Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[Metaphor]

If the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet (peace be upon him), then the future will belong to those who would murder you for drawing a cartoon.

I fervently hope the future belongs to the slanderers.

As I earlier quoted from the SAME GODDAM SPEECH:

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

Obama's speech contradicts your absurd assertion.

How do those words contradict what I said?

Obama says there is no speech that justifies mindless violence. I agree.

Obama also said "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." I disagree. I disagree because if it does not belong to them -- if people are not free to 'slander' the Prophet (peace be upon him) -- then the future will belong to the very people who do feel it is justified to murder people for drawing cartoons.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wounded policeman being executed in the street. Don't watch if squeamish.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

 

[Warpoet]

I agree, buuuut... Well, let's see if the Islamic Fuckwads (if they in fact were Islamic Fuckwads) have successfully abridged Charlie Hebdo's freedom. They've damn sure abridged their staff. Then we can revisit this question.

Or we can just not buy into knee-jerk responses of collective blame and "us vs them" thinking. But as is usually the case when shit like this happens reason goes out the window and no one seems to even notice.

 

[Axulus]

Europe's economic problems and terrorist incidents and tension with immigrants further empower extremist parties. Could we see a new rise of facism in Europe?

Edit: started new topic here: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3583-Is-Europe-in-danger-of-a-new-rise-in-facism

 

[maxparrish]

Are the team over at The Onion getting edgy?

They should if they didn't hear the Presidents warn those who slander the prophet.

 

[credoconsolans]

Boy, that poor woman who was forced to open the Security door.

Can't condemn her for her actions, since none of us know how we'd react in similar circumstances, but she will have to live with the fact that 12 people were murdered because she let their killers in the building.

 

[Axulus]

 

[maxparrish]

The "misquote" can easily be corrected without loss of a grain of meaning “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

And I'm all for context. The context was Obama's speech before the UN, done two weeks after the protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo and a terrorist led mob murdered a US ambassador and three other US State Department employees in Benghazi. The context was also in the administrations duplicitous denial of terrorism, their blaming it on the film makers who dared to "slander Islam", followed by a Jay Carney condemnation of the Paris satirists mockery of Islam.

And finally, after blaming critics of Islam, the "context" was Obama's groveling and creepy formulation is a free speech sell out to Muslim terrorists. "The future SHOULD belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" or any other religious prophet or ideology they damn well please.

Apparently the killers are in agreement with Obama about denying some futures. Is that enough context?

No...you're still cherry-picking that one sentence, given as one example among many. SHEESH!

In your reflexive defense of Obama, you are not really hearing our message. ANY formulation by the head of a Constitutional Republic that condemns slandering of ANY religion (or all religions) is not speaking as a defender of liberty and the bill of rights. He, as Bush did, was attempting to placate the violent Muslim crazies, and deliver moral reproach of us "bad" people who exercise our rights to criticize religious dogma.

Obama's statement was no more acceptable than Bushes groveling during the Danish carton controversy: “Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief”.

So "And on this we must agree" in America there is no speech on religion that is unacceptable - period. The future of liberty is such that anyone can slander any religion they damn well please.

 

[arkirk]

There are other things that can get far out of balance in a country the USA, such as rich people who control government making a safety net for themselves and destroying it for others. Once it has gone far enough it is nearly impossible to get it back.

The demographics of muslim population in a formerly mostly christian (but forced to accept secularism) society may also have a no-turning-back point.

Bring hindus, zoroastrians, coptic christians and buddhists in. Be wary of the islamic load of society.

You mean like India where Hindus and Muslims kill each other regularly...not to mention Sikhs? I don't think you can fix things by importing more religionists of any stripe. You have to insist on secular law and order and it must supercede religious pronouncements.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You mean like India where Hindus and Muslims kill each other regularly...not to mention Sikhs? I don't think you can fix things by importing more religionists of any stripe. You have to insist on secular law and order and it must supercede religious pronouncements.

Insist on "secular law and order"? Arn't you one of the Putin fan boys? You're being pretty hypocritical here!

Sorry for derail. Back on topic: Fuck the Jihadists! I stand with the cartoonists.....

 

[J842P]

Islam is a complex religion, like Christianity.

The books of Islam can be used by those wanting to do violence and by those wanting peace. Just as the Christian books can be used for either.

The fact that Muslims are carrying out violent attacks has nothing to do with their religion.

They are responding to political events and have political goals. Religion is just what the leaders with political goals use to motivate their supporters who are exploited, even to the point of suicide.

Untermensche, there is simply no violent act you will attribute to religion.

If your stated aim is avenging the Prophet (peace be upon him) and you shout 'God is Great', it still has nothing to do with Islam. The fact that it was targeted on the magazine that allegedly insulted the Prophet (peace be upon him) is also no evidence it has to do with Islam.

Next you'll be telling us that going to mosque isn't motivated by Islam either.

Yes, this is exactly the mentality that Sam Harris describes - the idea that religious ideas don't affect behavior. It is his opposition to this idea - a left-wing dogma really - that get's Sam Harris excoriated.

 

[J842P]

Cartoons, actually.

No different from shooting abortion doctors.

Nothing that special about Muslim nuts.

Yeah, so? Both of those behaviors are at least in part related to religious ideas. Why, on these boards of all places, is the reply that "Christians do it too" suppose to be an argument against the idea the Islam plays a causal role in the violence committed by Islamic militants?

Essentially, you are arguing that ideas do not have an effect on human behavior.

 

[J842P]

They shot people who drew cartoons in order to avenge the prophet.

Not nuts, not political. Religious.

Not nuts?

By what standard?

It's not nuts under the standard that it makes perfect, rational sense if one assumes their ideology. In other words, their reasoning process isn't faulty - they aren't nuts. They just have a different set of assumptions, which I might call nuts, but they are behaving rationally given their beliefs.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except that the beliefs themselves are not rational. They don't approach ANY passingly scrutious standard of 'ethics' or self-consistency. The beliefs that demand violence and claim to be born of peace are intrinsically dissonant.

 

[J842P]

Except that the beliefs themselves are not rational. They don't approach ANY passingly scrutious standard of 'ethics' or self-consistency. The beliefs that demand violence and claim to be born of peace are intrinsically dissonant.

Yes, sure the ideas are "nuts." But these are people indoctrinated into these ideas. They are merely acting rationally within that context. Their reasoning isn't faulty, although their ideas are. They aren't crazy, they are brain-washed.

Perhaps you just don't think that's a significant difference, but I do.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except that the beliefs themselves are not rational. They don't approach ANY passingly scrutious standard of 'ethics' or self-consistency. The beliefs that demand violence and claim to be born of peace are intrinsically dissonant.

Yes, sure the ideas are "nuts." But these are people indoctrinated into these ideas. They are merely acting rationally within that context. Their reasoning isn't faulty, although their ideas are. They aren't crazy, they are brain-washed.

Perhaps you just don't think that's a significant difference, but I do.

I see a predicate of rational action as scrutinizing one's beliefs. If one doesn't look with skepticism on their axioms, then they are irrational; minimizing and simplifying the axioms is a necessity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What can you do? This has gone from highly coordinated but infrequent terror attacks of large scale to quantum coordinated, infrequent, small scale attacks.

You can try and deal with the large cells through intelligence and force, but two people determined to make with the violence, nearly impossible to stop. The only solution is to encourage them not to be radicalized in the first place. That won't be easy, ISIS is intolerable, yet they have people wanting to join them too... from the US.

The only way we can put a stop to terrorism is the only way it's been defeated in the past: Choking off the money. That always works when the funding can actually be removed, nothing else works well at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Islam is a complex religion, like Christianity.

The books of Islam can be used by those wanting to do violence and by those wanting peace. Just as the Christian books can be used for either.

The fact that Muslims are carrying out violent attacks has nothing to do with their religion.

They are responding to political events and have political goals. Religion is just what the leaders with political goals use to motivate their supporters who are exploited, even to the point of suicide.

They're doing it in the name of their religion, that's pretty much evidence that religion is a factor.

- - - Updated - - -

I am concerned that I will be forced to submit to Islam or my family will be in peril. Living free may be hard to achieve.

Why are you worried about that? Muslims haven't won an offensive war against a non muslim country since 1420. They are still grotesquely underdeveloped. They can't cooperate. They can't produce their own weapons (not on enough of a scale). They are no real threat.

They are no real threat on the open battlefield. That's why they are resorting to terrorism.

 

[Davka]

The worst part of this is that Charlie Hebdo was a homophobic, racist, islamophobic rag deserving of scorn and derision. And now I find myself in the position of defending their right to print offensive, inflammatory trash.

 

[Unbeatable]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...reported-at-Paris-magazine-Charlie-Hebdo.html

My guess islamists are responsible. If they are, then what?
what is the solution?

I guess that depends on whether you're talking about the short-term solution or the final solution.

 

[Axulus]

The worst part of this is that Charlie Hebdo was a homophobic, racist, islamophobic rag deserving of scorn and derision. And now I find myself in the position of defending their right to print offensive, inflammatory trash.

It was anti-religious and irreverent. What are you basing these other accusations on? Are you one of those that think any criticism of the religion of Islam, or any offense caused to Muslims when denigrating Islam, is racist?