Guns Guns Guns, Now Paris!

[Spafranco]

Well, they have started a debate already in European countries about how to restrict accessibility to guns and more stringent and more stringent enforcement of current law.
Will it become a EU mandated set of laws?

Since the events of Paris today, it seems that some of those with an avowed and unyielding nature in our country have expressed that if there were guns available then there would not have been any or at least fewer deaths. For the uniformed two of the victims had guns.
It was then stated that those with ties to our three lettered body that wants everyone to be a Wyatt Earp or Pat Garret that the more guns in the hands of citizens would reduce mass killings and that we have had a reduction in such. Hmmm, what planet?

How on earth is Hasselbeck (female) an expert on guns?

[schmenke]

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DontFeedTheTrolls2-264x300.jpeg

[driveace]

A handgun held by the most experienced policeman cannot compete or compare to a Kalisnakov held by terrorists bent on killing as many as possible in the shortest of time .
My concern was the injured policeman on the pavement pleading to be spared,but the evil bast***s even went over to finish him off !
How barbaric was this ? And the slaying in London of Lee Rigby ?

[Mark]

Would you expect a newspaper office to have sufficient weaponry to fight off an attack by what appears to be trained soldiers.

Whatever the root causes of this it has nothing to do with gun control. So if you think you can score cheap points off the back of it please stop.

[Spafranco]

Would you expect a newspaper office to have sufficient weaponry to fight off an attack by what appears to be trained soldiers.

Whatever the root causes of this it has nothing to do with gun control. So if you think you can score cheap points off the back of it please stop.

Hold on there partner. "Cheap points". No attempt by me to try to gain anything but state the obvious. That Schemke and now you are in a tither and take umbrage at the fact that these guns were/are available to the likes of these terrorists so easily should be a cause for alarm. That Fox Noise made this an issue in this country is another reason to fear the proliferation and ease to get what one wants. And, you Mark as the forum owner (I believe) should take note that two police officers (armed) were there. Are you suggesting because they are dead they were not trained?

Again, cheap points are not why I am posting this.So to you I say,please stop trying to psychoanalyze my intent.

[Starter]

Would you expect a newspaper office to have sufficient weaponry to fight off an attack by what appears to be trained soldiers.

Whatever the root causes of this it has nothing to do with gun control. So if you think you can score cheap points off the back of it please stop.
Mark, you're thinking much too clearly here. Not in the best traditions of the forum.

A shame what happened. Agree it has nothing to do with gun control, on either side of the argument. More to do with fanatics and twisting of religion.

[schmenke]

... That Schemke and now you are in a tither and take umbrage at the fact that these guns were/are available to the likes of these terrorists so easily should be a cause for alarm. ....

???

When on earth did I say that?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Je suis Charlie

[Brown, Jon Brow]

One must wonder how incredibly tiny these chaps manhood must be if the are this insecure about a cartoon.

[Robinho]

Whilst no fan of guns, I think this case further highlights that religion of any type, particularly the abrahamic ones, have no place in modern society

[Rudy Tamasz]

Whilst no fan of guns, I think this case further highlights that religion of any type, particularly the abrahamic ones, have no place in modern society

When I hear statements like this from reasonable people, I always feel sorry for them as they missed something really important.

[Robinho]

When I hear statements like this from reasonable people, I always feel sorry for them as they missed something really important.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was brought up in a Christian house, regularly attended church, have to some extent studied Judaism and Islam and nothing, absolutely nothing, indicates to me that it is anything more than collections of conservative morals organised under the banner of religion to control the masses and explain away the unexplained and the fears of humans when there was no other obvious alternatives. I see no positive outcome from any religion, apart from maybe the social and cultural aspects, which are mostly collected from other historical sources in any case. I don't need religion to have morals. I don't need religion to be charitable. I don't need religion to know not to kill. I don't need religion to live humans or anything else. There are no gods, and if I'm wrong and there is, I want nothing to do with a omnipresent creator that allows what it has, whilst demanding blind faith in a sick master plan. God only exists in the minds of believers. The world is a beautiful, incredible, scary, dangerous and wholly insignificant dot in a universe that is almost impossible to comprehend.

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't need religion to have morals. I don't need religion to be charitable. I don't need religion to know not to kill. I don't need religion to live humans or anything else.

Interesting....
And sounds fair.
But are humans good by nature? Or they reached this high level of conscience due to centuries of obedience to some rules "given" by different Gods?
:confused: :confused: :confused:.............

[Robinho]

Interesting....
And sounds fair.
But are humans good by nature? Or they reached this high level of conscience due to centuries of obedience to some rules "given" by different Gods?
:confused: :confused: :confused:.............

It's an interesting philosophical question, that could take months to debate. In short, I don't think so, our evolution has taken us to a point where we are able, in fact need, to sustain a complex society. Just last night I watched a fascinating program on this - Brian Cox's Human Universe I think it is called, the episode about where we came from and how we went from primate, to person, from person fashioning simple shelter and spears, to building spaceships. Worth a watch whatever your religious persuasion, but everything contained in it made a huge amount more sense to me than an unseen creator who we should follow.

My other thoughts on god, is if one existed, how can I have this conversation? How can their be 3 branches of essentially the same religion at each other throats, and many more sects of those 3 who are prepared to kill for what is essentially the same god? Why do we need to be taught about religion, why aren't we born with the innate knowledge of this all powerful deity?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Robinho, no need to be sorry about my being sorry. ;)

Overall, you sound like an agnostic, rather than atheist. With all respect for your views, in the modern day world it is difficult, pretty much impossible to counter somebody else's strong beliefs and convictions like those of Paris shooters, while yours are so vague.

Something inside tells me that the unreligiousness of the French is a contributing factor to such easy penetration of Islamic militants into their society.

[gadjo_dilo]

It's an interesting philosophical question, that could take months to debate. In short, I don't think so, our evolution has taken us to a point where we are able, in fact need, to sustain a complex society.

But in your post you talk about material evolution and scientific discoveries. Is the man of the 21st century more compationate, loving, respectful in the relationships with other people than the man of -let`s say- 19th century? :confused:
I 've noticed a thing. In the last 30 years people around me have become less caring, more egocentric, more greedy and insensitive. It's weird cos in these years our life has radically changed for better from a material point of view. :confused:

[Robinho]

Robinho, no need to be sorry about my being sorry. ;)

Overall, you sound like an agnostic, rather than atheist. With all respect for your views, in the modern day world it is difficult, pretty much impossible to counter somebody else's strong beliefs and convictions like those of Paris shooters, while yours are so vague.

Something inside tells me that the unreligiousness of the French is a contributing factor to such easy penetration of Islamic militants into their society.

I would catergorise myself as atheist, strongly in fact. I genuinely do not believe in any god. I'm not agnostic is the sense that I don't feel I can know for certain, I am certain there is not a god. But, like many in the world I expect, who do identify themselves as Christian, I do observe the cultural festivities, just not identifying with the ideology or story behind them.

Unsure about the idea of a lack of religiousness allowing penetration for extremism, not when you look at the extremes of violence in highly religious societies (pakistan, Nigeria for example). I hope, and think I observe, a growing apathy towards all things religious in a lot of the "developed" world, which will I hope push these issues further out, but I do also agree that modern society is becoming more impatient and insular. I don't necessarily equate that to religion or lack thereof, as the symptoms do not seem to afflict the non-religious only - consider that in the USA over 80% of people identify themselves as belonging to a religion, but they are just as afflicted by the same social problems and general rudeness. I think it's just people, and as there are more people in more compressed area. I also think religion feeds some of these divides, which are replaced by racial, sexual and class discrimination and barriers.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I don't want to generalize. My comment about penetration of extremism related specifically to France as a (formerly) Christian country. There are, at least, two things about Christianity that it contributes to establishing and maintaining peace and stability in the countries where it is practiced. One is the principle of self-restraint, which is at the core of Christian faith, and which was disputed in the course of religious wars and then proven the hard way. Once you have the sense of self-restraint, you are less likely to attack or offend the feelings of somebody of a different belief living next to you for the simple fear of retaliation. Second is the sense of being on the same page with others, more or less. In Christian countries it results in the "we do things this way in our neighborhood" attitude. Sometimes it leads to the exclusion of dissidents, but overall it helps people to avoid too many conflicts. With this "anything goes" attitude, which they practice in France, it's all too easy for an outsider to come in and upset the apple cart. Or vin et frommage cart, for that matter.

[Rollo]

Whilst no fan of guns, I think this case further highlights that religion of any type, particularly the abrahamic ones, have no place in modern society

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-22/theuseandabuseofe2809creligione2809d/41376
Yet, there is no fool-proof way to define “religion” that will include such belief systems as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism while excluding nationalism, political ideologies, capitalism, pop culture, sport and more.
- Joel Hodge, ABC - The Drum, 22 Nov 2010.

No fool proof way to define “religion” eh?

How about:
Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.

The thing is that everybody believes in something. It might not necessarily involve a formal set of practices but ultimately it's impossible to be a human being and actually not have any belief set whatsoever. Ever atheism is a belief that there is/are no/lack of god(s).

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.

[Tom206wrc]

R.I.P. to the journalists of Charlie Hebdo who have been killed yesterday by the islamic terrorists ;(

[D-Type]

On the religious issue, France is unusual in that it is constitutionally a secular country.

[henners88]

Would you expect a newspaper office to have sufficient weaponry to fight off an attack by what appears to be trained soldiers.

Whatever the root causes of this it has nothing to do with gun control. So if you think you can score cheap points off the back of it please stop.
Indeed, I don't think an act of terrorism where AK47 assault rifles are used to attack a magazine really compares to other countries and their take on gun control. The people who say if civilians had guns this act would not have happened are absolute clueless morons and this topic is not about them.

I feel terrible for the people and the families of the people who lost their lives yesterday. I hope the brothers are caught alive and can pay for their awful crimes.

[Robinho]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-22/theuseandabuseofe2809creligione2809d/41376
Yet, there is no fool-proof way to define “religion” that will include such belief systems as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism while excluding nationalism, political ideologies, capitalism, pop culture, sport and more.
- Joel Hodge, ABC - The Drum, 22 Nov 2010.

No fool proof way to define “religion” eh?

How about:
Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.

The thing is that everybody believes in something. It might not necessarily involve a formal set of practices but ultimately it's impossible to be a human being and actually not have any belief set whatsoever. Ever atheism is a belief that there is/are no/lack of god(s).

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.

I was purely referring to religion in its simplest form, eg, belief in a deity/creator and subsequent doctrine to follow for the believers. Ideologies, fans etc are not religions, they are following something tangible, often to extremes. Atheism cannot be accurately described as a religion. Their is no doctrine, no ideology, no dogma. It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god. What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual. Therefore, I feel that we, as humans, utterly and completely do not need religion, especially those based on the abrahamic god

[Rudy Tamasz]

Their is no doctrine, no ideology, no dogma. It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god.

On the practical level, this is exactly your weakness in countering Islamist fanatics. When you deny the moral authority you don't have much to base your opposition to them on. Ultimately, your theory will lead to recognizing the validity of any views, including those denying your right to live.


What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual.

I wonder how a society based on such beliefs and practices would be able to come up with a solution to any issue. Would it be a society at all? You and Rollo don't have much in common coming from the same country, do you?

[Starter]

I would catergorise myself as atheist, strongly in fact. I genuinely do not believe in any god. I'm not agnostic is the sense that I don't feel I can know for certain, I am certain there is not a god. But, like many in the world I expect, who do identify themselves as Christian, I do observe the cultural festivities, just not identifying with the ideology or story behind them. .
Although I would say that your argument is much more likely to be the correct interpretation of the world around us, since there is no way of knowing for sure it's still possible there is a god with a perverse and twisted sense of humor.

If the old saying that "the proof is in the pudding" is true, then a reasonable conclusion is that a large number of people around the world don't truly believe in their religions either.

[Starter]

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.
Having respect for other intelligent beings not qualify in any sense of the word as a "religion". Nor does taking action to prevent harm, present or future, to said beings qualify as a religion.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-22/theuseandabuseofe2809creligione2809d/41376
Yet, there is no fool-proof way to define “religion” that will include such belief systems as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism while excluding nationalism, political ideologies, capitalism, pop culture, sport and more.
- Joel Hodge, ABC - The Drum, 22 Nov 2010.

No fool proof way to define “religion” eh?

How about:
Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.

The thing is that everybody believes in something. It might not necessarily involve a formal set of practices but ultimately it's impossible to be a human being and actually not have any belief set whatsoever. Ever atheism is a belief that there is/are no/lack of god(s).

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.

But is someone going to shoot the editor of a magazine because they are mocking the lack of god..............?

[Storm]

On the religious issue, France is unusual in that it is constitutionally a secular country.

so are we (on paper)


Atheism cannot be accurately described as a religion. Their is no doctrine, no ideology, no dogma. It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god. What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual. Therefore, I feel that we, as humans, utterly and completely do not need religion, especially those based on the abrahamic god

Exactly my thoughts.

[odykas]

The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/the-charlie-hebdo-massacre-in-paris.html)



Two heavily armed attackers, who apparently knew the magazine’s staff would be gathered around a table late on Wednesday morning for a weekly editorial meeting, forced themselves into Charlie Hebdo’s office and shot 10 people dead


The terrorists massacred them in the meeting room.
Even if they had guns they wouldn't have the time to get and use them.

[Rollo]

What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual.

Exactly. Then it must follow that said person has an individual religion - total followers: 1.


It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god.

Lack of belief is NOT atheism but elleipsitheism.
Atheism is from "a" (none) and "theos" (gods). Atheism is a positive belief in the statement that there is/are no god(s).

It's kind of strange for someone to defend a faith structure they don't believe in. Could this be a demonstration of religion; ergo, what I'd said in the first place?

[Robinho]

Exactly. Then it must follow that said person has an individual religion - total followers: 1.



Lack of belief is NOT atheism but elleipsitheism.
Atheism is from "a" (none) and "theos" (gods). Atheism is a positive belief in the statement that there is/are no god(s).

It's kind of strange for someone to defend a faith structure they don't believe in. Could this be a demonstration of religion; ergo, what I'd said in the first place?

I fundamentally disagree with your interpretations, firstly of what a religion is (informing your behaviour on anything else than religious doctrine is not a religion. Religion does not exist without invented god(s). I disagree I have a faith structure, I am not defined by Atheism as it has nothing to do to inform the rest of my life. And I disagree with a belief in the lack of something even being possible. Quoting Ricky Gervais, Atheism is a religion in the same way not going skiing is a sport. It's a bit clumsy and I'm sure you can argue the semantics of it, but I don't know why you would.

Do you believe in god? If so which one? If not, what do you catergorise yourself as?

[gadjo_dilo]

Robinho, shall I understand that nothing/nobody(I mean not neccessarily a specific god ) in this world is sacred to you? :confused:

I think that "the sacred" is a part of human conscience and not just a stage in the "history" of our conscience......

[Rollo]

I fundamentally disagree with your interpretations, firstly of what a religion is (informing your behaviour on anything else than religious doctrine is not a religion. Religion does not exist without invented god(s).

How do you explain Buddhism then? In some sects of Buddhism there are no gods. There are some Buddhists to believe in god(s) and some who do not. Are you suggesting that the ones who do not are irreligious? Religion can and does exist without invented god(s) in some cases.


I disagree I have a faith structure, I am not defined by Atheism as it has nothing to do to inform the rest of my life.
Really? Please explain why you are participating in this discussion then. Obviously your opinions are informed by your beliefs. Even in a completely secular context, we have all sorts of beliefs. I believe for instance that when I hand over a particular coloured piece of plastic, the person on the other side of the counter will let me leave the shop with a pie. Heck, we even call the basis of those coloured pieces of plastic, fiduciary - from the Latin "fidus" or "faith".

[henners88]

I fundamentally disagree with your interpretations, firstly of what a religion is (informing your behaviour on anything else than religious doctrine is not a religion. Religion does not exist without invented god(s). I disagree I have a faith structure, I am not defined by Atheism as it has nothing to do to inform the rest of my life. And I disagree with a belief in the lack of something even being possible. Quoting Ricky Gervais, Atheism is a religion in the same way not going skiing is a sport. It's a bit clumsy and I'm sure you can argue the semantics of it, but I don't know why you would.
I think we have similar outlooks on life. I believe in myself and the people I know and love. I am alive and while I am here I will live my life as peacefully as possible. I wouldn't consider myself as an atheist because to me that suggests I live my life by purposely shunning other peoples gods and religion whilst applying a label to myself. I don't, it just has no place in my life at all. I don't think about what I have to believe in everyday I just live my life. I have no problem with people choosing to find comfort in a religion as long as it is not forced upon me or suggested as an answer to something that impacts on me. It really annoys me when people think you have no moral guidance or you cannot possibly love somebody without direction from a god. All this rubbish about having to prove this exists and this doesn't exist because people get super defensive over it. I am here making my own decisions and living my life by what my parents taught me and the morals that were passed down from their parents etc etc. I can pinch myself and see evidence for what I believe in.

I am not an atheist, a none believer, or an agnostic. I simply believe in myself and fellow man and the decisions we make in life. I would never dream of taking another persons life based on their beliefs or if they had insulted mine. Its none of their business and mine is none of theirs. Simple and effective. :)

[gadjo_dilo]

I am not an atheist, a none believer, or an agnostic. I simply believe in myself and fellow man and the decisions we make in life.

You're your own God.....:confused: :devil:

[Rudy Tamasz]

Wow, what a peaceful discussion we have here. It's almost a love fest despite our disagreements. It's too bad we don't see Muslims posting on this thread to share peace, compassion and sympathy for Charlie cartoonists.

[Storm]

You're your own God.....:confused: :devil:

why not? Is it so wrong to believe in your own ability & intelligence than depend on someone else's (in case of a God - unknown!)

[Robinho]

How do you explain Buddhism then? In some sects of Buddhism there are no gods. There are some Buddhists to believe in god(s) and some who do not. Are you suggesting that the ones who do not are irreligious? Religion can and does exist without invented god(s) in some cases.


Really? Please explain why you are participating in this discussion then. Obviously your opinions are informed by your beliefs. Even in a completely secular context, we have all sorts of beliefs. I believe for instance that when I hand over a particular coloured piece of plastic, the person on the other side of the counter will let me leave the shop with a pie. Heck, we even call the basis of those coloured pieces of plastic, fiduciary - from the Latin "fidus" or "faith".

I don't know a huge amount about Buddhism, but it appears to be a very spiritual thing, based on inner peace and all that good stuff. But without Buddha it's not really Buddhism, surely. I take your point generally, but to me religion is based on faith in something tangible. The basis of the sects of Buddhism you refer to sound more to me like humanism, or something similarly natural, based on a oneness with the natural (observable) world.

My reason for participation here was purely on the basis of a desire to see all religions fail (the traditional god based ones, rather than fanatacism or obsession of a team, celebrity etc. that you feel defines a religion). I don't believe in a god, and I fail to understand why anyone would. I honestly think we'd be better off without it (not to say the power hungry and psychotic would not still be present in some form).

I am not interested in the semantics of the origin of words I don't use relating to money that apparently mean faith in the apparent hope of defining money or capitalism as a religion. I restate my point that the word religion only exists because humans invented gods. Without that there would be no reason to define anything as such.

I ask again, do you believe in god, christ, yahwah, allah or any of that tired old rhetoric?

[Robinho]

I think we have similar outlooks on life. I believe in myself and the people I know and love. I am alive and while I am here I will live my life as peacefully as possible. I wouldn't consider myself as an atheist because to me that suggests I live my life by purposely shunning other peoples gods and religion whilst applying a label to myself. I don't, it just has no place in my life at all. I don't think about what I have to believe in everyday I just live my life. I have no problem with people choosing to find comfort in a religion as long as it is not forced upon me or suggested as an answer to something that impacts on me. It really annoys me when people think you have no moral guidance or you cannot possibly love somebody without direction from a god. All this rubbish about having to prove this exists and this doesn't exist because people get super defensive over it. I am here making my own decisions and living my life by what my parents taught me and the morals that were passed down from their parents etc etc. I can pinch myself and see evidence for what I believe in.

I am not an atheist, a none believer, or an agnostic. I simply believe in myself and fellow man and the decisions we make in life. I would never dream of taking another persons life based on their beliefs or if they had insulted mine. Its none of their business and mine is none of theirs. Simple and effective. :)

I'd suggest that makes you an atheist anyway, but I fully understand your desire not to be defined in any way regarding your lack of thought around imaginary gods. I too fully respect anyone's right to believe what they like, but don't expect me not to exerting right to call it ridiculous as I see it

[Robinho]

why not? Is it so wrong to believe in your own ability & intelligence than depend on someone else's (in case of a God - unknown!)

We are lead to believe god created man in his own image. In reality god is the image of what each man imagines in their mind, what they want their god to achieve, which parts of the bible, torah, koran that they feel is important to them to follow and they feel they will be rewarded for following (whilst ignoring the rest). In that way there are billions of gods, all slightly different, and only existing in the minds of the religious. In that way I can see why the religious feel that they have to define non believers feelings, thoughts as their own god, as if their god can only be replaced by another (false) god of human invention

[Robinho]

Wow, what a peaceful discussion we have here. It's almost a love fest despite our disagreements. It's too bad we don't see Muslims posting on this thread to share peace, compassion and sympathy for Charlie cartoonists.

I would hope Muslims will feel so enlightened in the near future, either moving away from religion (when living somewhere that you don't get killed for that) or feel secure enough in their faith that satire or negativity towards their faith is water off a ducks back.

[gadjo_dilo]

why not? Is it so wrong to believe in your own ability & intelligence than depend on someone else's (in case of a God - unknown!)
Because traditional Gods are perfect but God Storm still does a lot of mistakes?...... :confused:
Why should you venerate yourself? :confused:

[Robinho]

Because traditional Gods are perfect but God Storm still does a lot of mistakes?...... :confused:
Why should you venerate yourself? :confused:

God drowned most of his creations due to his failings. He also raised Sodom and Gomorrah for the same. I assume we are supposed to believe the daily tragedies we are faced with are a. Part of gods plan or b. god correcting his mistakes.

[gadjo_dilo]

I would hope Muslims will feel so enlightened in the near future, either moving away from religion (when living somewhere that you don't get killed for that)
Not all Muslims are fundamentalists, most of them are honest people like me ( well, this is rather questionable....) and you ( I hope....) who just belong to other culture.

or feel secure enough in their faith that satire or negativity towards their faith is water off a ducks back. :confused: .Maybe they also think that the western world should finally understand that it's not fair to offend their religious feelings? Why should we do such things if we know we're causing trouble? What's the point?

[Storm]

Because traditional Gods are perfect but God Storm still does a lot of mistakes?...... :confused:
Why should you venerate yourself? :confused:

Traditional Gods (atleast ours need a lot of help from other Gods or such ;) )
And who said about venerating myself? Not venerating anybody to the point of worship is the actual point I/Robinho et al are trying to make :p:

[gadjo_dilo]

God drowned most of his creations due to his failings. He also raised Sodom and Gomorrah for the same. I assume we are supposed to believe the daily tragedies we are faced with are a. Part of gods plan or b. god correcting his mistakes.

I'm not as religious as you might think....And don't have too much christian knowledge either. However I think that God only showed the path to follow. We're free to decide what to do. The tragedies are the result of our own deeds

[Robinho]

Not all Muslims are fundamentalists, most of them are honest people like me ( well, this is rather questionable....) and you ( I hope....) who just belong to other culture.
:confused: .Maybe they also think that the western world should finally understand that it's not fair to offend their religious feelings? Why should we do such things if we know we're causing trouble? What's the point?

You've hit 2 nails on the head for me there. One is culture. Religion, for the masses, I contend, is more about culture than belief. And I feel strongly about preserving culture.

As for offending religious feelings, why are they more important than either the alternative religious feelings (answer because only 1 can be correct and therefore the alternative is offensive, whatever it is) or the feelings of the non religious. I feel offended by pretty much all religion, and to me, from a standpoint where I don't believe in any god, everyone who is religious is extreme or fundamentalist.

[gadjo_dilo]

Traditional Gods (atleast ours need a lot of help from other Gods or such ;) )
And who said about venerating myself? Not venerating anybody to the point of worship is the actual point I/Robinho et al are trying to make :p:

:laugh:
That's right, but:
Haven't you asked why can't we be our own gods? and aren't gods supposed to be venerated? :confused:

[gadjo_dilo]

I feel offended by pretty much all religion, and to me, from a standpoint where I don't believe in any god, everyone who is religious is extreme or fundamentalist.
In this case I won't say a word more.
Being labeled as a sort of forum's Taliban would be too much for my poor sinful soul....
:angel:

[Robinho]

In this case I won't say a word more.
Being labeled as a sort of forum's Taliban would be too much for my poor sinful soul....
:angel:

You miss my point, I find religion offensive. I would happily defend your right to believe whatever you choose, however ridiculous I found it.

[Robinho]

I'm not as religious as you might think....And don't have too much christian knowledge either. However I think that God only showed the path to follow. We're free to decide what to do. The tragedies are the result of our own deeds

I struggle with degrees of religiousness, if you believe in god you are therefore religious to me. If you are comfortable in your beliefs and not so insecure as to feel to covert or kill alternative beliefs or lack thereof then you are arguably more religious than extremists who feel the need to defend their omnipotent and omnipresent god by killing people who worship differently or don't believe at all. That said you sound like a spiritual person who is not enamored with organised religion, beyond the local cultural traditions. I have plenty of time for that.

[airshifter]

You've hit 2 nails on the head for me there. One is culture. Religion, for the masses, I contend, is more about culture than belief. And I feel strongly about preserving culture.

As for offending religious feelings, why are they more important than either the alternative religious feelings (answer because only 1 can be correct and therefore the alternative is offensive, whatever it is) or the feelings of the non religious. I feel offended by pretty much all religion, and to me, from a standpoint where I don't believe in any god, everyone who is religious is extreme or fundamentalist.

While I always support a persons right to free speech and opinion in any situation, I'm finding that you seem to be overlooking a very obvious point.

Your contention is essentially that since you believe in no god, those that do are incorrect, and those religious beliefs are the cause of many bad things. Has it ever occurred to you that any time you take 98% of the world population, regardless of what binds that 98%, that the majority of all things done, both good and bad, will be done by that 98%?

I would strongly contend that if the 98% of the world population that either claims religion of some type or are agnostic were all in fact extreme or fundamentalist, the 2% of the world population that claims to be atheist would likely have long ago been wiped off the face of the planet.







I find it interesting that a number of comments by several posters on this thread are so biased in regards to religion and/or gun control, yet nobody really seemed to have acknowledged that this is a case of a few nutters doing what nutters do. Regardless of their religious views, weapons, physical characteristics, etc they are extremists of a level well beyond most humans.

And I would think that any intelligent person would realize that when they take actions intended to offend a large group of people, they are essentially trolling for one of these nutters that does have extremist views to do something about it. As tragic as this incident is, it could have IMO most likely been avoided by someone not going out of their way to intentionally offend others.



And it appears that as I type this, a town has essentially been put in lockdown, and there are reports that the two remaining suspects may have been killed in the final raids after taking hostages.

[gadjo_dilo]

....... extremists who feel the need to defend their omnipotent and omnipresent god by killing people who worship differently or don't believe at all.....
I don't think they kill for such reasons.....They don't have a problem if people don't worship Allah.
Otherwise they should kill more than half of the world. For God's sake.....We lived under the Ottoman empire for a few hundreds years and never been forced to convert to Islam or deny our religion....
I don't have time to follow the news but in this particular case I understood there were some cartoons involving prophet Mahomed. We know his image is taboo and the offence to their prophet is punished by death. I think there are some limits in everything. Come on.....We also don't make jokes about the Holocaust.....

[Starter]

And I would think that any intelligent person would realize that when they take actions intended to offend a large group of people, they are essentially trolling for one of these nutters that does have extremist views to do something about it. As tragic as this incident is, it could have IMO most likely been avoided by someone not going out of their way to intentionally offend others.
The peak of political correctness.

If fanatics weren't fanatical there would be nothing to lampoon. Feel free to have any views and expressions you wish. But when you take deadly action against me and mine because of my views and expressions it's time for your removal from the planet.

[Starter]

I don't think they kill for such reasons.....They don't have a problem if people don't worship Allah.
Quite obviously they do as witnessed by their actions against civilians in the territory controled by ISIS, the Taliban etc.


Otherwise they should kill more than half of the world. For God's sake.....
The only reason they don't is that they don't have the ability to do so.....yet.


..... I understood there were some cartoons involving prophet Mahomed. We know his image is taboo and the offence to their prophet is punished by death. I think there are some limits in everything. Come on.....We also don't make jokes about the Holocaust.....
I make jokes about almost everything including the holocaust. Laughter is a great tool.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There is no subject that you can't joke about. It depends entirely on what the actual joke is

[gadjo_dilo]

. .....Feel free to have any views and expressions you wish.....
So.....
You'll be ready anytime to express your views even if you know from the very start it's a sensitive issue for me and it will hurt me? :confused:
Interesting to know.....:eek:

[Starter]

So.....
You'll be ready anytime to express your views even if you know from the very start it's a sensitive issue for me and it will hurt me? :confused:
Interesting to know.....:eek:
Self limiting your own expressions as a courtesy toward a person or group of persons is not the same thing as someone telling you you MUST limit your expressions.

[Spafranco]

There is no subject that you can't joke about. It depends entirely on what the actual joke is
Totally disagree with this. What joke could be made regarding Rwanda? About the Sudan? About Slavery? About starvation that would be acceptable.

[Spafranco]

I don't think they kill for such reasons.....They don't have a problem if people don't worship Allah.
Otherwise they should kill more than half of the world. For God's sake.....We lived under the Ottoman empire for a few hundreds years and never been forced to convert to Islam or deny our religion....
I don't have time to follow the news but in this particular case I understood there were some cartoons involving prophet Mahomed. We know his image is tabu and the offence to their prophet is punished by death. I think there are some limits in everything. Come on.....We also don't make jokes about the Holocaust.....

Extremists like Muslim fanatics are no different to the fundamentalist Christians and any other extremes of religion. Your religion is a happenstance in my opinion. If you were born in India you would be praising the Hindi God, Mid-East Muslim or in the western world some branch of Christianity of which there are many freaks. Take for instance Kurt Cameron (sic) and his buddy claiming the banana they hold at their filled out junkets is in fact a man made genetic alteration. Take Robertson, Falwell (dead) the Swaggerts "Oh, I have sinned, and the myriad of fools that go to Kentucky believing that T-REX walked amongst them as well as all the other dinosaurs because the earth is only "5,000 years" old.
Evolution is a sham to them. How do educated people believe that Noah built an Ark and collected all these animals in pairs? Does anyone believe in simple biology? Genetics, Mendels Law, cross breeding and the annihilation of Humanity in a very very short time because of the inability to further the races of even the most base of animals due to inbreeding.

[henners88]

Back to the thread topic... Condolences to those that lost their lives and a quick recovery to those caught up in the sieges this afternoon in France. All terrorists dead and a big well done to the French police and special forces for ending it.

I think the UK and other surrounding countries to France are learning and putting measures in place because I doubt these are isolated incidents. Europe is so accessible and these are very worrying times.

[Spafranco]

Starter, don't have a heart attack.I absolutely agree with you pertaining these groups that have no other ideals than to subject the infidels to death and not least their own ,whether opposing branches of their religion or their women whom they look upon as mere chattel.
I have met many men in my field that were Muslim and once they hit western shores all those that I know were smitten by blonds women and booze. They being infidels was soon forgotten.
As for jokes, where Jon Brow Brown states that there are no subjects one can't find humor in; I find that ludicrous. Is there a joke for Sese Seko and his atrocities, Hitler, Himmler, Amin, Pol Pot the victims of 9/11, the firemen and police officers, doctors and nurses dying now from the aftermath of the noxious fumes ingested? That there is a joke applicable to any of the atrocities of those mentioned by name and those that died on 9/11, please spare me.

[gadjo_dilo]

Henners, in my religion having faith is not limited to different interpretations of bible texts ( which anyway express facts that happen on divine level as they were seen/preceived by humans and shouldn't be taken ad litteram ). It's more about having intense inner experiences. It's probably difficult to understand esp. for those who were educated in the protestant spirit. I'm not as religious as I should be, matter of fact I'm almost not at all lately. But I still have the faith. It helps me in my difficult moments and offers me a bit of tranquility. For me it's enough to make me continue to follow it. It's possible that my God doesn't exist, at least in the form we use to think about him. So what? I follow a faith that teaches me good things and I respect some traditions that make me feel relieved whenever I manage to keep them. I do this without feeling any constraint from a church that doesn't force me to attend it but that will always keep an open door for me.
Yeah, I know....Might seem silly.... So what?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As for jokes, where Jon Brow Brown states that there are no subjects one can't find humor in; I find that ludicrous. Is there a joke for Sese Seko and his atrocities, Hitler, Himmler, Amin, Pol Pot the victims of 9/11, the firemen and police officers, doctors and nurses dying now from the aftermath of the noxious fumes ingested? That there is a joke applicable to any of the atrocities of those mentioned by name and those that died on 9/11, please spare me.

Well just make sure that when you come to buy tickets for my stand-up show you ask the ticket officer 'excuse me, are there going to be any jokes about Hitler, Himmler, Amin, Pol Pot or 9/11 in this show?' Just to make sure ;)


Might not be my best gag ever, but that's an example of a joke that includes all of those topics. Was it in bad taste?

[gadjo_dilo]

All terrorists dead and a big well done to the French police and special forces for ending it.


But so many policemen for 3 terrorists whose identity was known and couldn't even been caught alive......:confused:

[henners88]

But so many policemen for 3 terrorists whose identity was known and couldn't even been caught alive......:confused:
Yeah a very sad series of events and thankfully no more coppers lost their lives.

I understand why people choose religion but it's not for me. I was brought up as a catholic just for reference here. My family are from the North West of Northern Ireland. My parents claim to be religious, sort of, but have never pushed it onto me and don't practise it. I've never really believed in God and just went along with things because of school and extended family really. By my late teens I barely gave it another thought. :)

[Robinho]

I don't think they kill for such reasons.....They don't have a problem if people don't worship Allah.
Otherwise they should kill more than half of the world. For God's sake.....We lived under the Ottoman empire for a few hundreds years and never been forced to convert to Islam or deny our religion....
I don't have time to follow the news but in this particular case I understood there were some cartoons involving prophet Mahomed. We know his image is taboo and the offence to their prophet is punished by death. I think there are some limits in everything. Come on.....We also don't make jokes about the Holocaust.....

Actually the issue is there shouldn't be images of humans in places of worship, that is roughly what is in the Koran. After Mohammad's death, scholars decided to introduce the ban on mocking the prophet, including making any images. This is not something that is part of religious text, but part of evolved religious dogma. It also states nowhere that this is punishable by death, that again is interpretation of something written by other after the "sacred" texts were handed down

[Robinho]

Totally disagree with this. What joke could be made regarding Rwanda? About the Sudan? About Slavery? About starvation that would be acceptable.

It doesn't matter what joke could be made, it's not limiting the subject. It's also not making a joke about those things, it's using those issues as a subject. It's quite possible those jokes may be in incredibly poor taste, and not very funny, and you have every right to be offended, but I strongly feel no subject should be off limits. Human decency tends to mean people try to avoid the most offensive subjects, but out of tragedy often comes great comedy or other forms of creativity

[Roamy]

But so many policemen for 3 terrorists whose identity was known and couldn't even been caught alive......:confused:

and then what would you do with them?? elimination is the only valid answer

[Mark]

Starter, don't have a heart attack.I absolutely agree with you pertaining these groups that have no other ideals than to subject the infidels to death and not least their own ,whether opposing branches of their religion or their women whom they look upon as mere chattel.
I have met many men in my field that were Muslim and once they hit western shores all those that I know were smitten by blonds women and booze. They being infidels was soon forgotten.
As for jokes, where Jon Brow Brown states that there are no subjects one can't find humor in; I find that ludicrous. Is there a joke for Sese Seko and his atrocities, Hitler, Himmler, Amin, Pol Pot the victims of 9/11, the firemen and police officers, doctors and nurses dying now from the aftermath of the noxious fumes ingested? That there is a joke applicable to any of the atrocities of those mentioned by name and those that died on 9/11, please spare me.


For some of them no such as Pol Pot. But for Hilter certainly. He's one of the most parodied characters in history.

[Rollo]

For some of them no such as Pol Pot. But for Hilter certainly. He's one of the most parodied characters in history.

Oh I don't know...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJUQ2XIFDdQ
You killed 100,000 people? Ahhh. You must get up very early in the morning. I can’t even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd. Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death, lunch…death, death, death afternoon tea…death, death, death, quick shower. You know.

[odykas]

Kouachi brothers finally got their 72 virgins

http://dlewis.net/nik-archives/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/goats.jpg

[Storm]

That gray one on the right looks dodgy to me!

[Tazio]

It doesn't matter what joke could be made, it's not limiting the subject. It's also not making a joke about those things, it's using those issues as a subject. It's quite possible those jokes may be in incredibly poor taste, and not very funny, and you have every right to be offended, but I strongly feel no subject should be off limits. Human decency tends to mean people try to avoid the most offensive subjects, but out of tragedy often comes great comedy or other forms of creativity Which is why you could do what the catholic church did, which is sue the publication something like 14 times, using resources from their "organizations" for funding, or find another civilized way to protest.

These disenfranchised Franco-Algerians are easy pickings for groups like Al Qaeda. I recommend watching "The Battle of Algiers" for a little historical perspective. As well as understanding Fraces role in hostilities with the Muslim (Saracen) world starting from the second crusade.

[keysersoze]

For sure, religion has given Christianity a reputation it does not deserve, and I think Jesus Christ would have much to complain about to the faith that he gives his name to (incidentally, did you know the word "Christian" appears in the Bible only three times?). I also wanted to hold my hand up and say that I believe Christ died for my sins and was resurrected. Like many, I felt for a long time that I was okay without God in my life (and behaved accordingly) but with age that notion gave me less and less comfort and assurance.

I attend a non-denominational church in Atlanta, Georgia--one of, if not, the largest in the United States. It's called Buckhead Church, and currently consists of 11 campuses in and around Atlanta. We are known as the "Rock-n-Roll Church" and the "TV Church." Senior pastor Andy Stanley (son of icon Dr. Charles Stanley) touts us as "the church for un-churched people," people who are "trying to figure out the whole Jesus thing" (his words). The service is unpretentious and stripped down--all there is is 2-3 songs by our awesome band, and a message. Our phenomenal outreach program stretches around the globe. Stanley is twice the preacher his father is--he's dynamic, knowledgeable, relatable, funny, and down-to-earth. Every time my wife and walk to our car after the service, we shake our heads and wonder how Andy "nailed it" again. His message never fails to inform and inspire.

Sorry, I went farther than I intended to. I just felt Christians were only lightly represented in this thread.

[Rudy Tamasz]

These disenfranchised Franco-Algerians are easy pickings for groups like Al Qaeda.

I just wonder how much (philosophically) you need to give to certain people to keep them feeling enfranchised. I raise two kids and I almost spoiled the older one (now 7) by giving him too much (toys and stuff). He got the point and started playing the drama of a disenfranchised guy each time he wanted another unnecessary thing. At some point his every other phrase would start with something like "It's a pity that..." I reckon these two just didn't have enough honest disciplining from their parents or the French government.


I recommend watching "The Battle of Algiers" for a little historical perspective. As well as understanding Fraces role in hostilities with the Muslim (Saracen) world starting from the second crusade.

A great movie, well made from the artistic standpoint and with a powerful message, too.

[Rudy Tamasz]

His message never fails to inform and inspire.

Does his message have to do anything with suede, leather, sweet sixteen and fast cars? ;)

[henners88]

I still can't believe Birmingham is a Muslim only UK City. It's hilarious how propaganda and stereotypes have be born from the Paris tragedies. Is Fox News the American equivalent of our Channel 5 news?

[Tazio]

I just wonder how much (philosophically) you need to give to certain people to keep them feeling enfranchised. I raise two kids and I almost spoiled the older one (now 7) by giving him too much (toys and stuff). He got the point and started playing the drama of a disenfranchised guy each time he wanted another unnecessary thing. At some point his every other phrase would start with something like "It's a pity that..." I reckon these two just didn't have enough honest disciplining from their parents or the French government.



A great movie, well made from the artistic standpoint and with a powerful message, too.
A good question, and I wasn't in any way trying to divert blame to French social demographics for the actions of these murderers, because these guys were way out there. I also read that one of these freakin' guys head-butted a neighbor for listening to infidel (pop) music.

[donKey jote]

I still can't believe Birmingham is a Muslim only UK City. It's hilarious how propaganda and stereotypes have be born from the Paris tragedies. Is Fox News the American equivalent of our Channel 5 news?


Classic responses on the net though :laugh:
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/foxnewsfacts
https://mobile.twitter.com/AntonLaGuardia/status/554652832436326401

[keysersoze]

Does his message have to do anything with suede, leather, sweet sixteen and fast cars? ;)

I don't get it.

[Starter]

I have no idea how many Muslims are members of or read this board. But I'll just throw this out for consideration. So long as the large majority of Muslims fail to take an active, vocal and public stand against the terrorist activities of the very few, the long term consequences could be grave for Islam. The large and continuing number of bombings and public assaults on civilians, where ever they may occur, will begin to be seen as a war against all other religions with tacit permission from the silent majority of Muslims. Sooner or later a tipping point in world opinion will be reached where the rest of the world will have had enough and Islam and it's adherents will begin to be seen as an outlaw religion. When that happens it would not be a good idea to practice Islam in public in most countries. If you want to have a place in the world you have to work at cleaning up your own house.

[schmenke]

I can appreciate what you’re saying Starter, but consider the fact that there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (or ~23% of the population, according to google). It is also one of the fastest growing religions in the world, so I can’t see it being an “outlaw” religion any time soon.

[gadjo_dilo]

. The large and continuing number of bombings and public assaults on civilians, where ever they may occur, will begin to be seen as a war against all other religions with tacit permission from the silent majority of Muslims. Sooner or later a tipping point in world opinion will be reached where the rest of the world will have had enough and Islam and it's adherents will begin to be seen as an outlaw religion.

As far as I remember none of the bombing/assaults from USA, Madrid, London and now Paris had as motivation the religion of the victims.....:confused:

Generally the terrorists pretend to do the assaults in the name of their religion but in fact it's all about politics.
Their religion doesn't teach them to kill innocent people and terrorists are just misinterpreting the Quoran.

[Malbec]

I have no idea how many Muslims are members of or read this board. But I'll just throw this out for consideration. So long as the large majority of Muslims fail to take an active, vocal and public stand against the terrorist activities of the very few, the long term consequences could be grave for Islam. The large and continuing number of bombings and public assaults on civilians, where ever they may occur, will begin to be seen as a war against all other religions with tacit permission from the silent majority of Muslims. Sooner or later a tipping point in world opinion will be reached where the rest of the world will have had enough and Islam and it's adherents will begin to be seen as an outlaw religion. When that happens it would not be a good idea to practice Islam in public in most countries. If you want to have a place in the world you have to work at cleaning up your own house.

Luckily most people do not have such a simplistic outlook on life.

While the terrorists may proclaim to act for the whole religion its clear that the vast majority do not agree with their views. If they did, we'd be at war with 1.6 billion people. We clearly are not.

However your point about Muslims having to take responsibility for the actions of a minority of terrorists within their ranks is actually ironically precisely the same thinking process the terrorists have. You do realise that you are viewed as fair game by these extremists because as an American civilian you are responsible for voting for and funding governments that kill civilians (whether accidental or deliberate is not of interest to them) across the Muslim world? Your failure to oppose these actions means that according to their logic you are as legitimate a target as an American soldier. This is the exact logic they use to justify mass killings of civilians everywhere.

Of course your link to the actions of your government is stronger than the average Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East or Asia who has no control over groups like ISIS, you have a vote and pay taxes to the government they oppose.

[Malbec]

I just wonder how much (philosophically) you need to give to certain people to keep them feeling enfranchised. I raise two kids and I almost spoiled the older one (now 7) by giving him too much (toys and stuff). He got the point and started playing the drama of a disenfranchised guy each time he wanted another unnecessary thing. At some point his every other phrase would start with something like "It's a pity that..." I reckon these two just didn't have enough honest disciplining from their parents or the French government.

As Tazio has suggested the French have a long complex relationship with their Algerian and sub-Saharan African migrants. First, a bitter war of independence where the French were pretty brutal then widespread discrimination against Algerian migrants in France. Ever heard of banlieue? The dictionary will tell you its an innocent French word for suburb. The reality is that these are miserable apartment blocks on the outskirts of big cities where undesirables like Algerians, blacks and the poorest and worst of French society find themselves. Its nearly impossible for people there to climb out of poverty as those postcodes are blacklisted. Frequently CVs with those postcodes are simply binned before they're even reviewed for job applications. I would watch La Haine if you want to see what life there is like. As for the French police, their tendency to recourse to violence at the first opportunity is well known. Every time we fly there my wife, caucasian French, reminds me never to look the police in the eye and never EVER talk back regardless of the circumstances. Its easy to see how resentment and frustration boil over into anger and eventually violence. For the vast majority of those in the banlieue their outlets are the riots that hit those areas quite regularly. While I abhor terrorism I can however understand how these three, brought up and raised in the circumstances they were in chose a more organised and violent way of hitting back at the system. And of course it is never possible to prove institutional racism in a country where data collection regarding ethnic origin is simply not performed, hence institutional racism simply does not exist. The French state really is secular in every possible way for better or for worse.

Of course the Algerians are not blameless, many of them are unskilled workers who came to supply the labour force in the '60s and found themselves unemployable once the French economy slowed down and reduced its demand for unskilled labour. Culturally many of these migrants do not value education and therefore their descendants find it doubly difficult to find good employment and climb out of the ghetto.

The religious aspect of this is only a recent development as second and third generation Algerians in France try to return to their roots in a bid to find their identity in a country that simply won't accept them as equals. The proportion of Algerian descendants who wear hijabs for example is much higher currently than it was 20-30 years ago.

I'm not very optimistic about France for 2015. Once the togetherness from Je Suis Charlie dies down I think there will be some pretty nasty discourse going on. Cars will burn again and the FN will rise.

[Rollo]

You do realise that you are viewed as fair game by these extremists because as an American civilian you are responsible for voting for and funding governments that kill civilians (whether accidental or deliberate is not of interest to them) across the Muslim world? Your failure to oppose these actions means that according to their logic you are as legitimate a target as an American soldier. This is the exact logic they use to justify mass killings of civilians everywhere.

Of course your link to the actions of your government is stronger than the average Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East or Asia who has no control over groups like ISIS, you have a vote and pay taxes to the government they oppose.

This +1.

Such a view wouldn't be unjustified either:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

- The Grauniad, 7th Oct 2005

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html
In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
- The Independent, 7th Oct 2005

I suspect thought that Starter watches Fox News. These sorts of ideas come from Fearless Leader:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/553734788881076225
Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
- Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 9th Jan 2015

Mind you, Rupert has form in this sort of thing. After the deaths of three people in the Sydney seige, he didn't express condolence for the victims but congratulated his newspaper:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/544587566297522176
AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats.
- Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 15th Dec 2014

Unless we take active, vocal and public stand against the terrorist activities of the very few, people like this will continue to spout such drivel. As an Australian citizen I hereby apologise on behalf of all Australians to the world, for letting this feral escape the penal colony.

[Starter]

I suspect thought that Starter watches Fox News. These sorts of ideas come from Fearless Leader:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/553734788881076225
Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
- Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 9th Jan 2015
You would suspect correctly. I do watch Fox news. I also watch CBS, NBC and MSNBC, though the latter is much further to the left than Fox is to the right. I read several newspapers too; also books and I only occasionally move my lips while reading. ;)

[Starter]

However your point about Muslims having to take responsibility for the actions of a minority of terrorists within their ranks is actually ironically precisely the same thinking process the terrorists have. You do realise that you are viewed as fair game by these extremists because as an American civilian you are responsible for voting for and funding governments that kill civilians (whether accidental or deliberate is not of interest to them) across the Muslim world? Your failure to oppose these actions means that according to their logic you are as legitimate a target as an American soldier. This is the exact logic they use to justify mass killings of civilians everywhere.
Based on actual performance, it would seem the terrorists view everyone not of their mind set as fair game. That includes other Muslims who don't immediately switch to their side. They've killed far more fellow Muslims than Westerners.


Of course your link to the actions of your government is stronger than the average Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East or Asia who has no control over groups like ISIS, you have a vote and pay taxes to the government they oppose.
The difference is that here people get to try and persuade others to come around to their way of thinking without violence and then settle the matter with a vote. And when we lose a vote, we don't start shooting people and blowing people up.

[Starter]

Generally the terrorists pretend to do the assaults in the name of their religion but in fact it's all about politics.
Their religion doesn't teach them to kill innocent people and terrorists are just misinterpreting the Quoran.
When your religion is the "official" reason for killing people, then it's religion and not politics.

[Malbec]

The difference is that here people get to try and persuade others to come around to their way of thinking without violence and then settle the matter with a vote. And when we lose a vote, we don't start shooting people and blowing people up.

You missed my point.

You regularly vote for governments that have (whether Democrat or Republican) continued to kill and support governments that kill Muslims, militants or civilian. Not only that but you fund the killing of civilians directly by paying taxes. You fail to oppose your governments actions by continuing to pay taxes and refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government. You are therefore as responsible for civilian deaths as the guy pulling the trigger and therefore are a legitimate target for what you would define as a terrorist attack.

See what your logic is like when its flipped around on you?

[Rollo]

The difference is that here people get to try and persuade others to come around to their way of thinking without violence and then settle the matter with a vote. And when we lose a vote, we don't start shooting people and blowing people up.

Historical aside:
Except for the election on November 6, 1860...

[Starter]

You missed my point.

You regularly vote for governments that have (whether Democrat or Republican) continued to kill and support governments that kill Muslims, militants or civilian. Not only that but you fund the killing of civilians directly by paying taxes. You fail to oppose your governments actions by continuing to pay taxes and refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government. You are therefore as responsible for civilian deaths as the guy pulling the trigger and therefore are a legitimate target for what you would define as a terrorist attack.

See what your logic is like when its flipped around on you?
This quote from you above "....refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government."
is not truthful, as even a casual acquaintance with media sources here will attest. There is abundant opposition to many of our governments actions.

[Starter]

Historical aside:
Except for the election on November 6, 1860...
The rare exception as opposed to the rule in many places.

[janvanvurpa]

This quote from you above "....refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government."
is not truthful, as even a casual acquaintance with media sources here will attest. There is abundant opposition to many of our governments actions.

For all the good it does...

[Starter]

For all the good it does...
True.

[Spafranco]

Well just make sure that when you come to buy tickets for my stand-up show you ask the ticket officer 'excuse me, are there going to be any jokes about Hitler, Himmler, Amin, Pol Pot or 9/11 in this show?' Just to make sure ;)


Might not be my best gag ever, but that's an example of a joke that includes all of those topics. Was it in bad taste?

Give me an example of what you would consider a joke. If you feel that it is funny to make them look like fools and you are Jewish then I would give some credibility to your poking fun in sum way at Hitler or Himmler. What that joke would or could be is anathema to me.

[Spafranco]

Yeah a very sad series of events and thankfully no more coppers lost their lives.

I understand why people choose religion but it's not for me. I was brought up as a catholic just for reference here. My family are from the North West of Northern Ireland. My parents claim to be religious, sort of, but have never pushed it onto me and don't practise it. I've never really believed in God and just went along with things because of school and extended family really. By my late teens I barely gave it another thought. :)

Henner, I believe that religion in the case of Northern Ireland was just how the cards lay for Nationalist and Loyalists. Those planted from Scotland were Protestant and Presbyterians. The displaced in Northern Ireland were the Catholics. Religion in this case got used by groups that were merely thugs and I doubt half of them had any true allegiance to the religion of their birth.
Henner, I saw a Panorma TV show, I believe it is BBC that showed a group of men now in their 50's and 60's that played football (soccer) together as kids. They were even on a team. This was in the late 60's and 70's and these kids were both Catholic and Protestant. Some went off and joined paramilitary groups. One of them was Bobby Sands. I was intrigued to learn that Bobby Sands was both Catholic and Protestant. Mixed marriage.

[Spafranco]

Has it been mentioned that the police chief committed suicide?

[Rudy Tamasz]

As Tazio has suggested the French have a long complex relationship with their Algerian and sub-Saharan African migrants. First, a bitter war of independence where the French were pretty brutal then widespread discrimination against Algerian migrants in France. Ever heard of banlieue? The dictionary will tell you its an innocent French word for suburb. The reality is that these are miserable apartment blocks on the outskirts of big cities where undesirables like Algerians, blacks and the poorest and worst of French society find themselves. Its nearly impossible for people there to climb out of poverty as those postcodes are blacklisted. Frequently CVs with those postcodes are simply binned before they're even reviewed for job applications. I would watch La Haine if you want to see what life there is like. As for the French police, their tendency to recourse to violence at the first opportunity is well known. Every time we fly there my wife, caucasian French, reminds me never to look the police in the eye and never EVER talk back regardless of the circumstances. Its easy to see how resentment and frustration boil over into anger and eventually violence. For the vast majority of those in the banlieue their outlets are the riots that hit those areas quite regularly. While I abhor terrorism I can however understand how these three, brought up and raised in the circumstances they were in chose a more organised and violent way of hitting back at the system. And of course it is never possible to prove institutional racism in a country where data collection regarding ethnic origin is simply not performed, hence institutional racism simply does not exist. The French state really is secular in every possible way for better or for worse.

What you describe sounds a lot like what you had said about Syria. Le Francois comme Assad? C'est une idee tres interessante... Now maybe those poor lads were freedom fighters. Just kidding. ;)

Seriously, though, democracies work best when they have a certain degree of homogeneity, when you have a core of the society that stays on the same page, more or less. There might be class divisions and conflicting interests, but everybody plays by the rules. If you bring in a minority with a totally different culture, which is too large or resistant to integration, or both, that's a recipe for trouble. I'm not sure there's a ready made solution for the problems of the French, but then they are a resourceful people who have survived worse situations.

[gadjo_dilo]

If you bring in a minority with a totally different culture, which is too large or resistant to integration, or both, that's a recipe for trouble. .

Sounds familiar.....:s

[Big Ben]

I wouldn't call myself religious mostly because I don't like organized religions. Like in almost any kind of organization, in a church or whatever form of organized religious group some will try to impose their views on others in one way or another. I don't like that because it's always the most dubious characters that try to rise on top of the others. Like it's been said, "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". I have my faith though.

I don't really think atheism is the answer and I certainly don't appreciate it much the way some preach their atheism from their really high horses. In the end, like it or not, it may not be a religion, but atheism is definitely a faith and convinced atheists are nothing but just another type of fundamentalists because with all their condescending pretended love for reason their entire belief system is so so strongly based on something that isn't and can't be proven, just a very personal and subjective opinion, pretty much like any other faith. But for some unknown reason they are reasonable and the others are unreasonable.

I'm a Romanian. Over here atheism was all but the official religion for half a century and boy what an enlighten society we were. The communists really took the idea and ran with it. They treated us as nothing but just another species of animals and after 50 years some of us are more animals than human beings.

So Robinho, please tell us more about this beautiful atheism and completely disregard any personal variations it may take. In the real world we really live the consenquences of Lenin, Stalin and Ceausescu, some of the finest NoGod apostles.

[Rudy Tamasz]

we really live the consenquences of Lenin, Stalin and Ceausescu, some of the finest NoGod apostles.

In other parts of the world they would add Mao and Pol Pot to the company.

[gadjo_dilo]

I'm a Romanian. Over here atheism was all but the official religion for half a century and boy what an enlighten society we were. The communists really took the idea and ran with it. They treated us as nothing but just another species of animals and after 50 years some of us are more animals that human beings.



But even in the communist period the official cults were recognized and I remember that at least the patriarch of the othodox church and the rabbi of Romania were memebers of MAN ( the institution that represented the legislative power in the state ). Officially the cults weren't banned but were forced to keep a low profile. At the same time a campaign of atheist education was largely sustained and every form of “mystical” manifestation was ridiculised. In reality people still remained religious and even chiefs of communist party secretly followed the rites. I also remember that Ceausescu himself called priests at the funerals of his parents. I also heared of kids that were christened at home, in the tub. It was all about fear. Nobody could ban you from entering a church but it was “suggested” that you'd better don't. cos somebody could have seen you and told this to a certain institution. That could have been an impediment for those who were members of the communist party and wanted to have a career. But I repeat, it was a sort of secret agreement, it wasn't a secret that people were religious but it was pretended that they're not and on different stages most of us ate some sh*t ( some more, some less ) trying to display an atheist attitude at the organized official meetings.

[Malbec]

Seriously, though, democracies work best when they have a certain degree of homogeneity, when you have a core of the society that stays on the same page, more or less. There might be class divisions and conflicting interests, but everybody plays by the rules. If you bring in a minority with a totally different culture, which is too large or resistant to integration, or both, that's a recipe for trouble. I'm not sure there's a ready made solution for the problems of the French, but then they are a resourceful people who have survived worse situations.

I disagree with that analysis. The USA is a case in point. The overwhelming majority of Americans are descended from migrants who have only been there four centuries. Each wave of migration has been bitterly opposed by the wave before, whether it be Protestants opposing Catholic migration, Sephardic Jews opposing Ashkenazi Jewish migration or latterly opposition to Middle Eastern, East Asian and Hispanic migrants. Each brought completely different cultures, each deemed to be a threat to the fabric of American society in some way or other. Yet democracy in the US and economic development has been enriched by the diversity there, not weakened.

The French have got a long way to go, taking steps to actually acknowledge that racism exists would be good.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I disagree with that analysis. The USA is a case in point. The overwhelming majority of Americans are descended from migrants who have only been there four centuries. Each wave of migration has been bitterly opposed by the wave before, whether it be Protestants opposing Catholic migration, Sephardic Jews opposing Ashkenazi Jewish migration or latterly opposition to Middle Eastern, East Asian and Hispanic migrants. Each brought completely different cultures, each deemed to be a threat to the fabric of American society in some way or other. Yet democracy in the US and economic development has been enriched by the diversity there, not weakened.

The French have got a long way to go, taking steps to actually acknowledge that racism exists would be good.

All of the groups you've mentioned ended up merging into an all-American middle class, which was and still is the backbone of the country. The cultural differences mattered less than the common values (law obedience, work ethic, respect for property rights, freedom of speech etc.). Everybody was covered by the principles set by the Founding Fathers and people at large accepted those. Same thing happened in France with the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality. Now it faces the problem of its own citizens, which denounce those basic principles in favor of their reinvented or even carefully constructed cultural identities. I wonder how much the attitudes and practices of these self-proclaimed rejects will actually enrich the diverse culture of France.

[Malbec]

All of the groups you've mentioned ended up merging into an all-American middle class, which was and still is the backbone of the country. The cultural differences mattered less than the common values (law obedience, work ethic, respect for property rights, freedom of speech etc.). Everybody was covered by the principles set by the Founding Fathers and people at large accepted those. Same thing happened in France with the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality. Now it faces the problem of its own citizens, which denounce those basic principles in favor of their reinvented or even carefully constructed cultural identities. I wonder how much the attitudes and practices of these self-proclaimed rejects will actually enrich the diverse culture of France.

There isn't any point in offering fraternity and equality if in practice this isn't the case, just as proclaiming that they are a democratic republic doesn't make North Korea a democratic republic. I don't think its fair of you to put the entire blame for the racial problems in France on the migrants and ignore the role of the French population and government in causing it too.

The US has gone through a lot of turmoil with its waves of migrants whether it be the racial segregation of blacks, reduced rights for East Asians on the West coast culminating in internment of Japanese Americans during the war or the current debate about Hispanic migrants and harassment of Muslims, however over time the American government has shown willingness to accept previous errors and correct them. This is the difference between France and the US, the French have simply refused to acknowledge there is a problem at all let alone go about correcting anything.

[Rudy Tamasz]

In a way, France is a more modern society than the U.S. With its welfare system it offered migrants way more than they could hope for at home from day one. For the second generation it must have been even easier. They got the level of freedom and the standard of living head and shoulders above than that in their cultural motherland. They got French passports. Even on the lower steps of the social ladder they were doing way better than their brethren in Algeria or Mali. They still didn't integrate. Who's to blame?

[Starter]

The US has gone through a lot of turmoil with its waves of migrants whether it be the racial segregation of blacks, reduced rights for East Asians on the West coast culminating in internment of Japanese Americans during the war or the current debate about Hispanic migrants and harassment of Muslims, however over time the American government has shown willingness to accept previous errors and correct them. This is the difference between France and the US, the French have simply refused to acknowledge there is a problem at all let alone go about correcting anything.
Let's not forget that a large (some would say essential :D) part of the American population didn't achieve legal equality until the early 1900's -- women.

[Starter]

In a way, France is a more modern society than the U.S. With its welfare system it offered migrants way more than they could hope for at home from day one. For the second generation it must have been even easier. They got the level of freedom and the standard of living head and shoulders above than that in their cultural motherland. They got French passports. Even on the lower steps of the social ladder they were doing way better than their brethren in Algeria or Mali. They still didn't integrate. Who's to blame?
There's your problem. The welfare system. It is NOT a good thing to make sure people have just a little more than enough to get by. You have taken much of the incentive to learn, be productive and advance yourself out of the equation.

[schmenke]

Starter, with all due respect, you're missing the point of a state-funded welfare system.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Give me an example of what you would consider a joke. If you feel that it is funny to make them look like fools and you are Jewish then I would give some credibility to your poking fun in sum way at Hitler or Himmler. What that joke would or could be is anathema to me.

So only Jewish people are allowed to make jokes about Hitler?

Have you never seen any of the 'Downfall' parodies on youtube?

I joke is simply something that is intended to be humorous.

People say you can't make jokes about rape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAW8Tzt28Ts

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't really think atheism is the answer and I certainly don't appreciate it much the way some preach their atheism from their really high horses. In the end, like it or not, it may not be a religion, but atheism is definitely a faith and convinced atheists are nothing but just another type of fundamentalists because with all their condescending pretended love for reason their entire belief system is so so strongly based on something that isn't and can't be proven, just a very personal and subjective opinion, pretty much like any other faith. But for some unknown reason they are reasonable and the others are unreasonable.

.

I disagree.

Faith is believing in something (god in this context) without requiring evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't have faith that there isn't a god. I just haven't been shown any evidence yet that has convinced me to believe in god. A big difference.

[Starter]

Starter, with all due respect, you're missing the point of a state-funded welfare system.
I may be missing the intended point of a state-funded welfare system. I am most definitely NOT missing the result of a state-funded welfare system.

I am all for the so called safety net which would give short term help to those who have encountered crisis of various types in their lives. I have no use for systems which allow "the dole" to be a way of life.

[Starter]

I disagree.

Faith is believing in something (god in this context) without requiring evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't have faith that there isn't a god. I just haven't been shown any evidence yet that has convinced me to believe in god. A big difference.
That makes you an agnostic, as am I, and not an Atheist. Show me credible evidence and I'll change my mind. Religion is all a moot point anyway since no one is able to prove that their belief is the true one.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That makes you an agnostic, as am I, and not an Atheist. Show me credible evidence and I'll change my mind. Religion is all a moot point anyway since no one is able to prove that their belief is the true one.

Well Richard Dawkins still technically defines himself as agnostic, but like him, for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I may be missing the intended point of a state-funded welfare system. I am most definitely NOT missing the result of a state-funded welfare system.

I am all for the so called safety net which would give short term help to those who have encountered crisis of various types in their lives. I have no use for systems which allow "the dole" to be a way of life.

If the side-effect of state-funded welfare is that £2 of my yearly tax bill is going to those who use the dole as 'a way of life' then so be it. There are far bigger issues in society than this 'result' of sate welfare.

[schmenke]

I may be missing the intended point of a state-funded welfare system. I am most definitely NOT missing the result of a state-funded welfare system.

I am all for the so called safety net which would give short term help to those who have encountered crisis of various types in their lives. I have no use for systems which allow "the dole" to be a way of life.

I don't mean to hijack this thread (but perhaps an interesting discussion for it's own thread), but the intent of a state-funded welfare system is not so much to benefit the individual but society as a whole.

[Malbec]

In a way, France is a more modern society than the U.S. With its welfare system it offered migrants way more than they could hope for at home from day one. For the second generation it must have been even easier. They got the level of freedom and the standard of living head and shoulders above than that in their cultural motherland. They got French passports. Even on the lower steps of the social ladder they were doing way better than their brethren in Algeria or Mali. They still didn't integrate. Who's to blame?

Be careful about generalising.

Two second or third generation Algerians killed 17 people last week, one of them was a second generation Algerian or Tunisian police officer shot in the head at point blank range while trying to defend the values of the Republic and the French public. He was a religious Muslim too BTW. As was another Muslim from Mali who worked at the kosher supermarket and risked his life helping Jewish shoppers hide in the basement of the store. Did they integrate or no?

[Malbec]

So only Jewish people are allowed to make jokes about Hitler?

Have you never seen any of the 'Downfall' parodies on youtube?

I joke is simply something that is intended to be humorous.

People say you can't make jokes about rape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAW8Tzt28Ts

Charlie Chaplin wasn't Jewish either. Didn't stop him from making The Great Dictator, one of the funniest comedies of its era and unlike other comedians he had the guts to do it while Hitler was alive in a film industry that was terrified of offending the Nazis just in case they won in Europe.

[Starter]

I don't mean to hijack this thread (but perhaps an interesting discussion for it's own thread), but the intent of a state-funded welfare system is not so much to benefit the individual but society as a whole.
Agree this could easily be its own thread. So this is my last comment about it in this thread. When someone is not interested in pulling enough of their own weight in life then I have no use for them. I really don't care if the cost to me is only two cents. Let them starve. To mix metaphors, they're dead wood in the gene pool. On the other hand, if someone is willing to make an effort then I'm inclined to assist them in that effort.

[Robinho]

I wouldn't call myself religious mostly because I don't like organized religions. Like in almost any kind of organization, in a church or whatever form of organized religious group some will try to impose their views on others in one way or another. I don't like that because it's always the most dubious characters that try to rise on top of the others. Like it's been said, "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". I have my faith though.

I don't really think atheism is the answer and I certainly don't appreciate it much the way some preach their atheism from their really high horses. In the end, like it or not, it may not be a religion, but atheism is definitely a faith and convinced atheists are nothing but just another type of fundamentalists because with all their condescending pretended love for reason their entire belief system is so so strongly based on something that isn't and can't be proven, just a very personal and subjective opinion, pretty much like any other faith. But for some unknown reason they are reasonable and the others are unreasonable.

I'm a Romanian. Over here atheism was all but the official religion for half a century and boy what an enlighten society we were. The communists really took the idea and ran with it. They treated us as nothing but just another species of animals and after 50 years some of us are more animals than human beings.

So Robinho, please tell us more about this beautiful atheism and completely disregard any personal variations it may take. In the real world we really live the consenquences of Lenin, Stalin and Ceausescu, some of the finest NoGod apostles.

I think what you had their was enforced replacement of religion and gods, with communism, which did not want to exist in a society where people took guidance from another higher power when the higher power was supposed to be the state. That is purely a power play in exactly the same form as the organised religions. Atheism, as I previously stated, shouldn't even need to exist as a concept, if not for the existence of man made religion. I guess I would identify more as a humanist atheist. I don't believe in any gods, and see no reason to require any religion or state to pledge myself to. I think we are informed enough with far enough developed morally structured society's to be able to take responsibility for ourselves and stop pretending there is something more than we are living right now and stop wasting, what in all likelihood is our one and only, life on gathering together praying (begging) to a being that is supposed to already know everything and clearly doesn't care.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Be careful about generalising.

Two second or third generation Algerians killed 17 people last week, one of them was a second generation Algerian or Tunisian police officer shot in the head at point blank range while trying to defend the values of the Republic and the French public. He was a religious Muslim too BTW. As was another Muslim from Mali who worked at the kosher supermarket and risked his life helping Jewish shoppers hide in the basement of the store. Did they integrate or no?

It sounded like a generalization, but it wasn't meant to be. It's clear that some integrated and some didn't.

Based on the above I can suggest the following. 1) One could integrate if s/he was willing to. 2) One could combine the loyalty to France and its ways (including stupid cartoons and Michel Houellebecq) with his/her ethnic and cultural background. 3) If one was unwilling to do so, s/he probably had no business living in France.

[Spafranco]

Charlie Chaplin wasn't Jewish either. Didn't stop him from making The Great Dictator, one of the funniest comedies of its era and unlike other comedians he had the guts to do it while Hitler was alive in a film industry that was terrified of offending the Nazis just in case they won in Europe.

Because someone does something egregious to the beliefs of most of society does not make it correct.

[Starter]

Because someone does something egregious to the beliefs of most of society does not make it correct.
A major assumption not backed up by facts.

[Malbec]

Because someone does something egregious to the beliefs of most of society does not make it correct.

It wasn't offensive to anyone bar Nazis. The Jewish lobby in Hollywood didn't back the film purely out of political/business concerns in case Hitler defeated the UK/France in Europe and Hollywood would end up being locked out of the lucrative European market. They didn't take offense and your point is rather impotent.

[Spafranco]

A major assumption not backed up by facts.

A major assumption not based on facts!

[Spafranco]

It wasn't offensive to anyone bar Nazis. The Jewish lobby in Hollywood didn't back the film purely out of political/business concerns in case Hitler defeated the UK/France in Europe and Hollywood would end up being locked out of the lucrative European market. They didn't take offense and your point is rather impotent.
Hard to believe that so many of you are so inclined to appear to side with people like Nazi's.

[Malbec]

Hard to believe that so many of you are so inclined to appear to side with people like Nazi's.

Pointing out a great piece of comedy that mocked Nazis means I am inclined to side with Nazis? Interesting logic there.

[airshifter]

It sounded like a generalization, but it wasn't meant to be. It's clear that some integrated and some didn't.

Based on the above I can suggest the following. 1) One could integrate if s/he was willing to. 2) One could combine the loyalty to France and its ways (including stupid cartoons and Michel Houellebecq) with his/her ethnic and cultural background. 3) If one was unwilling to do so, s/he probably had no business living in France.

I don't think it's at all uncommon for many people to live in countries where they are not 100% (or even close usually) satisfied with the way things are in that country. If we take the attitude that those not happy should go elsewhere, where are they to go?




And personally I'm still shocked at the reaction of much of the world that claims to be so understanding and accepting of other cultures. I don't see the initial murders as a terrorist act, or even remotely one. They had very specific targets and IMO the people involved other than those at Charlie Hebdo were nothing other than what these maniacs considered acceptable collateral damage. And yet after a building burned, and now a murder spree took place, the magazine responds by printing more of an issue that will further infuriate those attacking them. Bravo.... a great way to roll the dice and pull even more nutters into the mix!

I'm all for freedom of speech and the press, personal expression, and human rights. But I also accept that with my freedom of speech comes a responsibility that what I say may have negative consequences.


Sorry, but I am NOT Charlie.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I don't think it's at all uncommon for many people to live in countries where they are not 100% (or even close usually) satisfied with the way things are in that country. If we take the attitude that those not happy should go elsewhere, where are they to go?

If you live in a country, even your native one, which you absolutely hate, moving elsewhere is still a better option than going on a shooting spree, no matter what your reasons are. There's plenty of Americans who not only move elsewhere, but go on to denounce the citizenship of the land of the brave, the free, the wealthy etc. In case of these guys, then even had specific places to go, where they could practice their own culture. Long story short, they only have themselves to blame for not integrating.

My other point is that any government encouraging mass migration has to realize that there will always be people, who won't be willing to itnegrate no matter what.

[Starter]

If you live in a country, even your native one, which you absolutely hate, moving elsewhere is still a better option than going on a shooting spree, no matter what your reasons are. There's plenty of Americans who not only move elsewhere, but go on to denounce the citizenship of the land of the brave, the free, the wealthy etc. In case of these guys, then even had specific places to go, where they could practice their own culture. Long story short, they only have themselves to blame for not integrating.

My other point is that any government encouraging mass migration has to realize that there will always be people, who won't be willing to itnegrate no matter what.
"plenty of Americans" ???

[Tazio]

Plenty is a relative term.
Of the millions of Americans living abroad, a very few(relatively) actually renounce their citizenship.


The Federal Register, the government publication that records such decisions, shows that 502 expatriates gave up their U.S. citizenship or permanent residency status in the last quarter of 2009. That is a tiny portion of the 5.2 million Americans estimated by the State Department to be living abroad. Still, 502 was the largest quarterly figure in years, more than twice the total for all of 2008, and it looms larger, given how agonizing the decision can be. There were 235 renunciations in 2008 and 743 last year. Waiting periods to meet with consular officers to formalize renunciations have grown.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html

The numbers are increasing, and partly due to The Patriot Act, as well as double taxation.

[Starter]

Plenty is a relative term.
Of the millions of Americans living abroad, a very few(relatively) actually renounce their citizenship.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html

The numbers are increasing, and partly due to The Patriot Act, as well as double taxation.
I strongly suspect this as the predominate reason.

[Malbec]

And yet after a building burned, and now a murder spree took place, the magazine responds by printing more of an issue that will further infuriate those attacking them. Bravo.... a great way to roll the dice and pull even more nutters into the mix!

I'm all for freedom of speech and the press, personal expression, and human rights. But I also accept that with my freedom of speech comes a responsibility that what I say may have negative consequences.

Sorry, but I am NOT Charlie.

Very eloquently put.

I was very disappointed with the cover. Extremists attacked Charlie Hebdo so the magazine comes up with a cover that most if not all Muslims whether mainstream or not would find offensive. Thats how to build bridges with French Muslims, indeed Muslims globally.

[Malbec]

they only have themselves to blame for not integrating.

Of course, immigrants only have themselves to blame if they don't fit in. The host nation has no responsibility whatsoever. Might want to look into the history of migration across the world or talk to migrants yourself. Things are a little more complicated than that.

[Starter]

Of course, immigrants only have themselves to blame if they don't fit in. The host nation has no responsibility whatsoever. Might want to look into the history of migration across the world or talk to migrants yourself. Things are a little more complicated than that.
Let's think about that one for a moment.

I'm not thrilled with the country I live in for what ever reason - economy, dictatorship, bad climate, etc. So I decide to move to another place which seems to offer a better life or at least relief from whatever I've been suffering under. I arrive in my new country and can't read, write or speak the language. My customs don't fit in well with the local culture either. And, I have no skills which allow good employment in the local economy. So of course I now expect the host country, and its residents, to learn my language or, at a minimum, change all the signs and paperwork to a bilingual form. I also expect them to guarantee me profitable employment and when I don't have any skills to qualify for said employment I expect the host country to spend their money to feed, clothe, and shelter me and my family for some unknown period of time into the future, maybe forever. When my life here doesn't turn out to be quite as wonderful as it seemed it would be from my home in Islamistan, I reserve the right to riot in the streets, burn buildings, etc. The idea that I could correct the problems I face here, at least for the next generation, by assimilating into the local culture and making damn sure my kids get a good education is of course offensive to me. The locals should change their ways to match mine, its only fair.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Very eloquently put.

I was very disappointed with the cover. Extremists attacked Charlie Hebdo so the magazine comes up with a cover that most if not all Muslims whether mainstream or not would find offensive. Thats how to build bridges with French Muslims, indeed Muslims globally.

True......



.....but it's an effing cartoon picture!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625

The Pope thinks freedom of speech 'has limits' and 'you cannot insult the faith of others'.

What a load of ****. What are you going to do Popey if I blaspheme? Burn me at the stake?

[Rollo]

Of course, immigrants only have themselves to blame if they don't fit in. The host nation has no responsibility whatsoever. Might want to look into the history of migration across the world or talk to migrants yourself. Things are a little more complicated than that.

Even if that host nation spent the best part of a decade bombing the infrastructure where the immigrants came from?
The country which I live in (which has never grown the spine to invent its own foreign policy) has done precisely that.
We even elected a government in 2013 that likes to push that same boat... back where it came from.

[Tazio]

I strongly suspect this as the predominate reason. Maybe,
but apparently the Patriot act seems to have some unintended consequences for many Americans living abroad.


Some U.S.-based banks have closed expats’ accounts because of difficulty in certifying that the holders still maintain U.S. addresses, as required by a Patriot Act provision. “It seems the new anti-terrorist rules are having unintended effects,” Daniel Flynn, who lives in Belgium, wrote in a letter quoted by the Americans Abroad Caucus in the U.S. Congress in correspondence with the Treasury Department.
“I was born in San Francisco in 1939, served my country as an army officer from 1961 to 1963, have been paying U.S. income taxes for 57 years, since 1952, have continually maintained federal voting residence, and hold a valid American passport.”
Mr. Flynn had held an account with a U.S. bank for 44 years. Still, he wrote, “they said that the new anti-terrorism rules required them to close our account because of our address outside the U.S.”
Kathleen Rittenhouse, who lives in Canada, wrote that until she encountered a similar problem, “I did not know that the Patriot Act placed me in the same category as terrorists, arms dealers and money launderers.”
Andy Sundberg, another director of American Citizens Abroad, said, “These banks are closing our accounts as acts of prudent self-defense.” But the result, he said, is that expats have become “toxic citizens.”
The Americans Abroad Caucus, headed by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, has made repeated entreaties to the Treasury Department.
In response, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner wrote Ms. Maloney on Feb. 24 that “nothing in U.S. financial law and regulation should make it impossible for Americans living abroad to access financial services here in the United States.”
But banks, Treasury officials note, are free to ignore that advice.
“That Americans living overseas are being denied banking services in U.S. banks, and increasingly in foreign banks, is unacceptable,” Ms. Maloney said in a letter Friday to leaders of the House Financial Services Committee, requesting a hearing on the question.
Mr. Wilson, joining her request, said that pleas from expats for relief “continue to come in at a startling rate.”

[Malbec]

Let's think about that one for a moment.

I'm not thrilled with the country I live in for what ever reason - economy, dictatorship, bad climate, etc. So I decide to move to another place which seems to offer a better life or at least relief from whatever I've been suffering under. I arrive in my new country and can't read, write or speak the language. My customs don't fit in well with the local culture either. And, I have no skills which allow good employment in the local economy. So of course I now expect the host country, and its residents, to learn my language or, at a minimum, change all the signs and paperwork to a bilingual form. I also expect them to guarantee me profitable employment and when I don't have any skills to qualify for said employment I expect the host country to spend their money to feed, clothe, and shelter me and my family for some unknown period of time into the future, maybe forever. When my life here doesn't turn out to be quite as wonderful as it seemed it would be from my home in Islamistan, I reserve the right to riot in the streets, burn buildings, etc. The idea that I could correct the problems I face here, at least for the next generation, by assimilating into the local culture and making damn sure my kids get a good education is of course offensive to me. The locals should change their ways to match mine, its only fair.

Of course migrants have a responsibility to try to fit in, at least learning the local language and working hard etc. I take issue however with what appears to be a rather one sided portrayal of migration by Rudy where he appears to try to absolve the host nation of any responsibility. France has had a long history of being extremely unfriendly to certain ethnic groups, before the Muslims it was the Jews, it might be worth looking into how that one ended up.

[Malbec]

True......



.....but it's an effing cartoon picture!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625

The Pope thinks freedom of speech 'has limits' and 'you cannot insult the faith of others'.

What a load of ****. What are you going to do Popey if I blaspheme? Burn me at the stake?

Yes of course there's freedom of speech but with that comes responsibility. In this particular case because of the events over the past few weeks a little sensitivity would have gone a long way especially given how explosive things have become in France. Muslims in general, not just extremists have made it very clear that they find images of the prophet hurtful and offensive so Charlie Hebdo go ahead and make him the cover image. Then the caption, 'I forgive you'. Who is it aimed at? Charlie Hebdo to the terrorists? If so then why use an image that all Muslims would find offensive? Is it possible to forgive people who killed 12 guys just a week ago? Is it aimed at the Muslim world in general in which case the logic beggars belief, how can 1.6 billion people bear responsibility and therefore require forgiveness for the actions of three people?

Finally there is the caricaturing of Arabs used which (whether religious or not) French Arabs have repeatedly complained is offensive and racist. I do wonder if Charlie Hebdo lampoons African dictators by portraying them as banana eating apes living in trees, Israeli policies with hook nosed bearded Jews wearing yellow stars and horns in their hair. Maybe a nice slitty eye with a Chinese hat to mock North Korea? Of course Charlie Hebdo is very careful with the way it portrays Jews, a journalist got sacked after he was accused of being anti-semitic. Free speech exists if you're offending one religion but not another? How does that work?

[Big Ben]

As far as I know they mock, let me rephrase that, they insult everyone and everything. It's enough to check out the first page of images google returns to see nothing is off limits for these guys. And TBH I didn't really see anything that comes close to being witty or funny, nothing but pure insults. So while what happened is horrible, it doesn't change the fact that this paper is just garbage. I don't really comprehend why everyone's charlie now and why the french government paid them 1 million euros. Isn't it enough that 2 policemen died trying to defend their right to publish their filth?

[Starter]

Of course migrants have a responsibility to try to fit in, at least learning the local language and working hard etc. I take issue however with what appears to be a rather one sided portrayal of migration by Rudy where he appears to try to absolve the host nation of any responsibility. France has had a long history of being extremely unfriendly to certain ethnic groups, before the Muslims it was the Jews, it might be worth looking into how that one ended up.
Perhaps it was a big mistake to use France as a destination then? How is that the fault of the French people? And Jews never found France to be in the same league of unfriendly as the place next door.

[Starter]

As far as I know they mock, let me rephrase that, they insult everyone and everything. It's enough to check out the first page of images google returns to see nothing is off limits for these guys. And TBH I didn't really see anything that comes close to being witty or funny, nothing but pure insults. So while what happened is horrible, it doesn't change the fact that this paper is just garbage. I don't really comprehend why everyone's charlie now and why the french government paid them 1 million euros. Isn't it enough that 2 policemen died trying to defend their right to publish their filth?
The problem you have when free speech is limited is knowing when to stop. In a free society many people say things which are offensive to others. It's the price you pay for being able to freely express your own views. Banning certain viewpoints may sound good when it's something you find offensive.

The problem is "mission creep". When you have banned the most excessive and unpleasant expressions, where do you go from there? The range of subjects allowed in discourse is now narrower. There are always people who will strongly object to what is now the outer range of expression (after banning the other stuff). Repeat the cycle until you have a tightly controlled society with essentially NO freedom of speech.

[schmenke]

... Isn't it enough that 2 policemen died trying to defend their right to publish their filth?

One of which was muslim.

[Big Ben]

The problem you have when free speech is limited is knowing when to stop. In a free society many people say things which are offensive to others. It's the price you pay for being able to freely express your own views. Banning certain viewpoints may sound good when it's something you find offensive.

The problem is "mission creep". When you have banned the most excessive and unpleasant expressions, where do you go from there? The range of subjects allowed in discourse is now narrower. There are always people who will strongly object to what is now the outer range of expression (after banning the other stuff). Repeat the cycle until you have a tightly controlled society with essentially NO freedom of speech.

I don't advocate for banning them or suppressing free speech in any way. All I say is that IMO that paper before the attack was a piece of garbage and after the attack still is a piece of garbage. Now they've became some sort of heroes of free speech when I see them more as hijackers of free speech... the down-side of free speech if I may, you have to take them too 'cause it doesn't really work any other way.

[Starter]

I don't advocate for banning them or suppressing free speech in any way. All I say is that IMO that paper before the attack was a piece of garbage and after the attack still is a piece of garbage. Now they've became some sort of heroes of free speech when I see them more as hijackers of free speech... the down-side of free speech if I may, you have to take them too 'cause it doesn't really work any other way.
Understood. I was just using your post as a jumping off point for my comments.

[Malbec]

Perhaps it was a big mistake to use France as a destination then? How is that the fault of the French people? And Jews never found France to be in the same league of unfriendly as the place next door.

France specifically recruited Arab workers and soldiers from North Africa and other former colonies, just as Britain did from its Empire. Once the tradition of migrating to France to address French labour shortages was established it was pretty hard to break especially when Algerians, Tunisians and other people from across the French colony were taught to speak French and therefore had other reasons to see France as the natural place to go to. There is a very good reason why specific nationalities chose specific countries to migrate to.

As for Jews, France has had a very healthy history of anti-semitism dating back way before the Dreyfus affair. I accept that many think the Germans were the most anti-semitic in Europe, but reality is that other countries were equally if not more so. When the Germans started asking countries to start deporting Jews to certain death in the liquidation camps, many countries like Italy and Denmark passively resisted despite many of them being under German occupation. With the French the SS had to ask them to slow the deportation down as they couldn't cope with the numbers the French were supplying and also complained that the French were being too brutal. Its worth looking at anti-semitism across Europe, IMO many of the same sentiments are simply being translated into anti-Muslim behaviour recently.

[Rollo]

The problem is "mission creep". When you have banned the most excessive and unpleasant expressions, where do you go from there? The range of subjects allowed in discourse is now narrower. There are always people who will strongly object to what is now the outer range of expression (after banning the other stuff). Repeat the cycle until you have a tightly controlled society with essentially NO freedom of speech.

Should racist publication be allowed in newspapers with a circulation of 3 million?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_white_is_the_new_black

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html
The writing of the Newspaper Articles for publication by Andrew Bolt and the publication of them by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd contravened s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)

This in particular:
I’m saying only that this self-identification as Aboriginal strikes me as self-obsessed, and driven more by politics than by any racial reality.
It’s also divisive, feeding a new movement to stress pointless or even invented racial differences we once swore to overcome. What happened to wanting us all to become colour blind?
Of course, the white Aborigine - or “political Aborigine” - is not new.
In 1972, Pat Eatock, founding secretary of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, officially became the first Aborigine to stand for federal parliament in the ACT, even though she looked as white as her Scottish mother, or some of her father’s British relatives.
Indeed, Eatock only started to identify as Aboriginal when she was 19, after attending a political rally, so little did any racial difference matter to her before her awakening to far-Left causes.
- Andrew Bolt, The Herald-Sun, 15th April 2009

This has become known as the "Bolt Case" in Australia and the repeal of Section 18C was even one of the points mentioned in the Liberal Party's election manifesto in 2013.
Of course if you remove bits of legislation which regulate aspects of speech such as racism and sexism etc. then the only cause for redress for people injured is through defamation cases which are far harder to prove.

How would you propose to address the issue of people who have been injured as a result of someone exercising their free speech? If people have actual carte blach to say anything they like and publish it in a wide enough context, then what? An organisation such as a newspaper which circulation in the millions has the potential power to utterly destroy people's livelihood's in the name of "free speech" otherwise.

I bet that in the United States that if a similar sort of article was published about a Native American person, there would be serious consequences.

[Starter]

Should racist publication be allowed in newspapers with a circulation of 3 million?
Yes.


Of course if you remove bits of legislation which regulate aspects of speech such as racism and sexism etc. then the only cause for redress for people injured is through defamation cases which are far harder to prove.
Define "injured". Anything short of physical harm is a difficult thing to prove.


If people have actual carte blach to say anything they like and publish it in a wide enough context, then what? An organisation such as a newspaper which circulation in the millions has the potential power to utterly destroy people's livelihood's in the name of "free speech" otherwise.
The harm can only happen when and if free people are so stupid as to give credence to some of the more "out there" ideas of both the left & the right. Trying to prevent people from saying something stupid is not the answer. (And is in essence a form of attempted thought control.) The foolishness being spouted by some is self evident to most with a brain.


I bet that in the United States that if a similar sort of article was published about a Native American person, there would be serious consequences.
Yes, there is a current attempt by some to get one of our football teams, the Washington Redskins, to change their name and logo in a move of political correctness. Never mind that the team has (until recently) been an example of dedication and excellence and success. The thought police would rule the world if they could. And they are trying hard. Too bad some don't see the danger to free expression - resurrection of the Inquisition anyone?

[TheFamousEccles]

Sorry to butt in into what has been a very engrossing debate (seriously) - I came across this little gem and thought I would share it.

http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/gun-nuts-simulate-paris-shooting-get-shot-by-simulated-1679735859

The take home message these vigilantes got? We need more Good Guys With Guns!

[Tazio]

Solve the issue with fists, and chains@!! ....... :dork: :sailor: :rolleyes:

[Zeakiwi]

I wonder if bank type security (two door partitions) and metal detectors like in parts of Spain, might have made a difference in Paris.

[Starter]

Perhaps. Are you suggesting that every commercial building or shop have one? And an additional person to monitor it. (Helps with unemployment, though costs/prices go up. ) Pretty soon every self respecting home will have one too.