"Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

Clever bugger though, fished me in

Clever bugger? Not really. It was immediately obvious that it was a fake, yet you’re so determined to find the hidden answer that you’ll immediately jump on any source to back up your “theories”.

Zero credibility…

If it was immediately obvious, why were you the only one to point it out?

We’re none of us infallible, but, like the babies in incubators incident, or GCHQ/NSA and the wealth of lies and half truths in between, questioning Government and media is certainly a credible path.

I’m not sure (and hey, I got drawn in too a few pages back) bringing the Israel-Palestine conflict into the thread helps that much, while I very much sympathised with you on the last one gonzy.

the reason i brought it up was to show that ninfan is a bit of a hypocrite in saying that its ok to kill innocent people during times of war especially as they can be counted as collateral damage…but it would be wrong if they had been targeted deliberately…hence the question about the boys on the beach.
he then went onto allude that making offensive comments on religion should not have been outlawed but is more than happy to state that any criticism towards judaism is anti-semitism.
he later stated that islam and christianity dont count as they are religions and that judaism has transcended both these religions and is now a race…and therefore anti-semitism should be punishable but not islamophobia or christophobia

It’s very difficult to legislate to make people “morally” decent. Morality is so bloody subjective. We would have to have the kind of legislation which would make binners explode, leaving behind nothing more than a white sticky mess afterwards…and noone wants to have to clean that up. Thus, we have to set some lines in the sand…possibly set for the lowest common denominators and punish those who cross those lines with consistency and fairness.

Unfortunately, and it can be seen in a microcosm on this forum, when lines are drawn in the sand (the rulez of the forum), lots of folk will happily dance on that line and that means sometimes, we’re going to have to be upset by it but not lose our rag. I’ve had loads of digs concerning my nationality over the years, and I’ve had to read lots of bigotry-bordering-on-racism-but-perhaps-not-enough-to-get-banned from a few contributors in particular, some of whom have posted on this thread.

So yeah, we have to have lines in the sand, but accept that sometimes people will sort of cross them, but then jump back to the right side before you can do anything about it…and you can’t always expect someone to be prosecuted because you’re upset by something.

i agree

Your overly dramatic analogy with a bullied child is just daft.

Well that’s a well thought-out and convincing argument.

Have you actually looked up many Charlie Hebdo cartoons? Many of them are full of witless racism that the BNP might think twice about. I’m not sure how that’s being good at satire or why you’re so ‘fiercely protective’ of it.

And poking fun at the rich and powerful is a bit different to bullying the marginalised, don’t you think?

If it was immediately obvious, why were you the only one to point it out?

Because I’m the smartest guy in the room 8)

What am I wearing?

Am I right in thinking its original target was mainly the Catholic church/establishment (which was more intertwined at the time)?

that’s what i had read too…i also read that the catholic church had successfully sued them on 12 occasions…so maybe they had started to pick new targets to insult as a result

Is this one of your favourites binners?

‘Hands off our benefit cheques’

Nice.

Or perhaps this charmer:

Grum – the bullying charge doesn’t really stand, as we’re talking about a publication with a tiny readership (until this week, obviously). If you were talking about a national newspaper with a circulation in the millions, then maybe. But a readership in the tens of thousands against a muslim population of millions? Not really bullying, is it? Hardy a lynch mob.

I’m not doubting that some of it is tasteless, ill-conceived or offensive. Its satire? Isn’t that the point? Most satire is pretty hit and miss, to say the least. Have you read Private Eye recently. A large percentage of it is twoddle.

But if they’d crossed any legal boundaries they could be taken to task legally. Having spent quite a bit of my career working in publishing, I can tell you that their output, like any other publications, would be run past a lawyer before it went to print. Anything that crossed the lines we as a society have deemed unacceptable would never have made it to print. Simple as that.

EDIT: Once again gum. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn’t be allowed? Of course I shouldn’t! I don’t have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else.

What am I wearing?

A tinfoil hat 😉

This week’s Charlie Hebdo features cartoons of Mohammed…

until this week, obviously

Something for jivehoneyjive to go after there…

What exactly are they ‘satirising’ in the above cartoon about the benefit cheques binners?

EDIT: Once again gum. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn’t be allowed? Of course I shouldn’t!

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be allowed, I said it shouldn’t be supported/encouraged – which is what you and many others are doing.

If the one showing bullets going through the koran was reversed, and was published by an Islamic magazine, showing the bible/christians – you’d be quite happy to use it as an example of the twisted evils of Islam inciting violence/hatred I’m sure.

With Grum here much of what they did was puerile rather than brilliant cutting satire and done just to offend. See also the prophet as a porn star – again what is the bitign satire there and the point?
Its like turning up at someones wedding and shouting that the bride is a dirty fat slag then talking about your right to free speech and how they dont have the right to not be offended rather than address the fact you have just been an offensive ****.

EDIT:
Your I dont have the right to be not offended is tiresome not least because no has asserted the right to be “not offended” – see wedding above example.

I’m not doubting that some of it is tasteless, ill-conceived or offensive. Its satire? Isn’t that the point?

NO Binners it is meant to lampoon and shame society into changing. It may be offensive on the way but its objective is not to be tasteless, illconvcieved and offensive [ i think you have confused it with Hora *]- have you never seen Brass eye ?

* insert poster of choice and no offence meant just satire innit

I have Sunnis, Shias, combinations of both, Jews, Christians (Anglican and RCs), agnostics and atheists all working in my office.

I bet the sunni is the brightest. IGMC (and bulletproof vest).

I stand by this being interesting; no bollocks talked

Did you manage to type that with a straight face ?

Because I laughed when I read it.

The world leaders pictures you “exposed” and posting fake news websites certainly seems like posting bollocks.

though I admit I was taken in by the false BBC link:

Fair enough, but have a think about why you were taken in by it.

Because you are blinded by your point of view, you do zero analysis of anything that backs it up.

As it happens, I didn’t spot the fake domain either, but the first thing I did when I looked at the article was Google the name of the “expert” to see who he was.

And as stated above, he isn’t anybody.

(plus. The BBC News YouTube channel has a few hundred thousand videos. Not 31)

What am I wearing?

A tinfoil hat

Good guess, but it was actually a momentary frown…

Smiling again now though 😉

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn’t be allowed?

obviously not you’re just one fella..

But when it’s offending a quarter of the world’s population, surely there’s a difference?

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be allowed, I said it shouldn’t be supported/encouraged – which is what you and many others are doing.

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m merely stating that the law sets the limits of what is acceptable. We all live within those same guidelines. Unless it crosses these lines, they’re free to do that. It might upset some people.

I don’t have an opinion on it one way or another. Not being an authority on French domestic politics, I have no idea what they’re satirising. My opinion is irrelevant anyway.

People publish stuff all the time that other find offensive. Heres an example for you. I’m a designer and illustrator. So, as you’ve seen I do a graphic for our weekly pub ride. A few weeks ago i did this, for our ‘Songs of Praise’ christmas night ride, and posted it up on’t interweb

Is it tasteless? Yes. Is it disrespectful to some peoples deeply held beliefs? Of course it is. Puerile? Tick. Will some people be offended by it? No doubt. Should I be somehow have to consider all this. Well… yes. Up to a point. Everything relative innit?

Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn’t be allowed? Of course I shouldn’t! I don’t have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else.

but you should be Binners…you have as much right to be offended as you have to offend….it should work both ways
do you think you would find it accepteble if someone was being offensive towards a family member? i dont think so…thats the point i made and its the same point Grum is making.
its about having the right to be able to freely express yourself and balancing that with the equal right to be able to challenge it if you think it wrong.

Here is food for thought why is a popular conspiracy theory (popular as in widely quoted by conspiracy theorists) being presented on a fake BBC link ? why was that link address set up some time ago not for this hoax. are conspiracy theories themselves a conspiracy. If so by who and why ? does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m merely stating that the law sets the limits of what is acceptable.

So when you were praising them for being ‘pretty good’ at satire, you weren’t supporting them. Oh ok then.

BTW your graphic may offend some but at least has a little wit/humour/inventiveness to it.

I bet the sunni is the brightest.

Boom Boom!! 😯

IGMC (and bulletproof vest).

yes please do…. 😉

Is it tasteless? Yes. Is it disrespectful to some peoples deeply held beliefs? Of course it is. Puerile? Tick. Will some people be offended by it? No doubt. Should I be somehow have to consider all this. Well… yes. Up to a point. Everything relative innit?

that depends…..is that a 29er?

My opinion is irrelevant anyway.

finally we agree 😉

Still waiting for you to explain the freedom of speech right to hurl abuse at weddings- not illegal after all.

That bride has no right to not be offended on that special day after all.

Cmon whose with me ?

is that a 29er?

It’s worse than that.

It’s an Orange.

Worse than that! Its an Orange! I’m surprised I’ve not had a fatwa issued already 😉

Its an Orange! I’m surprised I’ve not had a fatwa issued already

needs an Audi in the background… 😉

Theres a few people here are saying that personal abuse, directed at individual is the same as criticising a particular belief system. It isn’t. Its totally different.

All religions are open to criticism. Even if it is crass and tastelessly done. We can’t select on the basis of quality. As long as its not inciting hatred of that religion, its permissible

The examples you’re listing are selecting individuals and subjecting them to personal abuse (hurling abuse at the bride at a weddings? Wheres the similarity there?). Thats a very different thing.

😥 all i said was Audi Binners…

That’s a religion of sorts 😉

All religions are open to criticism. Even if it is crass and tastelessly done. We can’t select on the basis of quality. As long as its not inciting hatred of that religion, its permissible

i agree Binners….but the problem is how do we know what is seen as inciting hatred and what isnt…its down to interpretation.
its the same with islam and the text of the quran…its interpreted in many ways hence why there are so many nutjobs running around preaching the wrong message and causing havoc

right Binners…thats enough! you’ve drawn a monday night pub ride poster depicting what you have admitted is an Orange and i suspect a 29er too…i’m not letting you add the Audi in…so here’s your fatwa
you are hereby banned from the consumption of any goods from Greggs for one whole month.
you can still enter the premises to look and smell but you must not purchase, handle or consume any of their wares…if you do i’ll steal your bike and send it back to you with 24″ wheels on!! 😉

Free speech does not entitle you to say whatever you want. It has to be within the bounds of law in the country in which it’s said. Now the Internet confuses this but in the UK we abolished our Blaspehmy law, not least as comedians constantly made religious jokes. The Charlie Ebdo editor made it very clear he expected some Muslims to be offended just as he assumed those of other religions would be with other cartoons but under French law it was not illegal and he cared not whether the cRtoons would illegal under other countries laws as the magazine was published in France.

As for the Israel/Palestine conflict I’m not sure it was anyone other than I who raised it. I did so as with a terrorist attacking a Jewish supermarket and almost certainly intended to attack a Jewish school (as per Toulouse and Pakistan attacks I teded to cause maximum outrage) it was very much relevant to this thread in my opinion as was my link to various comments about how to deal with terrorism.

guradian: Jewish school likley target

Of course Jews and Mulsims can live and work together, there where two friends one Jewish and one Muslim who where together in Paris and who’s interview was widely shown, each talking of their friendship and each wearing a Je Suis Juif/Muslimam of the others faith. Here in the UK you have chef Ottolenghi a Jersulem Jew who’s business partner is a Paestinain from the same city.

As for the cartoon and benefits there is a view in France, as in England, amongst certain people that certain immigrant communities are more likely to live on welfare. The supermarket terrorists was head on an open phone line berating a hostage for paying taxes and boasting he did not, reinforcing that stereotype that says some do not make a contribution to society and see that as a positive

Theres a few people here are saying that personal abuse, directed at individual is the same as criticising a particular belief system. It isn’t. Its totally different.

That’s not answering the question – it’s about the principle not how similar the two scenarios are.

Both are legal, both would be considered unacceptable by some/many people – under your black and white ‘only the law can decide’ ethos, both then should be considered fine.

And not only considered fine, but we should apparently strongly defend someone’s right to do what they are legally allowed to, without any thought for the target, as the principle is more important.

Just to really play devil’s advocate, how many people in this country would think an acceptable response in the wedding scenario would be to lamp the abuser? Quite a few I’d imagine.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Not the pasties!!!!!!

ohhh yes! the pasties!!

Free speech does not entitle you to say whatever you want.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

Dunno, does he have shares in the arms industry, (or private military contractors, security etc)

Oh no hang on that’s:

And of course the Chair of the UK Intelligence & Security Committee (and Leon Brittan’s Cousin) Malcolm Rifkind:

Wonder why he was so eager to get his hands on CIA Torture Report?

What Grum said – Of course they are different but both are legal and both are fine as she does not have the right to not be offended, That is what you are arguing is it not ?

FWIW I am not sure why insulting more people is better than insultign fewer people seeing as we seem to be both twisting folks arguments and ignoring them 😛

i agree Binners….but the problem is how do we know what is seen as inciting hatred and what isnt…its down to interpretation.
its the same with islam and the text of the quran…its interpreted in many ways hence why there are so many nutjobs running around preaching the wrong message and causing havoc

Which, by your logic, means the Koran should be outlawed.