Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[BobK]

Population, Islamic percentage (Islamic population):
Germany - 80.2m, 1.9% (1.5m)
France - 66.6m, 4.0% (2.6m)
United Kingdom - 63.1m, 2.8% (1.7m)
Italy - 59.4m, 2.6% (1.6m)
Spain - 46.8m, 3.6% (1.7m)
Netherlands - 16.8m, 5.8% (1.0m)
Belgium - 11.2m, 6.0% (0.7m)
Portugal - 10.6m, <0.1% (<0.1m)
Switzerland - 7.9m, 4.9% (0.4m)
Total - 362.6m, 3.1% (11.2m)

So large. Such many. Wow.

Just for reference, if every Muslim was a fundamentalist extremist who killed as many individuals as the CharlieHebdo shooters before being killed themselves, Western Europe would still have a non-Muslim population of 284.2 million (excluding Luxembourg, San Marino and Andorra, as before).

That works out to six non-Muslims killed per Muslim, right? So that would be roughly 67 million non-Muslims killed, which is an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in the Holocaust. Even if there are still 284.2 million left. Not counting Luxembourg, San Marino and Andorra of course.

 

[FoRiZon]

So much wow.

You just imply that all moslems are crazy terrorists. Lets not try to get there.

Also noted that they try to have a freedom of speech, but display of any religion on public (even not on force) isnt allowed. Speak against or stereotype of it is.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So much wow.

You just imply that all moslems are crazy terrorists. Lets not try to get there.

Also noted that they try to have a freedom of speech, but display of any religion on public (even not on force) isnt allowed. Speak against or stereotype of it is.

No he didn't imply that, he was following up on Famine's assertion about what would happen if every Muslim was a fundamentalist extremist. It's in the quotes. It's a "what if", not a "what is"

 

[novcze]

Your the one that suggested it as a solution, as such complaining when its commented on it a bit odd.

You exercised your free speech, all I did is explain exactly how it sounds.

What is however interesting is that you use it as an out rather than answering the questions raised.

And I also said many times now, it was not meant as suggested solution. Maybe my English skill is not high enough and you are right, maybe it sounded like proposal of a solution. I also knew that mentioning nazis will always spice things up, but I didn't know that you are active member of anti-fascist organizations so you probably see fascist behind every tree.

Not really, because you made a claim that the numbers debunked. If that doesn't provoke an alteration in your position you need to wonder why it is you hold that position and why you're unwilling to examine it.But what does that even mean?

Religiously motivated terrorism either exist or not, I'm not interested in low numbers, it must be stopped. Do you really think I have to alternate my position? It would be interesting to know why?

The alternatives to multiculturalism are ghetto immigration with legal exemptions (setting up communities of immigrants with no requirement for them to adapt at all) and all national documentation printed in every language on Earth, immigration with complete assimilation (banning two people from the same country talking the same foreign language to each other, for example) or no immigration at all. Which of these four options seems the best to you?

None of this. I believe in cultural exchange and co-existence based on the business relations with respect to culture where I'm foreigner.
In other words, if immigrants work and obey law and culture of the country, I don't care what they do when they are alone, if they prey to Zeus, speak Klingon, whatever. But don't want from me to adjust my behaviour to accommodate to your ****ed up religion.

 

[Scaff]

And I also said many times now, it was not meant as suggested solution.

Then why suggest it in the first place?

Maybe my English skill is not high enough and you are right, maybe it sounded like proposal of a solution.

It certainly did sound like a proposal, hence the questions you have received about it.

I also knew that mentioning nazis will always spice things up, but I didn't know that you are active member of anti-fascist organizations so you probably see fascist behind every tree.

I don't and I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Then why suggest it in the first place?

Reminds me of this;

 

[Famine]

Religiously motivated terrorism either exist or not, I'm not interested in low numbers, it must be stopped. Do you really think I have to alternate my position? It would be interesting to know why?

You suggested that part of the problem is that we have "so many" Muslims, but now the numbers show how few we have you're not interested in numbers?

None of this. I believe in cultural exchange and co-existence based on the business relations with respect to culture where I'm foreigner.
In other words, if immigrants work and obey law and culture of the country, I don't care what they do when they are alone, if they prey to Zeus, speak Klingon, whatever. But don't want from me to adjust my behaviour to accommodate to your ****ed up religion.

Since the latter is exactly what actual multiculturalism is, you now appeat to be in favour of it...

 

[lGNAl]

Because causing offence and inciting hatred are different things and the French legal system deals with them as such.

The CE cartoons may be considered offensive and/or insulting to Islam, which is not illegal in France; but they did not incite others to hate Islam (as a French comedian did shortly after they were published and was arrested and charged for) which is illegal in France.

As such I don't see anything at odds with the French law as its written and has been enforced in these cases.

It would also be impossible to write a law that made it "illegal to express anything that offends all religion's and all race's". How do you know what will cause offense? You can't legislate for every set of circumstances and every single word or turn of phrase.

Maybe all religions leader's and all sect's leader's within those religions; and even Atheist leader's; should meet up and agree on where to draw the line. It will be hard but not impossible to come up with a law that everyone agrees on.

I think headaches or hardships that will accompany such constructive argument's and conversation's is worth it when you compare it to any single innocent life lost because of it. Even if it takes year's.

 

[a6m5]

Anti-Charlie Hebdo protests around the world. What the hell is wrong with these people? Apparently, some people will not settle for 'agree to disagree'.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In other words, if immigrants work and obey law and culture of the country, I don't care what they do when they are alone, if they prey to Zeus, speak Klingon, whatever. But don't want from me to adjust my behaviour to accommodate to your ****ed up religion.

So you want them to adjust their ways to accomodate you, but you don't want to adjust to accomodate them?

 

[lGNAl]

I find it extremely odd for people from some countries to advocate that there is no free speech anywhere when those countries making those statements forbid people of certain religions to be anywhere in their country.

You know you can reply to me straight up. Anyways, it's not "certain religions". It's one religion, and it's the Jewish religion. And I made the statement, not my country. But why would jewish people would want to come to Saudi or any of the countries that ban them from entering ? ... There's all types of places in the world that have rules to enter/stay. Rules that you have to follow. Otherwise you will not be able to enter, kicked out/banned, or jailed. But we have it at a grand scale as a whole country. It's our choice.

 

[FoRiZon]

Anti-Charlie Hebdo protests around the world. What the hell is wrong with these people? Apparently, some people will not settle for 'agree to disagree'.

Well one thing is they just offended on that magazine bit, ignoring the terror. Just respect their "freedom of speech". For me, im not offended at all tbh.

Though one wonder why they didnt publicly go out demonstrate against ISIS that for sure. Or you know, make a counter comic? Its really embarrassing to see, honest.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Well, to start with, The Daily Mail prefers sensationalism over actual content, has very loose editorial standards, and is clearly trying to make the protesters out to be idiots.

As for the Islamic community, there is nothing wrong with protesting. The Prophet represents all of Islam; he is essentially acting as an emissary between humanity and God. But unlike Jesus, there are no depictions of the Prophet. There is the odd vague description of him, but no one image that is realised. For somebody to draw an image and say "this is the Prophet" is to say "this image represents all of Islam". It might seem fairly harmless to us, but the Islamic community don't see it that way - the image does not represent their faith, especially when it is not coming from an Islamic source. For us to then say "drawing it is freedom of speech" is tantamount to saying "drawing it is freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is freedom to insult everything that you believe in".

Drawing it may well be freedom of speech, but the implications of drawing it are well-known. And freedom of speech does not mean that you are morally right. Morality is what dictates right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law. There is no law that says you cannot draw an image of the Prophet, and so doing so is a moral issue. And there is no argument that can be made to justify insulting and undermining the faith of close to a billion people as being morally right.

 

[FoRiZon]

Well, to start with, The Daily Mail prefers sensationalism over actual content, has very loose editorial standards, and is clearly trying to make the protesters out to be idiots.

As for the Islamic community, there is nothing wrong with protesting. The Prophet represents all of Islam; he is essentially acting as an emissary between humanity and God. But unlike Jesus, there are no depictions of the Prophet. There is the odd vague description of him, but no one image that is realised. For somebody to draw an image and say "this is the Prophet" is to say "this image represents all of Islam". It might seem fairly harmless to us, but the Islamic community don't see it that way - the image does not represent their faith, especially when it is not coming from an Islamic source. For us to then say "drawing it is freedom of speech" is tantamount to saying "drawing it is freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is freedom to insult everything that you believe in".

Drawing it may well be freedom of speech, but the implications of drawing it are well-known. And freedom of speech does not mean that you are morally right. Morality is what dictates right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law. There is no law that says you cannot draw an image of the Prophet, and so doing so is a moral issue. And there is no argument that can be made to justify insulting and undermining the faith of close to a billion people as being morally right.

Not to mention the Islam scare protest on Germany, which is pretty much as embarrassing.

 

[a6m5]

Well one thing is they just offended on that magazine bit, ignoring the terror. Just respect their "freedom of speech". For me, im not offended at all tbh.

Though one wonder why they didnt publicly go out demonstrate against ISIS that for sure. Or you know, make a counter comic? Its really embarrassing to see, honest.

Like with the most, I respect the freedom of speech. Who isn't offended by something they see released by media? I'm not worried about peaceful protesters, just the violent ones. If we were to achieve peace, like I mentioned earlier, agree-to-disagree. We really need to learn that. I totally understand that it applies to probably something like half the world, not just the Muslim Extremists.

Well, to start with, The Daily Mail prefers sensationalism over actual content, has very loose editorial standards, and is clearly trying to make the protesters out to be idiots.

I saw this on the news earlier, and Daily Mail was just the first result on Google News. I was not cherry picking, but if those violent attacks & threats they report are fabricated, feel free to let us know. They do seem to have a tone of sensationalism, but surely they aren't exaggerating about the death threats, church burning, etc.?

As for the Islamic community, there is nothing wrong with protesting. The Prophet represents all of Islam; he is essentially acting as an emissary between humanity and God. But unlike Jesus, there are no depictions of the Prophet. There is the odd vague description of him, but no one image that is realised. For somebody to draw an image and say "this is the Prophet" is to say "this image represents all of Islam". It might seem fairly harmless to us, but the Islamic community don't see it that way - the image does not represent their faith, especially when it is not coming from an Islamic source. For us to then say "drawing it is freedom of speech" is tantamount to saying "drawing it is freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is freedom to insult everything that you believe in".

Drawing it may well be freedom of speech, but the implications of drawing it are well-known. And freedom of speech does not mean that you are morally right. Morality is what dictates right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law. There is no law that says you cannot draw an image of the Prophet, and so doing so is a moral issue. And there is no argument that can be made to justify insulting and undermining the faith of close to a billion people as being morally right.

You are preaching to the choir. My problem is with the violence. Going for the shock value at the expense of humiliating & offending others is foolish in my book. Peacefully protest that all you want.

 

[FoRiZon]

Like with the most, I respect the freedom of speech. Who isn't offended by something they see released by media? I'm not worried about peaceful protesters, just the violent ones. If we were to achieve peace, like I mentioned earlier, agree-to-disagree. We really need to learn that. I totally understand that it applies to probably something like half the world, not just the Muslim Extremists.

I saw this on the news earlier, and Daily Mail was just the first result on Google News. I was not cherry picking, but if those violent attacks & threats they report are fabricated, feel free to let us know. They do seem to have a tone of sensationalism, but surely they aren't exaggerating about the death threats, church burning, etc.?

You are preaching to the choir. My problem is with the violence. Going for the shock value at the expense of humiliating & offending others is foolish in my book. Peacefully protest that all you want.

Three words, two sentences:

Lack of education. Lack of inhibition.

But really, they are pretty much vocal minorities. Since its Daily Mail, they sensasionalize it to the extreme.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They do seem to have a tone of sensationalism, but surely they aren't exaggerating about the death threats, church burning, etc.?

I wouldn't put it past them - when the James Bond film Quantum of Solace was shooting in Panama, there was a labour union march in a nearby city. The Daily Mail (and the other tabloids) spun this as gang violence that the film crew not only started out of ignorance, but they ran reports of Daniel Craig running around with a prop gun trying to scare the street gangs off and defend the set. Given how distressing this was for the families of all involved, and the inability of the studio to prosecute the tabloids, the producers had no choice but to leak details of their own production to the tabloids for Skyfall (and to a lesser extent, Spectre) to prevent them from spreading such obvious lies to boost their circulation.

 

[Carbonox]

So you want them to adjust their ways to accomodate you, but you don't want to adjust to accomodate them?

What sense does that make? Obviously the newcomers are supposed to accommodate the majority...

 

[Dotini]

Obviously the newcomers are supposed to accommodate the majority...

I'm sorry but I think that is a false statement.

It was not happenstance or coincidence that newcomers have arrived in Europe, it was deliberate policy on the part of the establishment. IMO it is incumbent upon the leadership (if not the voters) of Europe to accomodate the newcomers to the extent their integration and assimilation into European culture is entirely successful.

 

[novcze]

You suggested that part of the problem is that we have "so many" Muslims, but now the numbers show how few we have you're not interested in numbers?

Wrong, we have so many muslims so the problem doesn't magically disappear. And I want number of religious motivated terrorism to be zero. Any higher number is too many.

Since the latter is exactly what actual multiculturalism is, you now appeat to be in favour of it...

No it isn't, in situation where unemployment rate in EU is rather high, it's impossible to have all immigrants employed.

 

[novcze]

I'm sorry but I think that is a false statement.

It was not happenstance or coincidence that newcomers have arrived in Europe, it was deliberate policy on the part of the establishment. IMO it is incumbent upon the leadership (if not the voters) of Europe to accomodate the newcomers to the extent their integration and assimilation into European culture is entirely successful.

I'm sure that establishment will change if situation gets worse quick enough.

 

[Kent]

Well, to start with, The Daily Mail prefers sensationalism over actual content, has very loose editorial standards, and is clearly trying to make the protesters out to be idiots.

As for the Islamic community, there is nothing wrong with protesting. The Prophet represents all of Islam; he is essentially acting as an emissary between humanity and God. But unlike Jesus, there are no depictions of the Prophet. There is the odd vague description of him, but no one image that is realised. For somebody to draw an image and say "this is the Prophet" is to say "this image represents all of Islam". It might seem fairly harmless to us, but the Islamic community don't see it that way - the image does not represent their faith, especially when it is not coming from an Islamic source. For us to then say "drawing it is freedom of speech" is tantamount to saying "drawing it is freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is freedom to insult everything that you believe in".

Drawing it may well be freedom of speech, but the implications of drawing it are well-known. And freedom of speech does not mean that you are morally right. Morality is what dictates right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law. There is no law that says you cannot draw an image of the Prophet, and so doing so is a moral issue. And there is no argument that can be made to justify insulting and undermining the faith of close to a billion people as being morally right.

This logic is exactly why no one makes fun of christianity or christians.

 

[novcze]

Morality is what dictates right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law. There is no law that says you cannot draw an image of the Prophet, and so doing so is a moral issue. And there is no argument that can be made to justify insulting and undermining the faith of close to a billion people as being morally right.

It's my moral responsibility to undermine the faith that needs (at least) reformation.

 

[Scaff]

But unlike Jesus, there are no depictions of the Prophet. There is the odd vague description of him, but no one image that is realised.

Sorry but yes there are, and hundreds of them. Some even show Mo and Jebus off for a ride on a nice camel / donkey combo.

http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298

 

[Dotini]

That is rather an attractive and interesting image. What is its provenance?
What is the symbolism being represented here? Do we have any art majors?
What is that cloud-like object in the top center? Could that be a Djinn?
What sort of plant is the donkey sniffing?

 

[Scaff]

That is rather an attractive and interesting image. What is its provenance?
What is the symbolism being represented here? Do we have any art majors?
What is that cloud-like object in the top center? Could that be a Djinn?
What sort of plant is the donkey sniffing?

Follow the link below the picture, it discusses that image and more.

 

[Dotini]

Follow the link below the picture, it discusses that image and more.

I tried, but all I got was a single image. I have browser issues. My 15+ year old Mac's operating system is maxxed out and I can't get current browsers. I see a trip to the Mac store in my future.

 

[Scaff]

I tried, but all I got was a single image. I have browser issues. My 15+ year old Mac's operating system is maxxed out and I can't get current browsers. I see a trip to the Mac store in my future.

This one should give you a full article on images of Mo.

http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's my moral responsibility to undermine the faith that needs (at least) reformation.

No, it's really not.

 

[Dotini]

Anti-Charlie Hebdo protests around the world. What the hell is wrong with these people?

Europeans shoved trashy free speech in their face. What else were Muslims supposed to do?

The US would like to think it's far more astute than Europe in integrating and assimilating Muslims, and it doesn't go about it by shoving trashy free speech in their face. For example, we arrest pastors who attempt to burn the Koran.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...pastor-terry-jones-arrested-article-1.1453195