Shooting in Demark

Bob24

Egginacup wrote: »

They deliberately printed what the knew was going to cause offence or insult to the point of violent backlash.

A man in Spain recently lashed back and killed a guy for allegedly photographing his daughter in a restaurant. The majority consensus seems to be that the guy with the iPad deserved his death.

Honestly you are all over the place justifying killings for this or that. Maybe in your circle people think it is OK to kill someone who took a picture of your daughter, but I can assure you that after hearing the story as your told it will not the majority consensus at all in Europe that the man deserved to die. And it is not going to convince anyone that killing the French cartoonist was a normal reaction.

Venus In Furs

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Free speech has of late become a byword for the 'right' to offend, mock or make what are racist and sectarian remarks.

Hugely so.

BuilderPlumber

Bob24 wrote: »

Honestly you are all over the place justifying killings for this or that. Maybe in your circle people think it is OK to kill someone who took a picture of your daughter, but I can assure you that after hearing the story as your told it will not the majority consensus at all in Europe that the man deserved to die. And it is not going to convince anyone that killing the French cartoonist was a normal reaction.

While no one deserves to die and killing someone for what they said cannot ever be justified, papers (journalists and editors) owe a duty of care to employees and their neighbours. Al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorists are dangerous and unfortunately exist and are only looking for targets. A paper that publishes some cartoon or article that may (or may not) have a racist overtone but which they are well aware will cause offense leading to violence should think things through before they publish.

stunmer

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Where will all this madness end?? And innocent people are dying because of a combination of shear hatred and total irresponsibility. As said before, there are two main issues at play here:

1. Evil terrorists like ISIS and al Qaeda have a complete disregard for everyone. They kill innocent people deliberately and rule with an iron fist imposing barbaric laws on the people they control.

2. Responsibility: free speech is all well and grand but sometimes things are said that lead to the deaths of innocents. Unfortunately, the likes of ISIS and al Qaeda do exist and are only waiting for the opportunity and then some poor girl in the office doing admin work or some poor businessman visiting the paper's headquarters gets killed because of some journalists or cartoonists stupidity and of course the paper's decision to publish something.

I respect free speech but respect life and safety far more. Free speech has of late become a byword for the 'right' to offend, mock or make what are racist and sectarian remarks. A paper in Europe mocks Mohammed, a paper in the Middle East or North Africa mock the holocaust. Some inexperienced idiot says this and that and more and more hate is all we see. Through free speech, we see the demon of racism and superiority raise its ugly head once more.

Papers have become too strong, opinion (and often racist opinion) seems to predominate more than news, and all this has only fueled hatred and mistrust. If ISIS and al Qaeda want to portray the West as racist and sectarian, they get the propaganda.

If a paper attracts dangerous killers and puts its employees and indeed neighbours at risk, there is a duty of care. Free speech is a right but we should have responsible free speech and papers should show more maturity in how they report on things.

I think you are underestimating the importance of satire and criticism of religion.

We in Europe condemned the attacks but very few newspapers and magazines reprinted the images. Every newspaper who ran the stories should be reprinting the images to show that no religion is exempt from satire and criticism.

It would spread the responsibility and give a clear message that we in Europe will not be held to ransom on threat of violence.

alwald

stunmer wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the importance of satire and criticism of religion.

We in Europe condemned the attacks but very few newspapers and magazines reprinted the images. Every newspaper who ran the stories should be reprinting the images to show that no religion is exempt from satire and criticism.

It would spread the responsibility and give a clear message that we in Europe will not be held to ransom on threat of violence.

We in Europe aren't all like France, We in Europe aren't all engaged in the same satire work than CH, We in Ireland aren't even used to CH's Satire.......you should change the We to a handful of EU countries.

Bob24

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

While no one deserves to die and killing someone for what they said cannot ever be justified, papers (journalists and editors) owe a duty of care to employees and their neighbours. Al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorists are dangerous and unfortunately exist and are only looking for targets. A paper that publishes some cartoon or article that may (or may not) have a racist overtone but which they are well aware will cause offense leading to violence should think things through before they publish.

A few points here:
- While I have never been a regular reader of Charlie Hebbo, I have never seen a racist cartoon that was published in the magazine (quite the opposite, the deceased cartoonists were close the the French far left and very much anti-racism)
- They have being mocking Islam (especially extremist Islam) in the same way they have been mocking every other religion in the past 30 or 40 years. Do we as a society want to accept that it is OK to make fun or criticise Jews or Christians even in a slightly offensive way, but that it is not OK to do the same with Islam?
- Some genuine questions: Do you think a newspaper should refrain from publishing a cartoon picturing a member of the Mafia and denouncing their illegal activities, because the publisher has a duty of care to their employees and the cartoon could endanger them? Do you think it is acceptable to live in a society where criminals cannot be publicly denounced? Does a cartoon mocking religious extremists differ from a cartoon mocking criminals?

BuilderPlumber

stunmer wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the importance of satire and criticism of religion.

We in Europe condemned the attacks but very few newspapers and magazines reprinted the images. Every newspaper who ran the stories should be reprinting the images to show that no religion is exempt from satire and criticism.

It would spread the responsibility and give a clear message that we in Europe will not be held to ransom on threat of violence.

Another issue is that ALL religions should also go through reviews and periods of reform. Of course, we should never let terrorists bully our rights and we do need to understand satire for what it is. What I think has to be done is something like this:

For the media: certain rules and codes of conduct need to be applied. Racism, hatred and over-opinionated pieces should be edited but genuine satire, reporting news and so on.

For Islam: First off, 99.99% of Muslims are good people. But one cannot deny that a violent, intolerant form has emerged and forms the governments or a part of the government of at least 10 countries currently. One cannot deny that most of the current active most violent terrorist groups are self styled as 'Islamic'. So, there is a genuine problem. BUT how do we deal with the loud and powerful minority in Islam?

First off, regimes like the Wahabist Kingdom of Arabia, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria should never have been allowed to form. ALL were allowed because of some shortsighted viewpoint like they being against communism or against an existing 'enemy', etc. No one can doubt for a second that Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria would be better off without the organisations that have hijacked their governments from 1978 to date. ALL have impoverished the people, have shown incompetence and have drowned their people in blood and war. Also, such regimes are the official spokespeople for Islam. I have no doubt Mohammed would if alive today be the very first person to rise up against them and if he was to return would hate that it is done in his name.

Secondly, other voices of Islam should stand up to the above dictators and terror groups. There are even within above regimes decent people (especially in Iran) and such people high up in regimes like president Rouhani of Iran and former president Khatami of same should be given all the support they can to make change happen and reform things peacefully. An Islamic Republic based on decency and moderation which respects people's rights to dress, drink and eat while defending others from anti-social behaviour would be lovely to see and would then start a true Arab spring where instead of dictators hiding behind religion or hereditory monarchs, we have progressive societies.

Thirdly, we should shut down terrorist groups at the source and not allow then develop into even worse threats. ISIS has gone from being a minor dissident al Qaeda splinter group into the world's worst ever terrorist group literally overnight. Rivalries between the West and Russia should not use such groups to score points. Syria under Assad may serve Russian needs but also unknown to the West Western needs too. No one wants an ISIS state emerging that could contain all of Iraq, Syria and perhaps Jordan too emerge and cause havoc.

alwald

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Another issue is that ALL religions should also go through reviews and periods of reform. Of course, we should never let terrorists bully our rights and we do need to understand satire for what it is. What I think has to be done is something like this:

For the media: certain rules and codes of conduct need to be applied. Racism, hatred and over-opinionated pieces should be edited but genuine satire, reporting news and so on.

For Islam: First off, 99.99% of Muslims are good people. But one cannot deny that a violent, intolerant form has emerged and forms the governments or a part of the government of at least 10 countries currently. One cannot deny that most of the current active most violent terrorist groups are self styled as 'Islamic'. So, there is a genuine problem. BUT how do we deal with the loud and powerful minority in Islam?

First off, regimes like the Wahabist Kingdom of Arabia, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria should never have been allowed to form. ALL were allowed because of some shortsighted viewpoint like they being against communism or against an existing 'enemy', etc. No one can doubt for a second that Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria would be better off without the organisations that have hijacked their governments from 1978 to date. ALL have impoverished the people, have shown incompetence and have drowned their people in blood and war. Also, such regimes are the official spokespeople for Islam. I have no doubt Mohammed would if alive today be the very first person to rise up against them and if he was to return would hate that it is done in his name.

Secondly, other voices of Islam should stand up to the above dictators and terror groups. There are even within above regimes decent people (especially in Iran) and such people high up in regimes like president Rouhani of Iran and former president Khatami of same should be given all the support they can to make change happen and reform things peacefully. An Islamic Republic based on decency and moderation which respects people's rights to dress, drink and eat while defending others from anti-social behaviour would be lovely to see and would then start a true Arab spring where instead of dictators hiding behind religion or hereditory monarchs, we have progressive societies.

Thirdly, we should shut down terrorist groups at the source and not allow then develop into even worse threats. ISIS has gone from being a minor dissident al Qaeda splinter group into the world's worst ever terrorist group literally overnight. Rivalries between the West and Russia should not use such groups to score points. Syria under Assad may serve Russian needs but also unknown to the West Western needs too. No one wants an ISIS state emerging that could contain all of Iraq, Syria and perhaps Jordan too emerge and cause havoc.

Very good post indeed, you hit all the right points (not sure about Iran myself), add Libya to the list as the post Gaddafi is even worse than when he was ruling the country, Libya was left in a complete chaos and god knows what's happening in there.....what kind of a monster will eventually come out of that country is unthinkable?

BuilderPlumber

Bob24 wrote: »

A few points here:
- While I have never been a regular reader of Charlie Hebbo, I have never seen a racist cartoon that was published in the magazine (quite the opposite, the deceased cartoonists were close the the French far left and very much anti-racism)
- They have being mocking Islam (especially extremist Islam) in the same way they have been mocking every other religion in the past 30 or 40 years. Do we as a society want to accept that it is OK to make fun or criticise Jews or Christians even in a slightly offensive way, but that it is not OK to do the same with Islam?
- Some genuine questions: Do you think a newspaper should refrain from publishing a cartoon picturing a member of the Mafia and denouncing their illegal activities, because the publisher has a duty of care to their employees and the cartoon could endanger them? Do you think it is acceptable to live in a society where criminals cannot be publicly denounced? Does a cartoon mocking religious extremists differ from a cartoon mocking criminals?

I completely understand that Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were anti-racism and also hinted at the misuse of religion by dictators and terrorists. Of course, we need to stand up to criminals and we do not need criminals (so-called religious or otherwise) bully us. ISIS and al Qaeda should be dealt with very harshly.

Ironically, some of the biggest deliberate offenders of people are hardline so-called 'Islamists'. Making a mockery of the holocaust and cartoons about this awful event show these racist bigots as the successors to the Nazis they are. One can oppose Israel and its actions and all that legitimately but it is nasty to say something that did happen was a myth or to make fun of it. Papers it at least 10 Islamic countries, even in some moderate ones!, are making a joke about this dreadful event all the time.

stunmer

alwald wrote: »

We in Europe aren't all like France, We in Europe aren't all engaged in the same satire work than CH, We in Ireland aren't even used to CH's Satire.......you should change the We to a handful of EU countries.

Have you seen South Park or Family Guy or Father Ted?

Maybe you should watch this video?

Warning - people who are easily offended by criticism of religion may be ....... offended

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXfmjMlPEic

Remember this image? Titled "The Good Priest"
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tgCZhXdVtOo/Uh32JiVb0_I/AAAAAAAABLI/AZLh3CNH9pc/s400/THE+GOOD+PRIEST.jpeg

alwald

stunmer wrote: »

Have you seen South Park or Family Guy?

Maybe you should watch this video?

Warning - people who are easily offended by criticism of religion may be ....... offended

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXfmjMlPEic

Remember this image? Titled "The Good Priest"
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tgCZhXdVtOo/Uh32JiVb0_I/AAAAAAAABLI/AZLh3CNH9pc/s400/THE+GOOD+PRIEST.jpeg

South Park and Family guy are American and not EU.

There has been very few cartoons in Ireland and in most EU countries, we are not like France and this is a fact, we don't have a daily/weekly/Monthly or even an Annually newspaper/magazine about satire and this is what I want to mention......because since what happened in CH all I read is "we have freedom of speech" and "we have freedom of cartoons" but who is the "we" really?

Bob24

alwald wrote: »

South Park and Family guy are American and not EU.

And are a huge success on Irish television.

You also coneniently ignored (or quietly edited out in your quote) the Irish/European grown stuff listed in the original post.

alwald

Bob24 wrote: »

And are a huge success on Irish television.

I am not saying the opposite, nonetheless they are not Irish and as such they are ruled out, they don't depict religions in every single episode neither unlike CH, they cannot be compared at all.


edit:

Bob24 wrote: »

You also ignored (or quietly edited out) the more Irish aspect of the original post.

I am not following you here.....

Bob24

alwald wrote: »

I am not following you here.....

His sentence: "Have you seen South Park or Family Guy or Father Ted?"

Same sentence in your quote: "Have you seen South Park or Family Guy?"

And no mention of the video of the song either in your answer.

BuilderPlumber

alwald wrote: »

Very good post indeed, you hit all the right points (not sure about Iran myself), add Libya to the list as the post Gaddafi is even worse than when he was ruling the country, Libya was left in a complete chaos and god knows what's happening in there.....what kind of a monster will eventually come out of that country is unthinkable?

Post Gaddafi Libya is a total mess. Much worse than when he was ruling it. The nightmare scenario is 2 extremist states forming (one in the Iraq and Syria area and one in North/NorthWest/NorthEast Africa) And then they could form into one.

The northern part of Africa in general is so full of failed states. The likes of Libya, Mali, Niger, North Nigeria, Chad, Somalia and Sudan are all candidates for becoming part of an extremist superstate straddling North Africa.

Such a state then could cause seemingly more secure republics like Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria to fall and even Morocco, one of the more apolitical Islamic countries, could get sucked into things. A terrorist state in North Africa would be Europe's worst nightmare. Shipping, tourism and cities in proximity could all be easy targets and a flood of terrorists could be sent to Europe by the boatload.

Letree

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Post Gaddafi Libya is a total mess. Much worse than when he was ruling it. The nightmare scenario is 2 extremist states forming (one in the Iraq and Syria area and one in North/NorthWest/NorthEast Africa) And then they could form into one.

The northern part of Africa in general is so full of failed states. The likes of Libya, Mali, Niger, North Nigeria, Chad, Somalia and Sudan are all candidates for becoming part of an extremist superstate straddling North Africa.

Such a state then could cause seemingly more secure republics like Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria to fall and even Morocco, one of the more apolitical Islamic countries, could get sucked into things. A terrorist state in North Africa would be Europe's worst nightmare. Shipping, tourism and cities in proximity could all be easy targets and a flood of terrorists could be sent to Europe by the boatload.

Both George Bush's had such vision didn't they. Flourishing democracy.

alwald

Bob24 wrote: »

His sentence: "Have you seen South Park or Family Guy or Father Ted?"

Same sentence in your quote: "Have you seen South Park or Family Guy?"

And no mention of the video of the song either in your answer.

He posted at 21:58 and edited at 22:01 and I posted at 22:03 so I obviously quoted him wayyyyy before his edit, same goes to your post which was edited at least twice.

Father ted is great but it's mainly about the Christian religion, is it comparable to CH? the answer is no not at all.

alwald

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Post Gaddafi Libya is a total mess. Much worse than when he was ruling it. The nightmare scenario is 2 extremist states forming (one in the Iraq and Syria area and one in North/NorthWest/NorthEast Africa) And then they could form into one.

The northern part of Africa in general is so full of failed states. The likes of Libya, Mali, Niger, North Nigeria, Chad, Somalia and Sudan are all candidates for becoming part of an extremist superstate straddling North Africa.

Such a state then could cause seemingly more secure republics like Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria to fall and even Morocco, one of the more apolitical Islamic countries, could get sucked into things. A terrorist state in North Africa would be Europe's worst nightmare. Shipping, tourism and cities in proximity could all be easy targets and a flood of terrorists could be sent to Europe by the boatload.

What worries me the most is the poverty in those countries, lack of water, food and medicines...add to that the contrast and the difference in lifestyle between them and the EU....there are too many factors that can indeed lead to a complete chaos, why the allies that struck Libya to get rid of Gaddafi didn't have a plan for after, or at least help the army to regain control of the entire country?

KingBrian2

Despite this act of terrorism most incidents are caused by separatist movements or Anarchists posing as Revolutionaries. Now this is starting to change as less and less violent movements are being created. The big worry is what will be spawned out of Ukraine with all the paramilitaries acquiring anti aircraft weapons and tanks.

darkpagandeath

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Hugely so.

When Did people get the Right to be offended ?

Manic Moran

Letree wrote: »

Both George Bush's had such vision didn't they. Flourishing democracy.

Is there a problem with the concept? Obviously dictatorship didn't go over massively well for Libya, Chad, Sudan, etc, if it resulted in civil war which, as best I can determine, seemed to result without any particular involvement by the US. Or are you so determined to blame Bush that you will accuse them of evil with proof being a people fighting against their dictator?

There is one significant problem with regards those nations that you can blame the US for, and, frankly, almost every other 'democratic' country, and that's 'not caring enough.' You can't go around expecting a country to become economically and politically viable after decades of a single authoritarian rule without some significant help. Sometimes it happens, Tunisia seems to have done well enough, for example, but it can't be expected. Yet no 'democratic' country seems to have really cared a damn to put any particular effort into the matters, and those countries in turmoil were left to their own chaos. For that, you can blame everywhere from Pennsylvania Avenue to Kildare Street.

Egginacup

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Syria, Iran, Nigeria etc are a warning to us in Europe who are only so far experiencing pin prick attacks of what is store for us all unless we crush Islamic extremism totally and without mercy in Europe RIGHT NOW before we are also consumed by this cancer.

This is no time for naive pacifism as if these subhuman animals are capable of reason or being negotiated with.

They need to be wiped out.

Otherwise this tumor will grow and grow and grow and future generations will curse us just as we curse those who appeased Hitler when the reality of his evil was as plain as day.

:pac:

Cheers mate.

Egginacup

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well firstly, I'm not sure I've met anyone who bangs on about how much they love Saudi Arabia and how great a country it is - if anything it seems to be the elephant in the room that cannot be ignored and is at best nodded and smiled at.

Also just historically speaking, the Dark Ages of Europe weren't exactly that Dark, heck for Eastern Europe it was the zenith of the Byzantine Empire, agricultural innovations meant lands which were considered barren in Roman times could now be brought under cultivation whilst maritime navigation began to advance in leaps and bounds.

So indeed, then, you would agree that the Dark Ages were in essence nothing but a regressive period in parts of Europe that have absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

Egginacup

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

He sais 'When Islam is spoken of.'

As in, when somebody speaks about Islam.

So it was a typo when he wrote "When Islam is spoken"

Understood.

Letree

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there a problem with the concept?

Ah come on, it has been a monumental f**k up. They tried to bring democracy and all they managed was a situation where ISIS are romping through the place bring mayhem, brutality and destruction.

Of course the concept of democracy is good and it would be great of it could come to fruition. But these two numskulls have set the place back centuries.

Egginacup

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

To those who claim it is racism to despise Islamism i.e. political Islam and Islamic fundamentalism maybe you should read the interview with a former member of ISIS in today's Sunday Independent? Many of the most crazy Islamic fanatics the man describes are in fact Europeans who had no Muslim background who converted to Islam. These maniacs are the guys who are cutting off heads. Many of them French, German, Irish and so on. At least 40 Irish are believed to be in Syria and they operate alongside Chechens as the most brutal of the ISIS fanatics. The Chechens are not Arabs but are blue eyed and fair haired and pale skinned Caucasians just like us.
These Chechens have turned up Afghanistan and Iraq and Bosnia and Albania.

Would you ever give your arse a chance. You sound like Beavis and Butthead on meth.

shedweller

stunmer wrote: »

We in Europe condemned the attacks but very few newspapers and magazines reprinted the images. Every newspaper who ran the stories should be reprinting the images to show that no religion is exempt from satire and criticism.

No religion? Hmm..
http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fired-anti-semitic-cartoonist-ridiculing-judaism-2009/

Manic Moran

Letree wrote: »

Ah come on, it has been a monumental f**k up. They tried to bring democracy and all they managed was a situation where ISIS are romping through the place bring mayhem, brutality and destruction.

Of course the concept of democracy is good and it would be great of it could come to fruition. But these two numskulls have set the place back centuries.

Look at the post you quoted. North Africa. Libya, Chad, Sudan, Nigeria etc. Please explain to me how the actions of both Bushes in particular resulted in the situation which now prevails.

DeadHand

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

People do have the right to hate whatever they want to. The problem is that people are using freedom of speech to spout hateful, bigoted, racist crap and it's being used by fanatics as an excuse to kill. I can't feel any sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo 'victims', they made a living peddaling hate and it bit them in the ass

What a horrible statement to make.

Egginacup

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Turkey is or tries for the most part to be a secular democracy. They completely rejected islam as a significant part of their consitution although its slowly creeping back in. In other words the Turks recognised islam for the evil it is.

Iran or Saudia Arabia are better examples of where Islam is more influential in government. We see how they have turned out.

Are you saying that lo and behold Turkey was an atheist land until recently?

Are you really taking the piss?

So that being the case, why is Turkey a Muslim country where alcohol is freely available? Where any girl can lounge in the sun in a bikini? Turkey doesn't TRY to do anything regarding religion whether it be Islam or any other faith.
Turkey did NOT reject Islam as part of their constitution. So stop telling lies. If there is one thing I abhor more that an ignorant man it's a liar.