10+ dead during shooting at the paper that ran Muhammad cartoon

[zinfamous]

Officially done with CNN for the rest of my life; nothing but bunch of cowards:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cut-off-controversial-charlie-hebdo-drawings/

Well, you'd think the Post would at least publish them in that article, no?

:hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

Seems the liberal war on poverty is responsible for a different type of war.

--sorry, read that as "War on the poor"--

why the hell is any of this in this thread, anyway?

 

[zinfamous]

I think you missed the point, if you believe that any set religious rules supersede the laws of the land, you do not belong in secular western society. It doesn't matter whether it's Sharia, Torah or the Old Testament.

Then I suppose we need to start by kicking all of these Jews out of New York:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York

They have their own Talmudic law, municipality seeks permission from their own internal court before any sort of investigation concerning this community's citizens.

Let's kick out these Hassids. We need more people willing to do something about them, right?

 

[Whiskey16]

It is my belief that is the biggest problem. No one leader, instead just a bunch of ignorant "priest" making up their own rules and interpretations of the Koran and turning their "flock" into a bunch of foaming at the mouth psychotic zealots who bask in murder and fear.

You fuck'n generalising, absolutist and hateful bigot. Bloody Nazi.

It is horrendous that published satirists are assassinated due to the hate and violence by a miniscule and extremist representation of a much larger and identifiable population.

It can eventually become equally horrendous when other foaming at the mouth bigots jump at such an instance to apply xenophobia and vilify an entire population as a scapegoat for any number of problems (social heterogeneous rather than homogenous, employment, crime, etc..) Bloody regular calls for the forced expulsion of Muslims already made it into the first page of this thread. Being a Jew, I am all too familiar with the history and violence that generalised hate speech and incitement can return against a generalised target.

This forum has a long and sordid history of publishing full on hatred and calls to crimes against Muslims.

Only this past week had numerous xenophobic and hateful rallies across Germany to denounce the presence of Muslims. Out of that was a much more numerous German public pushback to promote unity and respect while degrading the bigots. Germans, yes the majority of Germans, have much to teach the violent, hateful, and the regularly bigoted regulars of the AnandTech P&N.

 

[Whiskey16]

...unfortunately its not OK to talk about immigration in Europe, if someone in Europe disagrees with the immigration policy, in most countries you can be thrown in jail for voicing that opinion since it can construed as trying to "incite hatred", so the population of Europe is largely muzzled and has no voice in the matter.

Europe has a sordid history of states enacting pogroms of extreme crimes and violence for social, ethnic, and purity goals.

peony, with your regular and trolling avatar to chastise all Muslims as the enemy and terrorists, you are upon the pedestal of one of this forum's most ardent presenters and advocator of hatred...

peonyu, you're just another of the common hate spewing neo-nazis that have become endemic to this forum.

Guys, click his profile for the taste test he presents:

peonyu AnandTech profile:

STOP HATE CRIME

CLOSE DOWN ALL MOSQUES, MASDRASSAS, AND ISLAMIC BOOKSHOPS

The Germans certainly acted and fully attempted that against Jews. Now-a-days, segments of society choose to target their complete vilification of Muslims in very much the same way.

Incitement to supremacist hatred.

peonyu = hate inciting pollution and an example of extremism that keeps more decent folk from bothering with this forum.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

its hard to feel sorry for these media companies who use "freedom of speech" exclusively to provoke those people with stupid pointless cartoons and movies. if anything all of society should be pixed at companies like sony and charlie hebdo for doing provocative crap like that and putting a bunch of other people at risk

 

[Blue_Max]

its hard to feel sorry for these media companies who use "freedom of speech" exclusively to provoke those people with stupid pointless cartoons and movies. if anything all of society should be pixed at companies like sony and charlie hebdo for doing provocative crap like that and putting a bunch of other people at risk

Why should anyone be "at risk" in the first place?? Your solution is to be quiet, play nice, and maybe the muslims won't hurt us.

...except they will anyway - they'll find their excuse with or without you.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LMAO!!!! @ ATP&N

A place where you can be a liberal/conservative Muslim loving/hating bigot all at the same time.

 

[NTMBK]

And guess what? The predictable racist backlash has begun in France:

#BREAKING Several attacks against France mosques since magazine killings: officials

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/553124875708420096

 

[werepossum]

I think you are a little confused on who the tool is. The religion didn't walk in and kill anyone either you dolt.

After your posts I seriously doubt anyone here doesn't understand who is the tool.

I think plain and simple is wrong. Its not simple when you read the religious texts. Christianity for a long time was not a peaceful religion either, until huge chunks of its followers stopped following the texts. Islam is far more violent than other popular religions at the moment. Part of the violence is justified by their holy books. When you poll the people, you get some idea of how they view violence.

The 20 to 30 thousand fighters ISIS has shows that its not a small idea in Islam. So I would say that many Muslims are fine, peaceful people, but I would not say they are as typically peaceful as other religious people.

Also, I'm not a christian advocate either. I believe all religions are made up constructs of people.

Well said. The majority of Muslims are good people, but Islam itself is markedly different from other major religions.

There is a growing anti-islam sentiment that has spread from the fringes to the mainstream in both Germany and France. I suspect more volatility in Europe's future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rties-are-now-on-the-march-across-Europe.html

Yep. I doubt France can be saved, but Europe as a whole is heading for some rough times.

 

[zanejohnson]

funny this happens right after good ole Bibi Netanyahu, said it was a "grave mistake," for France to recognize the Palestinian state.


yeah, makes perfect sense that the newest country to attempt to lend recognition to Palestinian existence, gets attacked by a jihadist Muslim extremist group.... yeah, perfect sense.

not to mention, the so called "jihadists," operated with extreme precision, highly trained, highly skilled, assasins, who called the assasinated out by name.

and then accidently lost an "ID card," while making their "escape."

 

[Blanky]

its hard to feel sorry for these media companies who use "freedom of speech" exclusively to provoke those people with stupid pointless cartoons and movies. if anything all of society should be pixed at companies like sony and charlie hebdo for doing provocative crap like that and putting a bunch of other people at risk

You're a coward.

 

[f1sherman]

Officially done with CNN for the rest of my life; nothing but bunch of cowards:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cut-off-controversial-charlie-hebdo-drawings/

This is about the most despicable thing a colleague journalist could do.
Give maximum publicity to their killers and their terror message by continuously running that murderous tape,
while at the same time censoring and withholding the information about their dead colleagues work.

 

[michal1980]

its hard to feel sorry for these media companies who use "freedom of speech" exclusively to provoke those people with stupid pointless cartoons and movies. if anything all of society should be pixed at companies like sony and charlie hebdo for doing provocative crap like that and putting a bunch of other people at risk

Liberals. Such funny stupid creatures.

 

[f1sherman]

its hard to feel sorry for these media companies who use "freedom of speech" exclusively to provoke those people with stupid pointless cartoons and movies. if anything all of society should be pixed at companies like sony and charlie hebdo for doing provocative crap like that and putting a bunch of other people at risk

well hopefully after this EU bans all religions and movements that have trouble explaining to its worshipers that murder is never an appropriate answer for getting offended

come to think of it we already have this... in many EU states - ie. hate speech laws;
dafuq... why is religion, ie. rabid Islamic scholars and their organizations across EU exempt from these laws?

 

[Blanky]

People continue to try and draw a false equivalence between immigrating Muslims and other groups in France, but they are a unique group who are not assimilating very well into their new country. They are under 10% of the French population, but make up 60-70% of the prison population, for example.

While only a small number of Muslims engage in violence, a larger number support it, and it isn't fair to say only a tiny percentage are extremists, given the oppressive and barbaric laws many of their home countries quite happily endorse. You think a person from Oman, where a non-Muslim isn't even supposed to eat or drink during Ramada, is going to come to a Western nation and endorse freedom of expression with the ease somebody from Japan or Mexico would?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

its hard to feel sorry for these media companies who use "freedom of speech" exclusively to provoke those people with stupid pointless cartoons and movies. if anything all of society should be pixed at companies like sony and charlie hebdo for doing provocative crap like that and putting a bunch of other people at risk

This is a tired and lame argument that is wrong in so many ways that I'm not sure I can adequately express my disgust at it. You have the freedom of speech and to express yourself, no matter how distasteful some may find it. You have the right to live your life and not be assaulted for your views and opinions. You do NOT, however, have the right to NOT be offended. You do NOT have the right to physically harm someone who says something you don't like. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Most of the greatest thought evolution in human history was due to ideas and the exchange of those ideas which the authorities at the time deemed heretical/blasphemous/{insert adjective of your choice}. It has been a long and tough struggle throughout history but just contemplate how much farther our civilization would be technologically had men with imaginary sky fairies not censored, oppressed, and destroyed people just because they presented ideas counter to the prevalent thinking of the time.

You're a coward.

Yes, I think that is a fair characterization of people who let fear and sky fairy worshippers dictate their thoughts, expressions, etc.

 

[f1sherman]

People continue to try and draw a false equivalence between immigrating Muslims and other groups in France, but they are a unique group who are not assimilating very well into their new country. They are under 10% of the French population, but make up 60-70% of the prison population, for example.

While only a small number of Muslims engage in violence, a larger number support it, and it isn't fair to say only a tiny percentage are extremists, given the oppressive and barbaric laws many of their home countries quite happily endorse. You think a person from Oman, where a non-Muslim isn't even supposed to eat or drink during Ramada, is going to come to a Western nation and endorse freedom of expression with the ease somebody from Japan or Mexico would?

You are talking in general I would assume...

Because nowhere on these 11 pages has ANYONE said that only a tiny percentage are extremists

BTW it kinda depends on how you define extremist.

For example, in western societies a middle aged woman wholeheartedly supporting invasion of country she has never heard before just because,
or just because its leader is bad, could be called an All-American mom.
OTOH its perfectly clear to every sane person that thats an extremist with nuclear voting power that has more blood on its hand than Al fucking Qaeda

 

[michal1980]

You are talking in general I would assume...

Because nowhere on these 11 pages has ANYONE said that only a tiny percentage are extremists

BTW it kinda depends on how you define extremist.

For example, in western societies a middle aged woman wholeheartedly supporting invasion of country she has never heard before just because,
or just because its leader is bad, could be called an All-American mom.
OTOH its perfectly clear to every sane person that thats an extremist with nuclear voting power that has more blood on its hand than Al fucking Qaeda

umm this guy did

Estimated 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world.
20-30K in ISIS... lets quintuple to 150K that for all the other radical sects and crazy fucks that distort the teachings

150,000/1,600,000,000 = A REALLY SMALL PERCENTAGE

 

[f1sherman]

well yes... A REALLY SMALL PERCENTAGE (even tiny I would assume) is WILLING TO DIE for their retarded beliefs

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Europe has a sordid history of states enacting pogroms of extreme crimes and violence for social, ethnic, and purity goals.

I wonder if this is a long range goal of terrorists. It was with Al Qaeda before and it got the US involved in two wars and that damned Patriot Act.

The Jews were peaceful and a tiny minority. The latter is not the case with Islam. These violent Muslims seem to want a conflict between the whole of Islam and everyone else. They won't get it but they could achieve horror beyond what they really understand.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is a tired and lame argument that is wrong in so many ways that I'm not sure I can adequately express my disgust at it. You have the freedom of speech and to express yourself, no matter how distasteful some may find it. You have the right to live your life and not be assaulted for your views and opinions. You do NOT, however, have the right to NOT be offended. You do NOT have the right to physically harm someone who says something you don't like. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Most of the greatest thought evolution in human history was due to ideas and the exchange of those ideas which the authorities at the time deemed heretical/blasphemous/{insert adjective of your choice}. It has been a long and tough struggle throughout history but just contemplate how much farther our civilization would be technologically had men with imaginary sky fairies not censored, oppressed, and destroyed people just because they presented ideas counter to the prevalent thinking of the time.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning either, but I do see where he's coming from a bit.

I would say that if you know that extremists react that way, why not choose another way to represent them? Or not at all? Too much life was loss so I don't want to just take that lightly and the extremeists hold 100 percent of the blame for reacting like they did, but this isn't about freedom of speech, is about using speech wisely.

You guys seem so afraid to consider that alternative because you think someone is trying to censor you...all he's probably suggesting is to choose a different religion, or just leave Muhammed out of it.

Use speech wlsely.

 

[Blanky]

You are talking in general I would assume...

Because nowhere on these 11 pages has ANYONE said that only a tiny percentage are extremists

See above

well yes... A REALLY SMALL PERCENTAGE (even tiny I would assume) is WILLING TO DIE for their retarded beliefs

Agreed. Most people don't care enough to commit violence, but you can endorse it without perpetrating it.

It's important, however, that we call a duck a duck. Instead of claiming we know that these people do or do not represent Islam, why not poll Muslims about their views? Thankfully, it's been done.

Posted today, but refers to older poll numbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-do-americans-feel-about-muhammad-cartoons/

This is also from eight years ago, seems much of the polling was:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ls-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

Given that 40% of British Muslims would like some level of Sharia law, and that European Muslims take a very dim view on a paper that isn't part of their religion posting drawings about their prophet (so then why should it care? I thought religious freedom meant that if you were not part of a religion you need not live by its tenets?), must we not also conclude that there are large numbers of them not very well assimilating?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning either, but I do see where he's coming from a bit.

I would say that if you know that extremists react that way, why not choose another way to represent them? Or not at all? Too much life was loss so I don't want to just take that lightly and the extremeists hold 100 percent of the blame for reacting like they did, but this isn't about freedom of speech, is about using speech wisely.

You guys seem so afraid to consider that alternative because you think someone is trying to censor you...all he's probably suggesting is to choose a different religion, or just leave Muhammed out of it.

Use speech wlsely.

You guys are not thinking clearly about this issue. No, it very much is about freedom of speech. Who are you to say what speech is "wise" and what speech isn't? Why should someone drawing a cartoon have to fear for his/her life? Over the centuries, the Catholic Church (for example) deemed certain speech or teachings "unwise" (to use your words). Should Galileo, Bruno, and others simply have said "Ok, you win, I'll stop"? No.

Political cartoons are published on a daily basis. Should we be afraid that Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell, or whomever is depicted will attack us in a blind rage and therefore, not publish it? Should we stop because "it's mean"? These guys likely didn't publish Mohamed cartoons to offend Muslims. On the contrary, they were probably sick and tired of hearing other artists or writers threatened when they did the same thing and said "Look, we are free to express ourselves and let's prove it." I also want to dispel another notion I've seen in this thread many times -- that is, people saying these men (and women?) lost their lives because of an "unwise" expression of free speech. That is not correct. They lost their lives due to subhuman thugs not escaping an 11th century mentality. Let's be perfectly, 100% clear on that.

First it will be "ban all depictions of Mohamed." Next will be "our shoppers shop at your stores and are offended by the presence of alcohol and pork." What's next? Don't think it will happen? Look at Britain and the issues they're having.

Let's not mince words here. The perpetrators of these crimes are subhuman animals stuck in an 11th century mindset and are "protecting the honor" of a seventh-century desert nomad who imagined he was contacted by a sky fairy. That's the score here. These monsters aren't deserving of respect, they are deserving of a painful death.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

This is a tired and lame argument that is wrong in so many ways that I'm not sure I can adequately express my disgust at it. You have the freedom of speech and to express yourself, no matter how distasteful some may find it. You have the right to live your life and not be assaulted for your views and opinions. You do NOT, however, have the right to NOT be offended. You do NOT have the right to physically harm someone who says something you don't like. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Most of the greatest thought evolution in human history was due to ideas and the exchange of those ideas which the authorities at the time deemed heretical/blasphemous/{insert adjective of your choice}. It has been a long and tough struggle throughout history but just contemplate how much farther our civilization would be technologically had men with imaginary sky fairies not censored, oppressed, and destroyed people just because they presented ideas counter to the prevalent thinking of the time.


Yes, I think that is a fair characterization of people who let fear and sky fairy worshippers dictate their thoughts, expressions, etc.

im gist sayin, the rest of us have lives to lead and shouldnt have to deal with the consequences of dudes like u doing sheet like that gist so u can sell magazines. these people who think this and "the interview" are free speech issues are morons. you *may* have the right to go up to black people with a bull horn and call them the n word, but why the heck should u? maybe u shouldnt cuz homie might pull a gun on u and randomly start shooting the rest of us. were these stupid cartoons worth 12 lives? i think not