Scary video too, the poor cop....
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/terrorists-on-run-after-twelve-people-killed-as-gunmen-open-fire-in-satirical-newspaper-charlie-hebdo-hq-in-paris-30889144.html (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/terrorists-on-run-after-twelve-people-killed-as-gunmen-open-fire-in-satirical-newspaper-charlie-hebdo-hq-in-paris-30889144.html)
Lowlife scum.
Shocking stuff. I fully expect to be educated any time now on how it's the West's fault.
They're still on the loose..
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 07, 2015, 03:17:26 PM
Scary video too, the poor cop....
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/terrorists-on-run-after-twelve-people-killed-as-gunmen-open-fire-in-satirical-newspaper-charlie-hebdo-hq-in-paris-30889144.html (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/terrorists-on-run-after-twelve-people-killed-as-gunmen-open-fire-in-satirical-newspaper-charlie-hebdo-hq-in-paris-30889144.html)
Im not sure what that video shows but I saw a horrendously graphic version in error earlier that has shook me to my core... I wasn't looking for it, just following the unfolding happenings on social media and interweb and clicked into it.
A side issue to whats going on today I know but it must make security forces jobs way more difficult, we can view whats happening almost in real time.
Sad day!
The video shows one of the attackers walking up to the wounded cop, then the video is censored but you can hear the kill shot. It's gruesome.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 07, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
The video shows one of the attackers walking up to the wounded cop, then the video is censored but you can hear the kill shot. It's gruesome.
to the core. :-(
Crazy stuff and all over some cartoon published?
Sounds like this magazine goes after Islam and other religions and authority figures fairly regularly. It was firebombed over a previous cartoon, and the editor was under police protection.
the one I saw wasn't censored at all, I've not done a bit of good this day since it :-[
I'm not a ghoul and wouldn't be seeking out shite like this, I was just following the breaking story. I'd say it was online less than an hour after the event...
Might be linked to returned ISIS jihadists. Terrible to attack a magazine and kill police.
ISIS sell Yazidi women as slaves . They are no representatives of decent Muslims.
Quote from: Puckoon on January 07, 2015, 04:05:06 PM
Shocking stuff. I fully expect to be educated any time now on how it's the West's fault.
It's not my Little pony in Iraq, Puckoon
Looks like ISIS and they emerged from Iraq
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/sep/25/iraq-outlaw-state/
"Even by the standards of Iraq's turbulent history, its past few decades have been unusually relentless. Just since 1980 Iraqis have experienced three major wars that wrecked the country's physical infrastructure and left perhaps half a million dead; an attempt at genocide that permanently alienated Iraq's five million Kurds; a ten-year siege under the UN's "Oil-for-Food" program that devastated the economy, ruined the middle class, and forced the most talented into exile; an American invasion that shattered national pride and stoked bitter divisions; and a civil war that displaced as many as 4.7 million Iraqis from their homes and has driven a deep, perhaps irreparable chasm of mistrust between Iraq's 60 percent Shia Arab majority and the once-dominant 20 percent Sunni Arab minority. Excepting perhaps the Russians from 1914 to 1953, few modern nations have been so cursed by ill luck for such an extended period."
throw in the Saudis for funding and it's a mess.
Quote from: seafoid on January 07, 2015, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on January 07, 2015, 04:05:06 PM
Shocking stuff. I fully expect to be educated any time now on how it's the West's fault.
It's not my Little pony in Iraq, Puckoon
Looks like ISIS and they emerged from Iraq
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/sep/25/iraq-outlaw-state/
"Even by the standards of Iraq's turbulent history, its past few decades have been unusually relentless. Just since 1980 Iraqis have experienced three major wars that wrecked the country's physical infrastructure and left perhaps half a million dead; an attempt at genocide that permanently alienated Iraq's five million Kurds; a ten-year siege under the UN's "Oil-for-Food" program that devastated the economy, ruined the middle class, and forced the most talented into exile; an American invasion that shattered national pride and stoked bitter divisions; and a civil war that displaced as many as 4.7 million Iraqis from their homes and has driven a deep, perhaps irreparable chasm of mistrust between Iraq's 60 percent Shia Arab majority and the once-dominant 20 percent Sunni Arab minority. Excepting perhaps the Russians from 1914 to 1953, few modern nations have been so cursed by ill luck for such an extended period."
throw in the Saudis for funding and it's a mess.
And in spite of all that 'bad luck' they target cartoonists. It s religious fanaticism plain and simple.
I blame Israel. I'm going to post a big article now to prove it too.
This is quite good
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html
François Hollande, France's president, rightly called it "an act of exceptional barbarity . . . against freedom of expression". But the murder on Wednesday of 12 people at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine, will not surprise anyone familiar with the rising tensions among France's 5m or more Muslim citizens and the poisonous legacy of French colonialism in north Africa.
For now, the perpetrators are unidentified. We need to keep in mind that the worst terrorist outrage in Europe of recent years, the murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011, was committed not by Islamist militants but by a far-right fanatic, Anders Behring Breivik.
Like other politically motivated attacks, from 9/11 to the killing last May of four people at the Jewish museum in Brussels, the atrocity at Charlie Hebdo was despicable and indefensible. Among the first to condemn it was the French Council of the Muslim Faith, which termed it "a barbaric act against democracy and freedom of the press".
Charlie Hebdo is a bastion of the French tradition of hard-hitting satire. It has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling Muslims. Two years ago the magazine published a 65-page strip cartoon book portraying the Prophet's life. And this week it gave special coverage to Soumission ("Submission"), a new novel by Michel Houellebecq, the idiosyncratic author, which depicts France in the grip of an Islamic regime led by a Muslim president.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.
Emotions are understandably high in France, where the next question is what impact Wednesday's murders will have on the political climate, and in particular the fortunes of Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front. Anti-Islamism is part of the electoral attraction of a party that topped the polls in May in France's European Parliament elections.
The bloody assault on the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, can only provoke the most profound revulsion. This was a dreadful terrorist atrocity that has claimed the lives of at least 12 innocent people. Our first response must be to mourn the victims, four of whom were the magazine's well-known cartoonists and two of them police officers. But this was more than a human tragedy. It was a calculated act of intimidation, an attack on the freedom of expression that is the pillar of any democratic society. It was designed to seed an insidious form of self-censorship. It must be roundly and defiantly condemned.
Ms Le Pen has taken care to distance her party from the anti-Semitism that stained it and limited its appeal under her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. But she has left anti-Islamism in place and even reinforced it.
In 2010 Ms Le Pen compared Muslims praying in the streets to the 1940-44 Nazi occupation of France. Less than 18 months later she collected 17.9 per cent of the vote in France's presidential election. She has a good chance of increasing her share of the vote enough to win the first round — though not the second, decisive round — of the 2017 election.
Anti-Islamism and a hard line on immigration will shore up Ms Le Pen's core vote, but they will not unlock the doors of the Elysée Palace. Surveys show that a majority of French people rejects racism and dislikes extremism.
The English author Andrew Hussey, who lives in Paris, published a book last year called The French Intifada, in which he described France as "the world capital of liberty, equality and fraternity . . . under attack from the angry and dispossessed heirs to the French colonial project".
The murders in Paris throw down a challenge to French politicians and citizens to stand up for the republic's core values and defeat political violence without succumbing to the siren songs of the far right.
I see the Jihadi apologist is up to his usual deflect, spin, blame-the-west routine even before the blood has dried.
There can be no excusing this atrocity. Nobody is buying your bullshit anymore Seafoid.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 07, 2015, 07:58:46 PM
I see the Jihadi apologist is up to his usual deflect, spin, blame-the-west routine even before the blood has dried.
There can be no excusing this atrocity. Nobody is buying your bullshit anymore Seafoid.
Alright there, Goebbels. I don't think that's what he did in the slightest.
There is already a backlash to that financial times article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/financial-times-charlie-hebdo-stupid-muslim-baiting_n_6430242.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/financial-times-charlie-hebdo-stupid-muslim-baiting_n_6430242.html)
Apparently he has already edited the online article. Originally called the journalists stupid for "provoking" Muslims
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wUsmCIUAA1QxO.png:large
more reaction here...
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3O9fN9QVY (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3O9fN9QVY)
I encourage everybody to not take articles posted by Seafoid at face value. Don't assume that just because it is from the financial times that there isn't an underlying ideological bias.
Quote from: gallsman on January 07, 2015, 08:19:23 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 07, 2015, 07:58:46 PM
I see the Jihadi apologist is up to his usual deflect, spin, blame-the-west routine even before the blood has dried.
There can be no excusing this atrocity. Nobody is buying your bullshit anymore Seafoid.
Alright there, Goebbels. I don't think that's what he did in the slightest.
I suppose you will try and steer this thread off on a "tangent" like you did on the Taliban massacre thread ::)
Stew was right about you.
So a magazine pokes fun at the prophet Muhammad, and this results in the murder of 12 people.
What is it about Islam that lends itself to so much fundamentalism? If someone was to draw a satirical cartoon of Jesus, would it provoke the murder of 12 people? I don't think it would.
Quote from: balladmaker on January 07, 2015, 09:01:17 PM
So a magazine pokes fun at the prophet Muhammad, and this results in the murder of 12 people.
What is it about Islam that lends itself to so much fundamentalism? If someone was to draw a satirical cartoon of Jesus, would it provoke the murder of 12 people? I don't think it would.
that's the point the west has effectively parodied religion( at least the western version with jesus etc) any bible thumper is a nut so far as we are concerned, they cant cope with the fact that these guys eat sleep and breathe their faith
what annoys me is that the fundamentalists/apologists in the west who incite these tragedies don't seem to want to leave their lovely western lives for the true life in the newly established caliphate .
This guy might have something to do with the attack.
http://20committee.com/2014/10/27/the-mysterious-case-of-david-drugeon/
I am a Catholic and havent gone to church as much as I should like, but I see religion as a massive stumbling part in bringing the world together in harmony. Balladmaker makes an excellent point in why do these people see the mocking of the prophet a cause to kill? But as history shows, religion has caused the most deaths throughout the years than any political/historical feud. The people who mock these prophets by writing/drawing Muhammad in a satirical manner, fan the flames.
Lowlife scumbags is right.
The clowns here using this massacre to score points about over posters on other issues are pretty twisted people as well.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 07, 2015, 09:47:53 PM
The people who mock these prophets by writing/drawing Muhammad in a satirical manner, fan the flames.
I beg to differ, the people who say it is ok to kill someone for depicting the prophet are those that fan the flames.
It should come as no shock to hear that there is a difference of opinion within Islam on this. Much like Christianity and Judaism idolatry is decried in Islam, but there is significant disagreement over depiction of the prophet.
Darwin awards would be so much simpler if religious extremists only killed other religious extremists..
Quote from: muppet on January 07, 2015, 10:13:47 PM
Lowlife scumbags is right.
The clowns here using this massacre to score points about over posters on other issues are pretty twisted people as well.
+1
f**king brave men taking on cartoonists, only armed with pencils. Real f**king heroes. Cowards like this represent nothing except their own ineptness as human beings. Lots of horrendous things have been done by deranged people all over the world and they have claimed that it was in the name of (virtually every) religion so lets not pretend it's Islam that this is exclusive to. f**king crazy, f**king depressing to know I share the earth with people like this.
Quote from: heganboy on January 07, 2015, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on January 07, 2015, 09:47:53 PM
The people who mock these prophets by writing/drawing Muhammad in a satirical manner, fan the flames.
I beg to differ, the people who say it is ok to kill someone for depicting the prophet are those that fan the flames.
It should come as no shock to hear that there is a difference of opinion within Islam on this. Much like Christianity and Judaism idolatry is decried in Islam, but there is significant disagreement over depiction of the prophet.
Darwin awards would be so much simpler if religious extremists only killed other religious extremists..
Why is it that this almost never happens? No matter which side you look at they kill mainly innocent people.
There was an article before Christmas saying that small ISIS were planning attacks on soft targets around the world including budget airlines and BA. A coffee shop in Sydney, an office in Paris... there is no way of protecting everywhere at all times. With loads of ISIS sympathisers in England you have to expect further attacks there.
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
It is a pity certain clowns are so weak in their criticisms before these atrocities and yet so strong in their condemnation once the act is perpetrated. It simply does not ring true.
Quote from: Minder on January 07, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
I assume the two police officers who were killed were armed.
Terrible stuff
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 07, 2015, 08:27:26 PM
There is already a backlash to that financial times article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/financial-times-charlie-hebdo-stupid-muslim-baiting_n_6430242.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/financial-times-charlie-hebdo-stupid-muslim-baiting_n_6430242.html)
Apparently he has already edited the online article. Originally called the journalists stupid for "provoking" Muslims
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wUsmCIUAA1QxO.png:large
more reaction here...
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3O9fN9QVY (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3O9fN9QVY)
I encourage everybody to not take articles posted by Seafoid at face value. Don't assume that just because it is from the financial times that there isn't an underlying ideological bias.
By the same token - according to that ft article , we Irish would be now justified for conducting attacks on England because of our colonisation !!
( not the same as the occupation of the six counties by the way)
That's horseshit.
If anyone like us begrudging fcukers can get over it...
As for provocation - that's balls too
The attempt to force people to adhere to islams ( or any ethnic/religious/cultural) dictat is just plain wrong - esp if it's in a diff fecking country!
I know I'd think that some of these cartoons and commentary cross the boundary of bad manners - but not so bad that any punishment except boycott is possibly acceptse - but not fecking death
This however will encourage more yanks to 'pack heat' - maybe French, English too
It will empower the French giv and right wings to enforce the dilution of rights for religious sects esp Muslims in France !
Eg - that right to wear the burka - if it comes up again anytime soon - will be shredded
Pity the decent Muslims around the place in the west. They will get dogs abuse now
Quote from: Minder on January 07, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
Did the two police officers not have guns?
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 07, 2015, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on January 07, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
Did the two police officers not have guns?
The policeman shot dead was just in the area because he d been there on other business. It depends what type of policeman he was. Some local municipal police do not carry firearms. That video would suggest he did not. He was still functional enough to use a weapon before he took the killer shot. But a sidearm is not much use anyway against lads with AK47s that know what they are doing. Unfortunately Trump may have a point. Especially if you are drawing cartoons of some prophet that a lot of people take seriously.
This is no surprise. These guys were dead men walking.
The Hawks in US loving this. Al Q, Janjaweed, Isis, Taliban, Boko Haram Hamas all seem to be behind this.
The reality could be a few lads operating alone as part of a much bigger picture of course.
Looks like they have 2 alive. Maybe we ll learn something.
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 07, 2015, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on January 07, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
Did the two police officers not have guns?
The policeman shot dead was just in the area because he d been there on other business. It depends what type of policeman he was. Some local municipal police do not carry firearms. That video would suggest he did not. He was still functional enough to use a weapon before he took the killer shot. But a sidearm is not much use anyway against lads with AK47s that know what they are doing. Unfortunately Trump may have a point. Especially if you are drawing cartoons of some prophet that a lot of people take seriously.
This is no surprise. These guys were dead men walking.
The Hawks in US loving this. Al Q, Janjaweed, Isis, Taliban, Boko Haram Hamas all seem to be behind this.
The reality could be a few lads operating alone as part of a much bigger picture of course.
Looks like they have 2 alive. Maybe we ll learn something.
The Yanks and their guns. A 2 year old shot dead his mother last week.
ISIS and the hawks are on the same side. War is the only acceptable deficit spending.
Quote from: seafoid on January 07, 2015, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on January 07, 2015, 04:05:06 PM
Shocking stuff. I fully expect to be educated any time now on how it's the West's fault.
It's not my Little pony in Iraq, Puckoon
Looks like ISIS and they emerged from Iraq
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/sep/25/iraq-outlaw-state/
"Even by the standards of Iraq's turbulent history, its past few decades have been unusually relentless. Just since 1980 Iraqis have experienced three major wars that wrecked the country's physical infrastructure and left perhaps half a million dead; an attempt at genocide that permanently alienated Iraq's five million Kurds; a ten-year siege under the UN's "Oil-for-Food" program that devastated the economy, ruined the middle class, and forced the most talented into exile; an American invasion that shattered national pride and stoked bitter divisions; and a civil war that displaced as many as 4.7 million Iraqis from their homes and has driven a deep, perhaps irreparable chasm of mistrust between Iraq's 60 percent Shia Arab majority and the once-dominant 20 percent Sunni Arab minority. Excepting perhaps the Russians from 1914 to 1953, few modern nations have been so cursed by ill luck for such an extended period."
throw in the Saudis for funding and it's a mess.
Dunno what point yer trying to make but heres a few
Congo
Somalia
Haiti
Afghanistan
Cambodia
Uganda
Quote from: theticklemister on January 07, 2015, 09:47:53 PM
I am a Catholic and havent gone to church as much as I should like, but I see religion as a massive stumbling part in bringing the world together in harmony. Balladmaker makes an excellent point in why do these people see the mocking of the prophet a cause to kill? But as history shows, religion has caused the most deaths throughout the years than any political/historical feud. The people who mock these prophets by writing/drawing Muhammad in a satirical manner, fan the flames.
Hmmm well I've been to mass quite a bit lately and the message that I get seems to involve the following, mercy, humility, repentance, courage, love, patience, tolerance, hope. All virtues that are essential for individuals to be happy and for mankind to live together and for society to grow harmoniously. All the world's religions teach pretty much the same thing.
"Religion causes wars" is an oft quoted phrase but tribalism ( in the form nationalism, race, ethnicity) causes far more wars that religion. Religion is often a way of identify with another tribe but if people were true to the teachings of their religion they would let it the differences pass.
NI is a good example, religion is not the cause of the problems in NI it is only a way of identifying people from the other tribe, the religions do not promote hatred of the other side, that's caused by fear and intolerance something religions try to eradicate.
We could go back to what it was like before there was any religion, times where so much better then....
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 07, 2015, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on January 07, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
Did the two police officers not have guns?
The policeman shot dead was just in the area because he d been there on other business. It depends what type of policeman he was. Some local municipal police do not carry firearms. That video would suggest he did not. He was still functional enough to use a weapon before he took the killer shot. But a sidearm is not much use anyway against lads with AK47s that know what they are doing. Unfortunately Trump may have a point. Especially if you are drawing cartoons of some prophet that a lot of people take seriously.
This is no surprise. These guys were dead men walking.
The Hawks in US loving this. Al Q, Janjaweed, Isis, Taliban, Boko Haram Hamas all seem to be behind this.
The reality could be a few lads operating alone as part of a much bigger picture of course.
Looks like they have 2 alive. Maybe we ll learn something.
Trump has no point whatsoever. The fact anyone would consider every employee being armed in the workplace a solution to acts of violence is terrifying.
The big question is how to sideline ISIS. There has to be a regional solution and it has to be political, not just military.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08669916-4412-11e4-baa7-00144feabdc0.html
"The Isis threat is greater than al-Qaeda, which spawned it. This breed of jihadis has set no limits to its violence, with calculated atrocities intended as a deliberate affront to everyone in its way. Isis is gorging on revanchist despair, mainly of Syria's Sunni majority, which has seen its rebellion drowned in blood by Bashar al-Assad's regime as the west stood by, and Iraq's Sunni minority, dispossessed by the US-led invasion of 2003, which brought sectarian leaders from the Shia majority to power.
Supporters of Isis are Sunni supremacists, exploiting the region-wide conflict between Sunni and Shia to accelerate the spiral of violence, and spread it into fragile neighbouring states such as Lebanon and Jordan, even Turkey and Saudi Arabia. A statement by the group this week gloated at the prospect of drawing the US and its allies into its lair.
Isis, moreover, is the first modern jihadi group successfully to spearhead a mass movement. Beyond the grievances of Sunni in Iraq and Syria, Isis is trying to spark underclass animosity among – and give identity to – the high proportion of Arabs who have been excluded by closed and corrupt systems. The heart of its narrative is that the Arab world is a collection of failed and rotting states.
As well as robust military action, therefore, any chance of success against Isis needs to find political formulas to short-circuit the hard-wiring of sectarianism and offer at least a glimmer of hope to dispel despair.
Militarily, air and missile strikes can at most hope to contain Isis, which is regrouping in its strongholds in eastern Syria and western Iraq. Dislodging these ranks will require local Sunni fighters on the ground, persuaded there is a real alternative to the jihadi juggernaut.
In the countries riven by ethno-sectarian faultlines, the need is for credible federal institutions resting on assured devolved power. Only institutionalised local power can create proxies for the sectarian and tribal laagers into which these societies have retreated. Equitable sharing of resources such as oil and gas might then have a chance of gluing central and devolved government together.
Detente between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran (whose foreign ministers met this week) is essential to start drawing the lethal sting of sectarianism. The Saudis and their allies need to look hard at the Wahhabi bigotry the kingdom still spews out, identical to the Isis message in essentials such as doctrinal anathemas against the Shia."
Saudi is a huge part of the problem.
Another shooting this morning in a metro station. Appears to be less clinical, but the shooter hada jacket and an automatic rifle again, so it's a bit of a coincidence if it's not related.
Going to work won't be easy for them police etc etc.
Did a German newspaper print on the front page and back page cartoons in defiance of those who killed the cartoonists yesterday ?
They've spotted these guys at a petrol station north of Paris. Lets hope they don't shoot more people before the Gendarmes get hold of them.
Which guys? Yesterdays suspects, or todays? Or are they the same guys?
Quote from: gallsman on January 08, 2015, 09:02:21 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 12:27:55 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 07, 2015, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on January 07, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
"@realDonaldTrump: If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance."
The problem according to Donald Trump is the magazine staff weren't packing heat
Did the two police officers not have guns?
The policeman shot dead was just in the area because he d been there on other business. It depends what type of policeman he was. Some local municipal police do not carry firearms. That video would suggest he did not. He was still functional enough to use a weapon before he took the killer shot. But a sidearm is not much use anyway against lads with AK47s that know what they are doing. Unfortunately Trump may have a point. Especially if you are drawing cartoons of some prophet that a lot of people take seriously.
This is no surprise. These guys were dead men walking.
The Hawks in US loving this. Al Q, Janjaweed, Isis, Taliban, Boko Haram Hamas all seem to be behind this.
The reality could be a few lads operating alone as part of a much bigger picture of course.
Looks like they have 2 alive. Maybe we ll learn something.
Trump has no point whatsoever. The fact anyone would consider every employee being armed in the workplace a solution to acts of violence is terrifying.
Trump is nothing but a shameless (and shameful) self-promoting clown. The man is a joke. For someone so apparently successful, his pronouncements on political issues are completely devoid of Iogic and intellect.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 11:06:52 AM
Which guys? Yesterdays suspects, or todays? Or are they the same guys?
The two brothers from the Charlie Hebdo shooting yesterday. The guy today was black, so not the same.
These guys did not conceal themselves, it seems.
In the video they look like they are wearing ski masks or something?
Teaching the wains (7/8) today about Religious Symbols and respect for other religions. We were doing Islam and said their founder was Muhammad, and the wee lad said
'Is his second name Sasako?'
I put him out the door and took him in ten minutes later.
Innocent of youth.
No innocent of youth however with newspapers' constant satirical views on Islam.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 08, 2015, 03:58:10 PM
Teaching the wains (7/8) today about Religious Symbols and respect for other religions. We were doing Islam and said their founder was Muhammad, and the wee lad said
'Is his second name Sasako?'
I put him out the door and took him in ten minutes later.
Innocent of youth.
No innocent of youth however with newspapers' constant satirical views on Islam.
No dogs or Irish is now no dogs or Muslims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgaIAzWW2zc
That song always reminds me of Frank McGuigan
Quote from: theticklemister on January 08, 2015, 03:58:10 PM
Teaching the wains (7/8) today about Religious Symbols and respect for other religions. We were doing Islam and said their founder was Muhammad, and the wee lad said
'Is his second name Sasako?'
I put him out the door and took him in ten minutes later.
Innocent of youth.
No innocent of youth however with newspapers' constant satirical views on Islam.
You put a 7 year old out the room for that?? FFS get a grip of yourself ;D
Conveniently more reason for the Nazis now to go and slaughter more in the Middle East. I guarantee this did not happen how it's reported.
What didn't happen as reported? the video looks pretty conclusive.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 04:46:55 PM
What didn't happen as reported? the video looks pretty conclusive.
Unless you witnessed it with your own eyes, I would take it all with a pinch of salt. These things usually happen at convenient times. Look at the bigger picture.
Ah. A conspiracy theorist. Sometimes it's just as bad as it seems. Sure how do we know anything if we don't see it with our own eyes? Do you trust nothing unless you personally have seen it?
Quote from: BennyCake on January 08, 2015, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 04:46:55 PM
What didn't happen as reported? the video looks pretty conclusive.
Unless you witnessed it with your own eyes, I would take it all with a pinch of salt. These things usually happen at convenient times. Look at the bigger picture.
Ah FFS, catch yourself on. The easiest thing in the world is throw out a wild conspiracy theory. Try and act like a grown man please.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 11:23:31 AM
In the video they look like they are wearing ski masks or something?
But one of them left his ID card in the getaway car!
Look what the Brits did up here, with collusion, propaganda and the likes. Yet of all places, folks in this part of the world still buy everything that they're told.
So Benny who do you think did this foul deed?
French special forces? SAS? CIA? French right wing racists? GPA? Joe Brolly? :o
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2015, 05:31:30 PM
So Benny who do you think did this foul deed?
French special forces? SAS? CIA? French right wing racists? GPA? Joe Brolly? :o
Aye, it was them GPA backstards! I don't know, but I guarantee it didn't happen like it was reported.
Quote from: BennyCake on January 08, 2015, 05:35:43 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2015, 05:31:30 PM
So Benny who do you think did this foul deed?
French special forces? SAS? CIA? French right wing racists? GPA? Joe Brolly? :o
Aye, it was them GPA backstards! I don't know, but I guarantee it didn't happen like it was reported.
:o
Quote from: Bingo on January 08, 2015, 05:40:48 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 08, 2015, 05:35:43 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2015, 05:31:30 PM
So Benny who do you think did this foul deed?
French special forces? SAS? CIA? French right wing racists? GPA? Joe Brolly? :o
Aye, it was them GPA backstards! I don't know, but I guarantee it didn't happen like it was reported.
:o
I was joking about the GPA, Bingo ;)
Quote from: BennyCake on January 08, 2015, 05:46:55 PM
Quote from: Bingo on January 08, 2015, 05:40:48 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 08, 2015, 05:35:43 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2015, 05:31:30 PM
So Benny who do you think did this foul deed?
French special forces? SAS? CIA? French right wing racists? GPA? Joe Brolly? :o
Aye, it was them GPA backstards! I don't know, but I guarantee it didn't happen like it was reported.
:o
I was joking about the GPA, Bingo ;)
The :o wasn't about that bit ;)
Neandertal savages
Je Suis Charlie
Quote from: The Hill is Blue on January 08, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
Neandertal savages
Je Suis Charlie
unfortunately it looks like the savages are succeeding ...
http://gawker.com/newspapers-are-pixelating-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-depict-1678039975 (http://gawker.com/newspapers-are-pixelating-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-depict-1678039975)
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Some topics are off limits. You wouldn't joke about child abuse, would you ?
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Some topics are off limits. You wouldn't joke about child abuse, would you ?
Are you saying that ridiculing the prophet is off limits Seafoid ?
I think ridiculing any religious leader, or God, continually is confrontational at least. But that does not mean they deserve to die for it.
The cast of The Life of Brian are said yo be in hiding!! Seriously people need to cop on.... Just like here people are easily duped into doing deeds for a cause!! Brainwashed very easily...... On all sides.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2015, 08:51:49 PM
The cast of The Life of Brian are said yo be in hiding!! Seriously people need to cop on.... Just like here people are easily duped into doing deeds for a cause!! Brainwashed very easily...... On all sides.
Remember the life of Brian was banned here...
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 08:44:25 PM
I think ridiculing any religious leader, or God, continually is confrontational at least. But that does not mean they deserve to die for it.
You are correct. However the point must be refined.
To ridicule is confrontational when it insults people who simply believe. However, there is a certain class of fanatical believer where not only is it acceptable to be confrontational with them it is a positively a
duty to get in their face.If you do not "disrespect" them they will continue to lower the bar for what they consider "disrespectful". Unfortunately moderates will be caught in the crossfire but if moderates are truly moderate then they will accept this ridicule.
Personally I wouldn't agree with making fun of sensitive subjects like this simply because I don't think it's good humour (in much the same way as many isn't good humour!!). But people who do so (including Brendan O'C) shouldn't be in fear of their life for doing so.
What also has to be mentioned is that the supposedly "insulting" images are almost comically mild. We are being conditioned by apologists to think that what is basically harmless satire is gravely insulting. We should not accept this conditioning. We must confront it and question it.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Some topics are off limits. You wouldn't joke about child abuse, would you ?
Are you saying that ridiculing the prophet is off limits Seafoid ?
I don't think it's constructive. It aims to offend.
Any of us could take the piss out of a lot of Christian beliefs but what would be the point ? If people want to pray to St Dympna for migraine relief that is their business. If they feel better with a drop of holy water who are you to laugh at them ?
One of the things about the whole debate about "freedom of speech" is that it usually about the freedom to offend weaker groups. You'll never see anyone taking the piss out of Denis O Brien. The rich use the law to cover up nonsense aspects of themselves.
Laughing at Muslims is no better than English people laughing at Irish people in the 70s because they were ignorant.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 09:23:59 PM
What also has to be mentioned is that the supposedly "insulting" images are almost comically mild. We are being conditioned by apologists to think that what is basically harmless satire is gravely insulting. We should not accept this conditioning. We must confront it and question it.
I haven't actually seen the cartoons - any links?
It's not so long ago that Christians were burning heretics and witches and locking up scientists.
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 09:35:18 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Some topics are off limits. You wouldn't joke about child abuse, would you ?
Are you saying that ridiculing the prophet is off limits Seafoid ?
I don't think it's constructive. It aims to offend.
Any of us could take the piss out of a lot of Christian beliefs but what would be the point ? If people want to pray to St Dympna for migraine relief that is their business. If they feel better with a drop of holy water who are you to laugh at them ?
Like I said in my response to AZoffaly, simply insulting believers for the sake of it is confrontational but there comes a point where the argument flips. At some point your willingness to be offended becomes, in itself, highly offensive. Why should somebody in Denmark not draw a cartoon about this prophet ? What is especially insulting about these cartoons ?
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 08, 2015, 09:47:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 09:23:59 PM
What also has to be mentioned is that the supposedly "insulting" images are almost comically mild. We are being conditioned by apologists to think that what is basically harmless satire is gravely insulting. We should not accept this conditioning. We must confront it and question it.
I haven't actually seen the cartoons - any links?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html)
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 09:35:18 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Some topics are off limits. You wouldn't joke about child abuse, would you ?
Are you saying that ridiculing the prophet is off limits Seafoid ?
I don't think it's constructive. It aims to offend.
Any of us could take the piss out of a lot of Christian beliefs but what would be the point ? If people want to pray to St Dympna for migraine relief that is their business. If they feel better with a drop of holy water who are you to laugh at them ?
One of the things about the whole debate about "freedom of speech" is that it usually about the freedom to offend weaker groups. You'll never see anyone taking the piss out of Denis O Brien. The rich use the law to cover up nonsense aspects of themselves.
Laughing at Muslims is no better than English people laughing at Irish people in the 70s because they were ignorant.
Should Father Ted be pulled from TV? The Savage Eye? Both very popular and satirical of religion. This is the west, if you dont like satire that much you could move to Ballymena.
Seafood on prime time now wearing a silly hat and a big beard.
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 09:35:18 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2015, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
Ridiculing sacred cows is something we should embrace and protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo)
Some topics are off limits. You wouldn't joke about child abuse, would you ?
Are you saying that ridiculing the prophet is off limits Seafoid ?
I don't think it's constructive. It aims to offend.
Any of us could take the piss out of a lot of Christian beliefs but what would be the point ? If people want to pray to St Dympna for migraine relief that is their business. If they feel better with a drop of holy water who are you to laugh at them ?
One of the things about the whole debate about "freedom of speech" is that it usually about the freedom to offend weaker groups. You'll never see anyone taking the piss out of Denis O Brien. The rich use the law to cover up nonsense aspects of themselves.
Laughing at Muslims is no better than English people laughing at Irish people in the 70s because they were ignorant.
you need to be quicker with those edits Seafoid. Here is your original post that I responded to
Quote
I don't think it's constructive. It aims to offend.
Any of us could take the piss out of a lot of Christian beliefs but what would be the point ? If people want to pray to St Dympna for migraine relief that is their business. If they feel better with a drop of holy water who are you to laugh at them ?
why did you feel the need to add the "English people laughing at the Irish" bit and the Denis O'Brien "rich v poor bit" bit ? Do you see Irish people as some homogenous group of halfwits that can be manipulated into changing their view on any issue once you start pushing their buttons ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 08, 2015, 09:47:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 09:23:59 PM
What also has to be mentioned is that the supposedly "insulting" images are almost comically mild. We are being conditioned by apologists to think that what is basically harmless satire is gravely insulting. We should not accept this conditioning. We must confront it and question it.
I haven't actually seen the cartoons - any links?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html)
Had a look at them earlier actually, very innocuous tbf. The one "You'll die laughing" is pretty good. The one "a star is born" is somewhat offensive though.
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It always comes back to the jews with some people doesn't it ::)
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
You might want to mention that there was a court case involved due to a specific individual being slandered . Trying to draw a comparison or find some "mitigation" for 12 people being shot for satirizing Islam to the case where the journalist was fired is, at best, misguided, and , at worst, truly reprehensible.
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Hear, hear.
You might want to mention that the sacked man won a case for unfair dismissal.
I feel desperately sorry for you, consumed by such blind hatred. You try to twist my words into 'mitigation for the deaths of 12 people'. The ironic thing is that you, more than anyone here, are capable of mitigating any deaths you choose. As long as it is of those you hate.
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:35:50 PM
You might want to mention that the sacked man won a case for unfair dismissal.
I feel desperately sorry for you, consumed by such blind hatred. You try to twist my words into 'mitigation for the deaths of 12 people'. The ironic thing is that you, more than anyone here, are capable of mitigating any deaths you choose. As long as it is of those you hate.
It is you that should be pitied. Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin on the victims.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:35:50 PM
You might want to mention that the sacked man won a case for unfair dismissal.
I feel desperately sorry for you, consumed by such blind hatred. You try to twist my words into 'mitigation for the deaths of 12 people'. The ironic thing is that you, more than anyone here, are capable of mitigating any deaths you choose. As long as it is of those you hate.
It is you that should be pitied. Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin on the victims.
I did unequivocally condemn the atricity. Sadly you can't see that with all that hatred.
I never mentioned the US, but you with all that rage wouldn't notice that either.
And I didn't pin any 'dirt' on the victims. But again you won't see that with your need to detest everything slightly different from you.
And nope I didn't blame the Jews either. But, well, we know. Everyone different to you is an anti-semite.
Very, very sad.
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 12:05:51 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:35:50 PM
You might want to mention that the sacked man won a case for unfair dismissal.
I feel desperately sorry for you, consumed by such blind hatred. You try to twist my words into 'mitigation for the deaths of 12 people'. The ironic thing is that you, more than anyone here, are capable of mitigating any deaths you choose. As long as it is of those you hate.
It is you that should be pitied. Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin on the victims.
I did unequivocally condemn the atricity. Sadly you can't see that with all that hatred.
I never mentioned the US, but you with all that rage wouldn't notice that either.
And I didn't pin any 'dirt' on the victims. But again you won't see that with your need to detest everything slightly different from you.
And nope I didn't blame the Jews either. But, well, we know. Everyone different to you is an anti-semite.
Very, very sad.
yeah, you are right, maybe it is just a coincidence that whenever there is a Jihadi atrocity you or one of the other usual suspects somehow manage to bring the jews or the Americans into it. As if there aren't enough threads on gaaboard devoted to having a go at these two groups.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:20:35 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 12:05:51 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:35:50 PM
You might want to mention that the sacked man won a case for unfair dismissal.
I feel desperately sorry for you, consumed by such blind hatred. You try to twist my words into 'mitigation for the deaths of 12 people'. The ironic thing is that you, more than anyone here, are capable of mitigating any deaths you choose. As long as it is of those you hate.
It is you that should be pitied. Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin on the victims.
I did unequivocally condemn the atricity. Sadly you can't see that with all that hatred.
I never mentioned the US, but you with all that rage wouldn't notice that either.
And I didn't pin any 'dirt' on the victims. But again you won't see that with your need to detest everything slightly different from you.
And nope I didn't blame the Jews either. But, well, we know. Everyone different to you is an anti-semite.
Very, very sad.
yeah, you are right, maybe it is just a coincidence that whenever there is a Jihadi atrocity you or one of the other usual suspects somehow manage to bring the jews or the Americans into it. As if there aren't enough threads on gaaboard devoted to having a go at these two groups.
You said it, considering you are the 'usual suspect' inexplicably bringing the Americans into this thread.
If you look at the link above regarding the magazine, you will also notice they lay into the Catholic Church regarding pedophilia. I don't know if anyone got fired for that, especially the one with the Pope Benedict gay innuendo.
But leaving Sheehy's fanaticism aside for a minute, it is important to note that this magazine attacked everyone and every taboo. All the others managed to get on with things without mass murder.
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 12:28:51 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:20:35 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 12:05:51 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 08, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:35:50 PM
You might want to mention that the sacked man won a case for unfair dismissal.
I feel desperately sorry for you, consumed by such blind hatred. You try to twist my words into 'mitigation for the deaths of 12 people'. The ironic thing is that you, more than anyone here, are capable of mitigating any deaths you choose. As long as it is of those you hate.
It is you that should be pitied. Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin on the victims.
I did unequivocally condemn the atricity. Sadly you can't see that with all that hatred.
I never mentioned the US, but you with all that rage wouldn't notice that either.
And I didn't pin any 'dirt' on the victims. But again you won't see that with your need to detest everything slightly different from you.
And nope I didn't blame the Jews either. But, well, we know. Everyone different to you is an anti-semite.
Very, very sad.
yeah, you are right, maybe it is just a coincidence that whenever there is a Jihadi atrocity you or one of the other usual suspects somehow manage to bring the jews or the Americans into it. As if there aren't enough threads on gaaboard devoted to having a go at these two groups.
You said it, considering you are the 'usual suspect' inexplicably bringing the Americans into this thread.
If you look at the link above regarding the magazine, you will also notice they lay into the Catholic Church regarding pedophilia. I don't know if anyone got fired for that, especially the one with the Pope Benedict gay innuendo.
But leaving Sheehy's fanaticism aside for a minute, it is important to note that this magazine attacked everyone and every taboo. All the others managed to get on with things without mass murder.
stop evading...I said jews OR americans. In this case it was the jews...the next day it will be the Americans. Either way you and your cronies will always find some way to blame one or the other for Jihadi atrocities. There will always be something that somebody "did" that will be offered in mitigation followed hastily by a typical "...oh but this doesn't excuse killing anyone" get out clause.
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.
It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.
You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.
It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.
Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462652/thumbs/o-OVERWHELMED-570.jpg)
"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.
It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.
You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.
It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.
Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.
As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.
It would be absurd not to look at context. The world is not the 'black & white', 'with us or against us' easy answers of Sheehy & co.
That said, part of the context is France's long history of biting satire going back to the revolution: http://nrhs.nred.org/www/nred_nrhs/site/hosting/Resources4SocialStudies/HistSites/FrenchRevCartoonWeb/index.htm (http://nrhs.nred.org/www/nred_nrhs/site/hosting/Resources4SocialStudies/HistSites/FrenchRevCartoonWeb/index.htm)
Lampooning major issues is what the French do.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:55:37 AM
Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462652/thumbs/o-OVERWHELMED-570.jpg)
"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"
'It is hard to be loved by dicks' is the translation. I see why you like it. ;D
Note: Here is a great blog for those afflicted with the need to use inappropriate "quotation marks": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com (http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com)
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.
It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.
You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.
It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.
Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.
As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.
I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:55:37 AM
Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462652/thumbs/o-OVERWHELMED-570.jpg)
"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"
'It is hard to be loved by dicks' is the translation. I see why you like it. ;D
Note: Here is a great blog for those afflicted with the need to use inappropriate "quotation marks": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com (http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com)
you do understand what paraphrased means right ?
jesus, you are as thick as you are opinionated
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462544/thumbs/o-GAY-PROPHET-570.jpg?5)
Here is another one for your "craption" competition Muppet..
"...they promised me 72 virgins and all I got was this nerd"
go on...come up with something better ...or does your sense of humour cower before the precious "prophet" ?
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 01:15:47 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.
It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.
You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.
It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.
Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.
As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.
I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.
Point taken, Sid. I imagine most people in western society will agree with you but the fact is that some don't and some of that some are prepared to use AK47s to express their opinions.
To most Western eyes, the cartoons that caused the murderous attack are pretty harmless but, obviously, there are some who don't see it that way.
I'm not condoning the attack in any way but both the staff at Charlie Hebdo and the security authorities should have anticipated the likelihood of such an action and, unfortunately, underestimated the chances of it happening.
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 01:15:47 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.
It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.
You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.
It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.
Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.
As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.
I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.
Agree, but what do you suggest should be done? Identifying a problem is all very well but a solution is something else. Do you think Charlie was liberal? Could make a case it has been a Godsend for LePen and National Front. I think they are probably right-wing. Modern France is secular and more racist than we are.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on January 09, 2015, 01:34:01 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 01:15:47 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 09, 2015, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Sidney on January 08, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Quote from: moysider on January 08, 2015, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on January 08, 2015, 10:58:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 08, 2015, 10:53:42 PM
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168 (http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168)
On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.
I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.
I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.
It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.
The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.
But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.
Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?
Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.
I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.
Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?
I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?
The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.
It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.
You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.
It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.
Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.
As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.
I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.
Point taken, Sid. I imagine most people in western society will agree with you but the fact is that some don't and some of that some are prepared to use AK47s to express their opinions.
To most Western eyes, the cartoons that caused the murderous attack are pretty harmless but, obviously, there are some who don't see it that way.
I'm not condoning the attack in any way but both the staff at Charlie Hebdo and the security authorities should have anticipated the likelihood of such an action and, unfortunately, underestimated the chances of it happening.
I doubt intelligence were surprised by this but how can you prevent it. It was already targeted. Only a question of when and how did it not happen sooner? A bit like what vultures get to the kill first - or more appropriately what leopard gets to the tethered goat first. Those cartoonists were dead men walking.
Quote from: moysider on January 09, 2015, 01:35:20 AM
Agree, but what do you suggest should be done? Identifying a problem is all very well but a solution is something else. Do you think Charlie was liberal? Could make a case it has been a Godsend for LePen and National Front. I think they are probably right-wing. Modern France is secular and more racist than we are.
"Charlie Hebdo" is very much left wing.
you love these atrocities Mike, they are just another opportunity for you to pick a fight with Seafoid, no doubt Muppet will now be on your list of legitimate targets as well.
"Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin on the victims."
That is classic Sheehy.It would not be complete without the ritual demand for a condemnation even though it was already included.
Muppet is worse than the killers because of the depth of his hatred.
Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 01:28:50 AM
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462544/thumbs/o-GAY-PROPHET-570.jpg?5)
Here is another one for your "craption" competition Muppet..
"...they promised me 72 virgins and all I got was this nerd"
go on...come up with something better ...or does your sense of humour cower before the precious "prophet" ?
Hypocritical coward. You attack others relentlessly for a misguided perception of their disdain for Jews while openly displaying naked contempt for Islam. And that's nothing to do with the image, which I couldn't give a toss about.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 01:28:50 AM
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462544/thumbs/o-GAY-PROPHET-570.jpg?5)
Here is another one for your "craption" competition Muppet..
"...they promised me 72 virgins and all I got was this nerd"
go on...come up with something better ...or does your sense of humour cower before the precious "prophet" ?
I've looked at the cartoons, and while a few are fairly poor and I would say inflammatory towards Islam the religion, I think most of them are squarely aimed at the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. The one where the ISIS guy is beheading the prophet is particularly poignant I think.
I don't believe it's necessary to 'flame' anyone's religious beliefs continuously and spitefully, but I don't really think that's what this magazine was doing. It was lampooning the extremist mindset and violent actions of these lunatics. No less dangerous, sadly that's obvious, but a subtle difference in intention I would say.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 01:16:01 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:55:37 AM
Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462652/thumbs/o-OVERWHELMED-570.jpg)
"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"
'It is hard to be loved by dicks' is the translation. I see why you like it. ;D
Note: Here is a great blog for those afflicted with the need to use inappropriate "quotation marks": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com (http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com)
you do understand what paraphrased means right ?
jesus, you are as thick as you are opinionated
This is another cartoon which makes my point. How is this a slag of Muhammad? It's obviously aimed at the people I was talking about. It's hard to be liked by idiots/dicks/arseholes/c***ts (cons is fairly flexible). Sums it up really. This one and the beheading one are fairly powerful statements, and neither are against Islam per se.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2015, 08:51:49 PM
The cast of The Life of Brian are said yo be in hiding!! Seriously people need to cop on.... Just like here people are easily duped into doing deeds for a cause!! Brainwashed very easily...... On all sides.
Remember the life of Brian was banned here...
Banned by eejits that hadn't even seen it lol.... No one was wiped out by an AK47 for it, Dave Allen had a go at the Catholic church every week and we laughed, is Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie still a target?
Anybody trying to find a reason to excuse/blame/justify this needs to realise that people were executed in their place of work, regardless of whether you believe they were crossing the line with their 'cartoons' to have people, fathers/sons daughters/friends taken out like that is never never the right way to go about. Fecking animals
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 09:31:33 AM
Hypocritical coward. You attack others relentlessly for a misguided perception of their disdain for Jews while openly displaying naked contempt for Islam. And that's nothing to do with the image, which I couldn't give a toss about.
how does that image display "naked contempt for Islam" ?
Les flics seem to have cornered the killers
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 09, 2015, 10:44:33 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 08, 2015, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2015, 08:51:49 PM
The cast of The Life of Brian are said yo be in hiding!! Seriously people need to cop on.... Just like here people are easily duped into doing deeds for a cause!! Brainwashed very easily...... On all sides.
Remember the life of Brian was banned here...
Banned by eejits that hadn't even seen it lol.... No one was wiped out by an AK47 for it, Dave Allen had a go at the Catholic church every week and we laughed, is Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie still a target?
Anybody trying to find a reason to excuse/blame/justify this needs to realise that people were executed in their place of work, regardless of whether you believe they were crossing the line with their 'cartoons' to have people, fathers/sons daughters/friends taken out like that is never never the right way to go about. Fecking animals
If Charlie Hebdo had have found away to beam "muhammed is a twat" onto the face of a full moon, it would still be no justification for what those animals did.
I'm sure religion heals a lot of people, brings answers to their 'prayers' and gives them hope for the future/afterlife, but in this stage of civilisation surely we have to fecking really get our heads out of the sand and wise the feck up.
Why these clampets on here are actually trying to debate reasons/excuses for this is unreal..... There was even someone on saying it didn't pan out the way it actually looked ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 10:53:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 09:31:33 AM
Hypocritical coward. You attack others relentlessly for a misguided perception of their disdain for Jews while openly displaying naked contempt for Islam. And that's nothing to do with the image, which I couldn't give a toss about.
how does that image display "naked contempt for Islam" ?
See that's the point. I clearly stated that it was nothing to do with the image. Yet the populist, blustering propaganda machine you are simply ignored that and you went off on one regardless. YOU mentioned Jews in this thread. YOU mentioned Americans. You are a disgrace.
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 10:53:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 09:31:33 AM
Hypocritical coward. You attack others relentlessly for a misguided perception of their disdain for Jews while openly displaying naked contempt for Islam. And that's nothing to do with the image, which I couldn't give a toss about.
how does that image display "naked contempt for Islam" ?
See that's the point. I clearly stated that it was nothing to do with the image. Yet the populist, blustering propaganda machine you are simply ignored that and you went off on one regardless. YOU mentioned Jews in this thread. YOU mentioned Americans. You are a disgrace.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You make patently untrue statements then cant back them up. There is nothing in anything that I have said that "displays contempt for Islam". Condemning Jihadis is not "displaying contempt for Islam". posting cartoons is not "displaying contempt for Islam".
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
This is another cartoon which makes my point. How is this a slag of Muhammad? It's obviously aimed at the people I was talking about. It's hard to be liked by idiots/dicks/arseholes/c***ts (cons is fairly flexible). Sums it up really. This one and the beheading one are fairly powerful statements, and neither are against Islam per se.
That is a good question. I have no idea how it is a slag of Muhammad. Maybe Gallman can explain since he is the latest expert on what is "naked contempt for Islam"
Your pathetic comment on about the "precious prophet" shows your withering disregard for a religion of more than a billion people. Regardless of what you or I may think, the "prophet" (I don't know why you felt the need for inverted commas) is indeed precious to them.
This of course does not, nor is it an attempt to, justify the massacre in Paris. I don't expect you to pay any heed to this though and will shortly label me as an Islam extremist sympathiser to go with anti Semite and the usual baseless accusations you bandy about here.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 01:16:01 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:55:37 AM
Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462652/thumbs/o-OVERWHELMED-570.jpg)
"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"
'It is hard to be loved by dicks' is the translation. I see why you like it. ;D
Note: Here is a great blog for those afflicted with the need to use inappropriate "quotation marks": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com (http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com)
you do understand what paraphrased means right ?
jesus, you are as thick as you are opinionated
Yes Mike, everyone who disagrees with you is thick.
You are allowed to paraphrase and absurdly use quotation marks, but when I translate I am thick.
When you post you are 100% right, no matter how much hatred you espouse, when I post I am opinionated.
Do you see a pattern?
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 12:00:53 PM
Yes Mike, everyone who disagrees with you is thick
You are allowed to paraphrase and absurdly use quotation marks, but when I translate I am thick.
When you post you are 100% right, no matter how much hatred you espouse, when I post I am opinionated.
Do you see a pattern?
Yes, the pattern is that you resort to silly diversions like nit-picking on the usage of quotation marks when you are challenged. This is not the first time you have taken this route.
Can we not separate these things... The attack in Paris is abhorrent, wrong, disgusting and all of these things which I think we all agree on.
What is going on in Palestine against the Muslims is also all of these things too. Something I think we can all agree on as well.
The Paris attack looks to be more of a concerted global jihad which we are in the middle of since the 9/11 attack. Unfortunately these jihadi groups are organised/intelligent/brainwashed and totally committed to destroying the West and it's pretty f**king scary that realistically there is no way of stopping it by legal means!
The whole situation is fucked and the frequency of these attacks is growing year on year . . . here's a question. How can we stop it?!!
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
Your pathetic comment on about the "precious prophet" shows your withering disregard for a religion of more than a billion people. Regardless of what you or I may think, the "prophet" (I don't know why you felt the need for inverted commas) is indeed precious to them.
This of course does not, nor is it an attempt to, justify the massacre in Paris. I don't expect you to pay any heed to this though and will shortly label me as an Islam extremist sympathiser to go with anti Semite and the usual baseless accusations you bandy about here.
The "precious prophet" comment clearly refers to the fact we are being told that Muhammad is above ridicule. You know full well that is what it meant as it was perfectly clear from the context of the sentence i.e that we subjugate all humour and cower in deference to this deity.
The only thing that is pathetic here is your willfully feigned outrage on behalf of a billion muslims.
reports of hostage taking at a kosher supermarket in Paris
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/john-lennons-imagine-made-into-a-comic-strip/
Wasn't Gandhi a devout Hindu? And Bob Marley was certainly a believer in Yah almighty.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
Your pathetic comment on about the "precious prophet" shows your withering disregard for a religion of more than a billion people. Regardless of what you or I may think, the "prophet" (I don't know why you felt the need for inverted commas) is indeed precious to them.
This of course does not, nor is it an attempt to, justify the massacre in Paris. I don't expect you to pay any heed to this though and will shortly label me as an Islam extremist sympathiser to go with anti Semite and the usual baseless accusations you bandy about here.
The "precious prophet" comment clearly refers to the fact we are being told that Muhammad is above ridicule. You know full well that is what it meant as it was perfectly clear from the context of the sentence i.e that we subjugate all humour and cower in deference to this deity.
The only thing that is pathetic here is your willfully feigned outrage on behalf of a billion muslims.
Make a few jokes about the Holocaust if you think nothing is beyond satire and it's all a laugh.
You empty vessel.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 01:16:01 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 09, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:55:37 AM
Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2462652/thumbs/o-OVERWHELMED-570.jpg)
"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"
'It is hard to be loved by dicks' is the translation. I see why you like it. ;D
Note: Here is a great blog for those afflicted with the need to use inappropriate "quotation marks": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com (http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com)
you do understand what paraphrased means right ?
jesus, you are as thick as you are opinionated
This is another cartoon which makes my point. How is this a slag of Muhammad? It's obviously aimed at the people I was talking about. It's hard to be liked by idiots/dicks/arseholes/c***ts (cons is fairly flexible). Sums it up really. This one and the beheading one are fairly powerful statements, and neither are against Islam per se.
But it was for some and had fatal consequences for the staff of Charlie Hebdo.
Like moysider put it, they were dead men walking and they knew it.
Whether the cartoons were a slag of Muhammad or not is open to interpretation. I don't think many in the western world would but most people here are non-Islamists so wouldn't be too fussed about it one way or the other.
But supposing it was Jesus Christ who was being lampooned?
If someone in, say, the Bible belt in the USA or in East Belfast published cartoons of Jesus Christ, portraying him as a homosexual or as a wife-beater or whatever, do you think there'd be no violent reaction?
BTW, I don't know enough about the religion of Islam to state with certainty that all Muslims would be offended by the cartoons in question but I think most would take their publication to be a gratuitous insult to their religious beliefs.
I said some of the cartoons were poor, or deliberately insulting, but if someone published a picture of Jesus crying because of clerical abuse of kids, or some other acts carried out by his followers, I wouldn't think it was aimed at Jesus Christ, but I'd think it was aimed at the people NOT following his teaching. I see most of these cartoons in the same way.
It's all kicking off in France today. God help the people that have been taken hostage. :(
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
Your pathetic comment on about the "precious prophet" shows your withering disregard for a religion of more than a billion people. Regardless of what you or I may think, the "prophet" (I don't know why you felt the need for inverted commas) is indeed precious to them.
This of course does not, nor is it an attempt to, justify the massacre in Paris. I don't expect you to pay any heed to this though and will shortly label me as an Islam extremist sympathiser to go with anti Semite and the usual baseless accusations you bandy about here.
The "precious prophet" comment clearly refers to the fact we are being told that Muhammad is above ridicule. You know full well that is what it meant as it was perfectly clear from the context of the sentence i.e that we subjugate all humour and cower in deference to this deity.
The only thing that is pathetic here is your willfully feigned outrage on behalf of a billion muslims.
Make a few jokes about the Holocaust if you think nothing is beyond satire and it's all a laugh.
You empty vessel.
No, we'll leave the holocaust jokes to your twisted ilk.
Why dont you tell us the lenny Bruce joke about killing jesus again...you like that one so much you have used it twice already ::)
Quote from: GJL on January 09, 2015, 02:12:47 PM
It's all kicking off in France today. God help the people that have been taken hostage. :(
+1
some of the debate on here sickens me at times, peoples lives are literally on the line in these situations and all some posters seem to care about is getting some cheap forum points against each other.
We don't know the people involved but they will have families and 2 more people in the latest attack will not be returning to their families today.
Think that is the most important part of this situation.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 09, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
Your pathetic comment on about the "precious prophet" shows your withering disregard for a religion of more than a billion people. Regardless of what you or I may think, the "prophet" (I don't know why you felt the need for inverted commas) is indeed precious to them.
This of course does not, nor is it an attempt to, justify the massacre in Paris. I don't expect you to pay any heed to this though and will shortly label me as an Islam extremist sympathiser to go with anti Semite and the usual baseless accusations you bandy about here.
The "precious prophet" comment clearly refers to the fact we are being told that Muhammad is above ridicule. You know full well that is what it meant as it was perfectly clear from the context of the sentence i.e that we subjugate all humour and cower in deference to this deity.
The only thing that is pathetic here is your willfully feigned outrage on behalf of a billion muslims.
Make a few jokes about the Holocaust if you think nothing is beyond satire and it's all a laugh.
You empty vessel.
No, we'll leave the holocaust jokes to your twisted ilk.
Why dont you tell us the lenny Bruce joke about killing jesus again...you like that one so much you have used it twice already ::)
I need a biographer- I'll pay you 25 cents an hour
True NAG. It's a terrible situation, which is still unfolding. It's horrific when you think about it.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 09, 2015, 02:37:49 PM
True NAG. It's a terrible situation, which is still unfolding. It's horrific when you think about it.
Imagine the families of the dead, trying to explain what happened and why to the kids. Dreadful.
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 02:37:32 PM
I need a biographer- I'll pay you 25 cents an hour
ok, I'm in.We'll call it "My struggle" by Seafoid.
A few posters have noted that Christians aren't bothered by cartoons of Jesus, so why should muslims be bothered by pictures of Mohammed. There is a strand in Islamic thought that images of anyone--much less religious figures--are irreligious. And pictures of Mohammed, on this line of thought, are by definition blasphemous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad)
So even if the images look fairly innocuous to us, that's not going to be how they appear to muslims who accept this line of thought.
The Hebdo suspects have taken hostages in a printing works and someone that knew the ones that shot the policewoman has taken hostages in a supermarket. Lets hope it does not spread further.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115)
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 02:56:50 PM
The Hebdo suspects have taken hostages in a printing works and someone that knew the ones that shot the policewoman has taken hostages in a supermarket. Lets hope it does not spread further.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115)
I presume the authorities are monitoring all the known jihadis in France. You need popular support for an ongoing campaign and they probably don't have much.
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 02:56:50 PM
The Hebdo suspects have taken hostages in a printing works and someone that knew the ones that shot the policewoman has taken hostages in a supermarket. Lets hope it does not spread further.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115)
I presume the authorities are monitoring all the known jihadis in France. You need popular support for an ongoing campaign and they probably don't have much.
One of the suspects was already jailed and released so I am sure he was being watched but he still managed to commit the crimes.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on January 09, 2015, 02:47:53 PM
A few posters have noted that Christians aren't bothered by cartoons of Jesus, so why should muslims be bothered by pictures of Mohammed. There is a strand in Islamic thought that images of anyone--much less religious figures--are irreligious. And pictures of Mohammed, on this line of thought, are by definition blasphemous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad)
So even if the images look fairly innocuous to us, that's not going to be how they appear to muslims who accept this line of thought.
Shouldn't quote Wikipedia. Not credible among the credible.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 02:56:50 PM
The Hebdo suspects have taken hostages in a printing works and someone that knew the ones that shot the policewoman has taken hostages in a supermarket. Lets hope it does not spread further.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115)
I presume the authorities are monitoring all the known jihadis in France. You need popular support for an ongoing campaign and they probably don't have much.
One of the suspects was already jailed and released so I am sure he was being watched but he still managed to commit the crimes.
But they'll be looking much more closely now, surely.
Both Hebdo suspects reported killed in police assault.
Quote from: Aerlik on January 09, 2015, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on January 09, 2015, 02:47:53 PM
A few posters have noted that Christians aren't bothered by cartoons of Jesus, so why should muslims be bothered by pictures of Mohammed. There is a strand in Islamic thought that images of anyone--much less religious figures--are irreligious. And pictures of Mohammed, on this line of thought, are by definition blasphemous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad)
So even if the images look fairly innocuous to us, that's not going to be how they appear to muslims who accept this line of thought.
Shouldn't quote Wikipedia. Not credible among the credible.
It's handy for overviews, especially if you already know the information and are just using it to pass on to others.
It's unreliability is a myth too btw:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm)
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on January 09, 2015, 04:24:41 PM
Both Hebdo suspects reported killed in police assault.
any hostages or police hurt?
All hostages reportedly freed unharmed, no word on any police casualties.
Think I heard at the supermarket there could be a few people down (was a phonecall from someone who was in it to their mother)
one policeman injured.
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 09, 2015, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 09, 2015, 02:56:50 PM
The Hebdo suspects have taken hostages in a printing works and someone that knew the ones that shot the policewoman has taken hostages in a supermarket. Lets hope it does not spread further.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115)
I presume the authorities are monitoring all the known jihadis in France. You need popular support for an ongoing campaign and they probably don't have much.
One of the suspects was already jailed and released so I am sure he was being watched but he still managed to commit the crimes.
But they'll be looking much more closely now, surely.
I'm sure they will and lets hope they can prevent anymore attacks.
Reports of 4 people [hostages] critically wounded at the supermarket.
BBC say four dead in the supermarket: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30752239 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30752239)
Police told French media that four hostages in the supermarket had been killed prior to security forces storming the site.
BBC confirming four dead hostages. Horrifying.
Days like today really show the danger of news in the internet age as initial reports all appeared to suggest no hostage fatalities.
Reports that a gunman, not woman, have escaped from the supermarket
Does it seem a little odd that these guys were so well prepared for the initial attack, knocked off their main targets and seem to have had no plan since? Were they expecting to die in the initial attack? Leaving their ID cards behind also seems amateur (or even having them with them in the first place)
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 09, 2015, 06:25:45 PM
Does it seem a little odd that these guys were so well prepared for the initial attack, knocked off their main targets and seem to have had no plan since? Were they expecting to die in the initial attack? Leaving their ID cards behind also seems amateur (or even having them with them in the first place)
Yea, we had sort of got used to the idea (no matter how abhorrent) of suicide attacks whereby they would top themselves as part of the initial event.
More Hostages, this time Southern France
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/two-taken-hostage-by-armed-man-in-jewellery-store-in-france-30895786.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks
(http://www.filmsforaction.org/f/site-images/imagine_colors.jpg)
https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
Quote from: Itchy on January 10, 2015, 09:43:33 AM
https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
Wow.
Everyone should read that. I don't agree 100%, but the thrust of his arguments I do agree with.
"
The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it. It has to be seen through the prism of events that are going on around the world. With eyes firmly fixed on the wars going on from Palestine to Pakistan."
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on January 10, 2015, 09:43:33 AM
https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
Wow.
Everyone should read that. I don't agree 100%, but the thrust of his arguments I do agree with.
"The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it. It has to be seen through the prism of events that are going on around the world. With eyes firmly fixed on the wars going on from Palestine to Pakistan."
When people are affected by the murder of a loved one and take up the fight (like here for many during the troubles), is it right? Have we an 'eye for an eye' attitude? I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
The birth rate in between Christian's and Muslims in Europe is vast, I think we used to have a 2.4 children average in Europe, Muslims are sitting at 5 per family I think and Christian's are sitting below 2 per family...
At that rate we'll have the vast majority of people living in Europe (the West) will be Muslims who if they are smart (or follow form) will vote in Muslims into power..... It's a numbers game and a bit of time. Should be interesting times ahead, will the West bring in special powers for governments?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-imam-highlights-issue-of-extremists-hijacking-muslim-faith-1.2060939 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-imam-highlights-issue-of-extremists-hijacking-muslim-faith-1.2060939)
QuoteIrish imam highlights issue of extremists hijacking Muslim faith
Muslims must accept there is a problem with extremists hijacking their faith, one of Ireland's most prominent imans has said.
Shaykh Muhammad Umar Al-Qadri told his congregation at Friday prayers that the prophet Muhammad would never have condoned Islamic extremists who killed people in his name.
He said the prophet himself had highlighted extremism when he was alive 1,400 years ago.
Shaykh Al-Qadri addressed a packed congregation at Friday prayers at the Al-Mustafa Islamic Educational and Cultural Centre in west Dublin.
He told them there was no point in blaming extremist terror on the United States or the Jews. Muslims themselves were the biggest victims of extremism.
He referenced the killing of 140 children in Pakistan recently by the Taliban and the indiscriminate shooting of civilians by Boko Haram in Nigeria as two incidents where Muslims were the victim.
One of the policemen shot dead in the raid on Charlie Hebdo was also a Muslim, he pointed out.
"We as Muslims must admit and must accept that there is a problem of extremism among Muslims. We cannot deny it: IS (Islamic State), Boko Harem, Taliban, al-Qaeda. After accepting and acknowledging it, then we must put our heads together to do something about it."
He condemned extremists as the "biggest blasphemers of all" and said they were anti-Islamic.
"He (Mohammed) condemned extremism in all forms," Shaykh Al-Qadri said. "He said Islam is a religion of balance. He called extremists the worst of the worst people. He called them the dogs of hell."
The iman recounted how, in his lifetime, Muhammad had been mocked, insulted and called a magician. He had to leave his home and seek refuge in Medina. While he was worshipping, he had camels intestines thrown on him.
"How did he deal with this? Did he take revenge on people?" Shaykh Al-Qadri asked. "No, he said he was sent by Allah as a mercy to everyone. "
The iman said the vast majority of Muslims condemned the killings in Paris and wished to distance themselves from them, but they had to speak out because such incidents were giving their religion a "bad name".
"A lot of people assume because of these incidents that that is Islam. This is what these Muslims are told to do. They must be extremists, they must be terrorists,"he said. "Hence, it is out duty as Muslims to condemn such actions unconditionally whether we have a relation with it or not. It is affecting our reputation."
Muslims have been the victims of racism and prejudice, Shaykh Al-Qadri said while stating that he had been called a "terrorist" and "Osama bin Laden" many times.
Nevertheless, when violent incidents occur "we condemn unconditionally such evil actions".
"There are no ifs or buts. Such actions have no place in Islam. Such actions would never have been supported by the prophet of Islam.
"It was the prophet of Islam who introduced freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Such actions can never been an Islamic action.
"The greatest blasphemy is committed by those who carry out such actions in the name of Allah. The best way to deal with mockery is the rule of law."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/10/rupert-mudoch-paris-attacks-charlie-hebdo_n_6447716.html?utm_hp_ref=uk (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/10/rupert-mudoch-paris-attacks-charlie-hebdo_n_6447716.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)
Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
So Rupert claims that all Moslems must be held responsible for Paris attacks. Normally he gets his media empire to do that for him.
He has added another tweet:
Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US.
Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy.
Everyone is supposed to take up arms and hide presumably. Oh and turn on Fox News for updates.
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 02:48:04 PM
He has added another tweet:
Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US.
Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy.
Everyone is supposed to take up arms and hide presumably. Oh and turn on Fox News for updates.
Murdoch's papers were very vocal supporters of the invasion of Iraq. They don't do consequences.
Quote from: seafoid on January 10, 2015, 03:52:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 02:48:04 PM
He has added another tweet:
Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US.
Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy.
Everyone is supposed to take up arms and hide presumably. Oh and turn on Fox News for updates.
Murdoch's papers were very vocal supporters of the invasion of Iraq. They don't do consequences.
Every editor of a Murdock publication in the States supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There's freedom of the press for you.
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 10, 2015, 03:52:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 02:48:04 PM
He has added another tweet:
Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US.
Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy.
Everyone is supposed to take up arms and hide presumably. Oh and turn on Fox News for updates.
Murdoch's papers were very vocal supporters of the invasion of Iraq. They don't do consequences.
Every editor of a Murdock publication in the States supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There's freedom of the press for you.
The latest iteration of jihad came out of that war. What was done to Falluja was not forgotten.
It's very rich of Murdoch to land all of this on ordinary Muslims.
Get your war on is good chronicle of all the f**k ups.
http://www.mnftiu.cc/category/gywo/war81/
Amnesty are estimating 2000 killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria)
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 10, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
Amnesty are estimating 2000 killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria)
Another crackpot outfit hiding behind religion to justify their slaughter.
It is beginning to look like Murdock will get his world war.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on January 10, 2015, 09:43:33 AM
https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
Everyone should read that. I don't agree 100%, but the thrust of his arguments I do agree with.
"The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it. It has to be seen through the prism of events that are going on around the world. With eyes firmly fixed on the wars going on from Palestine to Pakistan."
When people are affected by the murder of a loved one and take up the fight (like here for many during the troubles), is it right? Have we an 'eye for an eye' attitude? I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
The birth rate in between Christian's and Muslims in Europe is vast, I think we used to have a 2.4 children average in Europe, Muslims are sitting at 5 per family I think and Christian's are sitting below 2 per family...
At that rate we'll have the vast majority of people living in Europe (the West) will be Muslims who if they are smart (or follow form) will vote in Muslims into power..... It's a numbers game and a bit of time. Should be interesting times ahead, will the West bring in special powers for governments?
Quite a thought provoking post there, Gaddafi once claimed Islam would one day rule the west without ever lifting a sword, at the present rate of birth and immigration some estimate europe will have a muslim majority by 2030/50.Be interesting to see if they will allow the same tolerance as christians allowed them in europe.
BTW I wont be around so good luck to those who are.
Quote from: Bazil Douglas on January 10, 2015, 07:11:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on January 10, 2015, 09:43:33 AM
https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
Everyone should read that. I don't agree 100%, but the thrust of his arguments I do agree with.
"The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it. It has to be seen through the prism of events that are going on around the world. With eyes firmly fixed on the wars going on from Palestine to Pakistan."
When people are affected by the murder of a loved one and take up the fight (like here for many during the troubles), is it right? Have we an 'eye for an eye' attitude? I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
The birth rate in between Christian's and Muslims in Europe is vast, I think we used to have a 2.4 children average in Europe, Muslims are sitting at 5 per family I think and Christian's are sitting below 2 per family...
At that rate we'll have the vast majority of people living in Europe (the West) will be Muslims who if they are smart (or follow form) will vote in Muslims into power..... It's a numbers game and a bit of time. Should be interesting times ahead, will the West bring in special powers for governments?
Quite a thought provoking post there, Gaddafi once claimed Islam would one day rule the west without ever lifting a sword, at the present rate of birth and immigration some estimate europe will have a muslim majority by 2030/50.Be interesting to see if they will allow the same tolerance as christians allowed them in europe.
BTW I wont be around so good luck to those who are.
The birth rate is down to economics. If we keep the 3rd world as poor as they are now, they will continue to grow at a much quicker rate. If their economies improve the birth rate will slow.
If those that emigrate succeed in the west, their birth rate will drop.
We saw the same in the USA over 100 years ago with Irish emigrants having huge families, when they were still bottom of the heap. We are now part of the 2.4 birth rate.
Quote from: J70 on January 07, 2015, 03:19:35 PM
Lowlife scum.
Yep. certainly scum with zero moral compass,but thats the world we live in.
Research (Blackwater Security) these merceneries carry out these type of attacks on a regular basis with impunity in the middle east every week even filming there exploits.
Quote from: Bazil Douglas on January 10, 2015, 07:11:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 10, 2015, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on January 10, 2015, 09:43:33 AM
https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
Everyone should read that. I don't agree 100%, but the thrust of his arguments I do agree with.
"The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it. It has to be seen through the prism of events that are going on around the world. With eyes firmly fixed on the wars going on from Palestine to Pakistan."
When people are affected by the murder of a loved one and take up the fight (like here for many during the troubles), is it right? Have we an 'eye for an eye' attitude? I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
The birth rate in between Christian's and Muslims in Europe is vast, I think we used to have a 2.4 children average in Europe, Muslims are sitting at 5 per family I think and Christian's are sitting below 2 per family...
At that rate we'll have the vast majority of people living in Europe (the West) will be Muslims who if they are smart (or follow form) will vote in Muslims into power..... It's a numbers game and a bit of time. Should be interesting times ahead, will the West bring in special powers for governments?
Quite a thought provoking post there, Gaddafi once claimed Islam would one day rule the west without ever lifting a sword, at the present rate of birth and immigration some estimate europe will have a muslim majority by 2030/50.Be interesting to see if they will allow the same tolerance as christians allowed them in europe.
BTW I wont be around so good luck to those who are.
Lol. Crusades? Inquisition?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 10, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
Amnesty are estimating 2000 killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria)
they are a nightmare . The catalyst for the collapse of power in that part of Nigeria seems to be climate change
:'(Quite a thought provoking post there, Gaddafi once claimed Islam would one day rule the west without ever lifting a sword, at the present rate of birth and immigration some estimate europe will have a muslim majority by 2030/50.Be interesting to see if they will allow the same tolerance as christians allowed them in europe.
BTW I wont be around so good luck to those who are.
[/quote]
Lol. Crusades? Inquisition?
[/quote]
Yeah I suppose what goes around comes around
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
I used to be in favour of intervention but I've come around to the view that it's not always for the best. "We" (western powers) tried to impose democracy by force in Afghanistan and Iraq. Success has been limited in the former, and as for the latter, the less that's said the better.
What the west needs to do is drop this arrogant attitude that freedom, democracy and the rule of law is something that only we understand or want. The need for freedom is something that all peoples yearn for. History has shown that dictatorships are not sustainable in the long run, because it is impossible to govern without the consent of the governed in the long run. Dictators hang onto power by various means (terrorizing their own people, building support among their own people by attacking neighbouring countries, or some combination thereof) but dictatorships have a tendency to burn themselves out eventually when left to their own devices.
Democracy in the west is stable and pretty much indestructible because it was home-grown. Democracy in the UK evolved over centuries of figuring for themselves out which powers belonged where (including a civil war and a brief experiment with a republic) and eventually it settled into the fairly stable system they have today which everyone accepts. If it were an alien system imposed from the outside I'm not so sure it would have stood the test of time so well.
The experience in the west shows that power has a tendency to flow downward towards the people over time. The same is true everywhere. As China becomes more affluent, their people are going to want more control over their lives and the powers-that-be will have no choice but to allow it. The Arab Spring and the protests in Iran in the wake of their rigged election several years ago are another example of how populations will only take so much crap.
Iran is probably the most interesting case. When the mullahs in Tehran allowed Ahmedinijad to get reelected they seemed to underestimate the strength of feeling among the people. In the most recent election a more moderate president was allowed to win. That's why I think the best approach to Iran is slow down the uranium enrichment process as much as we can, but not in such a way that it strengthens the hand of the extremists. As long as the mullahs have a western bogeyman that they can blame for their country's problems, the hawks in Tehran will have the upper hand. If sanctions can be eased and the economy boosted, then the doves will be in a stronger position. If Iran is allowed to evolve into a stable democracy, as it was before the UK/USA stuck their noses in in the 1950s, then it should reach a point where we could actually live with them having a nuclear weapon. But we have to trust the Iranian people and drop the same arrogant attitude that didn't trust the Egyptians to run the Suez Canal.
When democracy is imposed by force it is not very stable. When it is home-grown it puts down deeper roots. But nothing weakens democracy like a hostile external intervention.
Quote from: gallsman on January 10, 2015, 08:20:13 PM
Lol. Crusades? Inquisition?
The crusades and inquisition are long past. We're living in the present day.
Religions seem to go through a period of adolescent moodiness that erupts into violence. Judaism is the oldest of the big three religions and they got that out of their system eons ago. Christianity went through its teenage hissy fit in the middle ages. Islam is the youngest of the big three and it's still in the middle of its temper tantrum. The danger with this is that Islam is armed with twenty-first century weapons, so the sooner it grows up and gets over itself the better for all of us.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 10, 2015, 02:33:45 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-imam-highlights-issue-of-extremists-hijacking-muslim-faith-1.2060939 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-imam-highlights-issue-of-extremists-hijacking-muslim-faith-1.2060939)
QuoteIrish imam highlights issue of extremists hijacking Muslim faith
Muslims must accept there is a problem with extremists hijacking their faith, one of Ireland's most prominent imans has said. The
Shaykh Muhammad Umar Al-Qadri told his congregation at Friday prayers that the prophet Muhammad would never have condoned Islamic extremists who killed people in his name.
He said the prophet himself had highlighted extremism when he was alive 1,400 years ago.
Shaykh Al-Qadri addressed a packed congregation at Friday prayers at the Al-Mustafa Islamic Educational and Cultural Centre in west Dublin.
He told them there was no point in blaming extremist terror on the United States or the Jews. Muslims themselves were the biggest victims of extremism.
He referenced the killing of 140 children in Pakistan recently by the Taliban and the indiscriminate shooting of civilians by Boko Haram in Nigeria as two incidents where Muslims were the victim.
One of the policemen shot dead in the raid on Charlie Hebdo was also a Muslim, he pointed out.
"We as Muslims must admit and must accept that there is a problem of extremism among Muslims. We cannot deny it: IS (Islamic State), Boko Harem, Taliban, al-Qaeda. After accepting and acknowledging it, then we must put our heads together to do something about it."
He condemned extremists as the "biggest blasphemers of all" and said they were anti-Islamic.
"He (Mohammed) condemned extremism in all forms," Shaykh Al-Qadri said. "He said Islam is a religion of balance. He called extremists the worst of the worst people. He called them the dogs of hell."
The iman recounted how, in his lifetime, Muhammad had been mocked, insulted and called a magician. He had to leave his home and seek refuge in Medina. While he was worshipping, he had camels intestines thrown on him.
"How did he deal with this? Did he take revenge on people?" Shaykh Al-Qadri asked. "No, he said he was sent by Allah as a mercy to everyone. "
The iman said the vast majority of Muslims condemned the killings in Paris and wished to distance themselves from them, but they had to speak out because such incidents were giving their religion a "bad name".
"A lot of people assume because of these incidents that that is Islam. This is what these Muslims are told to do. They must be extremists, they must be terrorists,"he said. "Hence, it is out duty as Muslims to condemn such actions unconditionally whether we have a relation with it or not. It is affecting our reputation."
Muslims have been the victims of racism and prejudice, Shaykh Al-Qadri said while stating that he had been called a "terrorist" and "Osama bin Laden" many times.
Nevertheless, when violent incidents occur "we condemn unconditionally such evil actions".
"There are no ifs or buts. Such actions have no place in Islam. Such actions would never have been supported by the prophet of Islam.
"It was the prophet of Islam who introduced freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Such actions can never been an Islamic action.
"The greatest blasphemy is committed by those who carry out such actions in the name of Allah. The best way to deal with mockery is the rule of law."
Hard to argue with any of that
indeed fair play to him.
Rupert Murdock blames him and all like him though.
"A lot of people assume because of these incidents that that is Islam. This is what these Muslims are told to do. They must be extremists, they must be terrorists,"he said. "Hence, it is out duty as Muslims to condemn such actions unconditionally whether we have a relation with it or not. It is affecting our reputation."
Can't say I agree with that.
I didn't feel the need to apologise on behalf of Christianity when Anders Breivik shot up Utoya island.
Quote from: muppet on January 11, 2015, 12:12:12 AM
indeed fair play to him.
Rupert Murdock blames him and all like him though.
Murdoch is wrong and is a **** and the Imam is correct and is a brave man.
Can we agree on that ?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 10, 2015, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 10, 2015, 08:20:13 PM
Lol. Crusades? Inquisition?
The crusades and inquisition are long past. We're living in the present day.
Religions seem to go through a period of adolescent moodiness that erupts into violence. Judaism is the oldest of the big three religions and they got that out of their system eons ago. Christianity went through its teenage hissy fit in the middle ages. Islam is the youngest of the big three and it's still in the middle of its temper tantrum. The danger with this is that Islam is armed with twenty-first century weapons, so the sooner it grows up and gets over itself the better for all of us.
Big Three? Eh? Do you consider Judaism to be one of the three biggest religions in the world?
So where would you place Hinduism and Buddhism?
Well. "Big three monotheistic" faiths, or Abrahamic faiths, or the desert religions as I call them. The Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists all outnumber the Jews, don't they?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 08:31:47 AM
Well. "Big three monotheistic" faiths, or Abrahamic faiths, or the desert religions as I call them. The Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists all outnumber the Jews, don't they?
I think Hinduism is more like the paganism that existed pre Christianity. The Indian Prime minister would probably say that Sikhs are Hindus as well.
Mormonism and Bahai ism are also monotheistic
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 11, 2015, 02:09:37 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 11, 2015, 12:12:12 AM
indeed fair play to him.
Rupert Murdock blames him and all like him though.
Murdoch is wrong and is a **** and the Imam is correct and is a brave man.
Can we agree on that ?
We can agree 100% on that.
Great response from Adam Hills to Murdoch on Twitter - all Australians are responsible for Rupert Murdoch.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 10, 2015, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 10, 2015, 08:20:13 PM
Lol. Crusades? Inquisition?
The crusades and inquisition are long past. We're living in the present day.
Religions seem to go through a period of adolescent moodiness that erupts into violence. Judaism is the oldest of the big three religions and they got that out of their system eons ago. Christianity went through its teenage hissy fit in the middle ages. Islam is the youngest of the big three and it's still in the middle of its temper tantrum. The danger with this is that Islam is armed with twenty-first century weapons, so the sooner it grows up and gets over itself the better for all of us.
I know some have picked up on "the big three" comment. But that aside Eamonnca1 hits the nail on the head.
(not that I'm a fan of any of these 3 religions)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 10, 2015, 08:58:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
I used to be in favour of intervention but I've come around to the view that it's not always for the best. "We" (western powers) tried to impose democracy by force in Afghanistan and Iraq. Success has been limited in the former, and as for the latter, the less that's said the better.
What the west needs to do is drop this arrogant attitude that freedom, democracy and the rule of law is something that only we understand or want. The need for freedom is something that all peoples yearn for. History has shown that dictatorships are not sustainable in the long run, because it is impossible to govern without the consent of the governed in the long run. Dictators hang onto power by various means (terrorizing their own people, building support among their own people by attacking neighbouring countries, or some combination thereof) but dictatorships have a tendency to burn themselves out eventually when left to their own devices.
Democracy in the west is stable and pretty much indestructible because it was home-grown. Democracy in the UK evolved over centuries of figuring for themselves out which powers belonged where (including a civil war and a brief experiment with a republic) and eventually it settled into the fairly stable system they have today which everyone accepts. If it were an alien system imposed from the outside I'm not so sure it would have stood the test of time so well.
The experience in the west shows that power has a tendency to flow downward towards the people over time. The same is true everywhere. As China becomes more affluent, their people are going to want more control over their lives and the powers-that-be will have no choice but to allow it. The Arab Spring and the protests in Iran in the wake of their rigged election several years ago are another example of how populations will only take so much crap.
Iran is probably the most interesting case. When the mullahs in Tehran allowed Ahmedinijad to get reelected they seemed to underestimate the strength of feeling among the people. In the most recent election a more moderate president was allowed to win. That's why I think the best approach to Iran is slow down the uranium enrichment process as much as we can, but not in such a way that it strengthens the hand of the extremists. As long as the mullahs have a western bogeyman that they can blame for their country's problems, the hawks in Tehran will have the upper hand. If sanctions can be eased and the economy boosted, then the doves will be in a stronger position. If Iran is allowed to evolve into a stable democracy, as it was before the UK/USA stuck their noses in in the 1950s, then it should reach a point where we could actually live with them having a nuclear weapon. But we have to trust the Iranian people and drop the same arrogant attitude that didn't trust the Egyptians to run the Suez Canal.
When democracy is imposed by force it is not very stable. When it is home-grown it puts down deeper roots. But nothing weakens democracy like a hostile external intervention.
Again a lot of sense but it misses 1 vital point. The imposition of democracy need not be the purpose for the intervention. But on retreating (after successfully achieving the original goal or with heads bowed) setting up some form of democracy is the natural thing to do. It is the go to position of the west and whether it works or not it is the best bet for putting the country on a footing so as to not repeat the behaviours that necessitate the original intervention.
Truth is that setting up democracy in another country and one with no prior system of democracy and established political parties is a dam difficult thing to do.
Quote from: LCohen on January 11, 2015, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 10, 2015, 08:58:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
I used to be in favour of intervention but I've come around to the view that it's not always for the best. "We" (western powers) tried to impose democracy by force in Afghanistan and Iraq. Success has been limited in the former, and as for the latter, the less that's said the better.
What the west needs to do is drop this arrogant attitude that freedom, democracy and the rule of law is something that only we understand or want. The need for freedom is something that all peoples yearn for. History has shown that dictatorships are not sustainable in the long run, because it is impossible to govern without the consent of the governed in the long run. Dictators hang onto power by various means (terrorizing their own people, building support among their own people by attacking neighbouring countries, or some combination thereof) but dictatorships have a tendency to burn themselves out eventually when left to their own devices.
Democracy in the west is stable and pretty much indestructible because it was home-grown. Democracy in the UK evolved over centuries of figuring for themselves out which powers belonged where (including a civil war and a brief experiment with a republic) and eventually it settled into the fairly stable system they have today which everyone accepts. If it were an alien system imposed from the outside I'm not so sure it would have stood the test of time so well.
The experience in the west shows that power has a tendency to flow downward towards the people over time. The same is true everywhere. As China becomes more affluent, their people are going to want more control over their lives and the powers-that-be will have no choice but to allow it. The Arab Spring and the protests in Iran in the wake of their rigged election several years ago are another example of how populations will only take so much crap.
Iran is probably the most interesting case. When the mullahs in Tehran allowed Ahmedinijad to get reelected they seemed to underestimate the strength of feeling among the people. In the most recent election a more moderate president was allowed to win. That's why I think the best approach to Iran is slow down the uranium enrichment process as much as we can, but not in such a way that it strengthens the hand of the extremists. As long as the mullahs have a western bogeyman that they can blame for their country's problems, the hawks in Tehran will have the upper hand. If sanctions can be eased and the economy boosted, then the doves will be in a stronger position. If Iran is allowed to evolve into a stable democracy, as it was before the UK/USA stuck their noses in in the 1950s, then it should reach a point where we could actually live with them having a nuclear weapon. But we have to trust the Iranian people and drop the same arrogant attitude that didn't trust the Egyptians to run the Suez Canal.
When democracy is imposed by force it is not very stable. When it is home-grown it puts down deeper roots. But nothing weakens democracy like a hostile external intervention.
Again a lot of sense but it misses 1 vital point. The imposition of democracy need not be the purpose for the intervention. But on retreating (after successfully achieving the original goal or with heads bowed) setting up some form of democracy is the natural thing to do. It is the go to position of the west and whether it works or not it is the best bet for putting the country on a footing so as to not repeat the behaviours that necessitate the original intervention.
Truth is that setting up democracy in another country and one with no prior system of democracy and established political parties is a dam difficult thing to do.
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
From what I can see the problem is that many of these immigrants never assimilate into their host nations and somehow the more extreme tenets of their faith-cultures get elevated in this vacuum.
Down in Mayo, of all places, there's tons of Muslims.....they play Gaelic football and hurling and are part of the furniture in towns like Ballyhaunis and Ballaghadereen.
I haven't heard one bad word spoken against them by anyone
(Muppet..on a side note, I don't know how old you are, but you might remember a Pakistani lad who used to play underage for Knockmore back in the 80s. He was some player...I got a few shkelps off him back in the day. Unfortunately, that was a different time in Ireland, and I remember he got dogs abuse from opposing supporters)
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 08:31:47 AM
Well. "Big three monotheistic" faiths, or Abrahamic faiths, or the desert religions as I call them. The Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists all outnumber the Jews, don't they?
I think Hinduism is more like the paganism that existed pre Christianity. The Indian Prime minister would probably say that Sikhs are Hindus as well.
Mormonism and Bahai ism are also monotheistic
And don't forget the Zoroastrians the oldest monotheistic faith of the lot.
Hmm yes Modi is a dangerous chap his attitude could light a tinder box in India and when things get out of hand there it makes events in Paris look very insignificant.
Ah the irony of Netanyahu marching in Paris yesterday.
Quote from: Aerlik on January 12, 2015, 05:45:51 AM
Ah the irony of Netanyahu marching in Paris yesterday.
Don't tell me he had the gall to show his face there... did he really?
Eamon while I agree that the system of governance must be home grown and there must be public buy in, I disagree that democracy is necessarily the way forward. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that democracy is the best system of a governance.
Its true it has its benefit mainly that it makes those in power accountable for what they do
However the draw backs are much more glaring:
The most obvious one is that the people who win elections are good at winning elections and not necessarily (almost never) very good at running a country.
An improvement to this might be the emergence of technocrat governments but no doubt this will be deemed non democratic by the power hungry politicians who win elections.
The next draw back is how much does the voting public really know about what is best for the country? They don't they only really know what is best for themselves (usually in the short term) and will vote for decision that will help him alone out and not the country as a whole.
Another problem is the stagnation and dithering on difficult decisions. A good example at the moment is comparing the two world's superpowers China and the USA. The Chinese government can make all the difficult decisions it needs for the economic benefit of the country and thus the Chinese economy continues to grow and thrive. On the other hand Americas government can agree to nothing economically and its economy suffers
The elephant in the room is of course the press, they can easily manipulate the public, in fact the press really have become the mind police. If you control the press you can control the people. The governments of China and Iran both control the press, this allows them to keep the power. A "free press" is something that is open manipulation as well and Western governments have become so skilled at manipulating their own they can manipulate the press of other countries for their own benefit, especially useful for starting public unrest.
Anyway my point is democracy is not the be all and end all it is merely a passing phase in the history of societial governance
On another point how in hell did we get from a few misled youths who carried out these horrendous crimes to discussing what is the best system of governance?
Anyway I found this article written by an American rabbai
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/mourning-the-parisian-jou_b_6442550.html
All governments saying this is an attack on freedom of speech so what are the British government trying to do........... Ban 'extremists' speakers/views in universities.
Quote from: whitey on January 12, 2015, 02:31:30 AM
From what I can see the problem is that many of these immigrants never assimilate into their host nations and somehow the more extreme tenets of their faith-cultures get elevated in this vacuum.
Down in Mayo, of all places, there's tons of Muslims.....they play Gaelic football and hurling and are part of the furniture in towns like Ballyhaunis and Ballaghadereen.
I haven't heard one bad word spoken against them by anyone
(Muppet..on a side note, I don't know how old you are, but you might remember a Pakistani lad who used to play underage for Knockmore back in the 80s. He was some player...I got a few shkelps off him back in the day. Unfortunately, that was a different time in Ireland, and I remember he got dogs abuse from opposing supporters)
Have we moved on that much? I'd wager he'd still get abuse the length and breadth of the country.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 10, 2015, 08:58:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?
Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)
I used to be in favour of intervention but I've come around to the view that it's not always for the best. "We" (western powers) tried to impose democracy by force in Afghanistan and Iraq. Success has been limited in the former, and as for the latter, the less that's said the better.
What the west needs to do is drop this arrogant attitude that freedom, democracy and the rule of law is something that only we understand or want. The need for freedom is something that all peoples yearn for. History has shown that dictatorships are not sustainable in the long run, because it is impossible to govern without the consent of the governed in the long run. Dictators hang onto power by various means (terrorizing their own people, building support among their own people by attacking neighbouring countries, or some combination thereof) but dictatorships have a tendency to burn themselves out eventually when left to their own devices.
Democracy in the west is stable and pretty much indestructible because it was home-grown. Democracy in the UK evolved over centuries of figuring for themselves out which powers belonged where (including a civil war and a brief experiment with a republic) and eventually it settled into the fairly stable system they have today which everyone accepts. If it were an alien system imposed from the outside I'm not so sure it would have stood the test of time so well.
The experience in the west shows that power has a tendency to flow downward towards the people over time. The same is true everywhere. As China becomes more affluent, their people are going to want more control over their lives and the powers-that-be will have no choice but to allow it. The Arab Spring and the protests in Iran in the wake of their rigged election several years ago are another example of how populations will only take so much crap.
Iran is probably the most interesting case. When the mullahs in Tehran allowed Ahmedinijad to get reelected they seemed to underestimate the strength of feeling among the people. In the most recent election a more moderate president was allowed to win. That's why I think the best approach to Iran is slow down the uranium enrichment process as much as we can, but not in such a way that it strengthens the hand of the extremists. As long as the mullahs have a western bogeyman that they can blame for their country's problems, the hawks in Tehran will have the upper hand. If sanctions can be eased and the economy boosted, then the doves will be in a stronger position. If Iran is allowed to evolve into a stable democracy, as it was before the UK/USA stuck their noses in in the 1950s, then it should reach a point where we could actually live with them having a nuclear weapon. But we have to trust the Iranian people and drop the same arrogant attitude that didn't trust the Egyptians to run the Suez Canal.When democracy is imposed by force it is not very stable. When it is home-grown it puts down deeper roots. But nothing weakens democracy like a hostile external intervention.
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 12, 2015, 08:44:52 AM
All governments saying this is an attack on freedom of speech so what are the British government trying to do........... Ban 'extremists' speakers/views in universities.
Israel killed 15 journalists last summer in Gaza but nobody got excited. Power is very strange.
More of a general point rather than the specifics of this particular attack but equality laws usually talk about not discriminating on "grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation". Five of these six are generally not targeted by the media and to do so would correctly be considered taboo. Religion seems to be different however and tends to be fair game - probably due to historical factors where religion has had such a position of power (and has often abused that power).
I don't see this as an attack on freedom of speech at all. I see this as an attack on people who on numerous occasions have verbally and visually made disparaging cartoons about someone/something that would cause huge offence to numerous people. I don't agree in how these people died but I said before they have fanned the flames of this.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 12, 2015, 11:39:27 AM
I don't see this as an attack on freedom of speech at all. I see this as an attack on people who on numerous occasions have verbally and visually made disparaging cartoons about someone/something that would cause huge offence to numerous people. I don't agree in how these people died but I said before they have fanned the flames of this.
Yep, all is fair in love war and cartoons. ::)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 06:14:24 AM
Quote from: Aerlik on January 12, 2015, 05:45:51 AM
Ah the irony of Netanyahu marching in Paris yesterday.
Don't tell me he had the gall to show his face there... did he really?
No better place to have the
gall Gaul to show your face than France.
Meanwhile Chris Rock on twitter says that in the period where 12 people were murdered in Paris, 260 were shot dead in the states
Quote from: BennyCake on January 12, 2015, 11:49:47 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 06:14:24 AM
Quote from: Aerlik on January 12, 2015, 05:45:51 AM
Ah the irony of Netanyahu marching in Paris yesterday.
Don't tell me he had the gall to show his face there... did he really?
No better place to have the gall Gaul to show your face than France.
He should enjoy it while he can. If Palestine joins the ICC he will be arrested.
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Israel never allowed the Palestinians living under its boot to vote. I wouldn't call Israel a democracy.
Political economy is the big factor as to whether or not democracy works. Only a few countries around the world are decent places to live where people have full rights. Usually rich countries.
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Israel never allowed the Palestinians living under its boot to vote. I wouldn't call Israel a democracy.
Political economy is the big factor as to whether or not democracy works. Only a few countries around the world are decent places to live where people have full rights. Usually rich countries.
just for the record, can you name these countries.
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Israel/Palestine is not one single political entity. Israelies did not vote for Hamas. However, that is not what I asked and I don't want to start another shitfight about Israel/Palestine. Let me clarify further, what countries do you think have made the best fist of democracy ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 08:09:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Israel/Palestine is not one single political entity. Israelies did not vote for Hamas. However, that is not what I asked and I don't want to start another shitfight about Israel/Palestine. Let me clarify further, what countries do you think have made the best fist of democracy ?
greater israel is one entity per israel.
Try oecd as a starter. Very few asian citizens have full rights, very few african.
Quote from: omaghjoe on January 12, 2015, 06:42:36 AM
Eamon while I agree that the system of governance must be home grown and there must be public buy in, I disagree that democracy is necessarily the way forward. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that democracy is the best system of a governance.
Its true it has its benefit mainly that it makes those in power accountable for what they do
However the draw backs are much more glaring:
The most obvious one is that the people who win elections are good at winning elections and not necessarily (almost never) very good at running a country.
An improvement to this might be the emergence of technocrat governments but no doubt this will be deemed non democratic by the power hungry politicians who win elections.
The next draw back is how much does the voting public really know about what is best for the country? They don't they only really know what is best for themselves (usually in the short term) and will vote for decision that will help him alone out and not the country as a whole.
Another problem is the stagnation and dithering on difficult decisions. A good example at the moment is comparing the two world's superpowers China and the USA. The Chinese government can make all the difficult decisions it needs for the economic benefit of the country and thus the Chinese economy continues to grow and thrive. On the other hand Americas government can agree to nothing economically and its economy suffers
The elephant in the room is of course the press, they can easily manipulate the public, in fact the press really have become the mind police. If you control the press you can control the people. The governments of China and Iran both control the press, this allows them to keep the power. A "free press" is something that is open manipulation as well and Western governments have become so skilled at manipulating their own they can manipulate the press of other countries for their own benefit, especially useful for starting public unrest.
Anyway my point is democracy is not the be all and end all it is merely a passing phase in the history of societial governance
Technocratic governance is nice in theory, but in practice it's prone to stagnating into dictatorship. Democracy has a lot of disadvantages, but it has the least disadvantages of anything else that's been tried.
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 12, 2015, 11:39:27 AM
I don't see this as an attack on freedom of speech at all. I see this as an attack on people who on numerous occasions have verbally and visually made disparaging cartoons about someone/something that would cause huge offence to numerous people. I don't agree in how these people died but I said before they have fanned the flames of this.
This is what Salman Rushdie called "the but brigade." The people who say "the killings were wrong, but..."
There can be no buts. Publishing offensive cartoons is not a hanging offense and there can be no justification for this.
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Straight democracy depends on a lot of things to make it a success. Agreed and uncontroversial borders for one thing, something that's missing in Ireland, Palestine, and a lot of Africa that was carved up by imperial powers. Israel is a hangover from the time when borders were drawn not by the people who lived inside them but by Europeans with delusions of grandeur.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/fox-news-steven-emerson-birmingham-muslims
"Non-Muslims do not go to the British city of Birmingham, which has become a "totally Muslim" city, it has been claimed. Speaking on US news channel Fox News, Steven Emerson – who claims to be a "terrorism expert" – also said that gangs of religious police in parts of London beat up people who are not wearing Islamic clothes. -
the twitter backlash is hilarious
https://twitter.com/hashtag/foxnewsfacts?src=hash
The communist world tried technocratic government. It didn't work out very well.
Quote from: omaghjoe on January 12, 2015, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2015, 01:52:50 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 11, 2015, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
It worked in Eastern Europe.
The problem in the Middle east is too much western meddling.
Spot on. It worked in Eastern Europe because they had educated populations who wanted democracy for themselves. It was home grown.
It has failed miserably in most of Africa.
It doesn't really work in the US at the moment either
compared to what ?
Pre unlimited campaign financing by minority interests
I wasn't clear, I mean compared to what other country. I'm not necessariliy disagreeing with you on campaign finance but if the US is going to be constantly criticized then it would be good to have a reference so that we can figure out what they did correctly.
There is no question that democracy is the best system ( of a bad lot) in many countries, particularly in the west and apparently in the old 'east'. But it has been disastrous in places such as Africa (Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind) not to mention Israel/Palestine whereby one tribe gains the upper hand in an election and, with the champions of democracy supporting their legitimacy, they embark on the slaughter of their enemies.
Straight democracy wouldn't work in, for example, Northern Ireland. Hence the two first ministers.
Is it? Why would you suppose that considering the stagnation, incompetence and corruption that it is enviably riddled with when you have people in power who are good at getting elected but no little about running governments
Also "Straight Democracy" what on earth is that? Is that the ludicrous proposition system that you have in parts of the states where the public gets to vote on certain issues?
I probably should have said simple democracy, whereby the majority decide who is in power. This has been disastrous in Rwanda for example. The UN actually helped the Government commit the atrocities there.
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
greater israel is one entity per israel.
Try oecd as a starter. Very few asian citizens have full rights, very few african.
No such country or political entity exists.
From your answer (i.e. oecd) would it be fair to conclude that you believe that the Scandinavian countries are the benchmark that we should aim at ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
greater israel is one entity per israel.
Try oecd as a starter. Very few asian citizens have full rights, very few african.
No such country or political entity exists.
From your answer (i.e. oecd) would it be fair to conclude that you believe that the Scandinavian countries are the benchmark that we should aim at ?
Israeli foreign ministry doesn't recognise any Palestinian county council.
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Pages/ISRAEL%20IN%20BRIEF.aspx
"Israel is located in the Middle East, along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. It lies at the junction of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. "
Israel tourism ministry map of Israel.
Point out the West Bank when you have a moment
http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Israel/Documents/MapOfIsrael1.pdf
Greater Israel is de facto and Israel is working hard to make sure it's de jure
Quote from: omaghjoe on January 12, 2015, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 09:21:47 PM
The communist world tried technocratic government. It didn't work out very well.
Alright....
So any specific examples? ....Details of how it was implemented? ... or why it didn't work out very well?
Oh God. Seriously? That's a thread in itself!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Thought this was quite interesting. . . should be sent into Fox News to stop their nonsense!!
http://www.islam21c.com/special/a-james-obrien-masterclass-in-how-to-deal-with-people-demanding-that-muslims-apologise-for-charliehebdo/
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2015, 05:57:57 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
greater israel is one entity per israel.
Try oecd as a starter. Very few asian citizens have full rights, very few african.
No such country or political entity exists.
From your answer (i.e. oecd) would it be fair to conclude that you believe that the Scandinavian countries are the benchmark that we should aim at ?
Israeli foreign ministry doesn't recognise any Palestinian county council.
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Pages/ISRAEL%20IN%20BRIEF.aspx
"Israel is located in the Middle East, along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. It lies at the junction of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. "
Israel tourism ministry map of Israel.
Point out the West Bank when you have a moment
http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Israel/Documents/MapOfIsrael1.pdf
Greater Israel is de facto and Israel is working hard to make sure it's de jure
Ha ha, you are using a tourist board as an authority of who decides what a country is. That's jokeshop stuff Seafoid.
Now stop avoiding the question. I know you desperately want to turn this into an Israel/Palestine thing but It is perfectly obvious to everybody what you are doing. You desperately want to avoid answering the question as it will crystallize your political leanings in a form that can actually be evaluated.
I prefer the US model followed by the UK model and Australian model. The Scandinavian model is way too socialist imo. What do you think ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 13, 2015, 11:28:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2015, 05:57:57 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
greater israel is one entity per israel.
Try oecd as a starter. Very few asian citizens have full rights, very few african.
No such country or political entity exists.
From your answer (i.e. oecd) would it be fair to conclude that you believe that the Scandinavian countries are the benchmark that we should aim at ?
Israeli foreign ministry doesn't recognise any Palestinian county council.
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Pages/ISRAEL%20IN%20BRIEF.aspx
"Israel is located in the Middle East, along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. It lies at the junction of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. "
Israel tourism ministry map of Israel.
Point out the West Bank when you have a moment
http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Israel/Documents/MapOfIsrael1.pdf
Greater Israel is de facto and Israel is working hard to make sure it's de jure
Ha ha, you are using a tourist board as an authority of who decides what a country is. That's jokeshop stuff Seafoid.
Now stop avoiding the question. I know you desperately want to turn this into an Israel/Palestine thing but It is perfectly obvious to everybody what you are doing. You desperately want to avoid answering the question as it will crystallize your political leanings in a form that can actually be evaluated.
I prefer the US model followed by the UK model and Australian model. The Scandinavian model is way too socialist imo. What do you think ?
Show me an Israeli government map that shows the occupied territories.
I showed the Foreign affairs and tourism - feel free to throw up something else
Otherwise STFU and go back to the topic of Paris
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2015, 11:49:13 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 13, 2015, 11:28:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2015, 05:57:57 AM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 12, 2015, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 12, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
greater israel is one entity per israel.
Try oecd as a starter. Very few asian citizens have full rights, very few african.
No such country or political entity exists.
From your answer (i.e. oecd) would it be fair to conclude that you believe that the Scandinavian countries are the benchmark that we should aim at ?
Israeli foreign ministry doesn't recognise any Palestinian county council.
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Pages/ISRAEL%20IN%20BRIEF.aspx
"Israel is located in the Middle East, along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. It lies at the junction of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. "
Israel tourism ministry map of Israel.
Point out the West Bank when you have a moment
http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Israel/Documents/MapOfIsrael1.pdf
Greater Israel is de facto and Israel is working hard to make sure it's de jure
Ha ha, you are using a tourist board as an authority of who decides what a country is. That's jokeshop stuff Seafoid.
Now stop avoiding the question. I know you desperately want to turn this into an Israel/Palestine thing but It is perfectly obvious to everybody what you are doing. You desperately want to avoid answering the question as it will crystallize your political leanings in a form that can actually be evaluated.
I prefer the US model followed by the UK model and Australian model. The Scandinavian model is way too socialist imo. What do you think ?
Show me an Israeli government map that shows the occupied territories.
I showed the Foreign affairs and tourism - feel free to throw up something else
Otherwise STFU and go back to the topic of Paris
Tut, tut..losing your temper already and resorting to telling people to shut up. Greater Israel does not exist . The Israelies and Hamas both have their claims to a greater Israel and a caliphate, neither of which reflect the actualities on the ground.
You were the one that brought up the issue of democracy, supposedly, not working in the US so you can dismount from that high horse.
Now stop being a coward and answer the question. What country best reflects your ideal of a working democracy ?
(You can even use tourism stats if you want..... :) )
Ireland. Ireland is the epitome of a democracy. Any auld eejit can get elected. And then various teams of eejits combine with each other to play at government for a few years until another set of eejits get elected.
This obsessive and bitter goading/stalking/trolling of seafoid fairly ruins threads
This is very impressive- an open letter to young Muslims by film director Luc Besson
There is a huge difference in the response to this attack between Fox/Israel and European intellectuals.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/13/luc-besson-writes-open-letter-to-young-muslims-after-charlie-hebdo-killings
"My brother, if you knew how badly I hurt for you today, you and your beautiful religion that has been so sullied, humiliated, and singled out. Forgotten are your strength, your energy, your humour, your heart, your fraternity. It's unfair and together we will repair this injustice. We are millions who love you and who are going to help you. Let's start at the beginning. What is the society we're offering you today? It's based on money, profit, segregation and racism. In some suburbs, unemployment for people under 25 is 50%. You are marginalised because of your colour or your first name. You're questioned 10 times a day, you're crowded into apartment blocks and no one represents you. Who could live and thrive under such conditions? Profit comes before all else. We cut and sell the apple tree's branches and then are shocked there's no fruit.
The real problem is there, and that's for all of us to resolve. I call on the powerful, the big bosses and all leaders. Help this youth that has been humiliated and which asks only to be part of society. The economy is in the service of man and not the reverse. To do good is the greatest of profits. Dear powerful, do you have children? Do you love them? What do you want to leave them? Money? Why not a world that's more fair? That would make your children the most proud of you. We cannot build our happiness on the misfortune of others. It is neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Muslim. It is just selfish and it leads our society and our planet straight into a wall. This is the work we have to do beginning today to honour our dead. Terrorism will never win. And you, my brother, you also have a job to do. How can you change this society that's being offered to you? By working, by studying, by taking up a pencil rather than a Kalashnikov. That's what's good about democracy, it offers you the noble tools to defend yourself. Take your destiny in hand, take the power. It costs 250 euros to buy a Kalashnikov but not even three euros to buy a pen – and your response can have a thousand times more impact. Take the power, and play by the rules. Take power democratically, helped by all your brothers. Terrorism will never win. History is there to prove it. And the beautiful image of the martyr walking in both directions.
Today there are a thousand [assassinated Charlie Hebdo journalists] Cabus and Wolinskis who have just been born. Take the power and don't let anyone take power over you. If those who are presumed guilty of this tragedy really are, know that these two blood-spilling brothers are not yours, and we all know it. It would at most be two weak-minded individuals, abandoned by society and then abused by a preacher who sold them eternity ... Radical preachers who play on and make your misfortune their business have no good intentions. They use your religion only to their advantage. It is their business, their small business. Tomorrow, my brother, we will be stronger, more connected, closer. I promise you. But today, my brother, I cry with you."
-
It would at most be two weak-minded individuals, abandoned by society and then abused by a preacher who sold them eternity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html)
Some of the responses on twitter were brilliant.
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2015, 03:04:50 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html)
Some of the responses on twitter were brilliant.
the apology is pointless. the goal was to feed shite to dumb American Fox viewers who won't see the apology.
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2015, 04:19:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 13, 2015, 03:04:50 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html)
Some of the responses on twitter were brilliant.
the apology is pointless. the goal was to feed shite to dumb American Fox viewers who won't see the apology.
Standard dirty tricks for the masses.
See the way the presenter leads him "...You know what it sounds like to me, Steve? It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country....."
Scare the bejaysus out of the rednecks and then promise to protect them. #FoxNewsFacts
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7PpMccCUAEEaC8.jpg)
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
I don't believe that is so different to how things work in the states with the plutocrats
Quote from: seafoid on January 13, 2015, 08:08:16 PM
I don't believe that is so different to how things work in the states with the plutocrats
Thing is, in the states nowadays you can build up a big enough "net roots" operation that you can overcome the power of big donors with a large number of small donations from your devoted followers. But you have to be inspiring enough to attract that kind of following. Howard Dean pioneered it (and then blew it with his "I have a scream" speech), Barry Obama perfected it. You getmsome congress people who use this model. Alan Grayson is probably one of the best examples. Goes on TV calling the repubs a crowd of "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging neanderthals" and other headline-grabbing rhetoric, then watches the contributions flood in.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7OARcxIIAESEXv.jpg)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Unbelievable alright.............
Khamenei's armies haven't killed remotely as many people as Lizzies.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 13, 2015, 12:47:28 PM
This obsessive and bitter goading/stalking/trolling of seafoid fairly ruins threads
funny, I had it as Sheehy (who should'nt be using the moniker of the games greats !) who was the pain in the hoop. (in fairness I dont follow some of the threads too closely)
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.
Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.
NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Quote from: JoG2 on January 14, 2015, 02:01:43 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 13, 2015, 12:47:28 PM
This obsessive and bitter goading/stalking/trolling of seafoid fairly ruins threads
funny, I had it as Sheehy (who should'nt be using the moniker of the games greats !) who was the pain in the hoop. (in fairness I dont follow some of the threads too closely)
Nor even this one ;D
Steve was talking of the trolling of Seafoid not trolling by Seafoid.
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Quote from: LeoMc on January 14, 2015, 04:22:07 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on January 14, 2015, 02:01:43 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 13, 2015, 12:47:28 PM
This obsessive and bitter goading/stalking/trolling of seafoid fairly ruins threads
funny, I had it as Sheehy (who should'nt be using the moniker of the games greats !) who was the pain in the hoop. (in fairness I dont follow some of the threads too closely)
Nor even this one ;D
Steve was talking of the trolling of Seafoid not trolling by Seafoid.
indeed!
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.
Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.
NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.
Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.
The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?
The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
http://www.hscentre.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/the-mullahs-selection/ (http://www.hscentre.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/the-mullahs-selection/)
Quote
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Nope, not the same. The Queen rubber stamps the decision of parliament. If she goes against the will of parliament then the Prime Minister can demand her abdication, and she'd have to go if she wants to avoid a constitutional crisis. The English civil war sorted out who was in charge between the crown and parliament. The mullahs in Tehran are a bit more powerful than that.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
They didn t behave like psychopaths imo. Undoubtedly they were brainwashed - but you could argue that about anybody that is into any religion. They behaved a bit like The Squad that took out government agents during the war of independence.
I ve seen Dan Breen called a murdering psychopath by some; others regard him as a hero.
I am not religious but I respect religion and those that choose to practice it. I remember being very moved, on a visit to The Vatican, by the sight of an elderly Polish woman kneeling and crying at the tomb of John Paul II. Why mock others' beliefs?
I don t see why French cartoonists should be having a go at Islam.
And please don t accuse me of trying to justify what they did. I am not. I m just trying to understand why these things happen. Labelling people terrorists and psychos is just a point of view. Is it not a worry that other people see these guys as heroes; like people regard likes of Breen as a hero.
More troops, laws, intelligence, tighter controls, eradication of free speech, more checkpoints, hassling citizens across Europe etc etc.
You have to hand it to the Nazis. They know how to control the sheep.
Quote from: moysider on January 14, 2015, 11:07:00 PM
They didn t behave like psychopaths imo. Undoubtedly they were brainwashed - but you could argue that about anybody that is into any religion. They behaved a bit like The Squad that took out government agents during the war of independence.
I ve seen Dan Breen called a murdering psychopath by some; others regard him as a hero.
It's a question of motivation. The people who fought for Irish independence were fighting for justice and a better future for their country, and they generally targeted the instruments of what they regarded as a hostile foreign state that was intruding in their country. These barbarians in Paris were fighting on behalf of the invisible man in the sky, and avenging some perceived slight by targeting writers and cartoonists. Apparently mighty Allah is so sensitive that he needs people to go out and wreak death and destruction on people if they don't toe the line. Not by any stretch of the imagination can these mucksavages be regarded as heroes. They are evil, psychotic terrorists and the sooner they and their poisonous ideology is removed from the face of the earth the better.
Quote
I am not religious but I respect religion and those that choose to practice it. I remember being very moved, on a visit to The Vatican, by the sight of an elderly Polish woman kneeling and crying at the tomb of John Paul II. Why mock others' beliefs?
I don t see why French cartoonists should be having a go at Islam.
We can agree to differ on whether or not religion deserves to be mocked, although I would argue that radical Islam is such a corrosive influence that it deserves every bit of scorn that is heaped upon it. However mocking religion is a basic right that we in the western world hold dear, and God help us if that were to be taken away by terrorist thugs who terrorize everyone into silence.
Quote from: moysider on January 14, 2015, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
I am not religious but I respect religion and those that choose to practice it. I don t see why French cartoonists should be having a go at Islam.
Is it not a worry that other people see these guys as heroes
In general i afford anothers religion the respect they show others. Islam does not respect other religions.
And yes it is a worry that others see these people as heroes. These were not the acts of desperate people fighting for their very existence with a clear politcal objective.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 14, 2015, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
I am not religious but I respect religion and those that choose to practice it. I don t see why French cartoonists should be having a go at Islam.
Is it not a worry that other people see these guys as heroes
In general i afford anothers religion the respect they show others. Islam does not respect other religions.
And yes it is a worry that others see these people as heroes. These were not the acts of desperate people fighting for their very existence with a clear politcal objective.
On what basis can you say that? Most Muslims are ordinary people living ordinary lives. Do you know anything about Sufism, for example?
ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Muslims any more than the drug gangs in Ireland represent Irish people.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.
Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.
NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.
Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.
The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?
The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.
The Iran-Iraq war- who started it ? I think the West backed Saddam to counter Iranian attempts to bring the Shia of southern Iraq into the revolutionary fold (this seems to have happened post Iraq war 03 anyway ) .
The theocracy in Iran are no different to politicians anywhere. They focus on money, like leaders everywhere.
All this stuff about mad mullahs is very orientalist.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 14, 2015, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
http://www.hscentre.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/the-mullahs-selection/ (http://www.hscentre.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/the-mullahs-selection/)
Quote
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Nope, not the same. The Queen rubber stamps the decision of parliament. If she goes against the will of parliament then the Prime Minister can demand her abdication, and she'd have to go if she wants to avoid a constitutional crisis. The English civil war sorted out who was in charge between the crown and parliament. The mullahs in Tehran are a bit more powerful than that.
You've referenced an article there, please please tell me that you aren't using that infantile analysis as some sort of information source about the Iranian political system.
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.
Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.
NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.
Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.
The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?
The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.
Well you rowed into the middle of an argument asking a question which appeared to show shock/horror/astonishment/outrage that I had compared the Queen and the Ayatollah. Yes it did sound a bit more West Brit than West Belfrast tbh.
And I would happily take on a wee wager about that. Though how either of us could prove how many peeps either side side killed is gonna be difficult. Suffice to say that Iran hasnt been running around invading other countries on the other side of the world, or indeed anywhere, unlike our friendly neighbours.
Quote from: seafoid on January 15, 2015, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 14, 2015, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
I am not religious but I respect religion and those that choose to practice it. I don t see why French cartoonists should be having a go at Islam.
Is it not a worry that other people see these guys as heroes
In general i afford anothers religion the respect they show others. Islam does not respect other religions.
And yes it is a worry that others see these people as heroes. These were not the acts of desperate people fighting for their very existence with a clear politcal objective.
On what basis can you say that? Most Muslims are ordinary people living ordinary lives. Do you know anything about Sufism, for example?
ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Muslims any more than the drug gangs in Ireland represent Irish people.
Can you say that Christians in predominately Muslim countries are treated with the same tolerance as Muslims are in the West ? Can they build churches in Egypt for example with the same ease as Mosques can be built in the West ? I doubt it.
I am fully aware that ISIS do not represent the majority of Muslims. FFS they are killing each other mainly with those poor Yazidi people stuck in the middle of them. Sufism - only thing i know about it is that its some form of mystical aspect to islam. What can you tell me about it ?
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 15, 2015, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: moysider on January 14, 2015, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
I am not religious but I respect religion and those that choose to practice it. I don t see why French cartoonists should be having a go at Islam.
Is it not a worry that other people see these guys as heroes
In general i afford anothers religion the respect they show others. Islam does not respect other religions.
And yes it is a worry that others see these people as heroes. These were not the acts of desperate people fighting for their very existence with a clear politcal objective.
On what basis can you say that? Most Muslims are ordinary people living ordinary lives. Do you know anything about Sufism, for example?
ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Muslims any more than the drug gangs in Ireland represent Irish people.
Can you say that Christians in predominately Muslim countries are treated with the same tolerance as Muslims are in the West ? Can they build churches in Egypt for example with the same ease as Mosques can be built in the West ? I doubt it.
I am fully aware that ISIS do not represent the majority of Muslims. FFS they are killing each other mainly with those poor Yazidi people stuck in the middle of them. Sufism - only thing i know about it is that its some form of mystical aspect to islam. What can you tell me about it ?
Switzerland voted in 2005 to ban minarets.
Egypt is going through a political crisis- normally relations between Copts and Muslims are good.
I wouldn't hold up the wee 6 as a barometer of the state of play between catholics and protestants globally either.
Muslims are as human as Christians- singling them out for intolerance regardless of political economy considerations is not really on.
Sufism is much more tolerant tradition that Saudi doesn't like and is trying to undermine.
Quote from: seafoid on January 15, 2015, 12:51:25 PM
Muslims are as human as Christians- singling them out for intolerance regardless of political economy considerations is not really on.
Indeed Seafóid - we saw what happened the last time we tried that in Europe ( with Jews) 1933 -45.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 13, 2015, 12:39:05 PM
Ireland. Ireland is the epitome of a democracy. Any auld eejit can get elected. And then various teams of eejits combine with each other to play at government for a few years until another set of eejits get elected.
The question is though who are the biggest eejits, the elected or the electors who voted them in?
You have to vote for somebody I suppose. We need the 'No Eejits' Party.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 15, 2015, 04:09:22 PM
You have to vote for somebody I suppose. We need the 'No Eejits' Party.
No party is immune from Eejits.
Especially this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3elLmrCmOqo&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3elLmrCmOqo&spfreload=10)
Or this one.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-does-a-uturn-on-comment-that-workers-contacted-him-amazed-at-extra-money-in-wages-after-budget-30909404.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-does-a-uturn-on-comment-that-workers-contacted-him-amazed-at-extra-money-in-wages-after-budget-30909404.html)
I suppose ti could be worse:
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-1920/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/5/1378386557209/George-Bush-005.jpg)
Sad to say, I'm not sure that actually is any worse than the posts you or I put up :( That turkey is just VERY grateful it got the presidential Thanksgiving pardon. Brings a whole new meaning to Gobble gobble though.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 15, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Or this one.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-does-a-uturn-on-comment-that-workers-contacted-him-amazed-at-extra-money-in-wages-after-budget-30909404.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-does-a-uturn-on-comment-that-workers-contacted-him-amazed-at-extra-money-in-wages-after-budget-30909404.html)
Ah, shag off the lot of ye! ;D
He may be a total eejit but he is our total eejit and we're proud of the fact that we don't do nothing by halves. You wouldn't get the likes anywhere else, would ye?
Maigheo Abú!
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
So fairly similar to the "brainwashed psychopaths" you mentioned earlier?
Charging that guy is a complete slap in the face to any notion of freedom of speech which these cartoonists died for
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
So fairly similar to the "brainwashed psychopaths" you mentioned earlier?
Charging that guy is a complete slap in the face to any notion of freedom of speech which these cartoonists died for
I dont think they are similar at all. Watch that show "angry, white, and proud" for example and try and seriously compare skin head lager swilling ex football thugs with someone that travels to Yemen, recieves military training, and comes back to kill 20 odd people.
I think they were right to charge the guy because basically he is expressing support for a hate crime/murder and potentially inciting further trouble.
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 15, 2015, 11:25:40 AM
You've referenced an article there, please please tell me that you aren't using that infantile analysis as some sort of information source about the Iranian political system.
You ask for a citation.
I go off, find a citation, and post it here.
You complain when I give you a citation.
Somebody please shoot me.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 15, 2015, 07:51:06 PM
Somebody please shoot me.
Where you are living, be careful what you wish for!
Quote from: armaghniac on January 15, 2015, 08:02:01 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 15, 2015, 07:51:06 PM
Somebody please shoot me.
Where you are living, be careful what you wish for!
I know a place in Missouri he is dying to visit as well. Write to Jim'll Fix it.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
So fairly similar to the "brainwashed psychopaths" you mentioned earlier?
Charging that guy is a complete slap in the face to any notion of freedom of speech which these cartoonists died for
I dont think they are similar at all. Watch that show "angry, white, and proud" for example and try and seriously compare skin head lager swilling ex football thugs with someone that travels to Yemen, recieves military training, and comes back to kill 20 odd people.
I think they were right to charge the guy because basically he is expressing support for a hate crime/murder and potentially inciting further trouble.
Watched it last night actually.
So are you saying that these football thugs are not a serious threat?
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
So fairly similar to the "brainwashed psychopaths" you mentioned earlier?
Charging that guy is a complete slap in the face to any notion of freedom of speech which these cartoonists died for
I dont think they are similar at all. Watch that show "angry, white, and proud" for example and try and seriously compare skin head lager swilling ex football thugs with someone that travels to Yemen, recieves military training, and comes back to kill 20 odd people.
I think they were right to charge the guy because basically he is expressing support for a hate crime/murder and potentially inciting further trouble.
Watched it last night actually.
So are you saying that these football thugs are not a serious threat?
While they are for the most part ignorant vile misguided individuals i can't see any of them murdering people over a cartoon. They wouldnt stay sober or stop fighting among themselves long enough to organise anything that would amount to a serious threat. The fact that unarmed police were able to handle them fairly easily would suggest they are little more than a rabble to be allowed to let off some steam and be herded around the streets. These groups are around a long time and the police are well able for them and know their every move. The article below shows that support for them is at a very low ebb.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/support-british-far-right-groups-20-year-low-bnp-edl (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/support-british-far-right-groups-20-year-low-bnp-edl)
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 15, 2015, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.
Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.
NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.
Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.
The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?
The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.
Well you rowed into the middle of an argument asking a question which appeared to show shock/horror/astonishment/outrage that I had compared the Queen and the Ayatollah. Yes it did sound a bit more West Brit than West Belfrast tbh.
And I would happily take on a wee wager about that. Though how either of us could prove how many peeps either side side killed is gonna be difficult. Suffice to say that Iran hasnt been running around invading other countries on the other side of the world, or indeed anywhere, unlike our friendly neighbours.
No it didn't. It just participated in a fruitless, extended war that killed in the region of a million people.
You can kid yourself all you want that my incredulity over your belief that Iran is somehow a democracy makes me a west Brit.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 08:38:55 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
So fairly similar to the "brainwashed psychopaths" you mentioned earlier?
Charging that guy is a complete slap in the face to any notion of freedom of speech which these cartoonists died for
I dont think they are similar at all. Watch that show "angry, white, and proud" for example and try and seriously compare skin head lager swilling ex football thugs with someone that travels to Yemen, recieves military training, and comes back to kill 20 odd people.
I think they were right to charge the guy because basically he is expressing support for a hate crime/murder and potentially inciting further trouble.
Watched it last night actually.
So are you saying that these football thugs are not a serious threat?
While they are for the most part ignorant vile misguided individuals i can't see any of them murdering people over a cartoon. They wouldnt stay sober or stop fighting among themselves long enough to organise anything that would amount to a serious threat. The fact that unarmed police were able to handle them fairly easily would suggest they are little more than a rabble to be allowed to let off some steam and be herded around the streets. These groups are around a long time and the police are well able for them and know their every move. The article below shows that support for them is at a very low ebb.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/support-british-far-right-groups-20-year-low-bnp-edl (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/support-british-far-right-groups-20-year-low-bnp-edl)
I agree. So the fact that these kind of dopes (who are of no real threat) might take umbrage at this guy's joke regarding the terrorists means he should be charged? As I said, a complete slap in the face for the people who died
Looks like an attack in Belgium has been prevented
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30840160 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30840160)
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 08:38:55 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: trileacman on January 14, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman
France has a seriously fucked idea of what freedom of speech. The satire magazine are celebrated for repeating the action which incited 17 deaths, including the lives of those not associated to Hebdo but your man is charged with an offence for offering his opinion on FB. For the record I think both actions are f**king stupidity but how can free thinking people not see the irony of this situation.
Those cartoons could only incite murder in the mind of a brainwashed psychopath. I'd say most free thinking people can see that much. Suggesting support for those murders is incitement in my view.
Incitement?? Who is being incited??
Far right groups could be incited to terrorise ordinary people in retaliation for example
So fairly similar to the "brainwashed psychopaths" you mentioned earlier?
Charging that guy is a complete slap in the face to any notion of freedom of speech which these cartoonists died for
I dont think they are similar at all. Watch that show "angry, white, and proud" for example and try and seriously compare skin head lager swilling ex football thugs with someone that travels to Yemen, recieves military training, and comes back to kill 20 odd people.
I think they were right to charge the guy because basically he is expressing support for a hate crime/murder and potentially inciting further trouble.
Watched it last night actually.
So are you saying that these football thugs are not a serious threat?
While they are for the most part ignorant vile misguided individuals i can't see any of them murdering people over a cartoon. They wouldnt stay sober or stop fighting among themselves long enough to organise anything that would amount to a serious threat. The fact that unarmed police were able to handle them fairly easily would suggest they are little more than a rabble to be allowed to let off some steam and be herded around the streets. These groups are around a long time and the police are well able for them and know their every move. The article below shows that support for them is at a very low ebb.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/support-british-far-right-groups-20-year-low-bnp-edl (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/support-british-far-right-groups-20-year-low-bnp-edl)
I agree. So the fact that these kind of dopes (who are of no real threat) might take umbrage at this guy's joke regarding the terrorists means he should be charged? As I said, a complete slap in the face for the people who died
No its because he was perceived to be supporting a hate crime/murder. It has nothing to do with whether the far right take offence, they aren't the only people that were disgusted by the murder of the journalists. Although it would seem not all were.
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Free speech does have its limitations. Previous form would be taken into account when charging anyone. Mr Bryson for example is about to find that out. Suggesting support for a murderer is not the same as satire against religion. There is a big difference.
Quote from: gallsman on January 15, 2015, 08:41:59 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 15, 2015, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on January 14, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 14, 2015, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 13, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 13, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 12, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 12, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.
I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.
Iran isn't a democracy???? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.
Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.
Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??
However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.
Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?
Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.
Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.
NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.
Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.
The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?
The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.
Well you rowed into the middle of an argument asking a question which appeared to show shock/horror/astonishment/outrage that I had compared the Queen and the Ayatollah. Yes it did sound a bit more West Brit than West Belfrast tbh.
And I would happily take on a wee wager about that. Though how either of us could prove how many peeps either side side killed is gonna be difficult. Suffice to say that Iran hasnt been running around invading other countries on the other side of the world, or indeed anywhere, unlike our friendly neighbours.
No it didn't. It just participated in a fruitless, extended war that killed in the region of a million people.
You can kid yourself all you want that my incredulity over your belief that Iran is somehow a democracy makes me a west Brit.
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 15, 2015, 07:51:06 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 15, 2015, 11:25:40 AM
You've referenced an article there, please please tell me that you aren't using that infantile analysis as some sort of information source about the Iranian political system.
You ask for a citation.
I go off, find a citation, and post it here.
You complain when I give you a citation.
Somebody please shoot me.
Well tbh Eamon its like something that was written by the terrorism 'expert' who thinks Birmingham is a caliphate lol.
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 16, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
The Egyptians exercised their democratic will and look where that got them!
Arab spring me arse!
Quote from: johnneycool on January 16, 2015, 01:22:38 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 16, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
The Egyptians exercised their democratic will and look where that got them!
Arab spring me arse!
There was a big conservative reaction from Saudi Arabia to the Arab Spring. I think their support of ISIS is part of this.
Egypt will probably blow up again in a few years.
Quote from: seafoid on January 16, 2015, 03:55:26 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on January 16, 2015, 01:22:38 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 16, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
The Egyptians exercised their democratic will and look where that got them!
Arab spring me arse!
There was a big conservative reaction from Saudi Arabia to the Arab Spring. I think their support of ISIS is part of this.
Egypt will probably blow up again in a few years.
I think that abhorrence of wahhabism is one of the few things that we might actually agree on Seafoid. What is it about this branch of the Sunni religion that you especially despise (apart from its link to the Saudi government)
Quote from: haveaharp on January 16, 2015, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
I
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Free speech does have its limitations. Previous form would be taken into account when charging anyone. Mr Bryson for example is about to find that out. Suggesting support for a murderer is not the same as satire against religion. There is a big difference.
How was his comment "suggesting support"? You must be having a laugh
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 17, 2015, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 16, 2015, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
I
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Free speech does have its limitations. Previous form would be taken into account when charging anyone. Mr Bryson for example is about to find that out. Suggesting support for a murderer is not the same as satire against religion. There is a big difference.
How was his comment "suggesting support"? You must be having a laugh
What do you think his comment meant ? If you can offer an alternative interpretation I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 16, 2015, 11:47:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 16, 2015, 03:55:26 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on January 16, 2015, 01:22:38 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 16, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
The Egyptians exercised their democratic will and look where that got them!
Arab spring me arse!
There was a big conservative reaction from Saudi Arabia to the Arab Spring. I think their support of ISIS is part of this.
Egypt will probably blow up again in a few years.
I think that abhorrence of wahhabism is one of the few things that we might actually agree on Seafoid. What is it about this branch of the Sunni religion that you especially despise (apart from its link to the Saudi government)
It's a nihilistic form of religion, like some elements of Irish Catholicism from the 50s. Far too cruel and heartless, manichean and brutal.
The iconoclasm is shocking. Wahhabis were behind the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
And the Saudis push it as an attempt to wipe out forms like Sufism which is far more representative of how people actually live.
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2015, 01:49:54 AM
It's a nihilistic form of religion, like some elements of Irish Catholicism from the 50s. Far too cruel and heartless, manichean and brutal.
The iconoclasm is shocking. Wahhabis were behind the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
And the Saudis push it as an attempt to wipe out forms like Sufism which is far more representative of how people actually live.
That is a very good synopsis of my view of wahhabism as well. However, wrt to the destruction of the Buddha, would you say that wahhbism is a unigue strand of Islam in terms of its fundamentalist views of idolatory or are there other strands of Islam that place undue emphasis on idolatory ?
Indeed, the question may be asked, has mainstream Islam strayed too far in its deification of Mohammed which, if we are honest, is the ultimate form of idolatory since Mohammed is not god.
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 16, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
So you think the elections in Iran are all legit and above board? No rigging? The result is the true expression of what the people want? ???
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 17, 2015, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 16, 2015, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
I
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Free speech does have its limitations. Previous form would be taken into account when charging anyone. Mr Bryson for example is about to find that out. Suggesting support for a murderer is not the same as satire against religion. There is a big difference.
How was his comment "suggesting support"? You must be having a laugh
What did his comment mean then? Did the French authorities completely misunderstand him ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on January 17, 2015, 02:19:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2015, 01:49:54 AM
It's a nihilistic form of religion, like some elements of Irish Catholicism from the 50s. Far too cruel and heartless, manichean and brutal.
The iconoclasm is shocking. Wahhabis were behind the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
And the Saudis push it as an attempt to wipe out forms like Sufism which is far more representative of how people actually live.
That is a very good synopsis of my view of wahhabism as well. However, wrt to the destruction of the Buddha, would you say that wahhbism is a unigue strand of Islam in terms of its fundamentalist views of idolatory or are there other strands of Islam that place undue emphasis on idolatory ?
Indeed, the question may be asked, has mainstream Islam strayed too far in its deification of Mohammed which, if we are honest, is the ultimate form of idolatory since Mohammed is not god.
I think
Wahhabism is out on its own. I know in Egypt the tradition was to worship local saints or nabis - there is even a Jewish nabi shrine in the Delta- from the Wahhabi point of view this is idolatry and has to be destroyed. They took out most of the stuff around Mecca as well.
And in Pakistan they fund madrassas to sell the Wahhabi cult whereas the local traditions are more Sufi.
Nusrat Fatih ali Khan came from a long tradition of sufi singers. This song is about worshipping a Hindu god
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGfY2N8I1TA
The Saudi influence is poisonous.
Quote from: haveaharp on January 17, 2015, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 17, 2015, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 16, 2015, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
I
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Free speech does have its limitations. Previous form would be taken into account when charging anyone. Mr Bryson for example is about to find that out. Suggesting support for a murderer is not the same as satire against religion. There is a big difference.
How was his comment "suggesting support"? You must be having a laugh
What did his comment mean then? Did the French authorities completely misunderstand him ?
What I think his comment meant is irrelevant, you said it was suggesting support - how??
Who gets to decide what is and isn't covered by free speech??
For what it's worth, I think it was a stupid comment to make but in as much as the CH cartoonists should be protected by free speech, so should this guy
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 17, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 17, 2015, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 17, 2015, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 16, 2015, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on January 15, 2015, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on January 15, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
So saying "tonight I feel like charlie coulibaly" is expressing support for the terrorists??
I'm still not sure who would be incited by such a comment???
I
A comedian that has been accused of being anti semetic in the past posts on facebook about a terrorist act against Jews.
Someone else in the past may have said tonight I feel like Billy wright after some innocent catholic got shot.
I can see why it might incite further strife. However in the 2nd scenario the Billyboy wouldn't have been arrested. In the interest of free speech of course.
Does his previous actions diminish his right to free speech? I would have thought that it's entirely irrelevant.
Incite further strife?? Sure you could say the very same thing about CH publishing more cartoons. Is that not the whole point of free speech?
Free speech does have its limitations. Previous form would be taken into account when charging anyone. Mr Bryson for example is about to find that out. Suggesting support for a murderer is not the same as satire against religion. There is a big difference.
How was his comment "suggesting support"? You must be having a laugh
What did his comment mean then? Did the French authorities completely misunderstand him ?
What I think his comment meant is irrelevant, you said it was suggesting support - how??
Who gets to decide what is and isn't covered by free speech??
For what it's worth, I think it was a stupid comment to make but in as much as the CH cartoonists should be protected by free speech, so should this guy
What you think his comment meant is relevant seeing as you don't think it was expressing support for murder. "Tonight I feel like Coulibaly" has been interpreted by me an obviously the French authorities as expressing support for his actions. If it wasn't that then tell us what it was ?
Who gets to decide what is and isn't covered by free speech ? - The law. If people cannot decide for themselves what is morally acceptable to say or do then the law steps in.
The difference between Coulibaly and the cartoonists is that you have the choice to pick up a copy of Charlie Hedbo and be offended. The innocent people in the Kosher supermarket were not given that choice by Amedy Coulibaly.
What he said was "I am charlie coulibaly" not "I am coulibaly" - significant enough difference tbf.
I have no idea what he meant by it but I fail to see how it was incitement and I don't think it was offensive enough to warrant being arrested. It might have been in bad taste but I honestly can't believe how something like this can be censored at a time when people are being murdered for exercising their right to free speech
In the same way people who are offended by CH are free not to read it, people who don't follow this guy on facebook don't have to read his comments.
ISIS looking for $200 million ransom for 2 Japanese hostages
If the money is paid they'll buy more weapons and kidnap more people.
What would Jesus do ?
Quote from: seafoid on January 20, 2015, 02:30:21 PM
ISIS looking for $200 million ransom for 2 Japanese hostages
If the money is paid they'll buy more weapons and kidnap more people.
What would Jesus do ?
Meet Fox Jesus:
(https://fromoffshore.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/right-wing-jesus1.gif)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 17, 2015, 07:55:01 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 16, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.
Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.
But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today ::)
So you think the elections in Iran are all legit and above board? No rigging? The result is the true expression of what the people want? ???
Well now I never claimed any of those things but in answer to your questions:
No. Don't know but it seems likely. Who can tell.
Whats your point?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33284937
Sadly, this happens again.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/26/tunisia-tourist-hotel-reportedly-attacked
27 dead so far - a very busy day for fundamentalists. You'd have to wonder just how coordinated these attacks are. Scary times. The proximity of failed states like Libya/Syria/ increasingly Egypt will make tourism to places like Tunisia impossible. The only possible upside is the revulsion these attacks will stir up within the local populations, as happened in Algeria in the 90s.
The tragedy is that the likes of Tunisia could become a model for other places, but this kind of thing wrecks tourism which banjaxes the economy.
I was chatting to a guy recently who had just got back from Tunisia. He was out there working for some ngo advising on security matters. He was relatively upbeat about the country going forward and seemed to think that the democratic institutions they had were strong enough to survive. On the other though they are completely reliant on tourism and even before today the hotel bookings were decimated for the coming summer.
That's Tunisia economy banjaxed. Probably the intention. Will help to destabilise the country and give the fanatics opportunity to get a grip.
Terrible news coming from Tunisia. 27 dead people enjoying a summer holiday.
Very hard to get your head around the twisted logic that will be used to justify these attacks, beyond comprehension how that can be done in the name of any cause.
Already reports that flights bound for the area have turned round, will devastate the tourist trade and the lives of those directly affected.
Quote from: Bingo on June 26, 2015, 02:47:47 PM
Terrible news coming from Tunisia. 27 dead people enjoying a summer holiday.
Very hard to get your head around the twisted logic that will be used to justify these attacks, beyond comprehension how that can be done in the name of any cause.
Already reports that flights bound for the area have turned round, will devastate the tourist trade and the lives of those directly affected.
The intention imo.
The problem is that it is very difficult to stop these attacks, if someone is willing to be killed and entirely ruthless then there isn't a lot the Tunisian government can do, they only have to get lucky once.
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 02:30:07 PM
That's Tunisia economy banjaxed. Probably the intention. Will help to destabilise the country and give the fanatics opportunity to get a grip.
That is exactly the intention.
Fundamentalists, fanatics (left and right), and zealots. Imagine what a great place the world would be without them.
An Irish woman among dead in Tunisian attack apparently
Quote from: Saffrongael on June 26, 2015, 04:10:16 PM
An Irish woman among dead in Tunisian attack apparently
Journal.ie reporting that her son is on the Meath senior football panel.
LMFM have named her and her son - Journal reported it as their source. Absolutely terrible. Apparently there is a second gunman still at large.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 26, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
The problem is that it is very difficult to stop these attacks, if someone is willing to be killed and entirely ruthless then there isn't a lot the Tunisian government can do, they only have to get lucky once.
You have to wonder what the end point is. Will they stop when North Africa and the Middle East become Taliban - era Afghanistans?
Quote from: easytiger95 on June 26, 2015, 06:08:35 PM
LMFM have named her and her son - Journal reported it as their source. Absolutely terrible. Apparently there is a second gunman still at large.
Hard to do it nowadays with social media, but surely they could wait a day or two for family to be informed.
Thinking that myself muppet, which is why I didn't name them in my last post. But it is an absolute impossibility keeping anything off social media these days. If it had been me though, I would have waited for the official announcement from the Department of foreign affairs.
David Cameron on earlier saying Islam is a peaceful religion. Am I missing something?
Why is it that Western leaders continue with this nonsense?
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
David Cameron on earlier saying Islam is a peaceful religion. Am I missing something?
Why is it that Western leaders continue with this nonsense?
Are you tarring all Muslims with the same brush
Islam is as peaceful a religion as any other. Islamic militants who attack innocent civilians to further some bizarre view of Islam are no better than the Crusaders who subjugated the Middle East in the name of Christianity.
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
David Cameron on earlier saying Islam is a peaceful religion. Am I missing something?
Why is it that Western leaders continue with this nonsense?
I would say like myself a basic grounding in the principles of the religion.
Tho I have met more than a few and they were always grand
Possibly you've never met one tho? Isn't the lamb abattoir in Ballyhaunis run by Pakistanis? There's the perfect opportunity to get rid of some Christians en mass. ....but then maybe they aren't practicing ?
I ve been to Muslim countries and found the people very nice. Polite, helpful etc.
But I do not agree that Islam is a peaceful religion. Fanatics may be a minority but they are still a considerable number and a huge threat. Their actions are carried out in the name of God and approved by the prophet. So how is it peaceful?
Holy war (Jihad) is a guarantee of heaven.
◦Mohammed said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). "
How else do you interpret that?
Why then would you believe the news more than your own experience
Also huge number? Hardly and we should be talking about percentages. There's a billion and half of them. Even if there was a million (which there is no where near BTW) that wouldn't even be .1%. Not even sure you could call it a minority
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 26, 2015, 09:46:30 PM
Why then would you believe the news more than your own experience
Also huge number? Hardly and we should be talking about percentages. There's a billion and half of them. Even if there was a million (which there is no where near BTW) that wouldn't even be .1%. Not even sure you could call it a minority
I believe what I saw today on the news. Don t you?
I said a considerable number. I didn t mention the word huge. I dunno how many we are talking about but even thousands of fanatics can wreak havoc. Even .010% would be a big number and I would suspect a bigger % than that are radicalised. I also suspect that 'strong' governments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco e.g., is keeping the lid on an even bigger crisis.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
Not sure I follow this. Ayatollah Khomeini was hardly ignorant? Mullah Muhammad Omar? Or Osama Bin Laden?
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
Not sure I follow this. Ayatollah Khomeini was hardly ignorant? Mullah Muhammad Omar? Or Osama Bin Laden?
All of those fit into the dogma category.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
Not sure I follow this. Ayatollah Khomeini was hardly ignorant? Mullah Muhammad Omar? Or Osama Bin Laden?
All of those fit into the dogma category.
Where does the ignorance come in? Is it not the dogma ( the religion without putting too fine a tooth on it) that drives it?
Quote from: moysider on June 27, 2015, 12:08:50 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
Not sure I follow this. Ayatollah Khomeini was hardly ignorant? Mullah Muhammad Omar? Or Osama Bin Laden?
All of those fit into the dogma category.
Where does the ignorance come in? Is it not the dogma ( the religion without putting too fine a tooth on it) that drives it?
The ignorance is for the troops. The nutjob who commits the atrocity beieving, in world class ignorance, that he is a martyr and will get his eternal reward immediately.
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 12:10:23 AM
Quote from: moysider on June 27, 2015, 12:08:50 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
Not sure I follow this. Ayatollah Khomeini was hardly ignorant? Mullah Muhammad Omar? Or Osama Bin Laden?
All of those fit into the dogma category.
Where does the ignorance come in? Is it not the dogma ( the religion without putting too fine a tooth on it) that drives it?
The ignorance is for the troops. The nutjob who commits the atrocity beieving, in world class ignorance, that he is a martyr and will get his eternal reward immediately.
We re screwed so. There's no way of containing the troops. I don t accept they are nut jobs or even ignorant. That is our way of trying to comprehend what they do. We call them terrorists, evil, etc. I suspect they are believers. I suspect they believe they are obeying the teachings of the prophet and are doing God's will. But their religion is the driving force of this fanaticism - nothing else. They hate America and the West in general for resisting the spread of Islam and Sharia law throughout the world.
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 26, 2015, 09:46:30 PM
Why then would you believe the news more than your own experience
Also huge number? Hardly and we should be talking about percentages. There's a billion and half of them. Even if there was a million (which there is no where near BTW) that wouldn't even be .1%. Not even sure you could call it a minority
I believe what I saw today on the news. Don t you?
I said a considerable number. I didn t mention the word huge. I dunno how many we are talking about but even thousands of fanatics can wreak havoc. Even .010% would be a big number and I would suspect a bigger % than that are radicalised. I also suspect that 'strong' governments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco e.g., is keeping the lid on an even bigger crisis.
Probably the number 1 funder of radical Islamic extremist groups.
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 26, 2015, 09:46:30 PM
Why then would you believe the news more than your own experience
Also huge number? Hardly and we should be talking about percentages. There's a billion and half of them. Even if there was a million (which there is no where near BTW) that wouldn't even be .1%. Not even sure you could call it a minority
I believe what I saw today on the news. Don t you?
I said a considerable number. I didn t mention the word huge. I dunno how many we are talking about but even thousands of fanatics can wreak havoc. Even .010% would be a big number and I would suspect a bigger % than that are radicalised. I also suspect that 'strong' governments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco e.g., is keeping the lid on an even bigger crisis.
I was talking more about the general drumbeat that Islamic extremism is taking over the Muslim world.
Well if there are more then 1.5 million+ radicalised (what does that even mean?) Muslims in the world we really are in trouble.
You can quote things from the Koran or whatever but the fact is those things were written in different times and the cast majority of Muslims recognise them as belonging to that time and place as they have done for many centuries. Displayed no better than the Islamic civilisations the religion spawned, where tolerance, forgiveness and inclusiveness were very much to the fore. In fact their attitude and values probably helped coerce the Christian world into adopting these values.
These people are nutters I dont deny, how to stop I dunno, but one way to drive more people into their ranks is by tarring all Muslims with the same brush, But I guess that is partly their aim.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
What is this in reference to.... the Cromwellian conquest?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 27, 2015, 09:07:28 AM
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 26, 2015, 09:46:30 PM
Why then would you believe the news more than your own experience
Also huge number? Hardly and we should be talking about percentages. There's a billion and half of them. Even if there was a million (which there is no where near BTW) that wouldn't even be .1%. Not even sure you could call it a minority
I believe what I saw today on the news. Don t you?
I said a considerable number. I didn t mention the word huge. I dunno how many we are talking about but even thousands of fanatics can wreak havoc. Even .010% would be a big number and I would suspect a bigger % than that are radicalised. I also suspect that 'strong' governments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco e.g., is keeping the lid on an even bigger crisis.
I was talking more about the general drumbeat that Islamic extremism is taking over the Muslim world.
Well if there are more then 1.5 million+ radicalised (what does that even mean?) Muslims in the world we really are in trouble.
You can quote things from the Koran or whatever but the fact is those things were written in different times and the cast majority of Muslims recognise them as belonging to that time and place as they have done for many centuries. Displayed no better than the Islamic civilisations the religion spawned, where tolerance, forgiveness and inclusiveness were very much to the fore. In fact their attitude and values probably helped coerce the Christian world into adopting these values.
These people are nutters I dont deny, how to stop I dunno, but one way to drive more people into their ranks is by tarring all Muslims with the same brush, But I guess that is partly their aim.
Where did you get that idea from?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 27, 2015, 09:09:47 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
What is this in reference to.... the Cromwellian conquest?
Sadly that is but one good example.
The Limerick Pogrom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_boycott) is another lesser known example.
Quote from: Old yeller on June 27, 2015, 09:22:52 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 27, 2015, 09:07:28 AM
Quote from: moysider on June 26, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 26, 2015, 09:46:30 PM
Why then would you believe the news more than your own experience
Also huge number? Hardly and we should be talking about percentages. There's a billion and half of them. Even if there was a million (which there is no where near BTW) that wouldn't even be .1%. Not even sure you could call it a minority
I believe what I saw today on the news. Don t you?
I said a considerable number. I didn t mention the word huge. I dunno how many we are talking about but even thousands of fanatics can wreak havoc. Even .010% would be a big number and I would suspect a bigger % than that are radicalised. I also suspect that 'strong' governments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco e.g., is keeping the lid on an even bigger crisis.
I was talking more about the general drumbeat that Islamic extremism is taking over the Muslim world.
Well if there are more then 1.5 million+ radicalised (what does that even mean?) Muslims in the world we really are in trouble.
You can quote things from the Koran or whatever but the fact is those things were written in different times and the cast majority of Muslims recognise them as belonging to that time and place as they have done for many centuries. Displayed no better than the Islamic civilisations the religion spawned, where tolerance, forgiveness and inclusiveness were very much to the fore. In fact their attitude and values probably helped coerce the Christian world into adopting these values.
These people are nutters I dont deny, how to stop I dunno, but one way to drive more people into their ranks is by tarring all Muslims with the same brush, But I guess that is partly their aim.
Where did you get that idea from?
Well there is no doubt up until the 16the century the Islamic world which streched from Spain to India was the advanced society in the world that European knew. At least in terms of things how we measure society: education, arts, architecture, trade, tolerance. considering that Christian Europe was going through a regression in this same period it would only appear to have come out of this slump when it started to adopt a more progressive outlook. This outlook was almost certainly fostered through exchange of ideas with the more progressive East. The rise of Venice being a good example.
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 27, 2015, 09:09:47 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
What is this in reference to.... the Cromwellian conquest?
Sadly that is but one good example.
The Limerick Pogrom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_boycott) is another lesser known example.
I never knew of that Limerick pogrom, interesting Muppet. It was hardly done in the name of religion tho, more just general ethnic fear mongering and hatred. Any other examples apart from Cromwell were religion was the driving factor? I would have thought nationalism has alot more to answer for in this regard. On another note I see the Arthur Griffith supported it, funny considering FF and the Shinners berating of FG's fascist youth movement. Seems like all have some have skeletons in the cupboard if you search deep enough.
Concern for 2 more Irish citizens.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 27, 2015, 06:31:09 PM
Concern for 2 more Irish citizens.
Denis Naughten on twitter has said a local couple lost their lives also in the attack.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 27, 2015, 06:20:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 27, 2015, 09:09:47 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2015, 10:11:22 PM
Islam is not a violent religion, but are Islamic leaders doing enough to stop the violence done in their name?
We should know plenty of this from our own history. Both religions here officially took the high moral ground on violence, but many a blind eye was turned to atrocities in the name of those same religions.
To my mind this type of fundamentalism is like fire.
Fuel - Oxygen - Heat = Fire
Ignorance - Dogma - Injustice = Atrocities
Remove one and chances are it stops. If I had to chose one to target it would be ignorance.
What is this in reference to.... the Cromwellian conquest?
Sadly that is but one good example.
The Limerick Pogrom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_boycott) is another lesser known example.
I never knew of that Limerick pogrom, interesting Muppet. It was hardly done in the name of religion tho, more just general ethnic fear mongering and hatred. Any other examples apart from Cromwell were religion was the driving factor? I would have thought nationalism has alot more to answer for in this regard. On another note I see the Arthur Griffith supported it, funny considering FF and the Shinners berating of FG's fascist youth movement. Seems like all have some have skeletons in the cupboard if you search deep enough.
Without digging a trench, please look at the language I used.
Here is what happened the main organiser:
Father Creagh was moved by his superiors initially to Belfast and then to an island in the Pacific Ocean. In 1914 he was promoted by the Pope to be Vicar Apostolic of Kimberley, Western Australia, a position he held until 1922.[24] He died in Wellington, New Zealand in 1947.But I agree with the gist of the rest of your post.
Have a look (on Google etc) at the proselytising in the 1800s in Ireland (Dingle, Connemara, Achill etc). Paisley's rhetoric was amateur in comparison to those boys, but the Catholic Church were every bit as vicious in response.
Just found out from my Navan born sister in law,that the deceased nurse is a niece of her aunt by marriage and that the deceased attended my own brother's funeral up here.Deepest sympathies to the family.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2015, 10:18:03 PM
Just found out from my Navan born sister in law,that the deceased nurse is a niece of her aunt by marriage and that the deceased attended my own brother's funeral up here.Deepest sympathies to the family.
Awful news Tony, my condolences.
Fair nuff Muppet, but TBF in the context it could be easily confused with drawing a parallel with actually committing atrocities in the name of religion.....
I keep getting "the Protestant Crusade" through google but it appears to be a book but no real info
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 28, 2015, 01:17:46 AM
Fair nuff Muppet, but TBF in the context it could be easily confused with drawing a parallel with actually committing atrocities in the name of religion.....
I keep getting "the Protestant Crusade" through google but it appears to be a book but no real info
It certainly was an atrocity committed in the name of religion. It was led by a priest and it was classic anti-semitism. Protestants and Catholics in Ireland in the 19th century preached a level of anti-semitism that we would find shocking today.
An atrocity? Sometimes you exaggerate for effect muppet, and it weakens your original point. The boycott of the Jews in Limerick was a shameful, anti semitic act, led by a Catholic priest and carried out by people who knew no better. However there were people who stood against it, the Jews were not targetted for physical violence or death, and the Catholic church said it was not done in their name, and the priest was a rogue agent.
I think it falls short of an atrocity to be honest, shameful and embarassing as it was.
My condolences to their daughter and relatives. RIP.
Terrible ordeal for that young lady.
Turns out the two two killed from Athlone were there the brother and sister-in-law of the Music World owners. Took down the last post out of respect to the family, don't need incorrect information out there at a time like this. The usual game of Chinese whispers I guess. The woman is from Kiltoom. Absolutely shocking stuff.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 28, 2015, 10:17:51 AM
An atrocity? Sometimes you exaggerate for effect muppet, and it weakens your original point. The boycott of the Jews in Limerick was a shameful, anti semitic act, led by a Catholic priest and carried out by people who knew no better. However there were people who stood against it, the Jews were not targetted for physical violence or death, and the Catholic church said it was not done in their name, and the priest was a rogue agent.
I think it falls short of an atrocity to be honest, shameful and embarassing as it was.
Agreed AZ.
Muppet, it may have been instigated by a religious figure but it certainly wasnt done in the name of religion. I feel that you limit your own view point and understanding by constantly having an anti-religious start-point to everything. In fact to re-quote your favourite term its almost like dogma for yourself.
Joel Richards the young lad killed along with his uncle and grandfather was a playing member of James Connollys club here in Birmingham. RIP.
Witness reports surfacing in the papers this morning that there were 3 gunmen and not 'lone wolf'
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 28, 2015, 10:17:51 AM
An atrocity? Sometimes you exaggerate for effect muppet, and it weakens your original point. The boycott of the Jews in Limerick was a shameful, anti semitic act, led by a Catholic priest and carried out by people who knew no better. However there were people who stood against it, the Jews were not targetted for physical violence or death, and the Catholic church said it was not done in their name, and the priest was a rogue agent.
I think it falls short of an atrocity to be honest, shameful and embarassing as it was.
The atrocity was the whole anti-Semitic stance taken.
I take back calling the Limerick Pogrom an atrocity in itself. It wasn't thankfully, but it was part of a greater ongoing atrocity perpetuated against Jews for centuries in the name of religion.
the effect these small number of radicals have on the rest of Islamic countries and communities is the worrying thing.
eg
Dubai was quite free easy and open in early 2000's - you could buy and eat/drink food and beverages(non alcoholic) during Ramadan.
a number of years later- due to pressure from the radicals, the Dubai leaders bowed to it and brought in stricter measures where you could not purchase food or drink during Ramadan (even in the same locations as before you could) and it was an offense to be seen to eat/drink in public during Ramadan - punishable by jail time.
that's the kind of problem the small minority of radicals are causing. they are wrecking it for the rest of the Islamic peoples and by default causing non muslims to fear and worry about them all.
I don't think there is anything that an be done!