12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

Hotblack Desiato · 09-01-2015 1:18am

No good I'd imagine when the bucket is thrust upon you. You have 5 seconds to do one or the other.

Like a collection plate at church, only with even more social ostracism attached.

Edit: I think you misinterpreted Shrap's post. It might be equally 'unwise' to be seen to leave at the moment of the collection as it would to be seen to not contribute to it.

jank · 09-01-2015 1:28am

recedite wrote: »

I think the early European explorers did find some extremely pacifist societies on various islands, but they went extinct quite quickly after being discovered.
.

Sorry for going off topic.
I would be interested in finding more about this. Any Pacific Island I have been on, they always emphasised their culture and that culture always had a strong warrior culture attached, especially among the Polynesian Islanders. Killing your opponent and eating their brains for 'Mana' was the thing to do.

More interestingly, there is growing evidence that the Maori were not the first settlers or the 'real' indigenous people of New Zealand. Much like the Europeans before them, they came, they saw and they conquered.

Maybe what you are referring to are the Moriori people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people

jank · 09-01-2015 1:46am

Regarding the bucket collection, I sympathise with both sides of the argument. It takes a brave person to go against the grain in those situation, especially when alcohol is involved. It would have been very easy to offend the wrong 'big RA' man' where upon he kicked the living $hite out of you where present company described, no one was going to help you out.

I heard the term, 'The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept' here in Australia from the head of its Army, General Morrison. It has stuck with me and where possible will try and adhere to it.

stevejazzx · 09-01-2015 2:38am

katydid wrote: »

Life IS that simple. If you find yourself in a place or a situation where you feel uncomfortable, you get out of it. If you're in a pub where they start collecting for the IRA, you make your excuses and leave, not pretend to contribute to them.

This phrase is too broad just like your opening gambit which unfortunately conflated all types of fundamentalism as being equally insane. They're not.
In this case you make another one size fits all judgement which has not only lead to confusion but, as has been pointed out, doesn't quite work in reality.
It's like you're too lazy to imagine complexity or just too arrogant or inexperienced to consider it.

Turtwig · 09-01-2015 2:46am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What do you expect from someone with a Peter Hitchens quote in his signature?

Mod:

Please don't stoop to the standards of attacking or referencing posters signatures in attempt to negate their posts.

smacl · 09-01-2015 9:12am

katydid wrote: »

I wonder myself, but I like to think I would have.

To be honest, I don't think I've have ended up in a place like that. You get to know the Irish pubs in London where that kind of stuff goes on, and to avoid them. I frequented Irish pubs a fair bit, but there were ones we would stay away from.

I think you're missing the point here. What you would or would not have done is neither here nor there, the point is that many young people are easily influenced in these situations and would rather go with the flow than make waves in a potentially threatening situation. Thugs of all descriptions take advantage of this behaviour, whether it is fundraising for the provos, or co-opting young Muslims into extremist groups. Impoverished and disenfranchised younger people are even more susceptible to radical influence, as was the case with the Irish in London in the 70s and 80s, and is now the case with the many ghettoised Muslims in Paris. My reading of recedite's post was as a first hand illustration of this typical behaviour, and was a point well made.

Cabaal · 09-01-2015 10:01am

some people seem to think Muslims were unfairly targeted by this magazine, but its clear as day that everyone was fair game...some examples aimed at Christians.

the-magazine-took-on-american-culture-and-jesus-in-one-swoop-in-2006.jpg

the-magazine-took-on-american-culture-and-jesus-in-one-swoop-in-2006.jpg

The magazine's cover skewers French TV station TF1 for picking up American reality shows. The cover says, "TF1's latest in reality TV" and features a crucified Jesus yelling, "I'm a celebrity — get me out of here!"

This cover features Pope Benedict XVI holding up a condom and shouting, "This is my body." It pokes fun at the Pope's confusing statements in 2010 about approved condom use. The headline reads, "The Pope goes too far."

in-november-2012-the-magazine-celebrated-the-introduction-of-a-bill-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-with-this-cover.jpg

in-november-2012-the-magazine-celebrated-the-introduction-of-a-bill-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-with-this-cover.jpg

The cover features "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost" in a ménage à trois. The headline reads, "Cardinal Vingt-Trois has three dads: the Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost." The line references comments made by the Archbishop of Paris, who called same-sex marriage "deception."

in-2010-the-magazine-took-on-the-sex-scandals-in-the-catholic-church.jpg

in-2010-the-magazine-took-on-the-sex-scandals-in-the-catholic-church.jpg

Pope Benedict XVI warns a bishop to "Go into movies, like Polanski ... " referencing the free pass had by film director Roman Polanski, who has long been accused of the rape of a 13-year-old American girl.

iguana · 09-01-2015 10:11am

ShooterSF wrote: »

Saw Ricky Gervais post this (but it may have come from someone else):

It's easy to spot a religion of peace, it's fundamentalists will be extremely peaceful.

That'll be Quakers then.

robindch · 09-01-2015 10:37am

iguana wrote: »

That'll be Quakers then.

Or Jainists.

I'm sure there are other peaceful religions that still exist, though I can't think of them just now.

katydid · 09-01-2015 10:41am

smacl wrote: »

I think you're missing the point here. What you would or would not have done is neither here nor there, the point is that many young people are easily influenced in these situations and would rather go with the flow than make waves in a potentially threatening situation. Thugs of all descriptions take advantage of this behaviour, whether it is fundraising for the provos, or co-opting young Muslims into extremist groups. Impoverished and disenfranchised younger people are even more susceptible to radical influence, as was the case with the Irish in London in the 70s and 80s, and is now the case with the many ghettoised Muslims in Paris. My reading of recedite's post was as a first hand illustration of this typical behaviour, and was a point well made.

What I would have done IS relevant, because not everyone is a "Friday night republican" or prepared to go along with a pretence of being one for the sake of a quiet life.

Certainly there are those who will sing the rebel songs or put the few bob in the collecting bucket (or pretend to) because they don't want to stand out from the crowd, but there are plenty who avoid being in such a crowd in the first place, or who leave as soon as they realise what kind of crowd it is.

My point is that there are plenty people out there, Muslim or Irish, who do not allow themselves to be influenced by thugs.

robindch · 09-01-2015 11:12am

Shrap wrote: »

I was listening to Dr. Ali Selim on Newstalk earlier

Here he is on Classic Hits, telling it like it is:

https://soundcloud.com/bloodboylan/dr-ali-selim-on-classic-hits-4fm

smacl · 09-01-2015 11:42am

katydid wrote: »

What I would have done IS relevant, because not everyone is a "Friday night republican" or prepared to go along with a pretence of being one for the sake of a quiet life.

Certainly there are those who will sing the rebel songs or put the few bob in the collecting bucket (or pretend to) because they don't want to stand out from the crowd, but there are plenty who avoid being in such a crowd in the first place, or who leave as soon as they realise what kind of crowd it is.

My point is that there are plenty people out there, Muslim or Irish, who do not allow themselves to be influenced by thugs.

And would you place the gunmen involved in the recent atrocities among them? Whether or not you are that upstanding pillar of society who would stand up to IRA or Al Quada thugs in a face to face situation is entirely beside the point. The point is that very many young people are easily influenced, will join the mob, and in some more extreme cases, may end up becoming the next terrorists that perpetuate this violence.

oscarBravo · 09-01-2015 11:42am

robindch wrote: »

Or Jainists.

I'm sure there are other peaceful religions that still exist, though I can't think of them just now.

Wicca: "an it harm none, do what ye will" is a pretty peaceful creed.

iguana · 09-01-2015 11:49am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wicca: "an it harm none, do what ye will" is a pretty peaceful creed.

I dunno, any time I see a Charmed rerun those girls seem to have a very violent lifestyle. It's all magic kickboxing and blowing things up while wearing very little clothing. And that's nothing on Dark Willow.

It's probably only a matter of time before a bunch of fundamentalist witches storm a TV studio and hex a pox of boils on everyone inside.

stevejazzx · 09-01-2015 12:00pm

robindch wrote: »

Here he is on Classic Hits, telling it like it is:

https://soundcloud.com/bloodboylan/dr-ali-selim-on-classic-hits-4fm

The good doctor wants us to live in harmony with our Muslim brothers by acquiescing to their demands of respect while they simultaneously deny us ours, in this case our right of free speech.
And all this at the threat of violence. Time to repel that blasphemy law and put a big pink highlighter through the murder one.

robindch · 09-01-2015 12:06pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wicca: "an it harm none, do what ye will" is a pretty peaceful creed.

Well, I see Wicca as less of a religion and more of an excuse to dress up as wizards, earth mothers and various gothy characters, cast spells and especially, run around naked in the woods at midnight - an activity of which, temperature willing, I thoroughly approve.

keane2097 · 09-01-2015 12:51pm

All this RA stuff is really aggravating to wade through in this of all threads.

katydid · 09-01-2015 1:56pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Edit: I think you misinterpreted Shrap's post. It might be equally 'unwise' to be seen to leave at the moment of the collection as it would to be seen to not contribute to it.

Well, since you'd hardly be going back into that pub again, why would it matter?

katydid · 09-01-2015 2:00pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

This phrase is too broad just like your opening gambit which unfortunately conflated all types of fundamentalism as being equally insane. They're not.
In this case you make another one size fits all judgement which has not only lead to confusion but, as has been pointed out, doesn't quite work in reality.
It's like you're too lazy to imagine complexity or just too arrogant or inexperienced to consider it.

How am I conflating types of fundamentalism? IRA, ETA, Al Quaida - they are/were all fundamentalist terrorists of one sort or another. They all value their "ism" more than human life and have no respect for those who don't believe what they believe.

How is it a one size fits all solution to suggest getting out of a situation where you are being asked to contribute to a terrorist organisation? How is that confusing?

katydid · 09-01-2015 2:02pm

smacl wrote: »

And would you place the gunmen involved in the recent atrocities among them? Whether or not you are that upstanding pillar of society who would stand up to IRA or Al Quada thugs in a face to face situation is entirely beside the point. The point is that very many young people are easily influenced, will join the mob, and in some more extreme cases, may end up becoming the next terrorists that perpetuate this violence.

Would I place the gunmen involved in the recent atrocities amongst those who do not allow themselves to be influenced by thugs?

What a bizarre question.

smacl · 09-01-2015 2:35pm

katydid wrote: »

Would I place the gunmen involved in the recent atrocities amongst those who do not allow themselves to be influenced by thugs?

What a bizarre question.

I'm not sure you took the meaning as intended, so let me rephrase it. Do you think the gunmen involved in recent atrocities would be part of a group (amongst those) who do not allow themselves to be influenced by thugs? I suspect not and hence don't find that group pertinent to this argument. Those at risk of getting co-opted into extremist groups are more likely people susceptible to such influence. IMHO, these are the people that need to be considered going forward.

FWIW, I think the only time you'll find out how easily you're influenced by thuggery, bullying, verbal and/or physical violence is when it happens to you first hand. Most people, myself included, get rattled and don't handle it that well until such time as they become accustomed to it. Rory Miller's Meditations on Violence gives some interesting insights into this subject.

stevejazzx · 09-01-2015 2:52pm

katydid wrote: »

How am I conflating types of fundamentalism? IRA, ETA, Al Quaida - they are/were all fundamentalist terrorists of one sort or another. They all value their "ism" more than human life and have no respect for those who don't believe what they believe.

Yes but hardly makes them the same or indistinguishable.
Separatists or Freedom fighters could be considered as terrorists but this hardly them equates to psychopaths happy to murder cartoonists or random innocents in cold blood.
One group rightly or wrongly is fighting for a tangible something - another group is clearly psychopathic fighting on behalf of intangible ideologies.

While I disagree with both I see a clear difference.

To some degree it would be nice to bring the west to bear and conflate what the west is doing in Syria and Iraq against the likes of ISIS with what is currently going on in France - but as Hitchens used to frequently point out - blaming ourselves for the actions of barbaric terrorists is worst kind of self hate.

So there is a difference - unfortunately Islamic fundamentalism has distinguished itself.

Anoter Hitchens quote:

“But at the moment, it’s very clear to me the most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form… The whole idea of wanting to end up with Sharia with a religion-governed state — a state of religious law — and the best means of getting there is Jihad, Holy War, that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this is absolute obscene wickedness and I think their religion is nonsense, in its entirety.”

“The idea that God speaks to some illiterate merchant warlord in Arabia, and he’s able to write this down perfectly and it contains the answers to all — don’t waste my time with that bulls**t. Also, the archangel Gabriel speaks only Arabic, it seems? Crap.”

While Islam, like “all religions,” claims “to be revealed truth and are founded by divine revelation,” he clarifies that Islam has a special distinction.

“… Islam rather dangerously says, ‘Ours is the last and final one. There can’t be any more after this. This is God’s last word. That is straightaway a temptation to violence and intolerance and if you will note, it’s a temptation they seem quite willing to fall for.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1735647/christopher-hitchens-islam-comments-resurface-after-charlie-hebdo-its-the-most-depraved-religion/#6XpV3q6u3szz6HZd.

How is it a one size fits all solution to suggest getting out of a situation where you are being asked to contribute to a terrorist organisation?

Well life is not that simple as has been pointed out.
Think about Muslim moderates currently caught up in extremists held regions in the middle east. Or Israeli soldiers in Gaza, Chinese, Russian or American dissenters - one size fits all? That's just plain dumb.

How is that confusing?

Because one poster clearly thought that what you meant was, that a person shouldn't stand up for what they believe in (and mentioned Nelson Mandala, once labelled a terrorist, in reference). I'm assuming this wasn't your point? Hence confusing.

Cabaal · 09-01-2015 3:30pm

katydid, since you never responded to my last post I am very curious just how did you come to the conclusion that you decided to post?

All religions are religions of peace. The religion is not responsible for those who abuse it.

As we know, your post is seriously inaccurate. While "some" religions started and continue in a peaceful way without a doubt many others including the popular one's teach difference, class systems (men better then women for example) and have holy texts that call for the death of certain types of individuals.

They are very very far from peaceful, so how did you come to the conclusion that all religions are peaceful when the very basis for many religious is a vengeful god who causes death or destruction, esp to non believers of said religion.

Care to celebrate on your thought process?

katydid · 09-01-2015 3:59pm

smacl wrote: »

I'm not sure you took the meaning as intended, so let me rephrase it. Do you think the gunmen involved in recent atrocities would be part of a group (amongst those) who do not allow themselves to be influenced by thugs? I suspect not and hence don't find that group pertinent to this argument. Those at risk of getting co-opted into extremist groups are more likely people susceptible to such influence. IMHO, these are the people that need to be considered going forward.

FWIW, I think the only time you'll find out how easily you're influenced by thuggery, bullying, verbal and/or physical violence is when it happens to you first hand. Most people, myself included, get rattled and don't handle it that well until such time as they become accustomed to it. Rory Miller's Meditations on Violence gives some interesting insights into this subject.

The rephrasing still presents me with the same bizarre question. The fact that these guys seem to have succumbed to Islamic fundamentalism suggests they are not part of a group that would not allow themselves to be influenced.

I agree, it's very easy for certain people, and certain young people in particular, to be influenced by ideologies. Young disaffected Muslim men from the banlieus, or lonely Irish people in London missing home. Most of them haven't ever experienced violence at first hand, but they are vulnerable because of disaffection, unemployment or whatever, and ripe for the picking.

katydid · 09-01-2015 4:05pm

Cabaal wrote: »

katydid, since you never responded to my last post I am very curious just how did you come to the conclusion that you decided to post?

As we know, your post is seriously inaccurate. While "some" religions started and continue in a peaceful way without a doubt many others including the popular one's teach difference, class systems (men better then women for example) and have holy texts that call for the death of certain types of individuals.

They are very very far from peaceful, so how did you come to the conclusion that all religions are peaceful when the very basis for many religious is a vengeful god who causes death or destruction, esp to non believers of said religion.

Care to celebrate on your thought process?

"As we know"? Do we?

The general tenor of religions, whatever they are, is the belief in a higher being, and a system of rites, rituals and beliefs around this belief. Some religions contain elements that could be interpreted as aggressive or even violent, but these are generally tempered by other elements which stress love of one another, and a moral code of behaviour.

If I knew what "celebrating on my thought process" meant, I might be able to consider doing it...

Teachings regarding gender inequality, where they exist, have nothing to do with class, and certainly nothing to do with peace, or its opposite.

Cabaal · 09-01-2015 4:16pm

katydid wrote: »

"As we know"? Do we?

The general tenor of religions, whatever they are, is the belief in a higher being, and a system of rites, rituals and beliefs around this belief. Some religions contain elements that could be interpreted as aggressive or even violent, but these are generally tempered by other elements which stress love of one another, and a moral code of behaviour.

So take the christian church,
Its hard to claim its peaceful when it one bit of witting it says put a person to death for a meaningless reason versus turn the other cheek.

Lets not forget that the peaceful christian god had no problem murdering many thousands in numerous writings. Again not a religion of peace, when its god murders people.

If holy writings say a person should be put to death for xyz then you can't fault a devout follower for following god's wishes, if a god didn't want the person put to death then surely the holy writings shouldn't exist stating this if the religion is peaceful? Its all pretty basic.

Its sort of like claiming a company is 100% honest and can do no wrong but then some of its staff lie, but instead of blaming the company you blame the staff for lieing, yet the company has a company policy telling its staff how to lie to customers. Surely the staff are only following the company policy?

Of course it doesn't make the actions right, but none the less if the policy exists then clearly its meant to be followed. If its not meant to be followed then the company....or in this case religion should remove all mentions of hurting or putting others to death from its writings....if its a religion of peace.

katydid wrote: »

If I knew what "celebrating on my thought process" meant, I might be able to consider doing it...

Damn auto correct, I meant elaborate

Teachings regarding gender inequality, where they exist, have nothing to do with class, and certainly nothing to do with peace, or its opposite.

I'd agree, they have nothing to do with peace.
Teaching inequality causes conflict and division, its extremely upsetting to our fellow human beings, which is far from peaceful.

So again, how are "all" religions peaceful?

The only way most religions seem to be peaceful is by doing exactly what the religion wants you to do with no questions asked, by that logic a vengeful dictator is also peaceful....as long as you do what they say.

smacl · 09-01-2015 4:58pm

katydid wrote: »

The rephrasing still presents me with the same bizarre question. The fact that these guys seem to have succumbed to Islamic fundamentalism suggests they are not part of a group that would not allow themselves to be influenced.

Which is exactly what I've said in both posts if you'd bothered to read them, hence your own stated position of claiming not to be susceptible to such influences being moot.

smacl · 09-01-2015 5:09pm

katydid wrote: »

The general tenor of religions, whatever they are, is the belief in a higher being, and a system of rites, rituals and beliefs around this belief. Some religions contain elements that could be interpreted as aggressive or even violent, but these are generally tempered by other elements which stress love of one another, and a moral code of behaviour.

Where you have a religion, such as many branches of Islam, that considers apostasy a crime punishable by death, while actively proselytizing from other religions, I would consider it both oppressive and warlike. They consider it a capital offence to do exactly what they would seek to do to others. That is pretty much the opposite of peaceful.

katydid · 09-01-2015 6:08pm

smacl wrote: »

Where you have a religion, such as many branches of Islam, that considers apostasy a crime punishable by death, while actively proselytizing from other religions, I would consider it both oppressive and warlike. They consider it a capital offence to do exactly what they would seek to do to others. That is pretty much the opposite of peaceful.

And pretty much the opposite to what Islam is about, if you don't take it literally, and contextualise it to a seventh century tribal situation. Of course there are Muslims who will take exhortations to violence out of context, ignoring other exhortations to peace, and use them for their own devices.

smacl · 09-01-2015 6:28pm

katydid wrote: »

And pretty much the opposite to what Islam is about, if you don't take it literally, and contextualise it to a seventh century tribal situation. Of course there are Muslims who will take exhortations to violence out of context, ignoring other exhortations to peace, and use them for their own devices.

And yet we still see Islamic regimes handing down death sentences for apostasy, which rather suggests that this barbarity is alive and well long past the seventh century. While the majority of French Muslims are moderate in their practise, this is far from the case in other countries.

12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

Comments