Paris shootings - several dead

[StraferJack]

An ernesto you sound like an intelligent and dare I say familiar man

Any attack on mosques or similar would be just as wrong and bone headed and noone is arguing for that

But telling people what cartoon they can't print, and then killing them for doing so is just unacceptable

That's the fallout that should happen - not meekly accept the force

Insulting people is not the same as physically murdering them - crazy I know

[ernesto]

too much testosterone on here. maybe youse should lay off the Andy Mcnabb as bedtime reading kids

[????]

The bible doesn't say "Celluoid piss taking of our religous believes are blashesmous"

The Koran is crystal clear on creating an image of the prophet etc

There is a 'fundamental'(for want of a better word) difference.

All tosh.... but these are hugely different examples

[KalamityKel]

ernesto Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> too much testosterone on here. maybe youse should

> lay off the Andy Mcnabb as bedtime reading kids

You were doing so well until then ernesto *sighs*

[ernesto]

This action is straight out of Marighelas mini manual for the urban Guerilla - calm heads required in France

[StraferJack]

"The Koran is crystal clear on creating an image of the prophet etc"

is it?

[ernesto]

If the CRS are let loose , then this will be bloody- remember that 250 algerians were slaughtered in october '61 by le flic - the tensions in Paris are probabaly worse now

[Lowlander]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dear god?! Seriously? You don't get that

> response?

>

> It says, proudly, we will not be cowed. We will

> not be initimated by your acts of violence. We

> will defeat you not by a machine gun but by

> freedom of speech. There are many of us. You are

> few. That you do not represent Islam and take your

> prophets name in vain when committing these acts.

>

> If we stop publishing these things, because of

> "offence", because of consequences like this,

> terrorism wins. And we all lose.

Au-contraire; I see exactly where you are coming from. Doing so will also turn some moderates against the system, justify - in their minds - the terrorists actions, and even upset the portion of newspaper readers who don't share the sense of humour.

This is a situation which requires a little thought be put into the response. And no, I don't quite know what that should be at this stage...

[miga]

.

[david_carnell]

In September 2012, Charlie Hebdo courted controversy by publishing cartoons of a naked Muhammad. Charbonnier, known as Charb, justified the decision at the time, telling RTL radio:

If you start by asking whether or not you have the right or not to draw Muhammad ? then the next question is, can you put Muslims in the paper? And then, can you put human beings in the paper?

In the end, you can?t put anything in, and the handful of extremists who are agitating around the world and in France will have won.

[????]

Ok, Crystal Clear is wrong the verses are open to interpretation but that interpretation has become dogma

. The pragmatic, if drastic, short-cut to purity is an outright ban on all such depictions. The Hadith have, in effect, almost as much doctrinal authority as do verses of the Koran, so the implicit edict against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad is, in Islamic dogma, final

Wikki somewhere

The bottom line is that such a widespread publishing would insult millions of muslims - the terrorists would be very happy with that.

[StraferJack]

/

[StraferJack]

"The bottom line is that such a widespread publishing would insult millions of muslims "

My suspicion is that many more muslims are more offended by people killing in their name than they ever are by cartoons

My suspicion is that many muslims are beginning (as many Christians did before them) to realise that "this is all a bit of a sham isn't it"

[El Pibe]

The koran has nothing to say about it at all as far as i recall, and in certain cultures where islam spread, places that liked a bit of imagery, say India, images were common place.

In fact Shia still march images down the street in festivals in a manner that would be familiar to Spanish christians.

It's basically part of the scholarly tradition becuase it would encourage idolatry, something banned in the ten commandments, so applicable to 3 faiths, though highy open to interpretation.

In the modern context it's simply a means to whip up political hysteria by politicians, demagogues and extremists for domestic consumption.

The answer is of course to say "I appreciate your sensitivity to the idea that a picture might tempt you into idol worship, and by weak extension paganism/apostasy/heresy, but your offence is not actually a legal matter in tis country, so look away"

Or, politely, Fuck Off!!

[El Pibe]

"The bottom line is that such a widespread publishing would insult millions of muslims "

My suspicion is that many more muslims are more offended by people killing in their name than they ever are by cartoons

this

[maxxi]

From what I have read about Charlie Hebdo they satirise any and everything, with their most frequent target being Catholicism - I think the cartoons/articles should be published but alongside other similar satires from CH against Catholics, French Government, the left, the right, Jews, Christians etc etc... together with the responses/reactions they've received for same.

Not publishing to face down the terrorists but not 'not publishing' for fear of them - just publishing to tell the story.

[Jeremy]

I would also suspect that a mass re-print would just fan the flames. While attacks against other newspapers would seem unlikely, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it increasing the likeliness of further terrorist attacks in Paris. Surely this is exactly the kind of material that extremists can use to convince followers and recruits that it's "them-against-us".

While a show of defiance sounds like a good idea in theory, it has to be balanced against the greater priority of improving relations with the muslim world. It's easy to say that these people don't represent Islam... but they do appear to represent a significant section of it... and they won't be defeated by air strikes...

[ernesto]

Islam is the reason being given and discussed , but its a falsehood, this is about control and power.

[El Pibe]

I think there's an important difference between something actually being offensive and something being deemed to be an affront. And this topic falls very much into the latter camp.

There is simply no justification for a violent response to this.

Any attempts to assuage the sensitivity to a weak rationalisation of offence taking is an utter capitulation to elnightenment principles of free speech, something the press more than anyone should be supported in defending, not castigated by governments for so doing.

[StraferJack]

I'm Spartacus

[Otta]

I agree that papers shouldn't be intimidated in to not publishing things they'd intended to publish.

But this isn't about that. If every paper was to publish these images as a retaliation, it is a blatant wind up and will likely result in someone else being killed by some nutters.

And I know people that were offended a few years back by the Danish cartoon thing. These are not people that would support terrorism or want to kill people.

[miga]

.

[El Pibe]

The shootings are Blair's fault. Probably a niche view but I for one like your style!!!!!

[steveo]

Not in our name perspective

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/not-in-our-name-muslims-respond-in-revulsion-to-charlie-hebdo-shooting/

[StraferJack]

"And I know people that were offended a few years back by the Danish cartoon thing. These are not people that would support terrorism or want to kill people."

Muslims I know are mixed but I get definite impression the "offended" are on the wane - just like people who believed not going to mass in Ireland meant certain damnation. I still know peolpe like that but really they are just indulged and if they are offended by people not going to mass - that's really, totally very OK

Being offended for no reason other than a weird belief doesn't bestow any rights.