Attack on French satirical magazine who posted jokes about the prophet Mohammed - 12 killed

[magisme]

Lio, the basis for many peoples' morality, and it could even be argued that it's what you'd uncover if you dug into anyone's morality, is religion or, perhaps more precisely, faith. So to tell a Muslim who is guided by their religious beliefs in moral matters not to condemn the attacks AS a Muslim but just as a human, which brings with it all sorts of cultural assumptions about the universality of humanism, is a non-starter.

Edited January 9, 2015 by magisme

[Len Cnut]

Lenny, I have the impression that muslims condemn the attacks on 'our national character' out of their own free will. No one has to tell them they have to condemn the attacks. They do so themselves. I know there's people saying: Moderate muslims, let yourselves be heard. Personally, I don't really think that's necessary, at least not in their identity as a muslim, they can protest and condemn the attacks as sane people, like 99% of the population. I know I'm not good at expressing myself, but I just mean that if they condemn the attacks, as they do, it should be because they're human beings, not because they're muslims.

Having said that, maybe it is a good thing that they are openly condemning the attacks, as perhaps now people will understand that not every muslim is a terrorist and the overwhelming majority just wants peace.

Well I'm not a terrorist nor do i support cold blooded murderers and I still wouldn't go to those protests and condemnations out of principle. It's demeaning and degrading. Either it's about equality or it's not and this clearly isn't. How can you stand in support of a government that won't stand up for you and who you are and how you are? What other denomination would put up with that?

'hey black people, turn up to our protest about freedom and equality...but sort that nappy head out first!'

'hey Jewish people, turn up to our protest about freedom and equality...just keep them funny hats off'.

Say a silent prayer in your heart for the innocents that died and let everybody else have their hypocrisy parade, that'd be my feeling. i mean people go on and on and on and on about freedom of speech and what a dangerous thing it is to allow threats to stop the cartoons from getting made, where does banning burqas fit into that d'ya think? It's the exact same ballpark. But that doesn't matter right? Why? Why is there one set of rules for everybody else and another for whoever else the flavour of the month is.

You can slide and squirm and wriggle around the issue as much as you like but the glaring inconsistency there is plain as day. There's a similarity in principle to when certain Black people in America didn't wanna join in the Vietnam war, i believe Muhammad Ali said 'you won't even stand up for me here today in America and you want me to go thousands of miles over there to fight' and there's a similar principle here, this call for people to stand up for freedom of expression and you won't let you, by way of law, exercise the same freedoms.

I mean seriously, this is 2015 right, that was the biggest incredulous thing, wow, cartoonists getting killed for expressing dissent, in this day and age?!? Well with similar incredulousness I could say 'banning articles of clothing, in 2015?!?'.

You want me to gather around some shit, well then the Christians gotta be allowed to come as a Christian, the Muslims gotta be allowed to come as a Muslim, same with jews, black people, eskimos, fuckin'...whatever your identity, THATS standing for freedom of expression and thats the thing about freedom of expression, its supposed to apply to even shit that you don't like.

I feel awful standing over (metaphorically speaking) the graves of 12 innocent people going on about this shit but at the same time I feel it's relevant.

If the only way I can stand beside you is with a sense of shame for my identity then I'd rather not stand beside you at all, thank you. Also, i find this idea of being more obliged than others to confirm your distaste for evil fundamentally insulting. It's kinda like saying stand up and I'll believe you're not a terrorist.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Lio]

If the only way I can stand beside you is with a sense of shame for my identity then I'd rather not stand beside you at all, thank you. Also, i find this idea of being more obliged than others to confirm your distaste for evil fundamentally insulting. It's kinda like saying stand up and I'll believe you're not a terrorist.

I won't engage in a discussion about burqas, but on this I agree with you. I'm not one of people shouting muslims specifically should condemn these attacks or distance themselves from extremists.

Mags, maybe it's semantics or maybe I just don't get it. I meant this: I just see muslims as people like you (I think ) and me, as just humans. And most humans condemn these attacks, whatever their belief might be.

[The Glow Inc.]

Apparently the two Charlie Hebdo shooters are dead.

[DR DOOM]

Good to hear.

[Len Cnut]

This forums getting depressing. When i don't come here, cuz i don't watch telly or read the papers, i find myself blissfully ignorant to whats going on in the world and honestly, i think I'm probably better off for it.

[Strange Broue]

The Muslims- such peaceful and tolerable and inclusive people.

If only they could be more like Christians. Oh wait...

No. But you can criticize/make fun of pretty much any other people/religion except Muslim/Islam idiots without worrying about some dumbass and his 98 awaiting virgins to bomb you.

Ever been to Northern Ireland during the Troubles? Just having a Catholic/Protestant name in the wrong neighbourhood was enough to get a bullet in the head.

Nope. But in the big picture it's not them that causing worldwide situations.

Bush told Chirac that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East." Blair believed he was on a mission from God in joining Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Iraqis are still suffering today.

But it's OK because, hey, the Middle East is a shithole anyway, right?

Tehran in the '70s:

Why was there a Revolution in '79? The seeds can be traced back to the CIA-orchestrated coup of '53 which saw the democratically-elected Mossadegh thrown out of power when he wished to nationalise Iran's oil industry.

This is Abu Dhabi today:

Man, looks just like Tatooine, doesn't it? Shame they can't be a poster-child of prosperity and freedom, like Detroit:

Great making sweeping generalisations, isn't it?

You fucking OWNED the xenophobes here, great post man!

Btw it's great to see that all of the drama ends and a few terrorist died

Also i loved to see the so many "Not in my name" selfies

[SoulMonster]

Lenny, I have the impression that muslims condemn the attacks on 'our national character' out of their own free will. No one has to tell them they have to condemn the attacks. They do so themselves. I know there's people saying: Moderate muslims, let yourselves be heard. Personally, I don't really think that's necessary, at least not in their identity as a muslim, they can protest and condemn the attacks as sane people, like 99% of the population. I know I'm not good at expressing myself, but I just mean that if they condemn the attacks, as they do, it should be because they're human beings, not because they're muslims.

This reminds me that Lenny once refused to accept that my criticism of the beheadings of white civilians in Syria and Iran (an act he himself refused to condemn) couldn't possible be due to a genuine compassion for people but had to be me "rooting for my own team" Come to think of it, he also recently said it was "odd" that a white man could rise to become the leader of a black lobbying organization (NAACP). I am not saying that Lenny's problems with acknowledging that white people could be as compassionate for non-whites as they are for themselves, mean that he is a racist, rather I think such negative statements is borne from a genuine compassion with "his people" and how they have suffered from western imperialism and awful foreign politics for decades, but if he doesn't want to appear like a racist he might want to think things more over before typing them down.

Edited January 9, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

This reminds me that Lenny once refused to accept that my criticism of the beheadings of white civilians in Syria and Iran (an act he himself refused to condemn) couldn't possible be due to a genuine compassion for people but had to be me "rooting for my own team"

Really, would you like to show me where?

Come to think of it, he also recently said it was "odd" that a white man could rise to become the leader of a black lobbying organization (NAACP). I am not saying that Lenny's problems with acknowledging that white people could be as compassionate for non-whites as they are for themselves, mean that he is a racist, rather I think such negative statements is borne from a genuine compassion with "his people" and how they have suffered from western imperialism and awful foreign politics for decades, but if he doesn't want to appear like a racist he might want to think things more over before typing them down.

I simply stated that i thought it was odd that a white person was in charge of the NAACP back in the day, the rest has been all down to your imagination. See, this is how it works, when you don't understand what someone meant by a particular comment you ask them and they tell you, you don't make the rest up cuz it's easier for you.

But just to clarify, the reason i said i found it odd was because in the 1960s and 70s in Black America there was a concious move towards black empowerment in those times, black nationalism became a big thing, black people owning their own businesses, being in charge of their own affairs...hence my comment that i found it odd that, in the midst of all this, one of the primary organisations for black empowerment had a white guy at the head of it. It's something that was pointed out quite frequently in some circles in regards to the NAACP in the 1960s, including but not exlusively by the good gentleman in my avatar.

Tell me Soulie, are you running out of arguments?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Len B'stard

[The Glow Inc.]

Those two idiots got killed in a printing house btw.

Talk about karma...

[SoulMonster]

Four hostages got killed, too

[Facekicker]

Conflicting reports concerning the hostages. Three hostages dead is the latest. Yet they were saying that there were only 5 hostages in total but it appeared 4 hostages managed to escape. You could see them running from the building.

[Bumblefeet]

I'm relieved the shooters all got taken out and sad for those people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Is0tope]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

[SoulMonster]

Lio, the basis for many peoples' morality, and it could even be argued that it's what you'd uncover if you dug into anyone's morality, is religion or, perhaps more precisely, faith. So to tell a Muslim who is guided by their religious beliefs in moral matters not to condemn the attacks AS a Muslim but just as a human, which brings with it all sorts of cultural assumptions about the universality of humanism, is a non-starter.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the basis for our morality is our genes. This is shown by the increasing understanding of the connection between various moral behaviours and specific genetic alleles. Variations in morality between humans in a population can then to some extent be understood as a result of the different genetic makeup found between individuals. On top of this, and quite possibly equally important, comes our upbringing and conditioning which modulates the effect of our genes, for instance by suppressing amoral behaviour or increasing moral behaviour. This explains why people with the same faith aren't very ethically homogenous and why people of no faith aren't less moral than people of faith -- because regardless of which religion we adapt as we develop and grow old, we are all born with more or less the same alleles. So when a Christian, or an atheist, does a good deed it may be due to an adopted ethical system, or due to our genetically hardwired ethics at work encoding behaviour we consider moral, or, and this is more likely, due to a cumulative effect where the ethical system has been developed to be applied to and to work in connection with our genetically encoded moral basis.

This means that there is nothing wrong in appealing to the inherent goodness in any human being, this goodness that is probably found underneath the surficial varnish of ethical conditioning. I am not saying it will definitely work, just that it is absolutely worth an effort

[Len Cnut]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

I was gonna say something similar upon reports of the deaths but i felt like Soulmonster was getting ready to call Interpol

[Is0tope]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

I was gonna say something similar upon reports of the deaths but i felt like Soulmonster was getting ready to call Interpol

Well, the freedom of expression obviously doesn't cover those with mutilated genitals.

I actually see you two more likely to get into a state of common understanding and agreement than either of you and any of the "good riddance!!!!111!111!!!!" people.

[ColdHeartBreaker]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

Could it possibly be they were on the run and killing innocents? I'm shocked just how long this thing has lasted. People are glad it's finally over.

[SoulMonster]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

Could it possibly be they were on the run and killing innocents? I'm shocked just how long this thing has lasted. People are glad it's finally over.

According to what I heard they ran out of the building where they'd been hiding and died in a hail of bullets like Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid.

[Is0tope]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

Could it possibly be they were on the run and killing innocents? I'm shocked just how long this thing has lasted. People are glad it's finally over.

I'm not talking about this case in specific but the general attitude of many people over some "bad guy" dying.

[SoulMonster]

People, especially abroad, couldn't understand why Norwegian SWAT didn't kill Breivik (our own mass murderer) upon apprehension nor why he was given a normal trial in court.

The way I see it, treating everybody equally according to law, and not summarily killing anyone or depriving them of the right to defend themselves, are others pillars of modern society that we must protect.

Edited January 9, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Is0tope]

People, especially abroad, couldn't understand why Norwegian SWAT didn't kill Breivik (our own mass murderer) upon apprehension nor why he was given a normal trial in court.

The way I see it, treating everybody equally according to law, and not summarily killing anyone or depriving them of the right to defend themselves, are others pillars of modern society that we must protect.

It is indeed depressing to see people booing when something is handled humanely

[Len Cnut]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

I was gonna say something similar upon reports of the deaths but i felt like Soulmonster was getting ready to call Interpol

Well, the freedom of expression obviously doesn't cover those with mutilated genitals.

I actually see you two more likely to get into a state of common understanding and agreement than either of you and any of the "good riddance!!!!111!111!!!!" people.

Im only messing about, he's great really. We dont agree all the time but i dont believe he comes from a bad place with what he says.

[SoulMonster]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

I was gonna say something similar upon reports of the deaths but i felt like Soulmonster was getting ready to call Interpol

Well, the freedom of expression obviously doesn't cover those with mutilated genitals.

I actually see you two more likely to get into a state of common understanding and agreement than either of you and any of the "good riddance!!!!111!111!!!!" people.

Im only messing about, he's great really. We dont agree all the time but i dont believe he comes from a bad place with what he says.

Condemning the killing of innocents; being skeptical to warfare and in particular how the west have interferred in other countries; believing in welfare for all; a supporter of the foundations of democracy including the rights to free speech, religion, free press; trying to raise awareness of long-term effects of escalating human population because the alternative is worse; wanting extended rights for animals; being opposed to discrimination and racism; takes equal rights for women for granted, takes equal right for homosexuals for granted; wants to share the resources of the world more equally between people; a supporter of organizations like doctors without borders, red cross, etc; and working professionally to grant poor people across the world access to expensive medicines. That's as far as I can remember the extent of my political views as previously expressed on this forum. Good thing it doesn't come from a bad place then!

Edited January 9, 2015 by SoulMonster

[magisme]

Jesus.