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

[MongGrel]

NM.

 

[gevorg]

 

[5150Joker]

Well duh, it's never cool to make fun of Jews! They're off limits, you know, anti-semitism label and all that. :whiste:

 

[Orignal Earl]

Quelle blague putain

 

[Blue_Max]

Well duh, it's never cool to make fun of Jews! They're off limits, you know, anti-semitism label and all that. :whiste:

Bull. They made fun of jews just as often.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Bull. They made fun of jews just as often.

That one is making fun of religion

 

[Blue_Max]

That one is making fun of religion

That ONE. Google "Charlie Hebdo" and judaism/jewish/jew/etc.
See for yourself.

 

[Caravaggio]

To Blue Max, re 684.
Agreed. Charlie Hebdo was always poking fun at ALL religions.
And by the look of the latest issue, which is selling out already (BBC report, R4 06.30 GMT), it still is.

 

[Blanky]

You must of missed all the peeps that enjoy calling the Muslims's prophet a pedo.
I thought maybe if they learned a little about child marriage at least a few of them might be able to move on

But people aren't worshiping these pedophiles that you linked to.

 

[Orignal Earl]

But people aren't worshiping these pedophiles that you linked to.

Sure they do, I've seen several posters here who treat the founding fathers like they were gods.

 

[Abwx]

But people aren't worshiping these pedophiles that you linked to.

In France in the 70s there was an org called FLIP, aka front for the liberation of pedophilia, its members were intellectuals and this was supported by some politicians covertly, with some making public statements on TV, despite being threatened publicly by the relevant ministers, so let s talk of the recent past if you want...

It s not like western societies are not permissive with pedophilia, scandals have erupted within the catholic church, should we brand christians as forcibly being prone to such behaviours.?.

 

[Blue_Max]

Sure they do, I've seen several posters here who treat the founding fathers like they were gods.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x195o11_south-park-s04e05-cartman-joins-nambla_fun

There you go. South Park making fun of pedophiles.

No. We hate, hate, hate, universally despise pedophiles, not "worship" them.

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x195o11_south-park-s04e05-cartman-joins-nambla_fun

There you go. South Park making fun of pedophiles.

No. We hate, hate, hate, universally despise pedophiles, not "worship" them.

In their false equivalence minds I'm sure South Park received a lot of threats over that... oh, wait.... :ninja:

 

[cubby1223]

http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-sells-dawn-muhammad-cover-080255447.html

France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism and announced Wednesday it was sending an aircraft carrier to the Mideast to work more closely with the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants.

Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism in the last week.

This is what I don't like about this whole situation. There is this gigantic rally in the name of freedom of speech and expression... but the freedom only applies to us, not to you. You will be arrested for speaking the similar things we speak just in reverse. My French is not that great to decipher the cartoons but it doesn't appear like this magazine was all kindness and acceptance towards groups they didn't like. But clearly their free speech is more important than other people's free speech.

 

[Nebor]

http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-sells-dawn-muhammad-cover-080255447.html



This is what I don't like about this whole situation. There is this gigantic rally in the name of freedom of speech and expression... but the freedom only applies to us, not to you. You will be arrested for speaking the similar things we speak just in reverse. My French is not that great to decipher the cartoons but it doesn't appear like this magazine was all kindness and acceptance towards groups they didn't like. But clearly their free speech is more important than other people's free speech.

Because the French don't care what the muslims have to say. They were allowed in to provide cheap labor and not cause a fuss. France already banned the hijabs. I think people are forgetting that when the French get upset they just lop off everyone's heads. I'd like to see muslims try that!

 

[Caravaggio]

Because the French don't care what the muslims have to say.

True. Nor do they care for anything Jews say either. Which accounts for the increase in Jewish emigration.
The latter are persecuted when Israel persecutes Palestinians in Gaza. The graphs follow each other exactly with a time lag of roughly 10-14 days. There is a message there, although French anti-semitism is a nasty prejudice going back centuries. See Leandre's cartoon of Alphonese Rothschild hugging the Globe, 1898, "dieu protege Israel" or Nathan Rothschild portrayed as a wolf eating gold coins in Lepneveu's "l'origine des milliards" (1900).

Back to the cartoons of the Prophet which are apparently forbidden. Anyone with an interest in the history of art can see clear and inoffensive images of him in various stages of his life, in Islamic Art. See "Islam, Art and Architecture" by Marcus Hattstein and Peter Delius, pub Konnemann (2004). See especially pages 14-53.
Who says Muslim's forbid images of the prophet? There they are, painted with care and respect by Muslim artists. These are not offensive to anyone, they show the Prophet as a baby (p15) as a preacher in a mosque and as a man riding with Christ. p 28. When did such images become offensive to Islam?

 

[Nebor]

True. Nor do they care for anything Jews say either. Which accounts for the increase in Jewish emigration.
The latter are persecuted when Israel persecutes Palestinians in Gaza. The graphs follow each other exactly with a time lag of roughly 10-14 days. There is a message there, although French anti-semitism is a nasty prejudice going back centuries. See Leandre's cartoon of Alphonese Rothschild hugging the Globe, 1898, "dieu protege Israel" or Nathan Rothschild portrayed as a wolf eating gold coins in Lepneveu's "l'origine des milliards" (1900).

Back to the cartoons of the Prophet which are apparently forbidden. Anyone with an interest in the history of art can see clear and inoffensive images of him in various stages of his life, in Islamic Art. See "Islam, Art and Architecture" by Marcus Hattstein and Peter Delius, pub Konnemann (2004). See especially pages 14-53.
Who says Muslim's forbid images of the prophet? There they are, painted with care and respect by Muslim artists. These are not offensive to anyone, they show the Prophet as a baby (p15) as a preacher in a mosque and as a man riding with Christ. p 28. When did such images become offensive to Islam?

When the radical imams that we created to fight communism started saying they were. :biggrin:

 

[Caravaggio]

When the radical imams that we created to fight communism started saying they were. :biggrin:

You have a point.
But imams differ a great deal depending on location. Chechen muslims were radicalised by Stalin's vileness to them in the gulags (see Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago", and are still radical today.
But the Muslim population of Khazakstan still drink scotch in the bars around the oil fields and would pass as roughnecks in Houston. My own theory is that the radicalising outside Russia began with the death of Nasser and the resistance, by North African Muslims, to fading British and French colonialism and the growing power of (US-backed) Israel. The 'soon to be rich' Saudis started to buy influence in the area and Wahabism replaced more liberal interpretations of Islam. Islamic science became moribund at about this time.

 

[shira]

http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-sells-dawn-muhammad-cover-080255447.html



This is what I don't like about this whole situation. There is this gigantic rally in the name of freedom of speech and expression... but the freedom only applies to us, not to you. You will be arrested for speaking the similar things we speak just in reverse. My French is not that great to decipher the cartoons but it doesn't appear like this magazine was all kindness and acceptance towards groups they didn't like. But clearly their free speech is more important than other people's free speech.

I fail to see how defacing a synagogue or advocating that Jews be murdered is "free expression," or is remotely a "similar thing" to publishing a cartoon that mocks the hypocritical, destructive, or self-serving behavior of religious icons - including rabbis (or that even just makes fun of religious practices). Perhaps you can enlighten us?

 

[BoberFett]

I fail to see how defacing a synagogue or advocating that Jews be murdered is "free expression," or is remotely a "similar thing" to publishing a cartoon that mocks the hypocritical, destructive, or self-serving behavior of religious icons - including rabbis (or that even just makes fun of religious practices). Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Muslims in France were free to draw their own cartoons mocking cartoonists.

Instead they went the terrorist route.

Unfortunately that seems to be the only way that Islam knows how to solve problems. Seriously, is there any open debate allowed in Islam? Or do religious leaders just make proclamations, and the radical among them enforce their version of said proclamation with an AK-47?

 

[StrangerGuy]

I fail to see how defacing a synagogue or advocating that Jews be murdered is "free expression," or is remotely a "similar thing" to publishing a cartoon that mocks the hypocritical, destructive, or self-serving behavior of religious icons - including rabbis (or that even just makes fun of religious practices). Perhaps you can enlighten us?

"I support free speech but I have no problems with death threats, violence etc because of X statement" -people who don't understand or like free speech.

 

[BoberFett]

"I support free speech but I have no problems with death threats, violence etc because of X statement" -people who don't understand or like free speech.

It's not surprising to hear the Christian right blame CH for the attack, but there have been more than a few left wingers who are claiming CH was a hate group. Usually prefaced with something like "I don't condone terrorism BUT..." and then goes on to condone terrorism. Feminists, SJWs, etc. have been using a #JeNeSuisPasCharlie tag to exhibit their hatred for liberalism. Quite an odd situation, but that's what going too far to the left gets you: you wrap back around to the right.

 

[Nebor]

You have a point.
But imams differ a great deal depending on location. Chechen muslims were radicalised by Stalin's vileness to them in the gulags (see Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago", and are still radical today.
But the Muslim population of Khazakstan still drink scotch in the bars around the oil fields and would pass as roughnecks in Houston. My own theory is that the radicalising outside Russia began with the death of Nasser and the resistance, by North African Muslims, to fading British and French colonialism and the growing power of (US-backed) Israel. The 'soon to be rich' Saudis started to buy influence in the area and Wahabism replaced more liberal interpretations of Islam. Islamic science became moribund at about this time.

Agreed, the Khazaks are remarkably moderate and open-minded.

 

[raildogg]

Agreed, the Khazaks are remarkably moderate and open-minded.

That's all this world needs - another person wrapping himself up in his little flag.

As for Khazaks - what does that one incident prove anything? Are you judging, like all people do unfortunately, about Khazaks while sitting thousands of miles away?

Internet is not helping us. It's make us "experts" in our own minds. We think we really know. You don't know NOTHING about what's happening down the block yet you think you know something thousands of miles away?

 

[Fern]

ISIS?
Are they now the go to for you guys to bash Muslims
Should I google up a couple thousand American pedos and point out this is how Americans are.
That must be why the gov had to make it against the law..if they didn't Americans would be raping children left and right < yes that's sarcasm

Earl, you're the Yogi Berra of analogies. (He's famous, in part, due to his constant malapropisms.)

Pedo's generally make up a small percentage of the population regardless what the law is. This is true for the USA as well as all other countries/societies. Thus, any analogy here is misguided.

I'm speaking to pedophilia that is condoned by (Arab Muslim) authorities and that's something completely different than the underground and illegal activity that exists everywhere. BTW: it's not just ISIS either: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/raymond-ibrahim/new-saudi-fatwa-defends-pedophilia-as-marriage/

Fern