Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[McLaren]

Did they?

Back in January, they protested against a Muslim group trying to promote peace & were upset with all the hate being thrown towards them after the Paris attacks. There was no violence, no injuries, just harsh words.

Sure, it looks like a benign protest movement championing the value of free speech on the surface ... but I find it to be an enormous coincidence that an anti-Islamic and borderline-nationalist group organises an event that they know will attract trouble and then use it to promote their agenda. They may not have engineered it down to the finest detail - I admit, it's quite a cynical thought - but I imagine that they would be quite happy with the way events unfolded.

Which is what the organisers would be counting on. They don't need to pay off the police - they just need to inform them of their intentions to hold the event, let the police do their jobs and count on them to fulfil their duty to protect the people from the threat.

Are they happy with the events? Probably. But, I highly doubt they planned it out that way. The city is the one that requested extra police according to local news, not the event.

Have they released details on the gunmen?

Nothing more than 2 males that are reported to be middle eastern. The bodies were not dealt with for a few hours due to being close to their vehicle, which was detonated by police for fear of a reported, possible bomb.

Which Muslim group?

Apparently, the group goes by the name Sound Vision that held an event called, Stand with the Prophet Against Terror and Hate. From what I've read this morning, they made it clear they wanted to stay away from center for the exact fear of what happened.

 

[Carbonox]

I still hold the same opinion as I did back then.


Free speech is all well and fine but it has consequences and those consequences can affect innocent parties.
It is like if I insulted your mother you would likely punch me. If you then got the idea that my friends also insulted your mother you punch them as well yet they are innocent.

Only someone with a blatant lack of self control would do that.

Ironically, this case and many others before it prove that jihadist groups are clearly full of these specimen.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You'd do well to stop assuming and posting things that are untrue.

Pot, kettle, black:

He is a centuries dead paedophilic warlord, that's a fact.

Don't demand evidence from others when you refuse to provide it yourself.

 

[Carbonox]

He is a centuries dead paedophilic warlord, that's a fact.

Don't demand evidence from others when you refuse to provide it yourself.

Does a Wikipedia article suffice, or is the source too right-wing and Islamophobic to handle?

 

[squadops]

It doesn't mater who he is/was anyway, cartoon depictions of him or anyone else should not lead to shootings.

 

[Scaff]

Because the exclusions you cited are more obviously violated by the two examples I quoted, which happen regularly in Britain. We don't have a first amendment, but it's my view that if you believe that such content in this exhibition could fall foul of Free Speech laws, you would have to agree with the implementation of the CTS bill (our nearest equivalent). Of course if you believe there is a differentiation then that's different.... Or if you don't believe that said exclusions are necessary (i.e. you disagree with the law you're citing) then that's different as well....

I'm discussing US law and how it may or may not apply in this situation, so you will have to excuse the slight surprise that you are then conflating that with what my opinion of free-speech laws should be in the UK.

If you want to discuss how free speech functions in the UK then do so in the correct thread, if you want to discuss how US law may apply in this specific situation then please continue, but when you do please be sure to not conflate what the law in the US is with what my opinion on how the law should work is.

Nothing more than 2 males that are reported to be middle eastern. The bodies were not dealt with for a few hours due to being close to their vehicle, which was detonated by police for fear of a reported, possible bomb.

I may have misread, but it seemed as if you said one of them was linked to the Twitter account of AHAB, which would suggest a potential identity.

Apparently, the group goes by the name Sound Vision that held an event called, Stand with the Prophet Against Terror and Hate. From what I've read this morning, they made it clear they wanted to stay away from center for the exact fear of what happened.

Yep I'm aware of them, I'm just not sure how this would paint them in a bad light? They stayed away to try and ensure a confrontation didn't occur, as such unless it comes to pass that they either supported, instigated, funded or backed the attack I don't see how they have done wrong?

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm discussing US law and how it may or may not apply in this situation, so you will have to excuse the slight surprise that you are then conflating that with what my opinion of free-speech laws should be in the UK.

If you want to discuss how free speech functions in the UK then do so in the correct thread, if you want to discuss how US law may apply in this specific situation then please continue, but when you do please be sure to not conflate what the law in the US is with what my opinion on how the law should work is.

I presumed this is the relevant thread. If there is a better one..?

 

[Scaff]

He is a centuries dead paedophilic warlord, that's a fact.

Warlord for the time is hardly odd, centuries dead is not in debate and the Koran does state he had a child bride in the 7th Century, which while quite, quite wrong was not exactly unheard of for the time.

Keep in mind that until the 1880's the age of consent in most US states was around 12 and Delaware was 7, an age of consent in the range of 16 - 18 is very much a 20th century change (note - this is not me condoning this, just if your going to condemn the Islamic earth bound sky fairy mouth piece then your going to have to accept the same of a rather large part of the world prior to the 20th Century).

As such can we get back on topic.

I presumed this is the relevant thread. If there is a better one..?

Free speech in the UK? Well I would imagine the Britain thread would be a better bet.

 

[Carbonox]

Warlord for the time is hardly odd, centuries dead is not in debate and the Koran does state he had a child bride in the 7th Century, which while quite, quite wrong was not exactly unheard of for the time.

Keep in mind that until the 1880's the age of consent in most US states was around 12 and Delaware was 7, an age of consent in the range of 16 - 18 is very much a 20th century change (note - this is not me condoning this, just if your going to condemn the Islamic earth bound sky fairy mouth piece then your going to have to accept the same of a rather large part of the world prior to the 20th Century).

As such can we get back on topic.

I didn't say that (edit: nvm), but I guess it'd be appropriate to comment on this still:

It's not a question of whether it was acceptable at the time or not, but the problem lies with the way he was supposed to be a 'perfect model' for his followers. Pedophilia included. Because of that, it's not entirely surprising to read about Muslim grooming gangs in Britain, or legalization of child marriage in Iraq...

 

[Joel]

Free speech is all well and fine but it has consequences and those consequences can affect innocent parties.
It is like if I insulted your mother you would likely punch me. If you then got the idea that my friends also insulted your mother you punch them as well yet they are innocent.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free from consequences of your speech. It means you are free from government consequences, and people are not permitted to use force against you for your speech.

I'm sure you heard the story of Donald Sterling, owner of an NBA franchise in LA who had made insanely racist comments which were recorded and made public. When these comments were made public, Donald Sterling's name and reputation was irreparably damaged, he was publicly named and shamed by media, he was banned from all NBA events, and fined $2.5M and forced to sell his team by the NBA. That's a lot of consequences for racist comments which were never meant to be public. Even with US freedom of speech, Sterling's reputation has been ruined, he'll never step foot in an NBA arena again, and everyone now knows him as "that racist NBA owner".

That's a lot of consequences. The problem isn't free speech having consequences, it's free speech having violent consequences. The state detaining or fining people is violent. Radicals showing up to shoot you for criticizing Islam is violent. Me punching you for insulting my mother is violent. The person initiating violence is in the wrong.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't say that (edit: nvm), but I guess it'd be appropriate to comment on this still:

It's not a question of whether it was acceptable at the time or not, but the problem lies with the way he was supposed to be a 'perfect model' for his followers. Pedophilia included. Because of that, it's not entirely surprising to read about Muslim grooming gangs in Britain, or legalization of child marriage in Iraq...

I agree its not acceptable at any time, however he is about as perfect as Jesus was (i.e. not) and its worth noting that not every Muslim uses him as a role model in that regard (not surprisingly they cherry pick from within the text in the same way that most Christians and other faiths do) nor does that explain the use of Child marriages in non-Muslim religions and communities or the non-Muslim grooming gangs in the UK

 

[KSaiyu]

I agree its not acceptable at any time, however he is about as perfect as Jesus was (i.e. not) and its worth noting that not every Muslim uses him as a role model in that regard (not surprisingly they cherry pick from within the text in the same way that most Christians and other faiths do) nor does that explain the use of Child marriages in non-Muslim religions and communities or the non-Muslim grooming gangs in the UK

On a scale though, looking at historical evidence of the men you'd be hard pressed to call them equal. In fact you could add Joseph Smith, Gautama Buddha, Baha'U'llah and Guru Nanak you wouldn't call any of them perfect, but again it would be foolish to ignore that one out of all the founders was a far less than perfect man.

 

[squadops]

The drawing contest wasn't intended to point any of that out though, there is no protest of 'my god is better than your god' going on, only 'why can't I draw a picture in peace'. It is my observation however that the most offended by this sort of thing are usually defending something rotten to begin with.

 

[KSaiyu]

Exactly the point.

If you block drawing him you can't discuss his image.
If you block writing your thoughts on his history you can't critique him.
If you block talking about him you can't debate about him or his followers.

Before you know it it's a slow march towards

 

[Scaff]

On a scale though, looking at historical evidence of the men you'd be hard pressed to call them equal. In fact you could add Joseph Smith, Gautama Buddha, Baha'U'llah and Guru Nanak you wouldn't call any of them perfect, but again it would be foolish to ignore that one out of all the founders was a far less than perfect man.

I'm not calling them equal, wasn't even close to the point (but thanks for making an inference I didn't make), the point was that every religion cherry picks from its body of work, up to and including its leaders.

The drawing contest wasn't intended to point any of that out though, there is no protest of 'my god is better than your god' going on, only 'why can't I draw a picture in peace'. It is my observation however that the most offended by this sort of thing are usually defending something rotten to begin with.

Much as I wouldn't try and claim that Pam Geller deliberately set out to insinuate this outcome, I also wouldn't credit her with such pure intentions of simply wanting to draw a picture in peace.

Before you know it it's a slow march towards

Someone just went full Godwin.

 

[KSaiyu]

Someone just went full Godwin.

Would you disagree? If so, why. What's the checks to stop an all-powerful Caliph emerging?

 

[Scaff]

Would you disagree? If so, why. What's the checks to stop an all-powerful Caliph emerging?

Now aside from it being a little tongue in cheek.

Do I agree that any Muslim who thinks that an image of Mo should prohibited and the questioning the book will lead to a murderous totalitarian dictatorship? Nope, in the same way I don't think that JW's rather blinkered view to how religion is taught and discussed will do, or Orthodox Jews views will do (or for that matter a few in the God thread who will not accept that the bible could be wrong, or that it should be questioned and that the Lord's name should not be taken in vain).

Do I think that a narrow sect within it (some of the followers of which don't actually seem to have a clue about the religion either) have already reached that point? Yes.

That said I can't see ISIS getting the trains to run on time.

 

[squadops]

Much as I wouldn't try and claim that Pam Geller deliberately set out to insinuate this outcome, I also wouldn't credit her with such pure intentions of simply wanting to draw a picture in peace.

That is true. She is exposing, in a sort of protest, an element known to attack freedom of speech. Judging a prophet may be secondary but the point is still drawing a picture without being shot.

 

[Scaff]

That is true. She is exposing, in a sort of protest, an element known to attack freedom of speech. Judging a prophet may be secondary but the point is still drawing a picture without being shot.

My main issue with her is that she is very pro free-speech for those that agree with her (exercises it when she runs anti-Jihad bus ads but complains about it when Muslims run ads inviting people to come and talk about Islam), and her rant about Jesus, Abraham and Moses not being Muslim prophets was quite hilarious.

 

[KSaiyu]

Now aside from it being a little tongue in cheek.

How so?

Do I agree that any Muslim who thinks that an image of Mo should prohibited and the questioning the book will lead to a murderous totalitarian dictatorship? Nope, in the same way I don't think that JW's rather blinkered view to how religion is taught and discussed will do, or Orthodox Jews views will do (or for that matter a few in the God thread who will not accept that the bible could be wrong, or that it should be questioned and that the Lord's name should not be taken in vain).

It's a picture of Nazis burning books. I thought it's a rather apt analogy to what Muslims think of discussion about Muhammad.

Do I think that a narrow sect within it (some of the followers of which don't actually seem to have a clue about the religion either) have already reached that point? Yes.

That said I can't see ISIS getting the trains to run on time.

And if a less extreme Caliph emerges...?

 

[Scaff]

How so?

You don't see it and yet follow it with this.....

It's a picture of Nazis burning books. I thought it's a rather apt analogy to what Muslims think of discussion about Muhammad.

What all Muslims think that chatting about Mo is off limits and are pro booking burning totalitarian dictatorships?

And if a less extreme Caliph emerges...?

Then its less of a threat, that aside unless your talking about a secular democracy then I still think work needs to be done; and plenty of countries across a broad spectrum of religions and governance structures fall into that.

People do not need religions of any form running countries or having unfair influence in the running of any country.

 

[KSaiyu]

Interesting...

In 2015 books aren't as valuable a form of communication as in the thirties so I'll make it more relatable. Would you, on your Facebook account come out unequivocally in support of the SWAT team and denounce attempts to attack organisers of events Muslims find offensive?

I know I wouldn't, as that would make me a target in my University.

 

[Scaff]

Interesting...

In 2015 books aren't as valuable a form of communication as in the thirties so I'll make it more relatable. Would you, on your Facebook account come out unequivocally in support of the SWAT team and denounce attempts to attack organisers of events Muslims find offensive?

I know I wouldn't, as that would make me a target in my University.

Yes.

 

[KSaiyu]

Braver than me.

 

[McLaren]

I may have misread, but it seemed as if you said one of them was linked to the Twitter account of AHAB, which would suggest a potential identity.

Ah, I'm sorry, then. 1 of the 2 gunmen has been identified as Elton Simpson who just so happened to be following & supporting @AbuHa55ain. Simpson is the one who tweeted the attack a few minutes prior.

Yep I'm aware of them, I'm just not sure how this would paint them in a bad light? They stayed away to try and ensure a confrontation didn't occur, as such unless it comes to pass that they either supported, instigated, funded or backed the attack I don't see how they have done wrong?

Because ignorant people will now have this view that when Geller's group protests Muslims, they do it with picket signs. But, when Muslims protests Geller, they do it with violence.

Basically, they will wrongly become grouped with extremists only because they already had a previous encounter with this Anti-Islam group back in January where the groups were "flipped". What's sad for me to see is Sound Vision's conference 4 months was held just to show Americans, "We're not all bad. We're not all going to kill you if draw Muhammed. We have tolerance", & then this attack happens because a extremist group (maybe not the right word, but Geller is not exactly accepting of Muslims) drew said pictures.

It sets back the Muslims who want peace, again.

 

[Scaff]

Ah, I'm sorry, then. 1 of the 2 gunmen has been identified as Elton Simpson who just so happened to be following & supporting @AbuHa55ain. Simpson is the one who tweeted the attack a few minutes prior.

Thanks, the UK media is now picking up on that as well.

Because ignorant people will now have this view that when Geller's group protests Muslims, they do it with picket signs. But, when Muslims protests Geller, they do it with violence.

Basically, they will wrongly become grouped with extremists only because they already had a previous encounter with this Anti-Islam group back in January where the groups were "flipped". What's sad for me to see is Sound Vision's conference 4 months was held just to show Americans, "We're not all bad. We're not all going to kill you if draw Muhammed. We have tolerance", & then this attack happens because a extremist group (maybe not the right word, but Geller is not exactly accepting of Muslims) drew said pictures.

It sets back the Muslims who want peace, again.

To be honest I think that would have happened anyway and I don't think the presence of Sound Vision outside the event would have stopped the attack and may have resulted in a far worse outcome (the attackers would almost certainly have seen them as targets as well).

I simply hope that the American people are able to understand that just as Geller doesn't represent all Americans that these attackers don't represent all Muslims.

 

[lGNAl]

Garland SWAT was already on hand & requested due to the suspicions of retaliation. These men are why it ended so quickly.

But why were they inside. To me its better if they had a check point at the end of of the street in both directions. its more deterrent in my opinion. But its good that they were there. Did they engage the shooter's or was it just the normal police outside ?

Congratulations for managing to get offended at something that wasn't even a personal insult to you.

When its any prophet insulted then it is a personal insult to me and all Muslim's.

The artists are perfectly entitled to offend. The shooters are not entitled (particularly on the say-so of a religion) to commit murder. I see a big difference, personally.

I never said the 'artist's' weren't entitled to offend. Just like I am entitled to offend you or anyone on the street, your wife/gf/parents/kids or anybody. But it doesn't mean doing so is intelligent in any way, or that you'll ignore me. You will most likely start a fight with me. It is just childish to offend in the first place. You can criticize without offending if you'r intelligent enough. And when someone attacks me for being offensive I'll shout "wait I'm entitled to my opinion", which i am but I should expect some kind of reaction. Well multiply that reaction by a billion for Muslim's. We love the prophet more than ourselves, our parents, wife's, kids. Does it make it right ? No. But you can be sure there will be a reaction. People commit murder all around the world for way less pathetic reason's. Go to a hood near you a shout racial slurs while wearing a banner with racist comments written on both sides, and we'll see how long you will last.

Keep in mind, sir, that this is still the US of A. We still have the right to insult religion like Bill Mauer does on a semi-regular basis, even if it is Islam.

Same reply as above.

@Carbonox "Only someone with a blatant lack of self control would do that.

Ironically, this case and many others before it prove that jihadist groups are clearly full of these specimen."

All Muslim's are bound to jihad. But the thing is 'what is the interpretation to jihad to each and every muslim ?' Well it differs from one Muslim group to another, and by whose orders/permission do they do it ? Whether It is the correct jihad or not that's another matter.

 

[Famine]

When its any prophet insulted then it is a personal insult to me and all Muslim's.

No it's not.

You may take it as such if you wish, but a personal insult is, as the name suggests, one that is delivered to a person.

And that's without even visiting the concept of how insulting it can be to make a picture of someone. Pretty sure I wasn't being insulted in my wedding photos...

I never said the 'artist's' weren't entitled to offend. Just like I am entitled to offend you or anyone on the street, your wife/gf/parents/kids or anybody. But it doesn't mean doing so is intelligent in any way, or that you'll ignore me. You will most likely start a fight with me.

No, I'll most likely ignore you.

You can criticize without offending if you'r intelligent enough.

Some people take any kind of criticism as a personal insult and find it offensive.

And when someone attacks me for being offensive I'll shout "wait I'm entitled to my opinion", which i am but I should expect some kind of reaction.

Why?

Well multiply that reaction by a billion for Muslim's. We love the prophet more than ourselves, our parents, wife's, kids.

Do you have pictures of yourself, your parents, your wife, your kids?

But you can be sure there will be a reaction.

Why? I just told you I wouldn't start a fight with you for 'offending' me in the street - despite you saying that it's the most likely outcome. Why do you think so poorly of your fellow man that they can't be offended without resorting to physical reprisals?

People commit murder all around the world for way less pathetic reason's. Go to a hood near you a shout racial slurs while wearing a banner with racist comments written on both sides, and we'll see how long you will last.

To quote someone earlier:

Does it make it right ? No.

Don't defend people who think that it's appropriate to take offence at random things, take them personally and then shoot at other, unconnected people in response. They are absolutely in the wrong and should not be accepted or excused by any community.

 

[McLaren]

Thanks, the UK media is now picking up on that as well.

To be honest I think that would have happened anyway and I don't think the presence of Sound Vision outside the event would have stopped the attack and may have resulted in a far worse outcome (the attackers would almost certainly have seen them as targets as well).

I simply hope that the American people are able to understand that just as Geller doesn't represent all Americans that these attackers don't represent all Muslims.

I believe the majority of us do, but of course, it's the nut jobs they like to tell us about.

But why were they inside. To me its better if they had a check point at the end of of the street in both directions. its more deterrent in my opinion. But its good that they were there. Did they engage the shooter's or was it just the normal police outside ?

Outside was an after hours police officer hired for security; he was also the one who killed both men. I think these SWAT members being outside likely would have caused more of a scene & curiosity amongst the surrounding businesses which may have lead to an easier attack for the gunmen. After all, there were immediate bomb threats & reports that one of the men had a grenade on his person.

 

[Scaff]

But why were they inside. To me its better if they had a check point at the end of of the street in both directions. its more deterrent in my opinion. But its good that they were there. Did they engage the shooter's or was it just the normal police outside ?

Does it really matter that much?

As for setting up roadblocks? Quite frankly its shouldn't even be needed, nor should it be done ideally as it gives the impression to terrorists that they are winning.

When its any prophet insulted then it is a personal insult to me and all Muslim's.

No its not, you may project that onto you but unless you are now claiming to be Mo then its not a personal insult at all.

I never said the 'artist's' weren't entitled to offend. Just like I am entitled to offend you or anyone on the street, your wife/gf/parents/kids or anybody. But it doesn't mean doing so is intelligent in any way, or that you'll ignore me. You will most likely start a fight with me.

No I wouldn't, mainly because I'm aware of proportionality, you however seem not to be.

It is just childish to offend in the first place.
You can criticize without offending if you'r intelligent enough.

What about if you take the criticism as being offensive? At what point does the line get drawn? Should the line be drawn?

Are religious figures and your faith in them so weak that they are unable to stand criticism and offence? Why does the country you're in (from your stated location) make a habit of locking people up and beating them for being critical?

And when someone attacks me for being offensive I'll shout "wait I'm entitled to my opinion", which i am but I should expect some kind of reaction. Well multiply that reaction by a billion for Muslim's. We love the prophet more than ourselves, our parents, wife's, kids. Does it make it right ? No. But you can be sure there will be a reaction. People commit murder all around the world for way less pathetic reason's. Go to a hood near you a shout racial slurs while wearing a banner with racist comments written on both sides, and we'll see how long you will last.

Nope, sorry, attacking someone for what you perceive as an insult to a dead bloke is just as pathetic.