French mag Charlie Hebdo attacked by gunmen, 12 dead

  On 1/18/2015 at 10:39 PM, cwmbrancity said:

 

its interesting that people who position revisionism (and it disgusts me that its even considered a term of reference) as some kind of open-minded debate, dont focus on recent genocides like Rwanda or the Balkans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  On 1/18/2015 at 10:27 PM, Phoenis said:

 

topol/10

+1

  On 1/18/2015 at 10:47 PM, Phoenis said:

let's just drop the subject brancyboy

make a new topic if you want to discuss it

its called comparative analaysis

when the debate degenerates to the level where people are calling for revisionism of the holocaust to be given credence, the bs-meter has reached so far off the scale of reality to become absurd

and i'm far from a boy mate

why dont you start a thread called "antisemitism - whys its ok to deny the full extent of the holocaust",

then the range of ignoramuses who agree with this noble pursuit can all get up close n personal with each other over whatever dysfunctionalism is prohibiting them from grasping reality.

call me an idiot, but i associated a forum dedicated to progressive music with it also attracting educated minds.

http://time.com/3672871/charlie-hebdo-pakistan/

obviously people have a right to protest something that they perceive as attacking their religion, but why do people in countries far away from france feel that they should be able to demand that france clamps down on its own freedom of speech when it comes to Islam? if it's something they don't like and it's clear around the world, can't they just... ignore it?

http://www.voanews.com/content/pakistan-anti-charlie-hebdo-protest-turns-violent/2600812.html

this one mentions a photographer getting shot and some clashes with police which the time one forgot to mention, but also quotes a student in the protest:

"He says that hurting and playing with the sentiments of Muslims by allowing such publications must come to an end. Manan says Islam and Muslims are a peaceful religion and people but they cannot tolerate the insult of their prophet."

i thought tolerance was a good thing. tolerating other peoples way of life, their culture, their laws, their freedoms to say what they want to say, etc. well, it's a good thing if it's native euros or anglo americans being called out for their lack of it. everyone else has a different rule/standard i guess.

this one is linked to from the time one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/protesters-in-philippines-burn-charlie-hebdo-poster-with-face-of-benjamin-netanyahu-9979246.html

Mentions how the organizers of this protest against hebdo said:

“What had happened in France, the Charlie Hebdo killing, is a moral lesson for the world to respect any kind of religion, especially the religion of Islam.”

so the anti-charlie protesters there seem to feel that a brutal act of murder = a moral lesson that religion should be respected, especially Islam?

more peaceful stuff:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/africa/10-dead-in-niger-after-anti-charlie-hebdo-protests/2015/01/18/4d8ff254-6307-4469-829a-9e29d29eb390_video.html

but i think the people who are saying that the shooters in france were just lone wolf crazies akin to american school shooters, and came from totally out of nowhere and it really had nothing to do with islam (if not being straight up cia dudes in disguise), with no support network or anything of the sort are def correct. this europol guy seems to think so too when he says there's a problem and that it's hard to fight because of the 'scale' of it, but then i'm sure he's the actual bad guy (just like i'm an anti-islamic xenophobe merely for mentioning any of these things in such a paragon of getting at truth and exploring all sides of an issue as this place)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/europe/europe-on-alert-arrests-in-anti-terror-sweeps/2015/01/16/52c5327f-d755-4f1e-bced-a5925ecb983e_video.html

  On 1/19/2015 at 12:26 AM, cwmbrancity said:

why dont you start a thread called "antisemitism - whys its ok to deny the full extent of the holocaust",

 

then the range of ignoramuses who agree with this noble pursuit can all get up close n personal with each other over whatever dysfunctionalism is prohibiting them from grasping reality.

 

call me an idiot, but i associated a forum dedicated to progressive music with it also attracting educated minds.

You'll find that like anything, there is a wide range of people who listen to this music.

  On 1/19/2015 at 1:32 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/19/2015 at 12:26 AM, cwmbrancity said:

why dont you start a thread called "antisemitism - whys its ok to deny the full extent of the holocaust",

 

then the range of ignoramuses who agree with this noble pursuit can all get up close n personal with each other over whatever dysfunctionalism is prohibiting them from grasping reality.

 

call me an idiot, but i associated a forum dedicated to progressive music with it also attracting educated minds.

 

You'll find that like anything, there is a wide range of people who listen to this music.

 

yes

the scale of it has in large part been down to the sheer numbers of people who've gone to Syria, Iraq & Yemen and yet who are returning to Europe and elsewhere unmonitored. The guys who did CH were on certain no-fly lists but shit still went wrong. Very similar example was the L Rigby murder here, although not on such a scale, the men involved had even been approached by MI5 to work in counter-intelligence on top of everything.

theres a lot heightened emotion generated by these events, the media feed it/feed off it, politicians make grandiose statements and work their own agendas. The best thing anyone can do is read as much as you can from relevant/reliable sources and work towards whatever it is you believe in.

Also find & watch a Brit comedy film called Four Lions, about 4 homegrown suicide bombers, in whats a buddy/road mission gone deeply wrong, and the Curb Your Enthusiasm "Palestinian Chicken" episode nails a lot of the points raised in this thread too......hairy belly lllllol mmmmmmmmm

and i gotta repost this as not only is it beautifully accurate but its also relevant to the views on Inglan thread too

  On 1/18/2015 at 11:43 PM, Allize said:

 

  On 1/18/2015 at 10:03 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/18/2015 at 8:59 PM, Allize said:

I don't understand where you're getting at, he's entitled to have his own opinion about the demonstrations. About the text, I'm sorry but once again you deffamating, not sure if you even read it.

 

This is what he said

 

 

On a second text, directed thowards the mintser of the interieur, he asked for peace.

 

What do you think he meant by "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly."?

 

Charlie Hebdo made political statements using cartoons. Coulibaly made a statement using guns to kill 4 jewish people. You think he felt like he was making a political statement supporting the use of guns to make a statement? Or you think he felt that Coulibaly was so oppressed his only way out was to kill a few jews while his "colleagues" took out some other people?

 

 

Well, if you read the last page you'de see that has been clarified over and over. That quote meant he felt like a charlie, because of his profession, but one that is prossecuted by the authorities as a terrorist, just like coulibally. Hence exacerbating the double standard. The fact that he chose coulibally is because he's black and attacked a jewish store. Obviously this ambiguity is what he was looking for, but it surely isn't a motive to be arrested and surely isn't hate speech or condoning terrorism. You can appease your doubts with he following text he sent to the minister of the interieur...

 

 

 

Anyway, I also don't share a particular interest in keep this discussion going. Too many conflicting parties around here.

 

So feels like a guy who attacked a jewish store? Because he's been attacking jews? When you surround yourself with people that he has been associated with, you place your own words in actions in a context.

Of course he doesn't want to be arrested, being in prison is never fun. So it's easy for him to backpedal.

  On 1/19/2015 at 1:11 AM, MisterE said:

http://time.com/3672871/charlie-hebdo-pakistan/

obviously people have a right to protest something that they perceive as attacking their religion, but why do people in countries far away from france feel that they should be able to demand that france clamps down on its own freedom of speech when it comes to Islam? if it's something they don't like and it's clear around the world, can't they just... ignore it?

http://www.voanews.com/content/pakistan-anti-charlie-hebdo-protest-turns-violent/2600812.html

this one mentions a photographer getting shot and some clashes with police which the time one forgot to mention, but also quotes a student in the protest:

"He says that hurting and playing with the sentiments of Muslims by allowing such publications must come to an end. Manan says Islam and Muslims are a peaceful religion and people but they cannot tolerate the insult of their prophet."

i thought tolerance was a good thing. tolerating other peoples way of life, their culture, their laws, their freedoms to say what they want to say, etc. well, it's a good thing if it's native euros or anglo americans being called out for their lack of it. everyone else has a different rule/standard i guess.

 

this one is linked to from the time one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/protesters-in-philippines-burn-charlie-hebdo-poster-with-face-of-benjamin-netanyahu-9979246.html

Mentions how the organizers of this protest against hebdo said:

“What had happened in France, the Charlie Hebdo killing, is a moral lesson for the world to respect any kind of religion, especially the religion of Islam.”

so the anti-charlie protesters there seem to feel that a brutal act of murder = a moral lesson that religion should be respected, especially Islam?

 

more peaceful stuff:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/africa/10-dead-in-niger-after-anti-charlie-hebdo-protests/2015/01/18/4d8ff254-6307-4469-829a-9e29d29eb390_video.html

 

but i think the people who are saying that the shooters in france were just lone wolf crazies akin to american school shooters, and came from totally out of nowhere and it really had nothing to do with islam (if not being straight up cia dudes in disguise), with no support network or anything of the sort are def correct. this europol guy seems to think so too when he says there's a problem and that it's hard to fight because of the 'scale' of it, but then i'm sure he's the actual bad guy (just like i'm an anti-islamic xenophobe merely for mentioning any of these things in such a paragon of getting at truth and exploring all sides of an issue as this place)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/europe/europe-on-alert-arrests-in-anti-terror-sweeps/2015/01/16/52c5327f-d755-4f1e-bced-a5925ecb983e_video.html

And in world news, 1.6 billion muslims around the world committed no acts of violence.

In US news, local recruiting authorities use "on a mission for both god and country" in a recruiting poster.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/army-orders-recruiters-to-remove-unauthorized-on-a-mission-for-both-god-and-country-poster/

Now this was an unauthorized poster, and many christians would surely say this doesn't represent them, but how much sway does that have in a nation that's getting bombed by Americans?

if obama and lefties everywhere can say that ISIS members aren't actually islamic, can we say that anyone in the US military, thinking they are doing the work of god (or by extension anyone supporting the military partly on persona religious feelings) aren't actually christians?

  On 1/19/2015 at 3:00 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

lol at the 'especially islam' part. just come out and say it dude, you think everyone else is part of a phony hack religion but yours is for reals. that's how i feel when i read that.

i'm pretty much atheist. so whats that make you?

  On 1/19/2015 at 2:53 AM, MisterE said:

if obama and lefties everywhere can say that ISIS members aren't actually islamic, can we say that anyone in the US military, thinking they are doing the work of god (or by extension anyone supporting the military partly on persona religious feelings) aren't actually christians?

sorry mesh, i just assumed you meant me and 'my religion' or whatever because i assumed there would be hostility towards my posting that stuff. i misinterpreted your post, and I WAS WRONG

i agree about things being hijacked and your notions about that. it makes it a pretty complex issue to discuss because obviously these people don't represent all of islam, but they still consider themselves islamic and there are still correlations there. i don't want or mean at all to condemn all of islam, but i feel like it's intellectually lazy/dishonest to pretend like this stuff has absolutely no connection to it, in any way. to understand something you have to actually look at the connections and try to understand them. but lots of people seem to just want to shut that entire area of discourse down before it's even started, and i see that as dishonest.

  On 1/19/2015 at 3:16 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/19/2015 at 2:53 AM, MisterE said:

if obama and lefties everywhere can say that ISIS members aren't actually islamic, can we say that anyone in the US military, thinking they are doing the work of god (or by extension anyone supporting the military partly on persona religious feelings) aren't actually christians?

We sure can.

 

ok great, now who's going to go tell these people that they aren't christians or muslims, and what exactly does this logic accomplish, in the real world? wouldn't it maybe be more honest to say that ISIS are 'islamic extremists' rather than to say they just aren't islamic at all? who exactly gets to be (and were they appointed, and by whom?) arbiter of who is or is not a christian or muslim? you and obama?

  On 1/19/2015 at 3:21 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 1/19/2015 at 3:16 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/19/2015 at 2:53 AM, MisterE said:

if obama and lefties everywhere can say that ISIS members aren't actually islamic, can we say that anyone in the US military, thinking they are doing the work of god (or by extension anyone supporting the military partly on persona religious feelings) aren't actually christians?

We sure can.

 

ok great, now who's going to go tell these people that they aren't christians or muslims, and what exactly does this logic accomplish, in the real world? wouldn't it maybe be more honest to say that ISIS are 'islamic extremists' rather than to say they just aren't islamic at all? who exactly gets to be (and were they appointed, and by whom?) arbiter of who is or is not a christian or muslim? you and obama?

 

Kind of what we've been saying all along - they are extremists.

As to who says they don't represent Muslims, well maybe the links I've provided many times showing moderate Muslims condemning the attacks. So no, not me and my good buddy Barry (he never seems to have time to shoot hoops with me anymore), but you know, actual Muslims.

why can you give examples of a few moderate muslims (one of whom said that muslims need to adapt to europe or get out) and use them to declare that all of 1.6billion must therefore be moderates or more specifically say they are nonviolent (ignoring any of my points that maybe crossing the line over to violent act isn't the only problem, maybe the ideologies that foment those who do step over that line is also a problem, and maybe we should discuss how widespread those ideologies are which lead to the violent extremists, whether or not those ideologies represent islam itself not really being as relevant as their results), but my posting links to thousands of protestors who think the hebdo killings were some kind of moral justice, or others who got violent and killed people, that stuff is totally irrelevant to the discussion? i think it's a lot more relevant than zionism and holocaust denial, at least. the people are protesting/rioting over the thing in the topic title, and whenever i look at protestors of any kind i usually assume they share views with other people who just didn't get out and protest.

  On 1/19/2015 at 3:33 AM, MisterE said:

why can you give examples of a few moderate muslims (one of whom said that muslims need to adapt to europe or get out) and use them to declare that all of 1.6billion must therefore be moderates or more specifically say they are nonviolent (ignoring any of my points that maybe crossing the line over to violent act isn't the only problem, maybe the ideologies that foment those who do step over that line is also a problem, and maybe we should discuss how widespread those ideologies are which lead to the violent extremists, whether or not those ideologies represent islam itself not really being as relevant as their results), but my posting links to thousands of protestors who think the hebdo killings were some kind of moral justice, or others who got violent and killed people, that stuff is totally irrelevant to the discussion? i think it's a lot more relevant than zionism and holocaust denial, at least. the people are protesting/rioting over the thing in the topic title, and whenever i look at protestors of any kind i usually assume they share views with other people who just didn't get out and protest.

Not gonna bother with the strawmen arguments in there.

The moral lesson bit is a fucked up thing to say, and I don't disagree with you that religious ideologies are stupid and do foment violence. But I'm not going to condemn them all to prison or force them to convert for believing in something idiotic.

Look at the numbers of people - 5,000 in Pakistan! Where the Muslim population is 178 million. 1,500 in the Philippines with a Muslim population of 4.7 million. They're not rioting (unless burning a poster is rioting?), they're protesting. There was some violence in one of the protests - and that was a clash between the police (probably Muslim) and some few hundred wanting to march on the French consulate.

However also from the same article

"Friday’s protests against Charlie Hebdo came the same day civil society groups organized candlelight vigils across Pakistan to mark one month since Islamist extremists attacked a school in the city of Peshawar and massacred 150 people, most of them children. Participants at one such rally in Islamabad demanded the government take serious action against religious extremism."

Is that more than a few moderate muslims?

woah, you're going to accuse me of floating out strawmen but then indirectly accuse me of wanting (or at least suggest that i want) to condemn all muslims because of a few? also the people in niger appeared to be rioting to me. the ones burning things in the street, where around 10 ppl were killed.. ?

there are obviously muslims who are against senseless killing, but imo they aren't really the issue, yet seem to be serving as a 'great' (i put that in quotes because i think its actually 'poor') distraction from the issue. one part of that issue being, how many people out there feel that the attack on hebdo was an act of moral justice? obviously SOME, who i just quoted. we can't discuss how many it may be exactly though, because that kind of discussion seems to trigger some ppl w/delicate sensibilities. i'm the kind of guy who looks and says 'ok, a shooting, and now europol saying there is a problem across europe with extremists, so i wonder how many there are. how many extremists who might breed violent actors.' you seem to be more of the kind of guy who says 'this topic should be off limits, islam is not to blame, nothing to see here'.

i posted a link to an article a while back saying that a few mosques in norway were founded by people who are preaching violent ideology. you ignore that and instead suggest that i was merely posting links that were only sourced by white supremacists. by extension making me a guy who maybe reads but at least posts links to stuff which is overtly supremacist. then after i proved you dead wrong by backing that one 'questionable' link up with another from CNN and one from one of the 'biggest newspapers' in norway (which is based right in oslo), instead of even slightly acknowledging your proven wrongness, without skipping a beat, you shift to saying that one thing i linked was dated 2012 and the CNN link got your official chengod seal of shoddiest journalism ever. the event i was discussing happened in 2012, so that's no big surprise or conspiracy that that's when it was reported, now is it?

but according to the paper from norway, there WAS an actual event, which you first denied (and were therefore wrong about), and it was also sourced well outside the sphere of a white supremacy echo chamber (probably the norway paper is where everyone else got it from), unless that particular paper is an overtly white power kinda thing (it isn't, making you wrong twice). but re: strawmen, i also never said that anyone in Oslo WAS taking over a part of Oslo, just linked to the seemingly real demands which seemingly really were made by an actual group (a group i named which could've helped you find some non-white-supremacy sources if you really cared to, seeing as how i did and have the same google as you). groups like that existing, again, to a guy like me, begs the questions 'what kind of foundation are they coming from, is there a network, are they encouraged by others or related to others, are they breeding the violent actors, etc'

but that's me. that's how I think. when i see someone saying 'dont look over there at that' it also makes me want to look over there at that more than i did before they said i shouldn't. because if i didn't look, i would be doing the opposite of thinking.

this man has a lot to answer for

Middle-East peace envoy?

What an affront to the Arab world.

When France & Germany were really pulling back on committing to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Rumsfeld called these 2 nations "old Europe", this psychopath was tearing up international law, unleashing slaughter on 100's of thousands of civilians & initiating all the chaos we've seen with IS in recent months. How he is still free and jetting around the world extending his swanky property portfolio is beyond reason

doesnt really take much to brainwash someone. especially lost broken men with nothing to do.

i follow about 200 + ISiS members on twitter. (translate plugin w/ chrome)
they are super ignorant gullible fucks.

ive downloaded one pdf Inspire from the jihad site. issue 12. I want to get the others.
(maybe ill geta knock on the door)
professional design, English, well written, very clear and to the point. goes into very clearly laid out plans for building a car bomb,

they want to target my home town Northern VA most.

Its sad

Religion of peace sure brings out the worst in people, even in online discussions!

  On 1/18/2015 at 7:28 PM, Herr Jan said:

Would like to read up on this, do you have a link to that article? Interesting spin on taking democracy / free speech as a religion.

.

That came from an interview with Karen Armstrong on a Dutch program called 'Buitenhof'.

Google came up with an interview published in Salon where she said very similar stuff. She has recently published a book on the history of religion and violence.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/23/karen_armstrong_sam_harris_anti_islam_talk_fills_me_with_despair/

  Quote

How do ritual and religion become entangled with this violence?

 

Well, because state-building was imbued with religious ideology. Every state ideology before the modern period was essentially religious. Trying to extract religion from political life would have been like trying to take the gin out of a cocktail. Things like road-building were regarded as a sort of sacred activity.

 

Politics was imbued with religious feeling. The prophets of Israel, for example, were deeply political people. They castigated their rulers for not looking after the poor; they cried out against the system of agrarian injustice. Jesus did the same, Mohammed and the Quran do the same. Sometimes, religion permeates the violence of the state, but it also offers the consistent critique of that structural and martial violence.

 

Is it possible to disentangle that critiquing role from the role of supporting state structures?

 

I think in the West we have peeled them apart. We’ve separated religion and politics, and this was a great innovation. But so deeply embedded in our consciousness is the desire to give our lives some meaning and significance that no sooner did we do this than we infused the new nation-state with a sort of quasi-religious fervor. If you regard the sacred as something for which we are willing to give our lives, in some senses the nation has replaced God, because it’s now not acceptable to die for religion, but it is admirable to die for your country.

 

Certainly in the United States, your national feeling, whether people believe in God or not, has a great spiritual or transcendent relevance — “God bless America,” for example; the hand on the heart, the whole ethos. We do the same in the U.K. with our royal weddings. Even in our royal weddings, the aristocracy are all in military uniform.

 

interesting

For those people who think Salon is full of leftist fud, here's a piece in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

She's basically saying 'religious violence' (as preached by Bill Maher, for instance) is a myth.