Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Sanji Himura]

Oh yes they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Thessalonica_(1185)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)

In the tens of thousands.

The figurative point there was that the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are still not fighting a holy war today. Muslims have been, and still are, fighting a holy war over the last 1700 years with the rest of the world. Remember, they still desire a rebirth of the old Ottoman Empire.

 

[Scaff]

The figurative point there was that the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are still not fighting a holy war today.

Which wasn't what you said at all.

Muslims have been, and still are, fighting a holy war over the last 1700 years with the rest of the world. Remember, they still desire a rebirth of the old Ottoman Empire.

What all of them?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

that does not change the fact we should exercise our freedoms in the face of terrorism.

Except that there was no threat here until people started exercising those freedoms.

I'm a bit sorry for playing the ball here, but need I remind you that Pam still lives in the US of A, where we abide by the Constitution and not by Sharia law?

That doesn't change the fact that she is a bully and a thug in her own right. If she wants to protest sharia law, she can do it without organising an event that would upset or anger the entire Muslim community.

Invert the situation - would a Muslim be justified in assuming that every American is a bigot because of Geller's actions? If the answer is no (and it is), please tell me why Geller justified in offending all Muslims for the sake of protesting against a minority.

 

[squadops]

Except that there was no threat here until people started exercising those freedoms.

The threat has been around for quite some time actually, it's not only a threat once it's realized. Anyway, lets have a look at the shot.

I'll go ahead and post the winning pic, I haven't seen any of the other entries though, although even if they are more provocative... So what.

And if we want to compare Christian responses v. Muslim, here is something from Charlie Hebdo drawn by Catherine Meurisse.

Usually it takes something involving death or their perception of death for radical Christians to resort to violence these days. Maybe a thicker skin has developed over time do to their religion being poked at.

.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The threat has been around for quite some time actually, it's not only a threat once it's realized.

There was no threat to Geller until she organised the event. And then she hid behind the Constitution to do it - which is really no different to the gunmen hiding behind the Qu'ran.

The words of the dead are modified in the guts of the living.

 

[squadops]

There is a threat to all americans from these people, it's been real for quite some time, drawing a silly picture or not.

 

[KSaiyu]

Do you advocate and ask for more laws @KSaiyu, you point out a bunch of stuff you don't like but that doesn't mean you are seeking a nanny state unless you come out and say it. Go on now, I know you are a closet big gov guy

I wonder how you would feel about a completely private medical system, insurance included?

Worst thing to ever happen (my posts in the Libertarian thread will point to that).

I'd want less laws (like a Libertarian), but not to the stage where we forget about the little guys (neo-Conservative). So an NHS...but with private medical insurers providing the coverage.

There was no threat to Geller until she organised the event. And then she hid behind the Constitution to do it - which is really no different to the gunmen hiding behind the Qu'ran.

The words of the dead are modified in the guts of the living.

What.

So bow down to terrorism?

I bet you think Chamberlain handled foreign affairs brilliantly

 

[Sanji Himura]

That doesn't change the fact that she is a bully and a thug in her own right. If she wants to protest sharia law, she can do it without organising an event that would upset or anger the entire Muslim community.

Why? If the muslims have their way, we would have teens lining the streets all for the simple crime of watching a football match on TV, or maybe, and forgive my lack of tact here, women being stoned to death all for the simple reason of visiting their sister without a male relative escorting her. Oh, here is a good one, maybe people being shot for the simple crime of being a Christian. All of them happening right now in ISIS controlled lands!

Did you see the photos of ISIS's International Hotel? Not one woman in sight!

You preach equality, but when you want to incorporate someone who doesn't want to conform, but to control, you will get incidents like the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or the Garland attacks because they know how to push the right buttons to get a specific reaction out of each of us.

There was no threat to Geller until she organised the event. And then she hid behind the Constitution to do it - which is really no different to the gunmen hiding behind the Qu'ran.

BIG difference, one is the law of the land, the other is a holy book. She has every right to hide behind the Constitution in defense of her free speech.

Besides, the UK banning entry to Geller, PRE-shooting might I add, is proof enough that there was enough of a threat to warrant that kind of action. Since turnabout is fair play, how about I point the spotlight on Anjem Choudary, a fairly welcome guest in Britian, and a known radical Islamist.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not really sure if this is serious.

I'm never quite sure how often your posts are tongue-in-cheek...

Dotini watchers will know that he almost always uses an emoticon - usually the rolled eyes - to indicate tongue-in-check or other playful badinage.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the muslims have their way, we would have teens lining the streets all for the simple crime of watching a football match on TV, or maybe, and forgive my lack of tact here, women being stoned to death all for the simple reason of visiting their sister without a male relative escorting her.

I haven't heard a single Muslim say that. What I have heard is Muslims being outraged that people would put those laws onto force in their name.

Oh, here is a good one, maybe people being shot for the simple crime of being a Christian. All of them happening right now in ISIS controlled lands!

If Texas was under ISIL control, I'm sure that we would have heard about it by now.

She has every right to hide behind the Constitution in defense of her free speech.

She's not defending free speech. She says she is, but she's not. The words of the dead are modified in the guts of the living - we appropriate the words of others, strip them of their context and apply them as we see fit to justify our actions. There is an attitude that so long as you can claim that you are defending freedom, your actions are inviolate, which I find deplorable because often as not, you're not actually defending anything - you're just saying whatever you want to say and then adding insult to injury by expecting everyone to accept that you said it. You're using it to position yourself as morally superior when your behaviour is immoral. And Geller has used that to incite tensions within the Muslim community so that she can then point out everything that is "wrong" with it and claim that she - and by extension of that, her culture - is "right". But what's "right" about marginalising an entire group for the sake of digging in on your own cultural values?

Geller isn't defending freedom. She's running scared from the idea that her own values might not be the only values that society respects, and so her response is to crush those other values before they can gain traction. She's dehumanising an entire group of people so that she can take comfort in saying "my way of life is the only way of life". Somewhat ironically, that's no different to the people she claims to be fighting - the means might be different, but the ends are the same: cultural superiority to the exclusion of all others.

 

[squadops]

She did nothing illegal, and seriously how can you keep defending these gun wielding buffoons? Can you imagine what sorts of things they say and do to insult the U.S.? Seriously, a cartoon drawing contest while in bad taste simply does not warrant such attention to those apposed to it. Lets look at the cartoon again so we can let it sink in, killing people because this and I don't know how many others, picture was entered into a cartoon contest.

 

[lGNAl]

Which is something completely different.

One might suggest that a response to a personal insult is in some way understandable (a violent one not so much), but a response to an insult directed at someone or something else?Last I checked, drawings are pictures.

"Ridiculing drawings" are pretty much satire and there are people in newspapers who've made careers worth way more than $10,000 out of doing so - dating back centuries. Gerald Scarfe, Chris Riddell - here, check out this one by Peter Brookes:

​

So if these pictures don't look like any of the prophets - and without knowing what they looked like, the chances of drawing a picture at random and getting Mohammed's actual face are quite slim - what's the problem?What makes you say that? What evidence do you have to bring that "a lot" of people will physically confront you if you offend them?Wait... now you're suggesting that most Muslims won't physically confront people who offend them with the most offensive thing you say that can be done - but the rest of the non-Muslims will be up in your grill if you offend them?

I'd suggest that your latter set of numbers is wrong. Most people will not react physically or violently to a perceived offence, Muslim or not.

- You are right on the one's that don't have writings indicating in any way that this is a prophet. Or the ones that have "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger" written on a bomb in Arabic.

But then there's also a problem with some of them that have a violent man wearing a turban with a beard. Nowadays only some Afghan, Pakistan, Indian Muslims wear a turban and have beards. let's not forget about Sikh's to this day have to wear a turban and grow a beard. So right there is another insult. I know this is a little out of the 'prophet insult' subject, but just to explain.

- I'm not saying me or most people will resort to violence if there was a random insult thrown while walking down the street. That's different. And some people (not you) tried to say that I will shoot someone for hurling an insult my direction. I didn't say that. If its my fault for not being a good writer then I apologize, or someone for being a bad reader then I can't help it. Or intentionally reading what they want.

But I did give examples on what I meant. As in keep getting in my family's face and/or trying to physically block them or me. Or following really closely while harassing them. In these I will resort to whatever can make them stop proportionally of course.

- As for how and why and to what extent people will resort to violence even from a look depends on the cause, people in the situation, the place and time. If you live in a hood or a Beverly Hills gated community. A slum or a palace. Educated or not. have good parents or not. All comes into play. You have parents that ground their kids when they get in a fight, especially when they are in the wrong. And parents that edge you to fight.

But even sometimes all of the above doesn't count. And you end up with rich kids shooting their parents. Or some bullied kids shooting up half the school. Or (pick any random act or violence that happened lately).

Now back to my original post where I called everyone involved in the latest shooting an idiot. I still stand by that. There should have been way better security especially after what happened at charlie hebdo. The shooters made things worse for everyone. And that's the plan for their terrorists masters to make a terrorists point. And the people involved in the childish hateful competition to prove something that is sacred to a lot of people all around the world not just the U S of A. Freedom of speech is the lifeline for the weak and less-fortunate, and shouldn't be used to spread hate or anything negative or contribute to it. Anyone can always get their point across without hate, negativity and stereotyping.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

She did nothing illegal, and seriously how can you keep defending these gun wielding buffoons?

Since when are criticising her and defending them mutually inclusive? The fact that you think they are demonstrates just how poorly you grasp the situation and highlights my point about peoples' attitude of "if you're defending freedom, you can do no wrong".

Consider it from the alternative point of view - not the gun-toting trigger-happy Muslim point of view, but the man-on-the-street Mohammed Q. Citizen point of view: you have Geller organising a competition to make a mockery of a holy figure, and justifying it because a document says she can do it. And she's doing it because she doesn't agree with some of the cultural practices held by some Muslims. Meanwhile, she will happily deny them their own cultural practices because she doesn't want to know about them. It's not about freedom of speech. It's about the "preservation of Western progress", which is a euphemism for "we don't want these foreigners anywhere near us" and reinforcing cultural superiority to the exclusion of all others.

It's not a case of criticising Geller means criticising freedom and supporting the gunmen. It's a case of "two wrongs don't make a right". The gunmen were wrong, but so was Geller. The "us versus them" mentality is probably doing far more harm than those gunmen could have, because hatred doesn't just appear overnight. It takes time to fester away.

 

[squadops]

I've seen you say more than once the best idea would be to bow down and appease the terrorists, you call it common sense or something to that effect. I was not responding to you criticising the lady so, there ya go.

The man-on-the-street Mohammed Q. Citizen can deal with it just fine I'm sure, just as most of the rest of the word deals with it, tolerance. If you think about immediate post 9/11 here in the U.S. it was a merricle the hatred and violence was curbed and things did not tumble into a bloody mess. We're pretty good at that sort of thing over here tbh and the reason why is tolerance, I believe the average Joe american Mohammad Q can tolerate a silly cartoon competition.

You stating that her actions are equal to those of gunmen is disturbing.

 

[McLaren]

I'm a bit sorry for playing the ball here, but need I remind you that Pam still lives in the US of A, where we abide by the Constitution and not by Sharia law? Also do I need to remind you that a known Muslim Brotherhood terrorist hosted a "gathering" inside that very building where ALL press had to vacate the premises after 20 minutes (just long enough to say the pledge and sing the national anthem)?

I know you're not referring to the event in January.

EDIT: Forgot one more thing. Also, need I remind you that, ironically enough, that the first Sharia court being established in America is right here in my neck of the woods in Irving? The same Sharia court that is being investigated by our new Attorney General and Governor.

Was established. The mayor of Irving immediately responded in March & they passed a law forbidding any foreign laws from having merit above US laws. They're being investigated because the attorneys in the tribunal hold no law degrees, nor are they recognized by the Texas Bar.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've seen you say more than once the best idea would be to bow down and appease the terrorists, you call it common sense or something to that effect.

That would be called "putting words into my mouth". I have never said that. I will never say that. And why you seem to think that is the case it beyond me. But if I was in the business of putting words into your mouth, I would say that you do it because you find it easier to dismiss me than to consider the merits of what I say. I have never advocated for surrender - I have just suggested that for every right, there is a responsibility. The problem is that everyone wants all of their rights, but none of their responsibilities. Which is why we end up with people like Geller who seems to think that "I was defending my rights!" is a get out of jail free card. You shouldn't be celebrating her actions. You shouldn't be calling her a hero. You should be ashamed of her.

 

[squadops]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I assure you, have you not said that people should stop drawing these cartoons before, more than once, probably in this thread? If you really think I'm doing that I guess I'll spend the time it takes to search out the posts I'm thinking of, it will take time though.

Who is not taking responsibilities and for what are they not? Get out of jail? for what? lol. I don't think anyone is celebrating her actions, or calling her a hero. It is true however, that because a good portion of our press chooses not to report on or even show things like the hebdo cartoon, and generally be quiet about the situation it's no wonder people like her pop up. I'm not ashamed of her either, I think the whole thing is pretty silly tbh.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should, I understand that but, because you can does not mean you should be shot if you chose to do so.

Here is a link reporting on the 'Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect' conference hosted in the same building as the cartoon contest. The keynote speaker being Imam Sirah Wahhaj is cause for alarm and I'm not surprised the event was protested. That's right protested, not shot up. Both sides exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, just as it should be in our great country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/18/stand-with-prophet-event-in-texas-draws-thousands-/

 

[LeMansAid]

Does a person have the right to draw a man with a turban on with a bomb on his head. Yes.
Does a person have the right to call him Muhammad? Yes.
Would a person who has respect for other cultures, creeds and religions do this? No.

Too right, no. They'd go straight for the paedophile thing.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I assure you

Well, given how you have managed it so effortlessly despite claiming that you're not trying, I would hate to see what it's like when you are trying.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well, given how you have managed it so effortlessly despite claiming that you're not trying, I would hate to see what it's like when you are trying.

Should people draw pictures of the Prophet?

If no why not.

If you say "respect for other cultures", do you similarly have a problem with Islam's general disrespect for Western culture.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If you say "respect for other cultures", do you similarly have a problem with Islam's general disrespect for Western culture.

There you go again, tainting the many with the actions of a few.

 

[KSaiyu]

This is Islam the religion/ideology/political force, not Muslims..

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is Islam the religion/ideology/political force, not Muslims..

So Islam as an ideology is inherently disrespectful of Western culture, then?

 

[KSaiyu]

So Islam as an ideology is inherently disrespectful of Western culture, then?

Of course, kind of how Christianity was (is?) in Africa

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think that's more a product of your own imagination moreso than anything else.

 

[squadops]

The respect being given is not for other cultures though, it's for terrorists. I'd call it fear more than respect.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's fear that leads us to stay silent, but the terrorists and the fear they have produced have only flourished because Islam, the global movement was and still is unwilling to turn on those following a more medieval interpretation of the Koran. That is where respect comes in, and that is where we are losing the fight.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So your solution is to have the Muslims fight each other? How does that achieve anything but create more conflict?

 

[KSaiyu]

No. An equal and opposite reaction peacefully. What do I mean?

Consider our right to protest. This can be an incredibly effective tool in voicing disapproval collectively:

Now consider the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. In response to repeated attacks Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, killing over two thousand Palestinians. The reaction around the world was unanimously anti-Israeli, which was understandable. Let's look at the scale however...

France:

UK: Fifteen thousand march in London

South Africa:

And let's not forget the ugly.

There was a massive surge in anti-semitic attacks worldwide, and the prospect of more violence from clashes between two opposing sides led France to ban Palestinian protests:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-country-world-ban-pro-Palestine-demos.html

And that brings us to ISIS. You'd think that crucifying and beheading Christians, throwing homosexuals off buildings and massacring Muslims who don't conform to their wishes all in the name of their religion would prompt a similar, maybe larger reaction?

Well....no:

Few hundred in London in November, a day of peace in Germany:

And other sporadic events against ISIS.

So when you ask what my solution is, I'd propose a united effort against ISIS on a scale similar to those few weeks in 2014. It will never happen of course, because ISIS is merely the extreme, uncensored form of the very ugly reality of Islam since its inception: that it is a conquering force masquerading as a religion. But that goes into something more suited to my other thread....

 

[F1jocker12]

My years in college had given me the completely false impression that there were no constraints, that it was safe for an artist to comment on volatile cultural and political issues in public. In college, there's no down side. In the real world, there is, but in the euphoria of being recognized for anything, you don't notice it at first. Indeed, one of the nicer things about youthful cluelessness is that it's so frequently confused with courage.

I, and most of my colleagues, have spent a lot of time discussing red lines since the tragedy in Paris. As you know, the Muhammad cartoon controversy began eight years ago in Denmark, as a protest against “self-censorship,” one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke, and in that they were exceedingly successful.

Ironically, Charlie Hebdo,which always maintained it was attacking Islamic fanatics, not the general population, has succeeded in provoking many Muslims throughout France to make common cause with its most violent outliers. This is a bitter harvest.

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

The French tradition of free expression is too full of contradictions to fully embrace. Even Charlie Hebdo once fired a writer for not retracting an anti-Semitic column. Apparently he crossed some red line that was in place for one minority but not another.

What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.

from
The Abuse of Satire