The war on ISIS.

[Akira AC]

Most of the clips are people screaming because one of their buddies just went full retard and turned himself into meat shrapnel.

And when "most" is acceptable of making fun of people dying, and why would you dismiss the last words of innocent repentant people, where do you draw the line?

 

[Dennisch]

And when "most" is acceptable of making fun of people dying, and why would you dismiss the last words of innocent repentant people, where do you draw the line?

You see, I have little respect for overly religious idiots who blow other people up because they have a different interpretation of a fairytale. People die every day in the most horrible ways.

Btw. If you care about other people, there's a thread about Sub-Sahara Africa, that place where even more people die because of stuff. But there's no post of you caring about others. Why is that?

 

[Akira AC]

You see, I have little respect for overly religious idiots who blow other people up because they have a different interpretation of a fairytale. People die every day in the most horrible ways.

I understand that such comedy relies on the absurd, we have insisted in ilegitimize ISIS by calling them names, and making fun of them. But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound. Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings. There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes.

Is like making fun of Einstein because no elementary particle was found to explain god, you can see the logical relation there, but you can also see that is based on an absurd, which is supposed to be funny. Real comedy relies on social commentary (example), but be offensive for offensive's sake, that's illogical and irrational (and yeah, I see the irony on it, but again, we are talking about an idea since you changed the subject, not a person).

Btw. If you care about other people, there's a thread about Sub-Sahara Africa, that place where even more people die because of stuff. But there's no post of you caring about others. Why is that?

I'm not doing it because I care, I saw something stupid and I called on it, that simple.

 

[Famine]

But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound.

What?

Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings.

WHAT!?

There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion

What?

 

[Dennisch]

What ^ said.

What??

 

[Carlos]

You see, I have little respect for overly religious idiots who blow other people up because they have a different interpretation of a fairytale. People die every day in the most horrible ways.

Btw. If you care about other people, there's a thread about Sub-Sahara Africa, that place where even more people die because of stuff. But there's no post of you caring about others. Why is that?

To me and you, what they're screaming has little to no meaning. But I can fully understand why other people feel different about this since ISIS is using Islam as an excuse to do horrible things. For example, we are sitting in an airplane. We hit heavy turbulence and the person in front of us says "oh my God". Nothing suspicious here. What if that person said "Alluha Ackbar"? I'm sure many people will raise their eyebrow, only because "Alluha Ackbar" is linked with terrorism directly, like in that video.

 

[Akira AC]

WHAT!?

What??

Is like making fun of Einstein because no elementary particle was found to explain god, you can see the logical relation there, but you can also see that is based on an absurd, which is supposed to be funny. Real comedy relies on social commentary (example), but be offensive for offensive's sake, that's illogical and irrational (and yeah, I see the irony on it, but again, we are talking about an idea since you changed the subject, not a person).

Islamists use "Allah" as an excuse to commit their acts, you are supposed to be condemning the actions of the people who made the acts, nor their excuse. It's irrational, like blaming Jesus Christ for the crusades, there is a logical relation between the two concepts, but you'll see that using "Crusades are to blame on Jesus Christ" as an argument has no rational value.

 

[Dotini]

The pretend war.

Snippet:

...Erdogan and Putin give the world a glimpse into how all this could spin out of control.

The threat posed by terrorism is merely symptomatic of larger underlying problems. Crush Isis, whether by bombing or employing boots on the ground, and those problems will still persist. A new Isis, under a different name but probably flying the same banner, will appear in its place, much as Isis itself emerged from the ashes of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Does the West possess the wherewithal to sustain another long war?
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/sorry-but-just-bombing-isis-in-syria-wont-help-anyone/

 

[Famine]

Islamists use "Allah" as an excuse to commit their acts, you are supposed to be condemning the actions of the people who made the acts, nor their excuse. It's irrational, like blaming Jesus Christ for the crusades, there is a logical relation between the two concepts, but you'll see that using "Crusades are to blame on Jesus Christ" as an argument has no rational value.

That doesn't answer even a one of my questions.

Who told you that it's okay to make fun of people but not deities and religions? Who told you that killing people for making fun of deities and religions is "justified"?

 

[ECGadget]

Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings.

This part I have to disagree with. No self thinking Muslim with any morals could justify the attacks.
Also, I believe the attacks were not based on the mocking of God, but moreso the fact that they made a cover of ISIS threatening to kill the Prophet Muhammad or something despite him saying who he was. (or was that another issue?) ISIS didn't like that.

 

[Akira AC]

Who told you that it's okay to make fun of people but not deities and religions? Who told you that killing people for making fun of deities and religions is "justified"?

That's my point. Muslim religion work different because is a living code (and as many of us know is a Law in certain countries), their conception of law is different from ours, for "us" killing people in god's name is unjustified, for them is justified.

Why is that? is because is their Law, little understanding of the Quran leads to this situation, both Shia and Sunni have interpretations of it (because as you know their bible works in verbatim, which makes them almost like a legal code), part of the muslim population and part of the great divide between Sunni and Shia is their interpretation of Quran, church must be separated from state, but it doesn't help that we diminish those who want to live their lives in peace outside extreme Sharia law by making fun of the same god which extremists use to justify their actions. Of course you can do that, but you will find yourself insulting their lifestyle and thus extremist actions for Islam will be taken as a justified radical action for them.

Understanding the difference between the muslim and non muslims lifestyles is important, I would love them to become a more democratic and modern society by rejecting their god and acknowledge themselves as part of a humanistic world of equals, but that's not going to happen if their believes are not understood in the first place, first to use historical records to debunk much of their laws (the Quran was written during war, as such much of the war-related approaches to law were written with the aim of dehumanizing the enemy) and to make the muslim world understand that most of the verbatim interpretations of islam are based on human constructs, and not "god" ones.

 

[DK]

Erdogan regrets that his forces shot down a Russian jet, but is still refusing to apologise.

 

[jimipitbull]

I understand that such comedy relies on the absurd, we have insisted in ilegitimize ISIS by calling them names, and making fun of them. But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound. Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings. There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes.

Is like making fun of Einstein because no elementary particle was found to explain god, you can see the logical relation there, but you can also see that is based on an absurd, which is supposed to be funny. Real comedy relies on social commentary (example), but be offensive for offensive's sake, that's illogical and irrational (and yeah, I see the irony on it, but again, we are talking about an idea since you changed the subject, not a person).

I make fun of all the different gods in equal measure. Well, except for Thor, mainly because I like storms.

 

[Famine]

That's my point.

Then you haven't made it clear at all.

You're stating that it's not okay to make fun of religions and deities, and okay to kill people for doing so. It's hardly your point if I say that these statements are wrong.

Muslim religion work different because is a living code (and as many of us know is a Law in certain countries), their conception of law is different from ours, for "us" killing people in god's name is unjustified, for them is justified.

A Muslim just told you that you aren't right:

This part I have to disagree with. No self thinking Muslim with any morals could justify the attacks.

So you might want to rethink what your point is.

 

[Akira AC]

You're stating that it's not okay to make fun of religions and deities, and okay to kill people for doing so. It's hardly your point if I say that these statements are wrong.A Muslim just told you that you aren't right ...
So you might want to rethink what your point is.

I am not saying that is okay, I'm saying that for radical Islam is, why:

This part I have to disagree with. No self thinking Muslim with any morals could justify the attacks.

... church must be separated from state, but it doesn't help that we diminish those who want to live their lives in peace outside extreme Sharia law by making fun of the same god which extremists use to justify their actions. Of course you can do that, but you will find yourself insulting their lifestyle and thus extremist actions for Islam will be taken as a justified radical action for them.

Also, I believe the attacks were not based on the mocking of God, but moreso the fact that they made a cover of ISIS threatening to kill the Prophet Muhammad or something despite him saying who he was. (or was that another issue?) ISIS didn't like that.

The reason was this and other similar cartoons:

They were trying to make social commentary, but as far as social commentary goes saying "The Quran is **** " without using a valid context makes it look offensive (please note that is not a terrorist fighter killing in name of "Allah", is just a priest using "Quran as defense"). This refers to a problem with language and representation, I will say that Charlie Hebdo was a bad cartoonist, not for insulting an Islamic god, but because whatever message they were trying to get across was almost hate speech towards the general muslim population, rather than extremist segments of it. Thus the result, and thus the problem with the point I'm trying to note.

 

[Famine]

I am not saying that is okay, I'm saying that for radical Islam is, why:

No. Here's your post in full.

I understand that such comedy relies on the absurd, we have insisted in ilegitimize ISIS by calling them names, and making fun of them. But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound. Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings. There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes.

Is like making fun of Einstein because no elementary particle was found to explain god, you can see the logical relation there, but you can also see that is based on an absurd, which is supposed to be funny. Real comedy relies on social commentary (example), but be offensive for offensive's sake, that's illogical and irrational (and yeah, I see the irony on it, but again, we are talking about an idea since you changed the subject, not a person).

I'm not doing it because I care, I saw something stupid and I called on it, that simple.

At no point in there is the phrase "Radical Islamists think that..." or the equivalent. You stated that making fun of Islam is "going overboard". You stated that you can't make fun of a "theological basis of a religion". You stated that the Charlie Hebdo attack was "justified for Muslims". You stated that you can't insult values or what someone believes. These are your words and they are wrong.

If you intended to state that this is what Muslims think, or this is what radical Islamists think, you should have done so - but you didn't.

 

[ECGadget]

@Akira AC Oh, I did not like the Charlie Hebdo at all, because they insulted everything and anything. I am always offended when someone insults Allah or any Prophet, but as a Muslim I would never justify any attack. You see, people like ISIS take anything they can in order to blow something up or harm some people. A well thought out Islamic response would be to either go and talk to the editors about it, or ignore it because they insult everyone and that is just who they are.

On that note though @Famine I believe that what he said was not exactly what he meant, considering the next posts made, but of course it is important for us to get it cleared up.

 

[FoRiZon]

Lol. Im very much sure people who got healthy in society, including myself, are ok with differing opinions on religions. Some sees some religion bad, others good,other neutral.

Point is, we dont really care. Your god (or not) is yours and ours is ours, period. We do sometimes make a little touch of joke on religion. I do admit hearing takbirs on meme videos is pretty hilarious with some of my friends as long as i dont actually bullying and shaming real islamic people in public and (yours maybe different) i dont really discredit my own beliefs. Im very sure other religions have gone through these already. I mean just look at tons of Jesus memes and many other things. This is why i don't really offended by that "Innocence of Moslem" thing. Its so bad and wrong, its also hillarious and amusing.... and passable without really taking its "morals".

Nobody on all sides, discredit humanity for their beliefs, race, etc. Racism, stereotyping, or yes on the flip side, taking life from others is a real no no. Speech should be replied by speech, not violence. Hell, in Australia they got a really good job: Racist demonstration being replied by Peace demonstration.

Its a circle of revenge in these ISIS VS anti moslem people. They contribute piling the hate on each other.

 

[jimipitbull]

what radical Islamists think.

I doubt the radicals of any religion have much capacity to think for themselves.

 

[Akira AC]

No. Here's your post in full...

At no point in there is the phrase "Radical Islamists think that..." or the equivalent. You stated that making fun of Islam is "going overboard". You stated that you can't make fun of a "theological basis of a religion".

Here is where the problem relies, what is your consideration of "Islam"? it could be different than mine, and I'm pretty sure is different for them as well. I see as I would see Hinduism or Taoism, a lifestyle as any other (because many of their preachings are based on love and compassion of others), I know Islam have some deep issues, but making fun of these values that compose the idea that many Muslim believe in, that is wrong.

You stated that the Charlie Hebdo attack was "justified for Muslims". You stated that you can't insult values or what someone believes. These are your words and they are wrong.

This is not what I meant, I meant that it was justified for radicals, not for the general muslim population and stop making it look like I meant it because it defeats the main point that I'm trying to make, which I'm pretty sure a valid one.

If you intended to state that this is what Muslims think, or this is what radical Islamists think, you should have done so - but you didn't.

Of course I didn't, I'm not a muslim myself, I just study them and try to see where they are coming from with their beliefs and moral codes, I can't say what a muslim think, I can just theorize based on their beliefs and social structures how "god" is understood by them.

My main point is that the non muslim world has not enough understanding of how Islam works, that's why I don't think you (and not referring to you textually, just the idea behind the video that started the whole thing) should make fun of something you clearly don't understand. Which is the main gripe with the posted video, that got me engaged in this conversation in the first place.

 

[Famine]

Here is where the problem relies, what is your consideration of "Islam"? it could be different than mine, and I'm pretty sure is different for them as well.

What? This has nothing to do with anything that I've asked you.

You were stating that it's wrong to make fun of religion, beliefs or deities. You, not me. What does what I understand by the term "Islam" have to do with it?

I see as I would see Hinduism or Taoism, a lifestyle as any other (because many of their preachings are based on love and compassion of others), I know Islam have some deep issues, but making fun of these values that compose the idea that many Muslim believe in, that is wrong.

Okay, so now we're back to the part where you are saying that this is wrong - which is what I questioned in the first place.

Why is it wrong? Why do the values that underpin Islam get special treatment that renders them immoral to mock?

This is not what I meant, I meant that it was justified for radicals, not for the general muslim population and stop making it look like I meant it because it defeats the main point that I'm trying to make, which I'm pretty sure a valid one.

I'm not making it look like anything. I posted your entire post, unabridged. If you meant something else you should by now have retracted what you said and clarified it.

Of course I didn't, I'm not a muslim myself, I just study them and try to see where they are coming from with their beliefs and moral codes, I can't say what a muslim think, I can just theorize based on their beliefs and social structures how "god" is understood by them.

So once again, you're not saying that Muslims or radical Islamists think these things, but they're what you think?

Can we just get cleared up exactly what you mean when you say these three consecutive (and wrong) statements? One minute you seem to be saying that this is what you think, then it's what radical Islamists think, then it's what Muslims think, then it's what you think again. Can you tell me who you're speaking for in each of these claims?

* But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound.
* Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings
* There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes

 

[Sanji Himura]

* Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings

Now I got to stop you right here. While the statement is true in a general sense, their motives are much clearer than that. Muslims believe that you shouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed in a picture, in other words, they consider that blasphemy. Both Charlie Hebdo and Garland TX were attacked for the same reason - both places either drew the prophet or sponsored events that allowed drawings of the prophet.

ISIS made perfectly clear that the reason that the two places were attacked was for the drawings of Mohammad, plain and simple.

 

[Famine]

Muslims believe that you shouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed in a picture, in other words, they consider that blasphemy.

And the penalty for blasphemy in Islam is death and the death of anyone nearby, right?

No self thinking Muslim with any morals could justify the attacks.

Oh, wait.

 

[jimipitbull]

Now I got to stop you right here. While the statement is true in a general sense, their motives are much clearer than that. Muslims believe that you shouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed in a picture, in other words, they consider that blasphemy. Both Charlie Hebdo and Garland TX were attacked for the same reason - both places either drew the prophet or sponsored events that allowed drawings of the prophet.

ISIS made perfectly clear that the reason that the two places were attacked was for the drawings of Mohammad, plain and simple.

No, they were attacked because ISIS are murderous thugs. Plain and simple.

Not sure why anyone would try and justify their actions.

 

[ECGadget]

In Islam it is considered incorrect to draw the Prophet or God, whether it be in a good or bad sense. However, the penalty for doing so is not to go kill said person and honestly, for what Charlie Hebdo did, whilst offending and not nice at all, it was nothing a little talking couldn't smooth over easily. That being said, even if ISIS went ahead and used that justification, what was their subsequent justification for the poor people in the shops etc etc? As @jimipitbull said, ISIS use 'defending Islam' as their justification, but the reality remains that they are murderous thugs, and that is all they will ever be.

 

[Alex p.]

And making fun of other people's cultures is?

What culture is that exactly? So repeatedly mumbling "God is great"= Allahu Akbar, WHILE you are making war/shooting/killing/being shot at/bombarded, is culture? Well yeah...right. And even if it IS defined as culture in that case, it is not one to be respected.

 

[Famine]

In Islam it is considered incorrect to draw the Prophet or God, whether it be in a good or bad sense.

And, more to the point, it's only for Muslims, not for non-Muslims.


Oddly, Islam has a sort of tiered system of how acceptable it is to depict living creatures, with Allah the least permissible, Mohammed next, then other prophets, and so on right down to animals.

It's also a surprisingly recent addition - which is why Islamic art in the last couple of hundred years rarely features living organisms of any kind (and when it does it's only trees), focussing on geometry, but early art has whole crowds of people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What culture is that exactly? So repeatedly mumbling "God is great"= Allahu Akbar, WHILE you are making war/shooting/killing/being shot at/bombarded, is culture? Well yeah...right. And even if it IS defined as culture in that case, it is not one to be respected.

I know, fancy a religious saying becoming mainstream, that's not culture.

omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg

That's you, right...?

 

[ECGadget]

And, more to the point, it's only for Muslims, not for non-Muslims.


Oddly, Islam has a sort of tiered system of how acceptable it is to depict living creatures, with Allah the least permissible, Mohammed next, then other prophets, and so on right down to animals.

It's also a surprisingly recent addition - which is why Islamic art in the last couple of hundred years rarely features living organisms of any kind (and when it does it's only trees), focussing on geometry, but early art has whole crowds of people.

Not as new as it may seem, but yes there were a number of changes along the way. Nevertheless, bang on the money about it being only for Muslims. Sure, it may be insulting if a non muslim does so but it's all about communication between the communities of course, something we lack many a time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Further to @Famine's comments on aniconoclastic thought in Islam; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30814555