Discussion in 'World Events' started by GeoffP, Jan 7, 2015.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Now fucktards are going to believe they are martyrs. Should have maimed them severely instead and left them to live a life full of pain for what they did. Alas, cannot be choosy.
No one in their right mind is going to see them as martyrs. I rather have those mofo's wiped off the face of the Earth than to have them live on and eventually get free.
What is regrettable is that, reportedly, four hostages died in that supermarket.
Reuters is saying that at least four of the hostages at the Paris kosher market are dead.
I hope that family made it out safely...
Racism isn't quite accurate to describe it, but I think that the humour is of the type that would appeal to racists in particular.
This reporter had a good term for it. "Racially charged."
They are stereotypes not of a particular race, but instead of some shady looking Pakistani/Arab /Egyptian chimaera.
After all they are "all the same anyway", so that doesn't matter.
I would say that CH have overstepped the mark in some of their cartoons.
Some of the stuff they have been printing has been grossly offensive and obscene,
and way outstrips the original Netherland cartoons that started it off.
That was gentle, and sophisicated by comparison.
See here, for some of the CH rollicking humour:
Reportedly, there is now a new hostage situation. Two hostages in a jewellery shop...
Charlie Hebdo did sometimes overstep the bounds of taste and fairness, I expect. They insulted religion.
Some people will point to the cartoonists as being responsible in some part - really? Is that really the point these people want to make? The problem with these people - Infinite Protection Advocates, one might call them - is where the penultimate line should be drawn, so that the easily-riled portion of our societies don't feel the need to go off and murder people, many of which even had no connection whatsoever to any such cartoons. To paraphrase 'Charb': first Mohammed can't be drawn. Then what? The human form? Then no women without head coverings. Then be of the right religion. Then be sufficiently puritanical about that right religion. And so on, and so on, infinitely: Orwell could do no better.
I could add more but the tone of the discussion is growing nauseating already. Bathroom time. Perhaps I shall see comments of equal value as I look below there, as well.
IMO absolutely correct, every one is a loser in this situation. Including the Jihad-ist.
This is a little harder to address.
With Christianity it is never recommended by it's central figure that destruction of "fathers" ( Gods) creation is acceptable. Yet when a father has his only son flogged close to death and strung up on a cross and left to die the message is significantly contradicted and confused for those who seek clarity of the non-violent stance of New Testament. It appears acceptable that violence and violent sacrifice can be a significant part of worship. However to commit an act of destruction of God's creation (man) requires a person to interpret the New Testament in a seriously distorted way. In other words a real effort is needed to use the new testament to justify that destruction.
Example: imagine a traditional and devout Buddhist making use of WMD and justifying it according to his Buddhist beliefs? Absurd... yes?
or "this man will be executed because Jesus says so" again absurd....
With Islam it's fundamental tenants, often used by extremist elements to justify their behavior enshrines many things the Free world finds abhorrent. It takes extraordinary effort to interpret the dogma in a way that leads to peaceful co-existence with other faiths.
To reform the religion of Islam would require the removal and replacement of it's core tenants and so the religion per see would cease to be identifiably Islam.
Which is why I suggested (the impossible?) that a new form of Islam that clearly places the traditional dogma in a more metaphorical, internalized search of self form, may have a chance of surviving into the future. For it appears that Islam as it stands is on a path of self destruction and as any good suicide bomber knows it is the collateral damage that counts.
And the world needs to fully realize that every violent jihadist is an archetypal "suicide bomber" looking for the most productive way to die
reminds me of: "The more insecure one is about their beliefs the more defensive one can become"
where in certain circumstances when the belief is all you have (brain washing 101) and can see no alternative way, defending the indefensible is all you have left.. Hyper sensitivity, low self esteem blah blah blah...
God needs to make more heavenly virgins for all these martyrs.
But not in the case of violence committed in the name of the Christian ethos. Self-sacrifice, yes. "Slay the infidel wherever you find them", not so much. There will certainly be violence committed in the name of Christianity, but the liturgical support for such violence is much harder to dredge up.
Right, I'm out for as long as I can stand for it to be so. Hockey tomorrow; keep the crazy to a minimum and
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Huh? The people who (allegedly) killed Jesus (whose existence as a real person has by no means been firmly established) were not Christians who had been raised on the New Testament. They were not even Jews, raised on the Old Testament. They were (in Christian terminology), "heathens" or "pagans."
This is exactly the kind of behavior that Jesus spoke out against. Unfortunately and ironically, eventually the various Christian communities began making war on each other because of differing interpretations of his teachings.
It's important to realize that the Buddhist communities were not always the pacifists that their modern stereotype proclaims.
The Muslims have been warring among themselves since shortly after Mohammed's body was laid to rest.
The only Abrahamic religious communities whose members have not used their religion as justification for war are the Baha'i and the Rastafarians. Baha'i is less than 200 years old and Rasta less than 100, so we should probably give them a few centuries to see if they follow in the footsteps of the older Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
I'm not demanding that Muslims protest for freedom of speech in the streets, but I think it's imperative that Muslim leaders universally stand up and openly proclaim that all human beings have the right to criticize any aspect of any religion, including Islam, and that by extension they have the fundamental right to publish cartoons such as the following, regardless of who it may or may not personally offend:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!They must openly affirm both to their own followers and to the public at large that no religion grants special rights to its followers under civil law, and that violence is an unacceptable response to criticism and mockery regardless of the place or circumstances. Refusal and failure to do so should result in immediate mosque and school closures, criminal charges for endorsing hate crimes and abuse of minors (i.e. violent brainwashing), and deportations.
some how i think you'd flip your shit if we held christians and jews to that same standard. should we close churches because priests call for the killing of doctors doing abortions. should we close down the atlanta synogouge whose rabbi called for obama's assassination. because quite frankly this post just reeks in bigotry. major imans in france condemned it. hell both hamas and the plo both condemned it. so muslims are condemning it doing exactly what you want. funny how its never enough for you all. all muslims get held responsible for the vioelnce of muslims yet you fail to hold any other faith to anywhere near the same strigient standards. even when they call for violence with far less provocation and reason not that their is ever an excuse to take a life.
No, I'd be delighted.
Yes and yes. I don't believe separation of church and state should shield any religious institution from criticism or from the expectation to uphold secular democratic values and one's right to examine their own facts and come to their own independent conclusions on religious matters.
Critisism of a religion or culture in defense of the fundamental right to do so is not bigotry.
I want all Muslim leaders to affirm the right of every human being to criticize any religious belief or culture, including their own, and to unconditionally condemn any form of violence or harassment intended to stifle such criticism, whether employed by the individual or by the state. Those who refuse to do so must not be permitted to educate others in their views, especially children, and rejectionists who came as immigrants are in violation of their citizenship oaths and should therefore be deported or imprisoned.
Find me a comparable incident involving Jews or Christians attacking free speech in the west and my reaction will be exactly the same.
yet my position still stands.
Please note I am using what I believe would be the Christian perspective, as a pseudo-Pantheist , homicide is also not justifiable IMO. However I can take my Pantheist hat off any time I like, but I could not use Pantheism as a justification for homicide.
but my point was that it takes a great deal of interpretive distortion to justify homicide stating that Jesus said so or that the Buddha said so.
However, I proposed, that i believe, (possibly incorrectly) that in Islam it takes a great deal of interpretive distortion to avoid the literal call to the destruction of the infidel by it's central human figure.
Do you see the distinction I am attempting to make?
hmmm... interesting... however any one can justify homicide using any religion, just that some have to do it with greater interpretive distortion than others. [interpreting the literal texts etc]
Which they can not do as to do so immediately crystalises the conflict of conscience that most moderate and contemporary Muslims must be experiencing today. Hence my suggestion of a new form of Islam being the only solution. A form that IS compatible with ideals put forward by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That's how I feel about it. Play it like Napoleon and basically dictate a new religion for them which respects fundamental human rights, whether by altering a few phrases in the Quran or else by other means entirely. If their religious leaders can justify to themselves and their people that the new religion is entirely compatible and consistent with the old one, great; if not, they're free to go teach the old ways on Venus.
Separate names with a comma.