[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

French media saying 1 male gunman has escaped the supermarket and that the female terrorist is still on the loose. I don't think it's over.

Just seen one trooper being hit in the raid, doesn't look like he was moving at all after. 🙁

You kind of don't though. It's a criminal offence to abuse someone based on race, gender or sexuality. Occassionally religion gets bundled in to that as well (although it shouldn't).

Satire isn't abuse though is it, let's get this clear, this was like Private Eye being shot up.

Does freedom of speech extend to freedom to be racist? The caricature of Mohammaded wasn't too far off the caricatures of the big-nosed grasping jews or the bog-trotting Fenians that used to be common here.

Everyone here fine with them too presumably?

(NB for the hard of thinking I've already said no cartoon EVER justifies violence)

Maybe something is lost in translation/cultural differences but I'm struggling to see anything funny or witty in there either. You can get away with a lot of offensiveness by at least actually being amusing/clever.

Also what is the correct "ISM" for discriminating against a person of a certain Religion.
It would not bother me if we had a black, brown or south East Asian prime minister if they were Christian or atheist but I would be decidedly nervous about a Muslim prime minister irrelevant of their/or lack of colour.

A few years ago i would not have been so, so what ism am I suffering as I am definitely not racist as I would never discriminate against a person based on the colour of their skin or think that I was better than anyone else simply because I was white and they was not. but I would based on their beliefs or more to the point how their beliefs cause them to discriminate against others.

A good person with faith will do good in the name of their faith.
An evil person with faith will do evil in the name of their faith.
What bothers me is, could an evil person with faith use their faith to cause a good person with faith to do evil.

To me religion is poppycock and I have the right to say so and It is impossible for me to blaspheme if i have not religion.
People have the right to believe but don't get so bent out of shape at others who don't and consider it no more believable than fairies at the end of the garden.

And in such circumstances should think that is your opinion and you are entitled to it not,
[img] [/img]

This extends to all religions, when jade goodie called shilpa sheti (probably spelt that wrong)
A Chapati or some thing like that in the big brother house they were burning effigies of jade on the streets of India.

I can not take that behaviour seriously, I am no fan of Christianity but at least now it is being forced to join the modern world.

no i'm not and if it comes across as this then i'm sorry. everyone has a freedom of speech but when you know that criticism of something in that manner may be seen as an insult that could potentially have repercussions of that nature then i would think carefully about airing those opinions in the first place.

I guess we shouldn't offend nonces, corrupt politicians, murderers, dictators etc etc - their mates might get upset and come and shoot us.

I find your views massively offensive.

(NB for the hard of thinking I've already said no cartoon EVER justifies violence)

Does freedom of speech extend to freedom to be racist? The caricature of Mohammaded wasn't too far off the caricatures of the big-nosed grasping jews or the bog-trotting Fenians that used to be common here.

Mohammed is an individual, making stereotyped images of Jews/an entire race is a different ball game.

Aspects of satire might be used by racists and were used by the Nazis, on the other hand satire has been instrumental in opposing regimes such as Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Frankos Spain.

Not sure about an ism chip but bigotry or simply prejudice are words that would work pretty well for you.

Tony Blair and George W - both Christians who said their faith inspired them to invade Iraq.

We're not talking about nonces etc though..
We're talking about insulting a generally peaceful demographic that is billions strong.. It's not their fault that the demographic in question contains a handful of psychotic gun toting maniacs

We're not talking about nonces etc though..
We're talking about insulting a demographic that is billions strong.. It's not their fault that the demographic in question contains a handful of psychotic gun toting maniacs

The Nazis, the fascists of Italy and Spain, Russias communists - all practically entire demographics that were on the receiving end of satire.

Apparently the morality of insulting people is based on how many people you are insulting though.

Not sure about an ism chip but bigotry or simply prejudice are words that would work pretty well for you.

Acting all offended has been raised to an art form by some on STW.

What you can and can't say is governed by laws pretty much everywhere. Anything sexist, racist or homophobic will get you into trouble in France but insults that are objectively accurate descriptions allowed. Telling the truth and calling a crook a crook won't get you into trouble if there is evidence you are right. As an example, Armstrong managed to sue lots of people who accused him of doping in the Anglo-Saxon world but failed in France. In France he would have had to prove he hadn't doped to get a decision in his favour, and the courts would have legally obtained the results of every dope test available in order to make an objective decision - and they wouldn't have been restricted by UCI tolerated limits for doping products, it would have simply been the presence of doping products. That's why he didn't take on l'Equipe.

Comparing Muslims to nonces, murderers, dictators etc

I can see why you struggle with condemning racism.

Tom - you are an islamophobic, practically racist tit.. I have nothing further to discuss with you xx

So we can satirize nonces in the vatican but we can't satirize Islam.....cuz Islam isn't as bad as the vatican?

You guys are just suffering from a severe case of logic failure. Yes, maybe comparing Islam to fascism was going a bit far - but, as Doug Stanhope has pointed out - the Vatican and by extension Islam has a far more prosperous and prestigious record of mayhem than the Nazi's.

Before spluttering too much with references to totalitarian regemes you might want to check out other news today from [url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693 ]Saudi[/url].

5thelefeant, you just backed my opinion even further.....oh noes....he insulted religion....he's obviously a racist that needs to be lashed.

You talk about logical fallacies but then come out with a pathetic straw man that barely makes sense. I genuinely expected better from you Tom.

I didn't from you though 5th Elefant. Well done on an excellent point. I don't think anyone had noticed that Saudi Arabia is a shit country before.

yunki - Member

Tom - you are an islamophobic, practically racist tit.. I have nothing further to discuss with you xx

😯 C'mon! C'mon! Can't you accept alternative views?

I can assure you Muslamic have extreme phobia over other beliefs too ...

Tom_W1987 - Member

So we can satirize nonces in the vatican but we can't satirize Islam.....cuz Islam isn't as bad as the vatican?

[b]You guys are just suffering from a severe case of logic failure.[/b]

😆 Ya, told you. Too many PhDs with logical minds yet can't stick to logic and I see them coming ... 😯

edit: oh ya ... the AK47 shooters. Dead. Very Dead but unfortunately they have taken many with them. Now, the AK47 shooters will be the virgins to be savaged upon by those waiting for them on the other side.

Would you agree that it's okay to offend Catholics in the name of satirizing the Vatican's scandals? If you don't, we are never going to agree on this at all.

If you do, then you are guilty of double standards.

Yes but it's not ok to be racist. HTH.

I don't see the racism in Charlie Hebdos cartoons. The context and intent isn't there.

The word some of you are looking for is sectarianism. Hope that helps.

To be racist is to believe you are better than someone simply based on the fact you believe you are of a superior race than them.

Until there is scientific proof there is a god,
Peoples right to believe in god goes hand in hand with peoples right to say how ridicules such a belief is.

Religious people have the right to draw cartoons mocking my lack of faith, I am not allowed to shoot them,

Of course you don't even need to draw a cartoon..
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/saudi-arabia-blogger-flogged-insulting-islam-20151911120952108.html

I think I remember yunki ordering a baby Jesus but plug, stone him.

I didn't from you though 5th Elefant. Well done on an excellent point. I don't think anyone had noticed that Saudi Arabia is a shit country before.

And added a smiley face to posting the fact.

We're we not so hamstrung by well meaning but naive bunch of Islam apologists we could have prosecuted Abu Hamza 10 years ago and stopped him recruiting a generation a whole generation of murderers we are presently dealng with.

That was a mistake that shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

The word some of you are looking for is sectarianism.

Nope, that's what happens between subdivisions in a certain group, the correct word was already pointed out to be bigotry.

eg. Sunni vs Shia (Islamic), Protestant vs Catholic (Christian)

The clue is in the name: [b]sect[/b]arianism

WTF, one dickhead in Finsbury Park is now responsible for all this?

Aye, okay then...

You guys are just suffering from a severe case of logic failure...

...the Vatican and by extension Islam has a far more prosperous and prestigious record of mayhem than the Nazi's.

Really? I could see the point if you were talking about Stalin, Pol Pot or any other single person that ordered the wholesale murder of people on a genocidal scale but seriously?

I think it's perhaps you that's suffering from logic failure here.

Satire only works when it's funny to the audience. If they laugh there was more than a grain of truth in the jest. Ridiculise the ridiculous.

Humour is one of the things that make our world good place to be. Dave Allen, Monty Python, Private eye, Charlie, Anne Roumanoff, Clarkson (yes even that a***), Coluche, Dieudonne, Florence Foresti, Gad, Franklin, Cantalou, spitting image, les guignols, Danny... . Do you really want to silence them?

Really? I could see the point if you were talking about Stalin, Pol Pot or any other single person that ordered the wholesale murder of people on a genocidal scale but seriously?

I think it's perhaps you that's suffering from logic failure here.

If we include the past 2000 years of history, then yes.

And you can't even compare the Nazi's anti-jewish posters to these cartoons. I would post images of some examples of each, deconstructing them and the intentions behind them but I don't think that would be allowed.

Dave Allen,
Wonderful.

[img] &f=1[/img]

The image above is in my son's school history book. The seemingly banal headline resulted in Hara Kiri being banned. A week later Charlie Hebdo was launched. The freedom of the press is a French institution more important than the institutions themselves. After a few revolutions and an occupation attempts to silence the press don't go down too well.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/paris-and-beyond-europe-is-at-war-with-itself/16435#.VLAjxyusWHA

Good article, here's an excerpt.

Cultural polarisation
The idea of the Islamisation of Europe is just as evasive as the official rhetoric of multiculturalism. The real threat facing Europe is not that of an external force or the irresistible attraction of Islam. The real problem is that the political and cultural elites of Europe are struggling to give contemporary meaning to their cultural and historical legacy. Europe’s embrace of multiculturalism has been inspired by a variety of different calculations. However, its principal driver has been European societies’ difficulty in providing their ways of life with positive and forward-looking values. Opting for the ‘multi’ has spared governments the difficult task of elaborating and upholding a common foundation for communal life.

Multiculturalism, then, has served as a form of political evasion. But it has also encouraged the destructive process of cultural segregation. Such segregation means that dialogue now only takes place within parallel communities. Not surprisingly, young people growing up within a community that is relatively untouched by the values of officialdom will have their views and prejudices affirmed and echoed by others. The pool of knowledge on which millions of young Muslims now draw is very different to that of other communities. But the emergence of views that run counter to those of the host society is rarely noticed by the media because there is no dialogue that transcends the multicultural divide.
The sentiments that drove thousands of European youths to fight in Syria have been produced by confusions and tensions generated in Europe. Opinion polls indicate that IS is supported by a far higher percentage of young Muslims in France and other parts of Europe than in the Middle East. That shows that the source of anti-Western sentiments should be located in Europe, not ‘over there’.

The chain of events that led to the massacre in Paris may well have been sparked off by a classroom discussion in the banlieus of Paris or Marseilles. Some pupils were no doubt certain that the Holocaust was a myth. And the defensive way their teachers dealt with their points would only have strengthened their conviction, itself informed by their older peers at home. Throughout their teenage years, their alienation from French society would have gained in force. They then encountered radical Islam, a medium to express their alienation, and the rest is history. But if Europe wakes up, this won’t necessarily be the future.

Religion cannot be compared with race. It's a choice and as such I'm quite happy for it to be ridiculed. If some people are insulted sufficiently to cause crime, then they're just criminals. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm firmly with Binners on this one.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Jan-09/283552-takfiri-groups-offended-prophet-mohammad-more-than-the-cartoons-mocking-him.ashx

Glimmer of hope.

On the analysis front, it's non-stop on French TV. To the above quote I'll add the Sunnite/Shiite divide, with shiite states such as Iran offering support and sympathy to France.

Edit: Tom's link is an example of Shiites slagging of Sunnites.

Edit: to add a link that makes it all clear [url= http://news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-chief-vows-syria-victory-ashura-address-110158174.html ]Shiites at war with Sunnites condemn Charlie attack[/url]

I guess it could be construed that way. 😕

Irans message of support to France came with a message though.

I assume it would be either an idiotic idea to supply Shiites with lots of weaponry, upset Israel and/or upset the Saudis?

In a bit of a pickle aren't we, to many factions at war with each other to pick one side and run with it. Probably shouldn't have befriended the Saudis and pushed the Iranians into the arms of the Russians during the 20th century.

Befriending the Saudis and the 50/50 deal made the US what it is today. Demonising Iran after the fall of the Shah, funding and arming Saddam against Iran then isolating Iran were perhaps unwise moves.

Acting all offended has been raised to an art form by some on STW..

Satire only works when it's funny to the audience. If they laugh there was more than a grain of truth in the jest.

I dont doubt folk laugh at the satire images of Obama as a monkey I dont think this elevates them to having a grain of truth. There is a very fine line between satire and just mocking and /or just abusing something

I don't think Charlies Hebdos cartoons are in the same league as the Obama-monkey cartoons or even the watermelon cartoon incident, the latter of which was actually defended by some of the black community, something that I never quite understood actually.

Viz have done it in style!

[img] [/img]