slanderous?
Not in the minds of rational people, and in my opinion, not even in the minds of sincere and truly religious people. But clearly it is offensive in the deluded minds of some people who probably have little understanding of the religion they claim to support.
-
Here's a thought, say you fancy being a serial killer/mass murderer and are not sure how to best go about it or don't fancy getting caught. Then why not join the local terrorist group where people will help you with your murderous tendencies and even supply you with weapons.
Eamon Collins, who joined the IRA for political reasons became disillusioned with his comrades in the struggle as it became clear that some of them simply liked killing people. The 'struggle' was simply an excuse to hurt people. He wrote about his time in the IRA in the fascinating book Killing Rage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Rage-Eamon-Collins/dp/1862070474). I gather that some of the IRA went back to being gangsters after the ceasefire.
Yes that's what I was getting at. The big attractions are excitement & being part of a gang which can bring you status & 'identity'. The 'cause' is secondary.
A couple of years after I left school ( early eighties ) I bumped into a kid from my year who had joined the military police and was based in Northern Ireland. He didn't mention being proud of serving his country or of fighting for a particular cause but spoke with great satisfaction of physically overpowering & dominating misbehaving squaddies during arrests. He referred to anyone Irish as a 'Paddy'.
I remember him saying 'At school I was always overshadowed in everything I did'. I can't remember his next words exactly but they were to the effect that he had become 'someone' in the MP.
I'd left school with about the same pretty low level of education as this guy but I was in a band ( a really crap one, I haven't an ounce of musical talent ) so maybe that was me being 'someone'.
I think that there's a large element of this psychology in radicalised Muslim youth.
Graeme
-
Good to see that we have some great minds working on this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297
-
Something I remember from the furore over Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' during the 1980's.
On a TV news programme a British Muslim was asked why Muslims were so deeply offended by insults to Mohamed. His reply was that it was like having your wife, sister, mother or other much loved relative insulted and caused deep personal offence.
Graeme
-
Something I remember from the furore over Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' during the 1980's.
On a TV news programme a British Muslim was asked why Muslims were so deeply offended by insults to Mohamed. His reply was that it was like having your wife, sister, mother or other much loved relative insulted and caused deep personal offence.
It also has a lot to do with denial, closed minds that shut down, not willing to evolve. It is behavior that is taught, people are not that way by nature.
I'm offended, I won't listen (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ten-zen-questions/201408/i-am-offended-i-won-t-listen)
and a more complete version (https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/#comment-153764) of the lecture events.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Unfortunately The French cartoonists knew this and chose to ignore it.....with disastrous consequences. :(
Something I remember from the furore over Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' during the 1980's.
On a TV news programme a British Muslim was asked why Muslims were so deeply offended by insults to Mohamed. His reply was that it was like having your wife, sister, mother or other much loved relative insulted and caused deep personal offence.
Graeme
-
Unfortunately The French cartoonists knew this and chose to ignore it.....with disastrous consequences. :(
Yes, if we could all just live our lives assiduously NOT OFFENDING anyone ever, the world would be a peaceable nirvana......not.
You left litter in front of my house, so I'll burn yours down. You called my dog ugly, so I'll poison yours. You said my Mama was fat, so I'll rape and then kill yours.
The revenge-seeking these maniacs pursue is often not even as - dare I say it - logical as my examples: Its far worse. Its more like "You've offended my Sunni/Shia sensibilities by disavowing some obscure doctrinal detail in your Shia/Sunni sermon or treatise, therefore I'll blow up 20 completely unrelated Shia/Sunni women...and myself while I'm at it....in the vegetable market."
-
There is a difference between intentionally offending somebody/something and unintentionally offending somebody/something. The French cartoonists were in the first category. They done it deliberately as a living over a long time and ignored a bombing. As I stated earlier in the thread what happened to them was 100% wrong and I don't in anyway support their killers. However surely at sometime they must have realised their lives were in danger? Was it worth their lives to make a living from upsetting them? I think their relatives will be asking the same question. Yesterday's demonstration was a grand show of defiance but something will have to change to so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. A brutal crackdown is definitely NOT the answer. :'(
-
do we have any genuine muslims here in this thread ?
-
What is a "genuine" muslim?
-
There is a difference between intentionally offending somebody/something and unintentionally offending somebody/something. The French cartoonists were in the first category. They done it deliberately as a living over a long time and ignored a bombing. As I stated earlier in the thread what happened to them was 100% wrong and I don't in anyway support their killers. However surely at sometime they must have realised their lives were in danger? Was it worth their lives to make a living from upsetting them? I think their relatives will be asking the same question. Yesterday's demonstration was a grand show of defiance but something will have to change to so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. A brutal crackdown is definitely NOT the answer. :'(
I understand what you’re saying, Stamper. But recent history has proven that in some parts of the world, just BEING a non-Muslim (e.g., Christian, Jew) or just being born the wrong sort of Muslim is offensive enough to spur certain people into depraved ‘revenge’. How does a Christian or Jew (or an ‘improper’ Muslim) in Iraq or Syria (or Nigeria) avoid offending the most radical elements? Seems like convert, die or flee might be the only options, and lately, even converting is not foolproof.
-
A "genuine" Muslim can be defined as anyone who has made the profession of faith : “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. Within that very large category there is infinite variety, just as there is among Christians. Most arguments concerning whether a person is a genuine member of the faith occurs among people of different sects of that faith. Outsiders don't have a personal stake in claiming a narrow definition (sect, legal system, or set of behaviors) of other peoples' faith.
-
What is a "genuine" muslim?
somebody who is not pretending to be one for the sake of the argument in this topic...
-
How does a Christian or Jew (or an ‘improper’ Muslim) in Iraq or Syria (or Nigeria) avoid offending the most radical elements?
by rolling back in time before USA decided that they know better how Iraq or Syria shall be governed...
-
Perhaps we (and especially the media) should stop calling these people terrorists and begin calling them what they really are: cowards.
-
.... A brutal crackdown is definitely NOT the answer. :'(
But it is definitely a good start.
On the other hand, self-censoring in fear of life is definitely NOT the answer for any civilized society. The cartoonists knew that. There are many examples in human history where people sacrificed their life for a greater cause and a better world. Yes, their families were not pleased. But the humanity is greateful.
-
I can't help laughing at what's going on because of Charlie Hebdo.
There was the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. According to the media it was a "wakeup call."
There were the 1983 embassy bombings in Kuwait. Another "wakeup call."
Then there was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York. According to the media, a "wakeup call."
There was the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. A "wakeup call."
In 2000 we saw the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. A "wakeup call."
Then there was the 2001 attack that brought down the World Trade Center and clobbered the Pentagon, killing roughly 3000 people. According to the New York Times and other similar rags, a "wakeup call."
In 2009 we saw the Fort Hood massacre by a guy yelling "Allahu Akbar." According to Obama and company this was "workplace violence." Had nothing at all to do with the man's religion. Another wakeup call, but muffled by the administration.
Then there was the 2012 Benghazi attack on the U.S. Consulate. According to Obama, Clinton, and company, brought on by a movie shown on the U.S. West coast. Another wakeup call denied by the administration.
2013 brought the Boston Marathon bombings. Another "wakeup call."
2015 begins with the Charlie Hebdo murders. According to the NYT and similar media a "wakeup call."
I've left out dozens of minor attacks and major attacks -- like Mumbai in 2008 -- outside the U.S. We keep getting these "wakeup calls," but after tossing and turning for a few days we hit the snooze button. When the hell are we going to get out of bed and fight back?
-
Meanwhile in the front row of the demonstration in Paris a bunch of 'worldleaders' that have a problem with free press themselves...
source
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7G8iXkCQAExCv_.jpg:large
-
Meanwhile in the front row of the demonstration in Paris a bunch of 'worldleaders' that have a problem with free press themselves...
I'm bald, a little bit jowly, and I wear glasses. These cartoons offend me. ;D
-
Perhaps we (and especially the media) should stop calling these people terrorists and begin calling them what they really are: cowards.
Peter, is that really wise? It seems to make as much sense as the media and politicians in the UK constantly referring to all our 'brave' soldiers as 'Heroes'. It demeans the words when they are then used in the correct place.
I can think of all sorts of insults I could make at these murderers, but anyone who picks up an assault rifle, takes it into the centre of a city and attempts to gun down people including armed police while knowing full well they will almost certainly be caught and killed is not what I consider cowardly. I understand your sentiment but they are dead and calling them cowards is not going to upset or insult them now. Can you imagine the courage it would take to carry out such an act? Disgusting, misguided and heinous as it was.
Jim
-
However surely at sometime they must have realised their lives were in danger? Was it worth their lives to make a living from upsetting them? I think their relatives will be asking the same question. Yesterday's demonstration was a grand show of defiance but something will have to change to so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. A brutal crackdown is definitely NOT the answer. :'(
Stamper I remember a quote a few days ago in the press. After the fire-bombing a couple of years ago one of the cartoonists had said in respect of the death threats that he "Would rather die on my feet than live on my knees". I'm sure he did not want to die but was obviously only too aware of the risks.
Jim
-
"This Europe, which never stopped talking of man, which never stopped proclaiming its sole concern was man, we now know the price of suffering humanity has paid for every one of its spiritual victories.
When I look for man in European lifestyles and technology I see a constant denial of man, an avalanche of murders.
Man’s condition, his projects and collaboration with others on tasks that strengthen man’s totality, are new issues which require genuine inspiration.
The whole of European thought developed in places that were increasingly arid and increasingly inaccessible. Consequently, it was natural that the chances of encountering man became less and less frequent.
Two centuries ago, a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States of America became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions.
Let us reexamine the question of man…It is the very basic question of not dragging man in directions which mutilate him, of not imposing on his brain tempos that rapidly obliterate and unhinge it. The notion of catching up must not be used as a pretext to brutalize man, to tear him from himself and his inner consciousness, to break him, to kill him."
— Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth
-
It also has a lot to do with denial, closed minds that shut down, not willing to evolve. It is behavior that is taught, people are not that way by nature.
I'm offended, I won't listen (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ten-zen-questions/201408/i-am-offended-i-won-t-listen)
and a more complete version (https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/#comment-153764) of the lecture events.
Cheers,
Bart
Y'know, for a moment there I thought you were talking about folk who teach their children that Adam and Eve had fun with the dinosaurs or good old boys who have an affection for white robes and pointy hats.
-
Perhaps we (and especially the media) should stop calling these people terrorists and begin calling them what they really are: cowards.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it like it is, something no Western leader today has the balls to do.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4160195.htm
-
Churchill had something of a penchant for putting down those who disagreed with him. I can't remember the names of those involved but a playwright, critical of Churchill, once sent him two tickets to his opening night, inviting him to bring a friend, "if he had one". Churchill declined the offer saying that , "I can't make the first night but will get to the second, if there is one."
George Bernard Shaw.
Jeremy
-
do we have any genuine muslims here in this thread ?
I don't know: happily, a declaration of religious affiliation is not a prerequisite for taking part in discussions here. Your presence does at least mean that we have an apologist for murder, with all the valuable insight that that is likely to provide.
Jeremy
-
There is a difference between intentionally offending somebody/something and unintentionally offending somebody/something.
The difference that matters is between offending and killing.
-
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Those comments (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4160195.htm) seem factual and correct afaict.
-
I don't know: happily, a declaration of religious affiliation is not a prerequisite for taking part in discussions here.
no, but it is a prerequisite for a reasonable discussion about the topic
Your presence does at least mean that we have an apologist for murder, with all the valuable insight that that is likely to provide.
I am lost - for which murder exactly ?
-
Here's a thought, say you fancy being a serial killer/mass murderer and are not sure how to best go about it or don't fancy getting caught. Then why not join the local terrorist group where people will help you with your murderous tendencies and even supply you with weapons.
Eamon Collins, who joined the IRA for political reasons became disillusioned with his comrades in the struggle as it became clear that some of them simply liked killing people. The 'struggle' was simply an excuse to hurt people. He wrote about his time in the IRA in the fascinating book Killing Rage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Rage-Eamon-Collins/dp/1862070474). I gather that some of the IRA went back to being gangsters after the ceasefire.
That's quite an interesting point. Maybe it gets even murkier if we consider what Stanley Milgram proved in the 1960s, i.e. that people can be persuaded to do horrible things to one another in the name of "obedience" (which is, in fact, what the word "muslim" really means).
-
But recent history has proven that in some parts of the world, just BEING a non-Muslim (e.g., Christian, Jew) or just being born the wrong sort of Muslim is offensive enough to spur certain people into depraved ‘revenge’.
Only slightly less recent history had Christians doing much the same thing.
-
I can't help laughing at what's going on because of Charlie Hebdo.
There was the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. According to the media it was a "wakeup call."........
[snip]
.......2015 begins with the Charlie Hebdo murders. According to the NYT and similar media a "wakeup call."
I've left out dozens of minor attacks and major attacks -- like Mumbai in 2008 -- outside the U.S. We keep getting these "wakeup calls," but after tossing and turning for a few days we hit the snooze button. When the hell are we going to get out of bed and fight back?
America has already done that. For example when some Saudi's blew up the Twin Towers, you struck back and invaded Saudi.. Iraq.
-
I don't know: happily, a declaration of religious affiliation is not a prerequisite for taking part in discussions here. Your presence does at least mean that we have an apologist for murder, with all the valuable insight that that is likely to provide.
So why should deejjjaaa apologise for the actions of some terrorists? Are you saying he was involved?
-
That's quite an interesting point. Maybe it gets even murkier if we consider what Stanley Milgram proved in the 1960s, i.e. that people can be persuaded to do horrible things to one another in the name of "obedience" (which is, in fact, what the word "muslim" really means).
Some people do not need persuading. They just need an opportunity.
Also I recently discovered that being the sort of person who won't agree with someone else just to be polite, means I'm less likely to torture others. (http://mic.com/articles/92479/psychologists-have-uncovered-a-troubling-feature-of-people-who-seem-nice-all-the-time)
-
America has already done that. For example when some Saudi's blew up the Twin Towers, you struck back and invaded Saudi.. Iraq.
Not the same thing, Jeremy. I'm not going to go back over the reasons for attacking the Taliban or Iraq. They're well known. But conventional military operations in neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are what's required to reduce the problem. I say "reduce" because I doubt we can eliminate it. In neither the U.S. nor in Britain are leaders willing to acknowledge that Islam is something other than "peaceful." That's the first step in enlightenment and defense.
-
Only slightly less recent history had Christians doing much the same thing.
If you're referring to the Crusades, I suppose you're half-right. I remember the 1200s like it was yesterday.
Or is there something else you have in mind as an example of 'Christians doing much the same thing'?
-
... I remember the 1200s like it was yesterday...
;D ;D ;D
-
Everyone conveniently forgets (for their own purposes) that the Crusades were not an effort to conquer Islamic lands. They were an effort to retake lands that had been taken by Islamic military action. The Christians did not take the first shot. Here's a little background http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?loc=ja&article=1483
-
Everyone conveniently forgets (for their own purposes) that the Crusades were not an effort to conquer Islamic lands. They were an effort to retake lands that had been taken by Islamic military action. The Christians did not take the first shot. Here's a little background http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?loc=ja&article=1483
+1.
I was taught that 400 years of Muslim conquest were countered by 200 years of pushing back by Christians. But then I was educated in the US, so there's that. ;D
Millions died on both sides, however all this carnage paled in comparison to that perpetrated by the Mongols.
What's the point that's even remotely relevant to what we've seen over the past 15 years?
-
What's the point that's even remotely relevant to what we've seen over the past 15 years?
It's something for them to throw back at the West to try to justify their violence against innocents.
-
It's something for them to throw back at the West to try to justify their violence against innocents.
It's also used by liberal/progressive types to justify the action of the terrorists on the grounds that they were oppressed, downtrodden, victims segregated from society at large, and therefore it is understandable that they would act out violently--essentially blaming the victims for their own deaths. "Little Eiechmanns" comes to mind.
What the apologists fail to understand, or more likely deliberately ignore, is that in most Western countries, including the USA, Britain, and France, the Muslims tend to form insular enclaves with their own schools and stores and entertainment and lifestyle. You have the Somali enclaves in the Minneapolis area, a large Muslim population in Dearborn, and similar communities in Britain and France. Children born in these enclaves are usually educated in Muslim schools, and don't see much of the outside world, unless their parents are secular/non-practicing Muslims. In many cases, these enclaves bring the dysfunctional social institutions of the parent country (honor killings, sexual assaults, etc.) with them. But when that self-imposed isolation from the host society causes economic and social disadvantages, they blame the host society for not being tolerant/open enough, and cast it as a historical continuation of the Crusades, which they cast as wars of Muslim oppression (conveniently forgetting the centuries of Muslim conquests that preceded the Crusades).
The Charlie Hebdo kind of crap will continue to go on until everyone is willing to call a spade a spade, and recognize that the jihadis have declared war against all of us, that their motivations are based on a dysfunctional religion, that they do not fear death, and they will not stop until they are all killed, or we all bend knee to Allah.
-
Spot on, Jonathan!
-
(http://i58.tinypic.com/jtpc3l.jpg)
-
These events, while tragic and terrible for those involved, should be treated as they are. A tiny act of lunatic murder by some unbalanced people.
Are you a cartoonist? Have you offended Allah? Do you have a dozen fatwas on your head? What can you do to increase your long term survival?
Eat right. Exercise more. Don't drive so much.
Just because some loonies picked a name off a list (maybe) and got some guns doesn't mean you're in danger. There's a LOT of names on a lot of lists, and the mullahs have almost no power to actually harm you. They can only hope some loony does you in, so they can declare victory. And every so often they get a victory in this sense.
Like all murders, this is terrible for those involved, of course. And they have, of course, all my sympathy.
-
You got to be kidding, Andrew!
-
Just because some loonies picked a name off a list (maybe) and got some guns doesn't mean you're in danger. There's a LOT of names on a lot of lists, and the mullahs have almost no power to actually harm you.
What dream world do you live in? Hate to burst your bubble, but WE ALL are in danger! A bomb was deposited on the platform of the Bonn train station about a year ago. It didn't explode because the Islam Terrorists goofed in wiring the explosives. The German rail system had their surveillance cameras turned off due to cost restrains (and general incompetence & disinterest = my view). The only cameras functioning were those in the station’s MacDonald’s. They filmed the fellow who is now being prosecuted.
I take a train from that platform almost daily. Don’t tell me, we’re not at risk!
By the way, MacDonald’s had to remove their cameras because they were imposing on the privacy of their customers. The German railway mentioned, they would have their cameras turned on now, but that’s questionable.
-
It's something for them to throw back at the West to try to justify their violence against innocents.
Well that's a new one. The crusades! Not come across that being used by anyone before to justify anything. Who dragged those into the argument?
-
It's also used by liberal/progressive types to justify the action of the terrorists on the grounds that they were oppressed, downtrodden, victims segregated from society at large, and therefore it is understandable that they would act out violently--essentially blaming the victims for their own deaths. "Little Eiechmanns" comes to mind.
What the apologists fail to understand, or more likely deliberately ignore, is that in most Western countries, including the USA, Britain, and France, the Muslims tend to form insular enclaves with their own schools and stores and entertainment and lifestyle. You have the Somali enclaves in the Minneapolis area, a large Muslim population in Dearborn, and similar communities in Britain and France. Children born in these enclaves are usually educated in Muslim schools, and don't see much of the outside world, unless their parents are secular/non-practicing Muslims. In many cases, these enclaves bring the dysfunctional social institutions of the parent country (honor killings, sexual assaults, etc.) with them. But when that self-imposed isolation from the host society causes economic and social disadvantages, they blame the host society for not being tolerant/open enough, and cast it as a historical continuation of the Crusades, which they cast as wars of Muslim oppression (conveniently forgetting the centuries of Muslim conquests that preceded the Crusades).
The Charlie Hebdo kind of crap will continue to go on until everyone is willing to call a spade a spade, and recognize that the jihadis have declared war against all of us, that their motivations are based on a dysfunctional religion, that they do not fear death, and they will not stop until they are all killed, or we all bend knee to Allah.
Meanwhile, in 2014, back in the U.S. -
Number of Deaths1: 12,555
Number of Injuries1: 22,776
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 628
Gun Violence Archive.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014
Oh, and when was the last time you visited any sort of Muslim enclave in Britain?
-
no, but it is a prerequisite for a reasonable discussion about the topic
Of course it isn't. The value, if any, of my contributions, or anyone else's contributions, to this, or any, thread, depends on the argument they advance and the coherence with which they advance it. The religious affiliation of the poster is utterly irrelevant.
A record such as yours of support for vicious criminality, on the other hand, might be held to be of relevance.
I am lost - for which murder exactly ?
Murders (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92308.msg757505#msg757505). Plural.
Jeremy
-
So why should deejjjaaa apologise for the actions of some terrorists? Are you saying he was involved?
Read what I wrote before responding to it. I made no such suggestion.
Jeremy
-
Of course there is danger. I never said there was not.
Only that, for us in the western world, it's low. There are certainly regions of the world where dying of terrorist acts is likely enough to worry about. For most people reading these words, though, you should worry more about your diet and so on.
People sociopathic enough to commit these acts, and organized enough to actually succeed, are blessedly rare. Here in the USA far far from the epicenter, virtually all terror plots are actually one completely incapable boob and a bunch of FBI agents doing all the work for him. And then arresting him, of course.
-
I never said there was not.
Maybe I understood your comment, "... have almost no power to actually harm you..." too literally. It's when the danger isn't only seen on TV, but I actually experience it, that the virtual becomes reality.
In recent years I keep a watchful eye. I've removed the USA sticker from my car and tell as few people as possible that I'm American. Too many loonies around. And I surely won't be in the crowds during the carnival season.
-
Oh, and when was the last time you visited any sort of Muslim enclave in Britain?
Seriously???
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rotherham-residents-search-for-answers-in-u-k-sex-abuse-scandal-1409272644
http://www.smh.com.au/world/race-religion-immigration-the-rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-consumes-uk-20140827-109acs.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-sex-scandal-resulted-4137542
-
Seriously???
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rotherham-residents-search-for-answers-in-u-k-sex-abuse-scandal-1409272644
http://www.smh.com.au/world/race-religion-immigration-the-rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-consumes-uk-20140827-109acs.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-sex-scandal-resulted-4137542
Seriously???!
And while dishing out question marks perhaps you could actually answer the question posed, or address the issue of 409 deaths attributed to guns already this year in the States. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
However, if you really wish to bring allegations of sexual abuse into this then maybe it's worth pointing out that race or religion is not always a determining factor in such tragic cases -
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23355531
You may recognise the lady involved. When you are next out surfing the web entering Jimmy Saville as a search term will turn up some rather rather unpleasant allegations, not to say all sorts of conspiracy theories.
-
Seriously???!
And while dishing out question marks perhaps you could actually answer the question posed, or address the issue of 409 deaths attributed to guns already this year in the States. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
It's a separate issue. What's your point?
As to the Muslim enclaves in Britain, I've never visited the country, so I've never visited a Muslim enclave there. But it's pretty obvious that they exist if you do any cursory searching online. What is your point?
-
Well that's a new one. The crusades! Not come across that being used by anyone before to justify anything. Who dragged those into the argument?
The terrorists. If you read jihadi propaganda, there are frequent references to Westerners and non-muslims as "crusaders".
-
It's a separate issue. What's your point?
As to the Muslim enclaves in Britain, I've never visited the country, so I've never visited a Muslim enclave there. But it's pretty obvious that they exist if you do any cursory searching online. What is your point?
Basically that you are talking out of your behind.
-
Meanwhile, in 2014, back in the U.S. -
Number of Deaths1: 12,555
Number of Injuries1: 22,776
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 628
Gun Violence Archive.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014
Oh, and when was the last time you visited any sort of Muslim enclave in Britain?
Hi,
I don't think this is the time and place to address the gun violence in the USA, especially in the light of the things that seem to be an additional inspiration for the recent tragedies in Paris, the situation in Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/03/200000-dead-why-syrias-rising-death-toll-is-so-divisive/). In addition to the death toll that possibly exceeds 200,000, there are also some 9 million people who have fled their homes (http://syrianrefugees.eu/) and 3 million of those have found a temporary place to stay in neighboring countries and other places in Europe.
A serious number (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29372494) of (mostly) young people in various Western European countries have been radicalized by an active group of fundamentalist recruiters. Some of these radicalized people have joined one or the other Jihad faction and actually fight each other in Syria or Iran and terrorize the region. Others are still here and are planning local mayhem, joined by those who return and are now combat trained (https://euobserver.com/justice/125996) and traumatized.
There are no simple solutions, but one needs to understand that the threat of these religiously motivated fundamentalists is not only in direct bodily harm, but also in the attempt to disrupt civil society in the western world. All these refugees flooding the European region are also cause for the resurgence of latent racism and for a decrease of liberties for normal citizens.
Also do not underestimate the sophistication of the people behind these terrorist activities. Their foot soldiers may not be all successful, but the overall plan is being played out at different levels. The recent hacking of the Centcom twitter and youtube accounts (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30785232) may not be the hardest thing to do for someone with the dedication and resources they have, but they are getting better. Also don't underestimate their resources, the financial ones alone run in the billions of dollars that can be easily tracked and then some.
There is lot's of hypocrisy on all sides of this conflict, and that's what Charlie Hebdo (amongst other issues in society and politics) ridiculed at such a terrible cost. They intend to continue doing so, let's hope they get all the support they, and many others like them, deserve and need.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Basically that you are talking out of your behind.
And you aren't? I've at least met some jihadis face-to-face, and seen the results of their handiwork firsthand. Have you?
-
As to the Muslim enclaves in Britain, I've never visited the country, so I've never visited a Muslim enclave there. But it's pretty obvious that they exist if you do any cursory searching online. What is your point?
I'm afraid I've just got to step in here - but not just for this post. I have wider concerns.
There are no Muslim "enclaves" in Britain - and the kind of highly-charged crap that Steven Emerson recently came out with on Fox News deserves all the ridicule it got. Sometimes you just have to thank whatever God there may be for the Brummie sense of humour. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims)
Both the Jihadi propaganda, and a great deal of the response to it is far too prone to escalation. Wild talk winds people up, and when it all becomes too crazy to be decently contained there comes the danger of unstable people becoming violent - and that potential is on either side (and none). Fewer rash accusations all round would be a really good idea.
Let's all calm it down a bit - then we may get a better idea of how to resolve disputes rather than contribute to them. We only have one World here, and it's become very much smaller just in my lifetime.
I was not able to be in Paris on Sunday, but if I could have been I would have willingly stood alongside some of the many Muslims in the crowd.
-
And you aren't? I've at least met some jihadis face-to-face, and seen the results of their handiwork firsthand. Have you?
Then your opinions on those jihadis may be worth hearing - but your ignorance about the UK has been accurately described!
-
Hi,
I don't think this is the time and place to address the gun violence in the USA, especially in the light of the things that seem to be an additional inspiration for the recent tragedies in Paris, the situation in Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/03/200000-dead-why-syrias-rising-death-toll-is-so-divisive/). In addition to the death toll that possibly exceeds 200,000, there are also some 9 million people who have fled their homes (http://syrianrefugees.eu/) and 3 million of those have found a temporary place to stay in neighboring countries and other places in Europe.
A serious number (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29372494) of (mostly) young people in various Western European countries have been radicalized by an active group of fundamentalist recruiters. Some of these radicalized people have joined one or the other Jihad faction and actually fight each other in Syria or Iran and terrorize the region. Others are still here and are planning local mayhem, joined by those who return and are now combat trained (https://euobserver.com/justice/125996) and traumatized.
There are no simple solutions, but one needs to understand that the threat of these religiously motivated fundamentalists is not only in direct bodily harm, but also in the attempt to disrupt civil society in the western world. All these refugees flooding the European region are also cause for the resurgence of latent racism and for a decrease of liberties for normal citizens.
Also do not underestimate the sophistication of the people behind these terrorist activities. Their foot soldiers may not be all successful, but the overall plan is being played out at different levels. The recent hacking of the Centcom twitter and youtube accounts (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30785232) may not be the hardest thing to do for someone with the dedication and resources they have, but they are getting better. Also don't underestimate their resources, the financial ones alone run in the billions of dollars that can be easily tracked and then some.
There is lot's of hypocrisy on all sides of this conflict, and that's what Charlie Hebdo (amongst other issues in society and politics) ridiculed at such a terrible cost. They intend to continue doing so, let's hope they get all the support they, and many others like them, deserve and need.
Cheers,
Bart
I rather feel that you are relying more on sensationalist media reporting rather than life on the ground. Yes there will be a few nutters, there always will be and always have been, in the 70's it was the awful specter of left wing unionism that was going to bring civilised Britain to its knees, before that it was reds under the beds and since we have had further shades of communism and, of course, terrorism. But the funny thing is that having lived in the UK for 45 years I never once felt threatened by Islam in any guise or form, and I did meet quite a few of that faith and found them on the whole easy going and friendly. Now, that is not to say I approve of their beheading, stonings, female mutilation etc, in fact I condemn it out all of hand, and, whats more, I rather feel that many Muslims in the west do so too. I was also very aware that many were trying to integrate with western social mores and girls were not generally kept locked away but went to the same schools and so on, alongside their contemporaries of other faiths. It is a long process, but progress was being made. Running round condemning the whole of Islam and all its followers is not going to help.
Just for comparisons sake I now live in southern Ireland, a place that was full of bandits and murderers according to the media as I grew up in the UK. The IRA chieftains ruled the land with violence and intimidation alongside the papal keepers of the one true faith who would accept no compromise in keeping the catholic flame burning, apparently. That, as it turned out, was total BS. Ireland certainly had some social division but it was never as bad as portrayed and certainly 95% of the population never wanted anything to do with it. They are more than happy that what oppression that did exist through the exercise of religious and political bigotry is now part of history and they can get on with their lives and their neighbours perfectly normally. I rather feel it's much the same with Islam, although the divisions between faiths is greater to start with, but not as extreme as many believe.
BTW, another funny thing is that the slaughter of thousands in America by their own people is never part of any debate other than the gun control one.
-
And you aren't? I've at least met some jihadis face-to-face, and seen the results of their handiwork firsthand. Have you?
Doubtless you have, but I've been to Rotherham.
-
And while dishing out question marks perhaps you could actually answer the question posed, or address the issue of 409 deaths attributed to guns already this year in the States. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
However, if you really wish to bring allegations of sexual abuse into this then maybe it's worth pointing out that race or religion is not always a determining factor in such tragic cases -
1) The whole 'American guns' deal clearly has no relation to this topic, but: Maybe, just maybe there hasn't yet been a Sydney cafe or Paris-type incident in, say...Dallas or Phoenix...because there's a decent likelihood that somebody present would be more immediately able to shoot back. Unarmed cops in Paris? Please. Unarmed soldiers at Ft Hood? Please.
2) You know, you're right. Sexual abuse is always horrible and knows no racial or religious divide. But its seems even worse when perpetrated by someone who professes piety, like an abusive Catholic priest, or a jihadi who is up to his neck in porn, whilst advising demanding that every woman be totally covered in public, etc.
-
1) The whole 'American guns' deal clearly has no relation to this topic, but: Maybe, just maybe there hasn't yet been a Sydney cafe or Paris-type incident in, say...Dallas or Phoenix...because there's a decent likelihood that somebody present would be more immediately able to shoot back. Unarmed cops in Paris? Please. Unarmed soldiers at Ft Hood? Please.
There's good data to support that argument. Note that with maybe one or two exceptions, every mass shooting in the US in the last 20 years or so has happened in a so-called "gun free" zone where the average citizen is not allowed to possess firearms. A few days after the Colorado theater shooting, some moron tried to copycat at a theater in Texas. He managed to wound one other person before he was shot by a female patron who was legally carrying a conccealed handgun.
-
I'm afraid I've just got to step in here - but not just for this post. I have wider concerns.
There are no Muslim "enclaves" in Britain - and the kind of highly-charged crap that Steven Emerson recently came out with on Fox News deserves all the ridicule it got. Sometimes you just have to thank whatever God there may be for the Brummie sense of humour. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims)
None of the links I cited were from Fox news, and David Cameron as well as numerous local officials have admitted that over 1000 girls were sexually assaulted by Muslim men of Pakistani descent in Rotherham, and little was done because nobody wanted to appear racist or anti-immigrant, and they have apologized for allowing it to happen and doing nothing. I doubt multiple apologies would have been issued if it was all just figments of overheated tabloids' imagination.
-
There's good data to support that argument. Note that with maybe one or two exceptions, every mass shooting in the US in the last 20 years or so has happened in a so-called "gun free" zone where the average citizen is not allowed to possess firearms. A few days after the Colorado theater shooting, some moron tried to copycat at a theater in Texas. He managed to wound one other person before he was shot by a female patron who was legally carrying a conccealed handgun.
Y'see, the problem with that is do you ever stop to ask what would have happened if neither had easy access to firearms?
-
Jonathan, you're pissing into the wind. A couple years ago I was in the middle of a couple arguments like this, but I found the backwash not worth the trouble. There's no way to educate people who aren't willing to face facts, and the effort can be exhausting and frustrating. I found I had more important things to do -- like shooting pictures.
Let it go, man. Let the ignorant argue amongst themselves. Those who haven't been in combat will never have a clue.
-
None of the links I cited were from Fox news, and David Cameron as well as numerous local officials have admitted that over 1000 girls were sexually assaulted by Muslim men of Pakistani descent in Rotherham, and little was done because nobody wanted to appear racist or anti-immigrant, and they have apologized for allowing it to happen and doing nothing. I doubt multiple apologies would have been issued if it was all just figments of overheated tabloids' imagination.
A terrible lesson learnt. As I have mentioned already, integration is going to be a long process and mistakes will be made. Tarring all Muslims with the same brush will only hinder that.
As for the WSJ coming up with the line "Residents of this once prosperous English town....". Well, despite the subject matter I just had to laugh. The guy is totally clueless about the place and is relying on cliches to cover up his ignorance and fill space. The decline is from another era altogether and I'm not sure that everyone who ever lived there was prosperous, it was always a hard working industrial town of terraced housing and smoking industry, life was never easy for the majority, which is not an excuse for what happened BTW. It was rarely, if ever, accused of being some leafy suburb as he seems to suggest.
-
Jonathan, you're pissing into the wind. A couple years ago I was in the middle of a couple arguments like this, but I found the backwash not worth the trouble. There's no way to educate people who aren't willing to face facts, and the effort can be exhausting and frustrating. I found I had more important things to do -- like shooting pictures.
Let it go, man. Let the ignorant argue amongst themselves. Those who haven't been in combat will never have a clue.
I don't know whether you have noticed but the vast majority of the west do not live within the services and so find it rather frustrating when others demand that they accept the strictures and mores of the forces. Perhaps it's time for you and J.W. to lay down your arms and come and join us.
-
Y'see, the problem with that is do you ever stop to ask what would have happened if neither had easy access to firearms?
What if they gave an orgy and nobody came?
If guns were un-invented, then the argument would devolve to swords and knives. And of those were un-invented, then it would switch to clubs, sticks, and big rocks.
Outlawing weapons does not stop criminals from possessing and using firearms to commit crimes. It only has the effect of disarming the law-abiding so they are more vulnerable to armed criminals. Which is why the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones where it is illegal for normal people to have weapons.
-
Justin, my friend, whatever you are smoking, pass it on, mate! Who wouldn't want to live in your happy-go-lucky, rosy-colored world, with flowers and unicorns?
-
Outlawing weapons does not stop criminals from possessing and using firearms to commit crimes.
That is true.
It only has the effect of disarming the law-abiding so they are more vulnerable to armed criminals. Which is why the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones where it is illegal for normal people to have weapons.
I then wonder how the gun crime and 'mass shooting' statistics of the USA compare to those of Europe ?
-
6 Jan: Paris is a gun-free utopia.
7 Jan: Not so much.
-
Can we please not sidetrack this debate into guns and America!?
-
Justin, my friend, whatever you are smoking, pass it on, mate! Who wouldn't want to live in your happy-go-lucky, rosy-colored world, with flowers and unicorns?
I wouldn't agree that it is as quite as comfortable as you suggest, but having lived a few months in the North Americas I am distinctly aware that the cultural gap is wide and shows little sign of closing.
-
(http://www.premier-pages.co.uk/charlie.jpg)
Surely it is time for us to stop arguing and seeking recriminations. If the remaining cartoonist on Charlie Hebdo can be as forgiving as this, surely that is a measure of how "big" he/she really is. How many of us would have been big enough to forgive the terrorists who slaughtered our colleagues?
-
Well that's a new one. The crusades! Not come across that being used by anyone before to justify anything. Who dragged those into the argument?
J.K. Rolling, for instance.
You got to love it when they have to go that far back to find an argument against Murdoch.
-
I don't know whether you have noticed but the vast majority of the west do not live within the services and so find it rather frustrating when others demand that they accept the strictures and mores of the forces.
I'll kick myself for answering this one, Justin, but what you're saying explains exactly why the vast majority of the West hasn't a clue. By the middle of the 1900's the vast majority of men had lived within the "services" long enough to have developed a reasonably high degree of self discipline. That's all been washed away, as you're demonstrating.
-
Can we please not sidetrack this debate into guns and America!?
If you want to forward this debate, then best not to advance fallacious straw-man arguments.
-
Can we please not sidetrack this debate into guns and America!?
The genuine difficulty we have here in the old world is that we are so often the recipients of the kind advice proffered, even here on this forum, on how we should arrange our lives and order our society. There have been twelve deaths in France due to terrorist activity, which is deeply saddening, but thankfully still a rather rare occurrence. Yet we look across to the Atlantic and note in some disbelief that over 12,000 Americans were slaughtered by their own people last year! Is it any wonder some may think it legitimate to consider the possibility of double standards being involved?
-
I'll kick myself for answering this one, Justin, but what you're saying explains exactly why the vast majority of the West hasn't a clue. By the middle of the 1900's the vast majority of men had lived within the "services" long enough to have developed a reasonably high degree of self discipline. That's all been washed away, as you're demonstrating.
And most of them had managed to leave it behind. My old headmaster was a tank commander at Normandy BTW, and would have railed very strongly against any movement directed against any faith.
-
If you want to forward this debate, then best not to advance fallacious straw-man arguments.
Huh!? If I did, then address that, not guns.
-
Huh!? If I did, then address that, not guns.
It wasn't addressed to you per se, but rather the train of thought and posts that others had already made, and that you commented on. Hence your post.
-
And most of them had managed to leave it behind. My old headmaster was a tank commander at Normandy BTW, and would have railed very strongly against any movement directed against any faith.
If his family had been lined up, shot, and beheaded, he might not have been so forgiving.
-
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/01/blogs/graphic-detail/20150110_gdc999_3.png)
-
If his family had been lined up, shot, and beheaded, he might not have been so forgiving.
Oh I think he came across plenty of evidence of that sort of thing going on, yet he was big enough to forgive although not condone, and there is a great difference.
-
There have been twelve deaths in France due to terrorist activity, which is deeply saddening, but thankfully still a rather rare occurrence. Yet we look across to the Atlantic and note in some disbelief that over 12,000 Americans were slaughtered by their own people last year! Is it any wonder some may think it legitimate to consider the possibility of double standards being involved?
Only if you ignore the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by ISIS and friends in the name of Allah in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
War is one game which is far better to play "away" than "home". Every jihadi killed in the sandbox is one less individual able to commit mayhem in an American or European city.
-
Keep this in mind:
Two intelligent, educated, reasonable people, given the same information, can and often do arrive at different conclusions.
Someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or evil. He's just not you.
-
the value of any discussion is diminished by absence of the other side... the real other side that is...
I think we heard arguments of the other side, loud and clear.
-
the value of any discussion is diminished by absence of the other side... the real other side that is.
Are you seriously proposing that one can't have a valid discussion about terrorism unless ISIS or Al-Qaeda operatives are part of the conversation?
-
To Manoli, re The Economist graph: which other terrorism is out there, if not religious? Not saying there isn't one, just can't remember any specifically. Red Brigades are long gone, no?
-
Are you seriously proposing that one can't have a valid discussion about terrorism unless ISIS or Al-Qaeda operatives are part of the conversation?
Honestly J.W. from here it looks as if you need some therapy to help you let go.
-
Honestly J.W. from here it looks as if you need some therapy to help you let go.
I think Jonathan raised a valid question. Ad hominems only weaken one's own position.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It would appear that it's not only Islam that's lodged securely in the eighth century
http://petapixel.com/2015/01/13/jewish-newspaper-photoshops-female-leaders-charlie-hebdo-march-photo/#more-155742
-
I think Jonathan raised a valid question. Ad hominems only weaken one's own position.
Cheers,
Bart
It wasn't any sort of attack, but genuine advice. I'm not kidding.
-
Probably time to turn the lights out here and lock this sucker. Just MHO.
-
Closed due to lack of civility.
Michael