Slashdot Mirror
Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack
New submitter wmofr writes: Major U.S. and British publications refused to publish related satirical cartoons, at least those about the "prophet", after the terrorist attack in Charlie Hebdo's office, which had 12 people killed. An editor of the Independent said:"But the fact is as an editor you have got to balance principle with pragmatism, and I felt yesterday evening a few different conflicting principles: I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff. I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published so in a sense it is true one has self-censored in a way I feel very uncomfortable with. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make." But still many media organizations bravely publishing those cartoons, declining self-censorship.
Charlie Hebdo's surviving staff say the magazine will publish again next week, saying, "stupidity will not win." Meanwhile, cartoonists around the world have published strips in response to the attack. The Onion has a poignant take as well. With regard to the attackers, one suspect turned himself in to police, and the other two remain at large.
If you're afraid of people in your own nation, then you have bigger problems than a political cartoon
If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.
I've already seen one mainstream American daily run a bunch of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in its online edition, including some depicting Mohammad (yes, THAT Mohammad). Without the mass murder, a lot fewer people would've seen that image.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
When these incidents occur, burn 10,000 Korans for every innocent person murdered. Covered in bacon grease.
This is a better article[NSFW] from the Onion.
Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Perhaps the best strategy in this case would be for all creative artists and writers to produce as much content as they can and Creative Commons license it, so the content can all be broadcast everywhere and we all agree to post and publish it in every medium on every forum possible. That way, anyone who would take offense is so inundated they can not possibly respond.
I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published
Then don't. Call them up, sure you're competitors but at least some feel just like you. And if you manage to enlist some, more might join you. Accept conditionals if you have to like "If at least five national newspapers publish we will too" until you have five. Or you were the only one, in which case journalism is already pretty boned.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Anybody that self censors or allows others to censor you, is guilty of aiding the terrorist.
Stand your ground, but be prepared to fight back by being armed to the teeth, and have security measures in place.
Outlaw islam. It's not a real religion anyway; it's an idealogy, a form of government and we already have that. Also use the Mohammed Emote. (((:~(>>
If you're a profiteering advert monetizing clickbait pandering mainstream outlet with a mandate to deliver ROI on content and ensure channel marketing buy-in consistently realizes revenue, then please work to censor all 11 forbidden media words as well as any overt references to political, social, or religious figures that may impact quarterly earnings, subscribership, and total time of view. Also take note that wearable technology is fashionable this year.
if on the other hand you're an actual newspaper, journalist, podcaster, or god forbid television news programme that works to inform viewers objectively and spark meaningful discussion of current events be they political, social, or religious regardless of their tie-in ability to a product or service, please accept my sincere condolences as this type of response has always been a threat to your work. now that someone has actualized it, the real question is, are your convictions still genuine when tested?
Good people go to bed earlier.
....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.
No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.
Means the terrorists ( muslims ) win.
Others here have alluded simiarly. What if EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DAILY IN THE WORLD published the same images? They would no longer have a specific target and the streisand effect would be complete.
It's the antibody response to, "Hurr, u cant ban me from slashdert for talking about GNAA bcuz Freedom of Speach hurrdurr."
Granted, in the case of France, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution has no bearing. But I speak about the general use case - this is merely a shift from one incorrect meme (quoting the First Amendment where it's completely irrelevant) into another incorrect meme (only Feds can censor).
Who talks like that?
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Muslim
Gaza -- 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia -- 86.1% Muslim
Iran -- 98% Muslim
Iraq -- 97% Muslim
Jordan -- 92% Muslim
Morocco -- 98.7% Muslim
Pakistan -- 97% Muslim
Palestine -- 99% Muslim
Syria -- 90% Muslim
Tajikistan -- 90% Muslim
Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim
United Arab Emirates -- 96% Muslim
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here, there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan -- 100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia -- 100% Muslim
Somalia -- 100% Muslim
Yemen -- 100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons.
QUOTE:
"Be
No demagogy this time - if a journal, author or any citizen feels the need, out of FEAR, to self-censor, that's a huge victory for the douchebag terrorists. The "I am Charlie" hashtags and such are nice and all, but essentially useless garbage. The only thing that can now accomplish something to make everyone more safe, is if everyone who can, posts Mohammed cartoons. The kind, to be precise, that the terrorists don't want. Straisand it to hell and back, flood the airwaves, the paper-waves, the social media and even the walls with Mohammed cartoons. Next time a shithead has the bright idea to kill some journalist or cartoonist, he/she will remember the backlash and perhaps think twice.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If the Newspapers of the world had any backbone at all, they'd all band together and republish the cartoon front page on Monday along with pictures of the attackers with captions that say "This image is being published at the request of these 2 infidels."
Along with that they should declare that every time a reporter working for one of their papers is killed in an attempt to silence them, they will again run Muhammads image on the front page of their papers. The responsibility for the image will be the attackers and they'll burn in hell for their idolatry. Want to stay out of hell? Stop murdering people.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.
If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.
If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.
If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.
We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.
You're an idiot. Ahmed was the cop who died and the #jesuisahmed isn't counter to #jesuischarlie it compliments it. "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so." Sounds a bit more like Voltaire then a terrorist.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Here are folks in the Muslim community and what they say about the attacks.
But I also have to add that all religious people are a little mentally ill: they believe with no evidence at all and even with evidence to the contrary in a super natural being that created the universe and listens to them, knows when they are naughty or nice and for goodness sakes, they better watch out!
See, folks who study history and literature have plenty of evidence that humans created God/gods to explain the super natural. Why the Sun and Moon were once worshiped as gods until people observed their true nature.
The Bible is nothing but Iron Age Jewish mythology and the New Testament is the re-telling of pagan myth and eastern philosophy (like the Golden Rule, Confucius) attributed to the fictional character Jesus - although, some historians have come to the conclusion that there may have been an apocalyptic preacher kook by the name of Jesus running around at a couple of thousand years ago.
The universe is proving to be much more complicated and awe inspiring than what some ignorant goat herders could ever have imagined in their pathetic little brains.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are incapable of accepting the Truth that their beliefs are non-sense and are causing the World much harm and holding the human race back with their idiotic and irrational beliefs. And until religious non-sense is eradicated from earth, we'll have to continue with this bullshit by stupid people who insist on believing in a version of Santa Claus for adults.
How about a duty to intelligence?
Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.
The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.
If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.
See Bullying.
If you're a coward and you side with Terrorists making us all live in Fear, you don't publish the cartoons.
If you're brave and refuse to live in Fear, you publish the cartoons.
And then, a week later, you write an editorial about how the cartoons are disgusting.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Don't censor yourself more or *LESS* because of what happened. If you do either, you are letting these events change your belief in what is right. If you never had a belief in what was right to begin with, well I can't help you there.
Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Where exactly has been the imperialistic war? What minerals and resources did the imperialist forces take from muslim lands?
:
Or are you
1) just a brain-dead fuck who says things he doesn't understand/ or
2) simply an apologist for islamofascists? (as opposed to muslims).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Well, whether they are afraid of the terrorists or of their staff leaving over this, these editors definitely are cowards. By definition: coward -- (a person who shows fear or timidity).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This got modded up? This is what's wrong with Slashdot these days.
This is that obnoxious SJW bullshit where they latch on to some trending thing and talk about how horribly racist it was. The fact of the matter is that Charlie Hebdo satirized EVERYONE: one of their covers had the Trinity having anal sex with each other. (The Holy Ghost was represented as an eye in a triangle shoved up Jesus's butt, in case you're wondering how on earth THAT would work.)
By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted Islam" you're supporting the terrorists. Charlie Hebdo went after everyone, and that included Islam along with Christianity. #JeSuisAhmed is designed to cast Charlie Hebdo as a racist organization when they simply weren't. It's SJW contrarian bullshit where literally everything offends and we have to focus on how they "offended Islam" instead of the fact that they were killed to silence their free speech.
Frankly I find most political cartoons useless flamebait. They tend to shallow and tend to be more preaching to choir than a source of useful dialog. I would like to see more publications decide to not print things that do not help.
But they need to decide to do that out and not be forced to do that out of fear.
Self censorship based on your ethic and morals is a good thing.
Censorship based on fear of violence is a bad thing.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2...
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists
As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit?
Yes. Everything must be open to scrutiny.
And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
No. Absolutely No.
If that was half-way true then Europe would now be a war-ravaged waste land after 44-odd million Muslims living in Europe took to arms over the Danish cartoon published years ago.
Oh, you mean that didn't happen. It's as if someone is not interpreting what they are reading correctly. hmm.
By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted Islam" you're supporting the terrorists.
The focus come from you not the writer. There are two very important parts to the following quote;
"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so.
They are "Charlie ridiculed my faith" and "I died defending his right to do so". You chose to focus on the first part. I choose to focus on the second part. The point of the statement is that even if insult occurred the cop chose to die defending the right to make that insult.
It's SJW contrarian bullshit where literally everything offends and we have to focus on how they "offended Islam" instead of the fact that they were killed to silence their free speech.
No one has to focus on what is put in front of them. You have a brain; choose for yourself what to focus on. The point you completely miss is that a Muslim died trying to defend free speech even though the free speech was an insult to his religion. It is just trying to point out that not all Muslims are against free speech.
Short answer: no. If you leave your door unlocked, you are not responsible for your house being burgled. If you (as a woman) dress up nicely for a night out on the town, you are not responsible for being raped on the way back home. Even if you pull down your bra and jiggle your jugs in front of a particularly drunk and horny looking individual in a dark alley. It's not wise, but that's statistics, not morality.
Charlie Hebdo have been threatened before (their office was firebombed if I recall correctly). Should they have stopped making their funnies then? Should we stop making fun of anyone when they threaten physical bodily harm? There are folk out there who, as someone put it, are offended deeply if their ligher doesn't work; should we cater to their whims too? I'd prefer to live in a society of laws rather than whims, and I for one am rather sad to live in a world where a movie like "Life of Brian" probably couldn't be made anymore, especially if they picked Mohammed as a target this time.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists
As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...
Yes, insulting your neckbeard has always been terrorism. And some sort of "equivalence," if argued for, becomes... equivalent... to mass murder driven by hate.
You can't make up this kind of stupid.
The title reads: "Police Suspect [emphasis mine -mi] Arson In Fire at Paris Theater". Suspicion is not allegation — indeed, the article itself states: "The fire, if [emphasis mine -mi] it proves to be arson, would be ...". As I said, there is no allegation — only suspicions. And it happened in 1988 — surely enough for the matter to settle and any suspicions to be either confirmed or rejected... That no search brings up articles confirming that suspicion today, can only mean one thing: it was rejected and NY Times had nothing agenda-advancing to publish...
The calling them "assholes" part.
The article mentions this — but without any details. We don't expect much from NY Times, but here on Slashdot an accusation — even if made anonymously — should contain links to evidence.
I searched the article for the word "tear" — the only actual attack mentioned was that for an abortion-glorifying movie, not anything about Christians.
I have no idea — and would rather not follow the excited NY Times' reporter's example of speculating. Many (all?) religions consider abortion to be an abomination — for all we know, it could've been Muslims. Plenty of non-religious people frown on the procedure too — if you wish to blame that attack on a misguided Christian, you'll need better evidence.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
My point is, the AP's decision was not driven by threat of violence and is therefor different from the topic at hand.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you as a publisher self-censor to "protect your staff", then you can't complain when the government wants to censor you to "protect the country".
It's a good thing that France has such strict gun ownership laws. Those terrorists might have run into difficulty shooting everyone had one of their law-abiding victims been armed! Good lord, could you imagine that happening in Texas? There'd have been at least two old men returning fire in under five seconds.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...
My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You're an idiot. Ahmed was the cop who died and the #jesuisahmed isn't counter to #jesuischarlie it compliments it.
That gave the sentence a complimentary different meaning.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I know it's really easy to just lambast the publishers as cowards for refusing to publish the cartoons (as you post anonymously or semi-anonymously on slashdot, you brave soul), but it's not an easy choice to make. It's been clearly demonstrated that by publishing mohammed cartoons, there's a non-zero chance that some nut-job will break into your building and murder a bunch of your staff. Are you as an editor willing to take that chance? Are you willing to put your staff at risk, even for a minimal chance of violence against your station? It's sooooo easy to criticize them for not publishing offensive cartoon, but I really doubt that the majority of you would post a crude drawing of mohammed on your facebook accounts, or drop off a few thousand copies of an offensive cartoon in your neighborhood mailboxes (with your personal address listed). Because then you're truly willing to take the same upon the same risk that these cartoonists (and their publishers) take.
From a litigation standpoint alone, is it worth publishing an offensive cartoon? Probably not if you're in a litigious friendly nation. If you're the editor, and if some shit goes down, and there's the slightest possibility your organization could be held liable for the deaths of your staff because you totally *knew* this could happen, and could have avoided it by not publishing the offensive article - you bet your ass they'll get sued by the families of the victims. That risk probably isn't worth whatever benefit they get for being more ballsy in the eyes of the viewer. The editors know this and factor this in their decision making.
Whether to publish or not is more of a Prisoner's dilemma than it is Streisand effect as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, except with more than 2 "prisoners" (publishers - assume not publishing is equivalent to testifying in the analogy). The better move for yourself is to not publish and have no risk. But the better move for the collective is to publish. If all the publishers decided to publish, that would be the greatest overall benefit for freedom of speech, because it demonstrates they're not afraid of terrorism. It also minimizes the risk for each publisher, because terrorists don't have the resources to target all of the publishers in existence. They might even give up completely, realizing there's too many people offending their religion. But if nobody publishes cartoons out of fear, it reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (and the censored SouthPark scene in the "I learned something today" segment is true). If only handful of publishers decide to publish offensive mohammed cartoons, then it still reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (because most publishers aren't doing it, clearly because they're afraid of terrorism), AND it puts these few publishers at a much greater risk of terrorism. It fucking sucks, but the only way this is going to work is if a large majority of publishers decide to print these cartoons as a response.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Me and my boss at lunch today:
Me: "They should have had that building way better secured, especially after being firebombed."
Boss: "What would you do to secure it?"
Me: "Armored building like a US embassy, armed guards at the door, and a heavy armored door between the lobby and work area."
Boss: "What if they hit it with a rocket launcher? It'll go through even an armored door."
Me: "Maybe build it in a basement?"
Boss: "Or you could just not print Mohammed cartoons."
And that's what any business is going to do, the much cheaper and easier solution. The terrorists won. No business could print such things after yesterday.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition. Genocide on Jahve's orders: look for 'shibbolet'; incest: Lot and his daughters, etc etc. Whether the Prophet was one or the other, who knows? it isn't really relevant. What IS relevant is - do we want to solve the problems, or do we want to see who can produce most insults in the shortest time?
Don't get me wrong - it is right that Charlie Hebdo have the freedom to produce their satire, even if it seems immature and crass. It can never be right to murder defenceless people whatever your excuse. Islamic terrorists are not Muslems, whatever they declare; they bring shame on Islam and on their parents. If there is a God worth a prayer, then he will surely be filled with loathing at what terrorists do in his name.
But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit? If you go and kick a hornet's nest, is it a surprise that you get stung? It may sound like blaming the victim, but I don't think it is - are you a victim, if you go and look for trouble and find more than you had bargained for? And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
It is the exact same religion. Every single one of those Prophets are in the Koran, too. A lot of people don't realize this, or won't admit it, but Islam is a Christian sect. A lot of Christians try to deny them because they come down on the "wrong" side (the bible doesn't actually say either) of if the Virgin Mary was pregnant from actual physical God-sperm delivered to her by an angel, or if she became pregnant from a pure Miracle, an act of Divine Creation. The funny part is that if you ask a random Christian on the street, they're most likely to tell you it was a Divine Miracle. Which is the same answer the Muslims give. But the fancy Muslim-hating wanna-be Christians insist that to be a Christian you not only have to believe in the Son of Man as foretold in Scipture, and that he is the Messiah whose sacrifice forgave "original sin," no that is not enough; you have to believe in the (entirely fabricated, non-biblical) claim that Mary was made pregnant by actual physical God-sperm.
Christians on the street will tell total whoppers about Muslims; that they think Jesus was "only a Prophet," which is a blatant lie and would actually be death-sentence level heresy in Sharia countries. They'll also claim that Mohamed is more important to Muslim's than Jesus; absolute heresy. Mohamed, of course, is seen as "the Seal of the Prophets," the last prophet. He isn't of divine body like Jesus, he's just a human who had a human body. Like all prophets, he wasn't divine, he was chosen by God for a task, and all the credit for his work goes to God.
The reason Muslims are forbidden to make pictures of Mohamed is because only God is supposed to be venerated, and making pictures of Mohamed, or other Prophets, is akin to treating them as idols. Like Jesus said, "do not call me good; only God is good." Based on that, it is clearly in error for these extremists to get offended at non-Muslims making images of Mohamed; they're not worshiping him or venerating him, so there is no insult to God's authority as the only one who is Good. These terrorists are just as awful at being Muslims as the Crusaders were awful at being Christians.
Israel, you nincompoop.
Oh, so #NotAllMuslims? That's not hypocritical at all...
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition.
Jesus was not a murderer, a pedophile, a liar or a rapist(*). What's your point?
Also, where in the bible can you find all of those attributes in one individual?
(*) Neither was Joseph Smith, Buddha, or Zoroaster. Historical accounts generally use the terms "pious", "noble", and "compassionate" to describe religious leaders. Of those three words ("pious", "noble", and "compassionate"), which most accurately describes Mohammed?
Screw that. If you don't like something, don't read it/look at it. End of story.
And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
Of course not! Do not support censorship. Learn to distinguish word from deed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
When anybody not even excuses, but merely explains rape by the victim's "slut-like" clothing or suggestive behavior, we tend to get (justly) outraged by such blame-the-victim attitude.
Why should attempts to explain murders by the nebulous "being treated like shit" by the victims be treated any different?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
israel, where the jews came from, the muslims took over, and they got their land back in 48. the muslims tried to get it back and the israelies beat them in a week. try again
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Citations needed. Try to stay on topic, though — this particular thread is not about race.
Wow, you can make anything sound bad, can you not?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Words have meaning — not just consequences. Deal with it.
Whatever. The burden of proof is on you — you made the claim: "movie-theater was set on fire by Christians because it showed a movie Christians hated". As evidence, you provided a link to an article, which neither substantiated your claim nor made any such claims itself (with or without substantiation). Your claim is thus dismissed as unsubstantiated. Have a nice day.
Do you deny, that slutty-dressed rape-victims were dressed like sluts? These ladies would like to talk to you...
Khmm, I sense certain frustration...
It means, the claims you made remain unsubstantiated. They may still be valid — but we don't know. Although, considering the number of times you've already replied without including any other links, we probably do know...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's off-topic.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No, we need to "Edit" the religion, and stamp out the practices we find incompatible with our culture. Just as was done with Christianity (stoning adulterers and witches, killing homosexuals etc)
Oil, mostly. The middle east is rich in it, everyone wants it, so all the world powers are playing games to secure influence in the region.
You mean like these ones?
It's hard to receive money from jerks!
Having diner with assholes.
Pope 23 and his three dadies.
The Talmud is horseshit.
Will do anything to get new customers!
Next week, I will show you the resurrection trick
Yeah, these guys went down on the extremists of some religions (the Christians, The Muslims and The Jews, the current largest in France) just as much as they did on politics, celebrities, social conflicts and others...
Growing up there, I saw plenty of these cartoons. Some are not very funny, some are, some are very intelligent, some very dumb... but if the one thing I remember is that : if it hurts you at some point, it means that there is a layer of truth deep down.
Monde de merde...
Israel, where the Jews lived 2000 years ago (along with a bunch of other people), where various people including some Jews lived for the following 2000 years, and which was then taken by force, from the people who had been living there continuously for generations, by the British and friends, and given to people mostly born in Europe who may have been extremely distant descendants of the Jews who had lived there those 2000 years before, as a way of assuaging their own guilt over not stopping Nazi assholes.
Oh, and by the way, the Jews' folk history says that they originally took that same land from its prior inhabitants in a genocidal invasion. I don't know if that's true, but since that's how people usually get land, I'm inclined to believe it. So if we can find the descendants of the Philistines or the Midianites or whoever, can we give the land back to them? I honestly don't know who they'd be, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of them were among the people displaced to create Israel...
Israel is there now, and it would be a stupid mistake to ignore that or try to undo it. What's done is done, and 60 years makes Israel as legitimate as any other state. That doesn't change the fact that it was another stupid mistake to create Israel in the first place, and, yes, that mistake was absolutely an imperialistic and racist one.
States based on ethnicity or religion are a bad idea anyway, no matter how popular they may be.
Oh, and to avoid being called an "islamofascist", I'd like to point out that Muhammed was a pedophilic warlord cult leader. Actually not a bad guy as pedophilic warlord cult leaders go, but a pedophilic warlord cult leader nonetheless. And obviously he was not inspired by any real sky fairy. Not that any of that is relevant to anything going on this century. In independent news, the most visible carriers of the banner of Islam right now are fanatical tribal assholes who can't handle the real world, are trying to hide from it using religion, and would make any bad thing Israel has ever done look like naughty toddler games if they got any real power.
Yes, you are. By implying, that the victims — White and Christians (mostly) — are in any way, shape, or form responsible — even if in part (however small) — for their own deaths, you are blaming them and are thus no different from those justly-denounced policemen, who explain rapes by mini-skirts.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
stay on topic, the bible has nothing to do with muslim terrorists.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
by that logic, there are no christians, only other pagan sects, being that most the stories in the bible were rewrites of pagan stories right???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God. Sanitizing that will be much more difficult. Places like Indonesia and Malaysia may be doing a decent job of it despite the difficulties, but that's because their populations, largely, can not read the original text (in Arabic).
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What I am seeing is that for the past several decades the West, and I mean, European and North American countries, has been vigorously competing among themselves to become the most 'bend over' country for the Moslems
What has all the appeasement programs brought? I mean, ever since the oil crisis during the 1970's the Moslems has brought *NO BENEFIT* for the West
What is more ridiculous is that during the past decades the Western countries have tried their best to DUMB DOWN their respective societies by brainwashing their people with politically correct concept such as "diversity"
Diversity by itself is no problem - I am, after all, a Chinese, and diversity means a Chinese such as me, gets to add my experience, my viewpoints and my voice, to enrich the society that I live in
But too much emphasis in the 'diversity' means the Whites have been actively discounting their own cultural value in order to replace it with ideas / traditions from the Moslem world
What is interesting / troubling is that the Western societies don't seem to detect the irony and the conflict that the Moslem world would bring them
For example - them politically correct folks support feminism, but on the other hand, the same politically correct folks embrace the Moslems' view that the female folks are of the 'inferior' kind, so inferior that the female must wear burka and/or cover themselves up from head to toe
As one whose culture isn't based on the Western politically correct camp, I find it really troubling that a society which encourages feminism equality permits the Moslems to treat their women folks like trash
But then I reckon, to the West, a view from a Chinese is not important at all. After all, the West's suspicion on the Chinese culture gets worsen as time passes by
On the other hand, views from the Moslems, however, must be taken seriously, and must be implemented immediately. After all, to the mostly so-called 'atheist West', their own Western societal value pales when compares to the 'Allah Culture'
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
BTW, here's a quote that sums it up rather succinctly, emphasis mine:
“In Europe right now there’s a tremendous amount of anti-immigration sentiment,” Daniel Benjamin, a former U.S. counter-terrorism official now with the Brookings Institution in Washington, said on Bloomberg Television. “The danger here is that we see ever greater confrontations, provocations and the like, and that will drive radicalization. That is a very difficult thing for the authorities to manage.”
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Ooops, my bad #4 is a fake... Still a couple more to cover up :
Don't laugh at us
This is my body
A mole in The Vatican : Different than usual altar boys.
Gay Lobby in Conclave : where is the smoke?
Private catholic schools : if you are nice, you could come with me to the anti-gay-marriage rally.
He predicted the end of the world would come before one generation had passed, I think we can call him a liar.
I don't necessarily think any victim-blaming was going on. It doesn't matter who's responsible for the youth being so disaffected that they'll blow themselves up. The fact is, very few comfortably employed citizens of a democratic society strap bombs to themselves.
Poverty breeds violent crime. It doesn't matter if the poverty is caused by $EVIL_GREEDY_CORPORATION or $MEDDLING_GOVERNMENT_PROGRAM or dumb luck or anything else. Poor people with no future and therefore nothing to lose do bad things.
If you can do something to fix that problem, you will decrease the number of desperate people doing desperate thing. And I'm not suggesting a liberal solution, or a conservative solution, or anything else. Just that the cause is "poor people with no future" and not "incited hatred by terrorist leaders."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
by that logic, there are no christians, only other pagan sects, being that most the stories in the bible were rewrites of pagan stories right???
Nope. Logic fail there. Maybe if I abstract it you can see past the blinding context.
All Blargs are Blorgs. Therefore there are no Blorgs. T/F?
See how easy that one actually is?
Jews, Christians, Muslims all believe in the same God; the God of Abraham. And all three religions link themselves to Abraham by a different lineage. They are indisputably different branches of the same religion.
All three believe in (what the Christians call) the Old Testament, and the prophesy of the "Son of Man" who is implied to also be the Son of God, though never named as such, and who is the "Messiah" and brings about the forgiveness of Original Sin.
Jews believe that Jesus was a Prophet but not the Son of Man and not the Messiah. They're still waiting for the Prophesy to be fulfilled.
Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of Man, the Messiah, and that his death fulfilled the Prophesy. They also believe there have been no new Prophets since before Jesus.
Muslims agree with Christians entirely about Jesus being the Son of Man, the Messiah, and his fulfillment of said Prophesy. They also believe that there had been one additional Prophet since then, Mohamed, the Seal of the Prophets, who was not divine at all but merely a human man who was chosen by God for the job of Prophet, and who was given a large set of rules to complete the teachings. The idea is that humans weren't ready for many teachings yet at the time of the Prophet Moses, who is also highly revered by Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. Jesus fulfilled the Prophesy, but left precious few new rules for how to live and how to structure a society based on the principles of Scripture. So there was a rules gap, an information dearth. The Seal of the Prophets brought a final teaching, to tie all the disparate teachings from the past into a single, comprehensive, and final set of rules. So to Muslims there can be no new Prophets.
An interesting example of this is the Muslim image of the "end times," which in many ways is similar to mainstream Christians. In it, Jesus goes out in the world to raise the dead and fly through the air blasting demons with lighting bolts. Mohamed can't do that; he's a human man, given the most important job in history, he has no physical capability to commit Miracles or fire lighting bolts, raise the dead, or battle demons. The see Jesus on the Right Hand of God, his True Son, and the one fighting the devil in the flesh; and Mohamed they see on the Left Hand of God, his esteemed General, giving orders to the field solders from Heaven. He can't leave Heaven to fight in the flesh, because he's Human, and dead. He has no Earthly body to inhabit, only his Spirit body in the land of God.
I'm secular and not part of any of these sects, indeed my meta-physics are more logical positivist, but it is worth knowing the major beliefs that people hold in the world around you.
It is really worth understanding also that the Muslim prohibition on images of Mohamed is not based on perceived insults to him; it is actually based on what Jesus said; "do not call me good; only God is good." Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt. Also, the strict parts of Sharia explicitly only apply in the perceived Muslim Nation; they do not have their root in commandments for all humans to follow, they are things that community was commanded to follow and implement in their own areas. So it is theologically reasonable for Muslims in Saudi Arabia to impose strict Sharia. But it is theologically not supportable to engage in violence in non-Muslim lands to enforce a prohibition on veneration of Prophets; and indeed, sarcastic and insulting cartoons are poor examples of veneration.
becomes... equivalent... to mass murder driven by hate
Thus our mass incarceration of SJWs in prisons that exist exclusively inside your hate filled little mind.
You can't make up this kind of stupid.
I've found you folks rather adept at inventing "stupid" strawmen to disparage.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Sounds like some projecting. Group X does something scummy, Group Y says its not scummy, Group Y proceeds to claim the thing they said was not scummy is in fact scummy. Group X calls it out. Group Y calls it a hate crime. ...and you wonder why people are being turned away from social justice activism due to the extremist SJWs.
Whenever something the victim has said or done is used to excuse — or even merely explain — an attack on him, it is victim-blaming. When his actions/words were perfectly legal — whether it is the revealing clothing, or following a suspicious character on public street, or mocking somebody's religion, or even "not caring" for somebody's dire economic situation — such victim-blaming becomes abhorrent.
Yeah, a famous excuse by Illiberals. Only it is not quite true. Congo, for example, may be the world's poorest country, but Iceland is at the top of the number of crimes per capita.
Citation needed. While we do not (yet) know the background of these criminals, the Tsarnaev brothers were reasonably comfortable. Palestinians in Gaza are much wealthier than Egyptians behind the border. 9/11-attackers were from Saudi Arabia — and although not all residents of that country are rich, all citizens are very well off. Bin Laden was a bona-fide billionaire...
Poverty may or may not increase the number of property crimes, but it does not make one a terrorist, from what I see.
The assholes responsible for the attack being discussed were not desperate. Nor did they do a "desperate thing". Off-topic much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I was very Christian growing up, Sunday school every week, Church (what a bore) every so often. My dad being in the Air Force and always moving elsewhere. Conflicting views were expressed while attending these, more so on the East and West coast of the US, but I'd shine it on.
It wasn't until I was in the Army and had my first "religious group talk", one "fact" I brought up (this from a church in Texas) was shot down so soundly I rethought this Jesus thing, never before had I any doubt about what I was being told or taught.
I became enlightened you could say, if you really think about it, it becomes obvious.
I feel it's what the Muslims and Christians are afraid of, any deviation from what they believe, that Mohammad and Jesus respectively have the ear of God. keeping the two from being gods themselves is the first commandment.
Christian: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Muslim: Say, "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason."
Why don't they just admit it? They don't have the balls to face Islam. They're scared to death to publish anything that might piss off somebody. Pansy journalists!
A religion, or more broadly any religious or non-religious creed, that mandates capital punishment for blasphemy is problematic. Adherents of such a religion should be treated the same as any person who cries out death threats in response to perceived verbal offenses.
However, I wonder if this is more a matter of ethnicity rather than religion. Do the roughly half a million Muslim African-Americans hold the same views as those of Arab descent? How about the Muslims from India?
...if you really think that blaming a whole religious group for the actions of a few extremists (no matter how monstrous or violent their acts) and calling for their deportation and/or extermination using arguments that seem right out of the worst Nazi propaganda about the Jews (except "Jews" is replaced by "Muslims") is going to resolve anything, perhaps it's time for a little visit to a psychiatrist. But what's really scary, REALLY SCARY, is that some of those messages were upvoted as being "Informative" or "Insightful" or "Interesting" by enough people to reach level 4 to 5.
Both the authors and those who upvoted those messages are at least as bad as the extremist Muslims who claim killing a bunch of unarmed people, some of whom were up to 80 years old, shooting them in the back, and menacing a child to get its mum to open a door is "right" in name of their religion. Both groups sicken me. It's disgusting to use an act that killed a bunch of people upstanding to the freedom of speech - no matter how bad taste that freedom may be at times - to justify calls for exterminating millions of people. You people ought to be ashamed of yourself.
If they don't, then they are either hiding it, or are ignorant — possibly, because they can't read the original Koran in Arabic themselves. For the scripture is quite explicit...
No, I don't think, this is due to race or ethnicity — there are plenty of Arab Christians, for example, and they aren't anywhere as crazy as the men being discussed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
their religion actually does mandate capital punishment ... unlike any other modern religion.
Biased much?
The main religious text of every Abrahamic religion promotes violence and killing. The Old Testament is still cited by fundamental Christians (see the U.S.) and Jews (see Israel) to legitimize their violent acts. It may not necessarily be violence to other religions, but it's still violence. (I don't know the other religious texts nearly as well so I can't really speak for them, but I'm certain some non-Abrahamic religions promote some form of religious violence in their text as well.)
But the mainstream Jews and Christians have moved away from the extremes of their ideology and on to more moderate viewpoints. They're still picking and choosing the passages to interpret and follow, but now they're picking the less extreme passages and interpreting them in more moderate ways. The fundamentalists in Christianity and Judiasm are marginalized, and given little to no attention (with the exceptions being the fundamental population of Christians in the U.S. and Jews in Israel, and even then, they're kept in check by equally loud or louder moderate voices).
Muslim extremism is still very much in the limelight of their religion. The extreme viewpoints are constantly in the news, constantly being talked about. Hell, the most wealthy, powerful, and famous Muslims, who often act as role models for many other Muslims, are all extremists. Look at the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Iran, who are clearly extremists. Extremism is given significant attention. There are entire political parties dedicated to extreme interpretations of the Koran. And even if they're discouraged from the extremes, Muslims are exposed to it from youth. Hell, we're all exposed to Muslim extremism from youth.
That is the difference. That is where Islam is currently at, not at the opposite end of "modern religions" but merely a few centuries behind. Islam is currently where Christianity was a few hundred years ago, and is where Judiasm was a thousand years ago. The big question is how to get everybody to reach the points of moderation that Christianity and Judiasm are at. How do you marginalize the extremists?
Denouncing the religion as bad, as you are doing, will not serve those ends. Continuing to bring to attention the violent aspects of the Muslim faith is exactly what people don't do to Christianity and Judiasm (or any other religion for that matter). Implying that it should be gone, as you are doing, is no different than a Muslim person trying to get rid of you for being non-Muslim.
In fact, I'll go a little further and say that the perspective you've taken is exactly the perspective of Muslim extremists. The only difference between you and a terrorist is you haven't quite gotten there. You're still only talking about how bad it is, rather than doing anything about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe you're suppressing that ultimate conclusion to keep your morality. Maybe you're living too comfortable a life and don't want to lose your lifestyle. Maybe you're a coward and trying to incite other people to do what you can't. Maybe it's a combination of multiple factors.
That is, of course, the solution. You can't exactly make people cowards, but you can allow them better lives, and promote less extreme versions of their ideology. You can promote the moderate aspects instead of putting the entire religion of Islam on the defensive. You can denounce government leaders or religious leaders who hold extreme viewpoints, and maybe not prop them up as allies or business partners. You can help make the extremists poor and the moderates wealthy, the extremists weak and the moderates powerful, thereby setting role models who are moderate rather than extreme. These things will help, maybe not right away, but over the course of a generation or two, things will change.
What you're saying and trying to imply will not.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
It's not like us westerners live up to our professed ideals of truth, justice and democracy either...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Of course, we edited lots of people's cultures when we were their colonial masters, and actually instilled the killing of homosexuals into places that had historically been pretty tolerant. Social engineering often goes badly wrong.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
When anybody not even excuses, but merely explains rape by the victim's "slut-like" clothing or suggestive behavior, we tend to get (justly) outraged by such blame-the-victim attitude.
Why should attempts to explain murders by the nebulous "being treated like shit" by the victims be treated any different?
The cause of rape and sexual violence against women is a misogynistic culture. Clothing is not an explanation. I am all in favour of discussing modes of dress as a means of not drawing undesired attention, but that must be within a context that clearly states that it is not the woman's fault. If clothing is an "explanation" for rape, you are stating it is the cause, and if it is the cause, then you are stating it's the woman's fault. No -- it's the man's fault. I have been on beaches where women were sunbathing topless, and I didn't rape a single one of them. Surely if there's an such thing as slutty dressing that causes rape, wearing nothing but a thong and oiling your skin then spreading yourself out on the group is "asking for it"...? No.
The cause of rape is rapists. The cause of terrorism is terrorists.
But rapists are made by society, just as terrorists are made by society. Dealing with that root cause isn't about absolving the criminals of their responsibility. We can continue to jail both rapists and terrorists while simultaneously working to remove the circumstances that made them what they are.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Sure. But I was talking not about people living up to their ideals or not. My point was about the ideals themselves. Our ideals are, as you enumerated, truth, justice and democracy (among other things). Islam's ideals are truth (among the faithful — lying to infidels is perfectly fine), justice (Sharia) and theocracy (the only political order acceptable under Koran).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Touched a nerve there, didn't it?
Start with project Ajax and work your way up to the installation of Saddam Hussein if you want to educate yourself on American middle-east fuckery.
It is absolving them. Perhaps, not completely but partially. And that can not stand — however small the part. The below statements are equally false and endorsing of evil:
Yes, this may be a fine public policy. But we should not allow our understanding of what is happening in the criminal's head to prevent us from fully and unequivocally condemning him for the evil of his actions.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Explain please. #NotAllMuslims seems to describe it pretty well to me. It is a tiny minority of Muslims that are radicalized to the point of terrorism. Almost all Muslims are peaceful law abiding citizens who have no control over the radicals. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all terrorists we would be in big trouble.
I will assume you're not suggesting that every reasonable person in said country should pack up and leave the country to those who work to instill such fear. Because, you know, that would be stupid.
The problem here is, as has been true for some time, religion. Specifically Islam in this case, but of course they're just the latest enthusiastic practitioners of murdering, torturing and so on in the cause of superstitious balderdash.
As long as we allow our civilized sensibilities to continue to prevent us from cutting off the head of this particular beast, it will continue to savage us.
You can "desire" to live in a civilized country all you want; but if you are unwilling or unable to weed out the uncivilized for any reason, your desire will be no more than a dream. And that is going to require some action of an extremely severe nature. Such action would not be... civilized. But the eventual result could be.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, they don't. Because with that appropriately allocated blame would come elimination. Out you go, here's a nice bit of desert, enjoy, bye, PS we confiscated all your money and possessions and redistributed it to our sane citizens. Thanks for all the rugs and books of superstition suitable for providing kindling in the colder months.
At which point they can bomb sand dunes, set each other on fire, hack each others heads off, and mutilate each others genitals until the the sun goes dead and no one would give a hoot. Quite rightly, too. What justifies this? The abject and continuous failure of the Muslim community to stop this poison at its source -- or even try: Their toxic, world-domination-oriented religion and its book of terrorist advisories.
So, no. What these "terrorists" (Islamists) actually want is just what they say they want, and just what their religion tells them to want: Sharia law, Islam everywhere, bowing in a certain direction at certain times of the day for everyone, end of story.
If you let rattlesnakes run around in your living room, someone's going to get bit. I really don't care how much sympathy you have for rattlesnakes -- and neither do the rattlesnakes. Islam is toxic. You can't fix that. Get it out of the figurative living room.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You make some interesting points, especially this:
Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt.
I read something similar on CNN. But that leaves those of us on the outside wondering why anyone would find it so offensive that someone else had made an image of Mohamed. Apparently, there is no known image of him drawn from life, so any depiction must be a work of imagination. Therefore, an image only becomes "an image of Mohammed" because one puts a "Mohammed" label on it - much as we've seen on the clever little textual pictures of him in this thread. And from the outside, the zeal we've seen applied to this - to the point of murder - looks like nothing less than the very veneration of a man that's it's supposed to be preventing.
I can understand the idea that someone finds an unflattering image related to one's beliefs to be offensive. But we in America value freedom of religion (and are therefore willing to pay the price of granting same to others), whereas in other value systems, freedom of religion would be seen as something that's explicitly wrong - or maybe even evil.
So, is that's what's going on here? Is perhaps a prohibition against making images of Mohammed right in one value system, whereas freedom of expression is right in another? If so, it's hard to see how two diametrically opposed views could ever be reconciled among all us folks who are stuck living together here on Planet Earth.
Have you? When, pray tell, did "blacks" fly into skyscrapers full of innocent people? When, pray tell, did "Hispanics" march into a humor magazine and shoot down the cartoonist and anyone nearby? When's the last time "blacks" blew up a night club? When's the last time Hispanics murdered everyone at a resort?
Your problem is that the political correctness butt plug has been shoved so far up your ass by the idiots who think everyone is a special butterfly that you can no longer shit, so you've simply gone blind.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The reason the internment camps were wrong -- and they were -- is because they were based upon race, not ideology. The reason political correctness is wrong in this matter is because it allows toxic and dangerous ideology to fester and continue to harm us without any meaningful attempt to hold the ideology and its followers responsible -- and in many cases, goes as far as making excuses for it.
The parts of WWII facing Japan that were entirely correct include the extreme levels of violence we pursued in response to the violent incursion and further evil-doings based on the Japanese Empire's ideologies. The most correct actions taken were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is only a shame that it was so difficult to develop the technology that finally proved sufficient to stop that ideology in its filthy, toxic tracks.
Takei's experience has no comparable bearing here (in fact, it demonstrates the opposite of what you were trying to say... American camps were far more humane and reasonable than the Japanese, and even then we fought about them internally.) If you want to compare fairly, then read the experiences of those Americans at Pearl Harbor; Guam; in the Changi camps; and so on, and relate those experiences to the beliefs the various ideologies inculcated in the citizens of the Japanese empire, along with the entirely doctrine-compliant actions the Empire's subjects took as a direct result. Go hang out at the Arizona memorial for a while. Let's compare Apples with Apples; ideology with ideology. And then consider what is too severe an injury to society for society to allow the abuse to continue.
Just ask yourself three questions: First, were conditions at Changi, Outram Road and so on like the conditions at US internment camps? Second, did our ideology -- our constitution, the bill of rights, American ideals -- actually support the idea of the interment camps? Three, did the Japanese ideology -- the ingrained ideas of the Empire that brought us the kamikaze, drove the Japanese citizens off the cliffs at Saipan, the death march at Bataan, and declared the Japanese superior to any other race -- actually support the idea of Changi and its brethren?
The fact is that ideology can be extremely toxic. When it is, tolerating it is an extremely bad idea. What society has to do, and I readily admit this is difficult, is figure out when something is so against the grain that it is unacceptably dangerous. At that point, it is time to excise the tumor. Islam is one of these toxic ideologies. We're going to have to face it eventually. And until we do, every life lost and family destroyed should add to the load on the consciences of those who advocate separating responsibility from ideology in the face of the obvious facts.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When you dismiss out of hand any and every newsworthy event as a "false flag operation", that doesn't make you or the Internet any freer, friend.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So you're saying we should give Palestine back to the Romans?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
This is pure bullshit. Are you aware what Deuteronomy *is*, and who Moses is claimed to *be*? There are plenty of sects of Christianity that absolutely take Mosaic Law, as given by Moses (God's Prophet) to be law, and are displeased that modern society allows their wives to cheat on them and live.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God.
This is actually only true in the same way that some Christian sects consider the old and new Testaments to be the Word as inspired by Him.
If you've read the Quran, you'd be well aware it's not the verbatim word of God any more than the other main Abrahamic books are.
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
You literally are a mouthpiece for right-wing Islamophobic stereotypes. This is, again, no different than the other major Abrahamic religions.
And in literally no even marginally strict Christian sect is that which is rendered unto Caesar supreme to that which is rendered unto God. ie, Biblical Supremecy, as Christians who believe in that line of thinking call it. Yes, the Bible comes with a Supremecy Clause, you just only read half of it.
Like any Abrahamic religion, how barbaric you are comes down to which verses you decide to interpret. Secular Islamic governments and societies used to be common, and still exist to a point today. There are real reasons for the cultural reset that has occurred in much of the former Caliphate territories, and guess what- it's not the religion.
I think if you look for something else that correlates with the regions with problems, you'll find that something else correlates better with the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism than Islam.
... this will continue. The appeasement just goes on and on.
Did you see Obama's pathetic statement about this atrocity? I wasn't sure if he was just stoned, or if he was channeling Gene Wilder in the Chocolate Factory (the quiet, calm, utterly insincere "no ... stop ... don't ... ")
The conditions of which Shakrai speaks exist, and not only in France.
Ignoring them will not make them go away. Looking for imagined/potential offence in attempts to discuss them is also not a productive undertaking.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Self-censorship in response to threats is not appeasement
Not in this case !
Did the media (no matter it's CNN or NYT or whateverfuck) received direct threats against them?
Did someone specifically send threatening message / letters to those media outlet this time?
Yes or no ?
The whole issue of 'threats' do not exist, in fact, the 'threats' are all 'self-imposed'
It's the motherfucking Western liberal media who are using 'threats' as a cover to NOT publishing the cartoons
It's the motherfucking Western liberal media who have cop out !
GP was right all along. The entire thing smells more like APPEASEMENT than the non-existent threats
And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
No. Absolutely No
So, all things being equal, would you say that the leaders of Islamic State are not to blame for the terrorist attacks they incite (as opposed to those they carry out themselves)?
There's a distinct difference between provoking by hurting someone's feelings and actively counseling murder. Hebdo did the former, the Imams do the latter. If one finds the two equivalent, one needs to look in the mirror.
Not really sure what this means, but for clarity, the religious demographics of France are something like:
58% Christian
31% No religion
4% Islam
1% Jewish
1% Other
4% Not stated
Source
http://www.reuters.com/article...
One of the things is how you are born. The other is a choice you make. Fail.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sure. But I was talking not about people living up to their ideals or not. My point was about the ideals themselves. Our ideals are, as you enumerated, truth, justice and democracy (among other things). Islam's ideals are truth (among the faithful — lying to infidels is perfectly fine), justice (Sharia) and theocracy (the only political order acceptable under Koran).
The meaning of theocracy is debated by scholars of all religions, and the majority view is that theocracy is obtained when individuals live answerable to god. The Catholic church foreswore direct political power at the end of the Holy Roman Empire, and most Muslims reject both the Iranian model of Ayatollahs and the IS notion of an Islamic caliphate in recognition of the corruptibility of humans, particularly those in positions of power. Theocracy is not, therefore, a political order. In fact, true theocracy would be easier to achieve under a democratic political system than a totalitarian one (if a god exists -- I do not personally believe in any) as it is less prone to corruption (but still open to plenty of corruption, as proven every day).
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
"Freedom of speech". Few words, lots of meaning.
In my cheese's eaters country, this words imply that anyone can have / express any opinions, till their expression doesn't directly harm anyone else.
No one, in my country, could force anyone (muslims, jews, etc.) to read (and buy...) any newspaper.
Charlie has opinions and publishes them freely, it's a normal thing.
No one can decide which opinion anyone else should have, it's also a normal thing.
The murders are trying to force a prohibition on our society, on their sole purpose. They want impose which opinion should be allowed or not.
I'm surprised to see that this simple freedom principle isn't admitted in U.S.
I'll just buy the next Charlie's numero, even if i'm not on their ideological side. They can kill journalists, but the ideas and opinions can't be killed.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
This is why youre racist.
- Its not imcompatible, as shown by the millions of peacefully coexisting Muslims already here and in Europe.
- Not to mention that not every Muslim majority nation is Suadi Arabia. There are 49 Muslim majority countries. To paint all of them by the example of SA is the definition of bigotry, as even within the Muslim world, restrictive nations like SA are the exception and not the norm, even though its the example people like like to trot out as the example of "how muslims are".
-BTW, using a couple cherry picked unrepresentative examples to paint an entire culture wrongly, is the definition of of bigotry.
-If you truly believed that you would ceaselessly mock Christiantity as well, yet you dont. You cherry pick from their religious book while ignoring any other passage in it that might contract the passage youve chosen. Again: the defintion of bigotry.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Mod this up.
Mi posts almost nothing but racist/sexist filth that fell out the southend of a northbound mule, which is likely his own origin as well.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the slavery trade
You utter ignorant fuckwit.
http://english.alarabiya.net/e...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
There's a pretty easy answer though. Stop letting so many fucking people into the country.
Shit, even 1st generation immigrants in the UK are actually stating that they think immigration is too high and it's damaging their quality of life.
That doesn't cause radicalisation and reducing immigration wont cause more radicalisation than the majority are already undergoing in response to the immigration problems.
What the fuck does the contents of the bible have to do with Mohammed and his followers being a bunch of ignorant savage cunts?
Just because most Christians are also twats doesn't excuse Muslims.
are you a victim, if you go and look for trouble and find more than you had bargained for? And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?
Ridiculing idiots isn't looking for trouble, it's ridiculing idiots.
You're clearly a total arsehole. Shoot me for saying that and I'm a victim, and you're going to prison. I'm not looking for trouble, just telling you how it is: You're an arsehole, you're ridiculous and I mock your asinine views.
Before I read the rest of your rant, show me, where I am saying anything about a particular race in this thread.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Freedom of the press, is the freedom of choice. Print or don't print, that is the whole idea. If on the other side of the coin they feel forced to print something they would rather not, that is not very good either.
Here in Canada it is a bit interesting as most of the Francophone media is printing it, while most of the Anglophone media is not. Sort of highlights some interesting cultural differences within our own country.
Jesus was not a murderer, a pedophile, a liar or a rapist(*). What's your point?
No? If you say so. My point is not to claim that he was, but to illustrate how easy - and false - it is to judge adherents of a religion on your own, biased interpretation of holy scriptures you disagree with. Just as the Qur'an is now being used to justify wholesale atrocities of the worst kind, the Bible has been used to exactly the same end. Judge people on their merits instead; but that's not your purpose, is it? You want to be able to somehow discredit a whole, ethnic group or more, based on what they call their religion.
So, all things being equal, would you say that the leaders of Islamic State are not to blame for the terrorist attacks they incite (as opposed to those they carry out themselves)?
There's a difference between someone saying "You should go attack that group" vs. "Hey, here's what I think about that group". So they're not equal. So the leaders of the Islamic State are to blame, but the degree of blame is related to how involved they are in it. For centuries people have written news papers (and any other media) talking about how someone should go attack a certain group or country, and the vast majority of the time no one actually does anything about it.
At least some Christians are of the opinion that God and the Bible tell them how to live, and that means accepting secular power structures. Jesus told people to pay their taxes, and he also told them that money is ultimately worthless, and the only lasting reward is from obeying God. The Biblical supremacy clause works just fine with a halfway reasonable non-religious government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But we should not allow our understanding of what is happening in the criminal's head to prevent us from fully and unequivocally condemning him for the evil of his actions.
I don't have a problem with "unequivocally". I am unequivocal when I say it is a horrendous act with no legitimate excuse. But if we blame them fully, then we are condemning ourselves to history repeating itself. Remember the words of John Donne's poem:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
Society exists, and we are molded by the society we grow up in. We can choose to continue to be the type of society that creates these problems, or we can try to be a different type of society.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Imperialism is not the same thing as playing the "great game".
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I predicted that this "world-wide web" thing would never catch on. Are you calling me a liar for that?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. How can we fix/educate/civilize/rationalize them?
Casteism
Govt must mandate that everbody should endorse 2 religions.
Casteism
"Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Looks pretty airtight to me. And just in case someone decides that 'generation' actually refers to a generation of civilisation or something of that nature, he then goes on to give an explicit instruction to the crowd he is addressing: "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come."
He even explains the reason for not specifying an exact day: He doesn't want everyone to party like it's the end of the world and just have a mass-repentance on judgements-eve.
Well stoning adulterers is part of Mosaic Law and Sharia law but is not part of Christianity. In fact there was a very specific prohibition against this as one of the most famous words of Christ: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So anyone who would do something like that could not claim this as a Christian mandate since Jesus specifically prohibited it. I can't say this was not done at one time, but it was certainly not Christian. In fact if you've read the "Scarlet Letter", adulterers were certainly not approved of but they were not executed. This is largely conflating Muslim Sharia law and Christian beliefs.
Jesus Christ brought a new Covenant which wiped away the old Mosaic Law. So there was never a need to "Edit" Christianity since things like stoning adulterers, burning witches, killing homosexuals were never allowed for Christian's in the first place if they follow what Christ and the Apostles taught. The Catholic Church added many things to the practice of Christianity that weren't in the Bible, but I don't think the three items you mentioned were ever part of official church or even Catholic Canon law. That was why things like the burning of witches in Salem was a short lived anomaly. Although there were many abuses and extra-Biblical practices of the Church such as the Inquisition which was implemented by churches in some countries in the 12th to 18th centuries.
Interestingly enough, since you mention burning witches, the Saudi's are still performing executions for witchcraft as late as 2012 (even though the result is the same, at least beheading is a quicker death than burning): Saudi man executed for 'witchcraft and sorcery'
But I do agree with your post though. The only way that there will be true compatibility with Western values is the elimination of Sharia Law and political Islam everywhere.
Where do you see hypocrisy in #NotAllMuslims?
They're simply getting it wrong; they're falling victim to a hateful extremism that hand-feeds them selected (disputed or sectarian) teachings by later people. The basic Sunni/Shia split is similar to Catholic/Protestant in being at least largely about accepting later teachings from a claimed official line of the church and if such new teachings would count as Scripture.
It is generally a bait-and-switch; they emphasize that making images of Mohamed is offensive to God, and then they switch to telling the other humans to be personally offended. They don't continue with the same religious argument from beginning to end. After they establish that the person creating the image is [list of horribles] then they switch to talking about what punishments that would incur if done by nominal Muslims within the unified Muslim State that is assumed and ordered in scripture. Historically when such a state existed it would indeed have been punishable by death. Mainly because there was no chance that an Islamic court was going to treat a person making banned Muslim religious images as other than a heretic Muslim. If they were Christian images, that was actually okay, as long as the person making the images wasn't from a Muslim family. So they had freedom of religion, but not as a matter of personal choice. And non-Muslims who already lived in Muslim-ruled lands were allowed freedom of religion, but had to pay a tax. (Christians and Jews were excepted and didn't need to pay the tax or have a visa)
Freedom of expression isn't a natural right. It is a created right, a somewhat arbitrary luxury. Even where it exists it is not absolute. Historically, the Islamic State had a high level of freedom of expression. It did not extend to religious iconography, but there was extensive and open discussion of the philosophical and creative implications of different religious ideas. This was at the same time that scientists in Europe were being burned at the stake by the Christian Church, just for believing in the wrong physical facts, even where they had conceded they had no opinion on the religious implications. And yet later it was Christian extremists during the English Civil War that created the modern right of freedom of the press, and the separation of church and state; both were enacted so that individuals could have a personal conversation with God, without interference from the State (via an approved church) and then write about their experiences.
So Christians have rejected freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the past, too. It should be no surprise that there will be extremists that engage in these patterns of control. But it is not something that is in the nature of either religion; it is in the nature of sociopathic control freaks who sometimes manage to get power over land, or for example in France, simply can persuade some common criminals to become murderous villains.
The Koran does call for strict religious rule in a home region, but there is nothing in it about restricting freedom of expression beyond the standard anti-veneration protocols. And it could be argued that the history of the Catholic Church and freedom of expression is diametrically opposed to modern American values, and yet, it doesn't stop Catholics from loving God, or being good Americans. Like my dad (a non-Catholic) says, "if you don't want to be anything like a Catholic, just hate God and you'll have nothing in common."
We don't need to reconcile the views, the vast majority will continue to come together to oppose religious violence. There will still be radicalized nutjobs blowing stuff up, just like there are still burglars and murderers and various sorts of neer-do-wells.
That said, if I intentionally antagonize my neighbor by posting insulting pictures of what he values (and presumably, I don't) then he may eventually snap and punch me, or do whatever bad thing. Almost everybody in the community will agree punching is bad. He'll probably get fined and put on probation. But also, I'd still know when choosing to
Je Suis Charlie. Pass it on.
--- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.