Je suis Charlie discussion

Hi, I'm curious as to who follows this and if there's just as nmuch drama outside of the EU.

It's going way too far and people are following the crowd without thinking for themselves imo, what happened is not terrorism in my eyes, they got what they got what they asked for. Everyone screams out loud that we have our freedom of speach but is that really what this is about? Freedom of speech would apply if this happened because of an opinion by a journalist but this happened because of some idiotic drawings mocking with the islam and their prophet. The artists knew damn well that it upsets people and didn't give a fuck, and that's fine but don't go cry when people are done after a while and end you. Europe acts like this is a new 9/11 but really the whole terrorism only started after the people started mocking them again and overreacting with the whole "je suis charlie" thing. The gov knows they can't do shit against terrorism so they play it smart and go tell everyone to "show they're not scared". Then a bunch of European leaders go walk 200m arm in arm over the streets to show they're not scared themselves. They forgot to mention though that the 200m was guarded and cleared in a 1km radius and had snipers on the roof. Gonna stop here but everyone should shut the fuck up with protesting etc and stop overreacting
Endrant

Feel free to share your opinions

 

"The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals."
If not terrorism, I'm not exactly sure what you would call it.

Even if they are idiotic cartoons, they do not warrant a death sentence; furthermore, these cartoons also didn't only focus on Islam, but on various figures of authority (btdubz rather confident he is considered a journalist alongside cartoonist, not going to spend the time to research it to respond to this post though.)

"This terrorism thing only really started after people started mocking them" yeahhhh, no.

I also would hardly say the government can't do shit against it. While they may not be 100% sure what to do (it's a complicated issue), they are surely acting. Ex: Airstrikes on ISIS, the drone strikes that have been going on for years, things of that nature.

People are just trying to show unity, even if it is often hypocritical.

 

They got what they asked for? They were asking to be gunned down? These people had families, friends, lives, and they came to an end because of radical extremism.. for expressing freedom of speech. (Although not in the most tasteful way) Sheesh.

I would argue my point, but that is such a moronic uneducated one I won't even bother.

 

Mohammed the "prophet" was a pedophile, clearly stated in ISLAMIC doctrine.

If you worship a worlord and a pedophile and then scream for those who draw him to be beheaded, you need counseling.

 

I've read many of the comics with explanations of context alongside the translations, because context and meaning is generally lost during translation for things like this because there are phrases and references that are language and culture specific. They didn't just make fun of Muslims, terrorist, and religion. They also made fun of politics, stereotypes, and pop culture by pushing the boundary. No one should be killed for religious irreverence. That is why muslims get a bad wrap, because their extremists are a lot crazier than all the other religious extremists.

 

It's not a matter of free speech since no one blockaded/contained the release or contents of the article. It's a matter of consequences following the release. They're stupid to provoke followers of that religion and expect nothing from it.

 

Muslims should get a bad wrap for radical extremism the same way catholics should for the IRA and the KKK.

Generalisation is the worst mistake you can make.

 

Stop overreacting?

If that was your Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, who got randomly shot up at work due to a Cartoon being printed would you call it an overreaction?

Would you say "Eh, oh well, they got what they asked for"?

So, we pissed them off with cartoons so they can just gun up and go on a shooting spree? Does that mean when ISIS release their shitty hostage videos and make threats that we can just run around shooting Muslims? After all, they pissed us off.

Ridiculous.

 

Your point is irrelevant and factually incorrect. The KKK isn't a religious terror cell nor is the IRA. My point is that people perceive the Muslim populace poorly because they're extremists do a lot crazier things, and that is why they get a bad wrap in the media.

We shouldn't have to self censor because we fear what a group of crazies might do to us.

 

There is a line that gets crossed often that leaves "freedom of speech" and becomes propoganda. There are American news stations reacting to this unfortunate event by smearing outright lies across their channels.

Do these news channels similarly terrorise us? Do they not promote hatred against civilians and inject fear in to people to make them think these people are to blame? These people aren't just little old racist grandads, "oh its okay, hes harmless, he's just from a different generation". It's different when grandad has a multi-trillion dollar media organisation that's spreading hateful propoganda.

As a British person I find it disgusting that people like Rupert Murdoch can print and broadcast whatever they want with no repurcussions and anyone who questions is gets the "freedom of speech" excuse rammed down their throat. I literally just watched a clip of a guy saying (and not lightheartedly) that there are:

There are areas in the UK [and mainland Europe] where there are sharia lawed areas that non-muslims can't enter. The city Birmingham in England is totally muslim. In these areas, there are muslim police who beat down anyone who doesn't conform to muslim attire.
...
Kill them. Kill them. Kill them. Bomb them.​

Now, I'm sorry if what I'm about to say goes against your American rights of free speech - but what the fuck is that? It should not under any circumstance be allowed anywhere. Its not a grain of truth. If that aired in the UK there'd be outrage, riots and petitions and it'd be banned from air by the morning. Not simply because it's an opinion or ideology some people don't like: but because it's blatantly false im every repsect.


In short: Who are the real terrorists exacerbating these situations? Promoting hatred, fear & death on the basis that a whole religion of 1.5billion people can be based on the actions of a few?
Since the Charlie Hebdo incident there have been 50 anti-muslim acts carried out around France. Anti-muslim. Not anti-violence. Who gives a fuck what their religion was? The real issue is that there are violent maniacs out there; starting with the ones pulling the strings of our own very countries.

 

People are using the term freedom of speech

but if you tell a guy hes a fucking cocksucker do you not expect to get hit by that person?

they shouldnt have been gunned down yes, but they shouldnt have almost ask for it

you dont fuck with muslim extremist thats just plain dumb

 

I hope no one makes any critical remarks concerning insane jihadists, lest they be gunned down for deserving it.

 

There is no reason a life should be taken especially over a cartoon. However the French government are supporting these facists actions. Jews draw a big red line when it comes to making fun or mocking the Holocaust, Black people have a red line when it comes to them being depicted as monkeys similarly Muslims have the red line when it comes to their religion/prophet being insulted. There is no need to insult one another, and there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' it only exist where the government want it to exist.

 

The IRA was a terror cell founded on sectarianism and marxist-atheist beliefs, but more generally, fought BECAUSE of religion and believed oppression of their beliefs.

It's just so much easier to use the term 'Muslim terrorists' than 'terrorists' and as a result, we have a hate culture towards a general group, of which 99% take no part in or condone. I even hate random muslims being forced to stand and apologise for the behaviour of the few. If we really need or expect them to now to feel less prejudice within ourselves then shit I better apologise for the crusades and the Witch trials.

 

Religious scripture is what you take from it, if you're referring to the fact Mohammed had an under-age wife, this was because she was not at the time. Cultural changes from then to now can't really be scrutinised in the same way.

Take a look at the bible, if you want to simplify Mohammed as a pedofile, then God was a masochist, genocidal maniac who killed the population. twice.

2 Kings 2:23-24, kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.

- Not exactly going for tit for tat here, but some may find what you're saying insensitive. There isn't even a point in looking at biblical scripture in today's world because it's so twisted, farced and idealised.

 

Your privately-held, sectarian beliefs (religion) do not give you the legal or political right to kill another human being in cold blood. That is called murder.

On the other hand, a society whose members are disallowed from criticizing religion is not a free society at all. If you can't make art--in whatever form, a novel, cartoons, a sarcastic message--without fear of being killed in the middle of the street, something is desperately wrong. This isn't the first religiously-inspired terror attack based on differing conceptions of art, and it certainly won't be the last.

And who do you want to censor Murdoch? The government? Private individuals? And on what basis? Nobody is forced to watch Fox News--the people who do already have a worldview and want a news source aligned therewith.

 

Do not agree with you OP. Both sides were wrong but violence was hardly needed in this situation.


Also, apparently there's a video showing that the terrorists don't actually shoot the guy laying on the floor.

 

I have seen that video, shocked me a little bit but its not that clear.
Do you think this whole situation could have been staged like 9/11 maybe for something they have planned in future?

 

You can't be serious.

1: Aisha was six years old when Mohammed married and fondled her and nine years old when he had sex with her. [Bukhari 6:298 and 7:62.88]

2: DO NOT try to tell me that pedophilia was the norm or even socially accepted in 6th century Arabia because it wasn't. There is not a shred of historical evidence to support such a claim.

3: Please, do not assume that I am a Cristian and that I'm here to defend the Judeo-Christian God or the bible for that matter, because I'm not.

The bible is a horrible book with its fair share of intolerance and simple minded ideology. It's just that the Quran is much worse.

I have read the Quran and the Bible, as well as just about every piece of mainstream Islamic doctrine there is. So please, do not try to school me on something that you clearly know very little about.

To deny Mohammed was a pedophile is to deny sacred Islamic doctrine that all true Muslims believe as fact.

 

Their lies are dangerous. They shouldn't be allowed to broadcast blatant lies. Sure, I know there's always going to be biased reporting - but lies is a different kettle of fish.

This is exactly the kind of thing that started in Nazi Germany. Just as the jews were depicted as greedy, job stealing scum; Muslims are being falsely accused of taking over countries with extremist law, all being violent and all having an agenda to take down westerners. It's propoganda in it's most dangerous form: funded by billions of dollars. Let's blame Germans for believing the propoganda back then? No, you blame the source.