Charlie Hebdo makes fun of drowned Syrian boy.

melissak

130Kph wrote: »

Person A: the moon is made of cheese

Person B: no, the moon is not made of cheese.

Person A: you can say that as many time as you want, I don’t agree with you.

Person a. Jog on.

Kev W

melissak wrote: »

Person a. Jog on.

Really don't think anyone was expecting you to actually take person a's side there.

melissak

Kev W wrote: »

Really don't think anyone was expecting you to actually take person a's side there.

Person a quoted my post so i had to assume it was my allocated role. I have no particular opinion on moon cheese

130Kph

melissak wrote: »

Frances policy in the middle east has not changed much since they lost control of tgeir colonies there.

You are making the mistake of commenting on an issue you obviously don’t understand….and seemingly cannot understand.

If you have an issue with current or historic French or Western foreign policy in Middle East / N African countries, then you need to find (or start) the right thread to address this.

But you are rightly being laughed out of court here since you are trying to address this legitimate debate by proxy - by trying to argue that Charlie Hebdo cartoons are mocking a drowned 3 year old out of racist motives (an idea which doesn’t reach the threshold of being taken seriously).

volchitsa

melissak wrote: »

You are the one not making sense imo. As i said Earlier i had french wwoofers staying with me when the charlie thing happened, we were discussing it so i looked it up. I have never heard of such a playground. How could i have an opinion on something i have never heard of in order to contradict myself

But you'd never heard of Charlie Hebdo either, apparently. So now you've heard of Dismaland, you can look that up too (I even gave you links).

Is Banksy mocking Syrian refugees?

Genuine question, because by your logic, he is, and yet youseem strangely unwilling to leap to the same conclusions you did with Charlie Hebdo. What's the difference?

melissak

130Kph wrote: »

You are making the mistake of commenting on an issue you obviously don’t understand….and seemingly cannot understand.

If you have an issue with current or historic French or Western foreign policy in Middle East / N African countries, then you need to find (or start) the right thread to address this.

But you are rightly being laughed out of court here since you are trying to address this legitimate debate by proxy - by trying to argue that Charlie Hebdo cartoons are mocking a drowned 3 year old out of racist motives (an idea which doesn’t reach the threshold of being taken seriously).

I have stated repeatedly that i don't believe that charlie is necessarily racist but a provocateur. You obviously don't, or cant read through someones position before laughing them out of court.
Why would i look up something i have no interest in because someone e who wont read my position before laughing at me tells me to. That would be silly

130Kph

melissak wrote: »

I have stated repeatedly that i don't believe that charlie is necessarily racist but a provocateur. You obviously don't, or cant read through someones position before laughing them out of court.
Why would i look up something i have no interest in because someone e who wont read my position before laughing at me tells me to. That would be silly

Ok, but a satirical irreverent magazine is supposed to be provocative plus probably even a devil’s advocate.

So that’s not an issue surely.

[of course, as has been long established, this cartoon is about European political hypocrisy - but for some reason you’ve no interest in what the cartoon is actually about]

So sorry, what point are you making about the cartoon being provocative?

Insect Overlord

130Kph wrote: »

So sorry, what point are you making about the cartoon being provocative?

I think she feels the magazine is maliciously trying to elicit anger/rage/reactions from the victims of this crisis, rather than the aim of provoking thought among the general public of Europe.

volchitsa

An File wrote: »

I think she feels the magazine is maliciously trying to elicit anger/rage/reactions from the victims of this crisis, rather than the aim of provoking thought among the general public of Europe.

Well sure, but then why the refusal to make the same assumption about Banksy, because she doesn't know anything about Banksy? She admits to not knowing anything about Charlie Hebdo either, but that didn't stop her from making assumptions about them.

130Kph

An File wrote: »

I think she feels the magazine is maliciously trying to elicit anger/rage/reactions from the victims of this crisis, rather than the aim of provoking thought among the general public of Europe.

Isn’t melissak's vews a weeny bit bit suspect (and this is directly to you melissak) if you feel the magazine is maliciously trying to elicit anger/rage/reactions from the victims of this crisis.

I mean in September 2015, the idea that Syrian refugees are scanning hundreds of discussion boards (in 30+ different languages) on their smartphones in Budapest central train station (for example) in order to take offense;

what :eek: Please tell me that’s not your main point……please!!!!

haven’t these refugees got more practical things to worry about rather than the armchair debate nuances on an Irish website about a french satirical cartoon?
Maybe in your mind this is their biggest concern!!!

I think it’s actually insulting of you melissak to ascribe to Syrian refugees such hand wringing stereotypes.

melissak

130Kph wrote: »

Isn’t melissak's vews a weeny bit bit suspect (and this is directly to you melissak) if you feel the magazine is maliciously trying to elicit anger/rage/reactions from the victims of this crisis.

I mean in September 2015, the idea that Syrian refugees are scanning hundreds of discussion boards (in 30+ different languages) on their smartphones in Budapest central train station (for example) in order to take offense;

what :eek: Please tell me that’s not your main point……please!!!!

haven’t these refugees got more practical things to worry about rather than the armchair debate nuances on an Irish website about a french satirical cartoon?
Maybe in your mind this is their biggest concern!!!

I think it’s actually insulting of you melissak to ascribe to Syrian refugees such hand wringing stereotypes.

No. I said it is unwelcoming to the refugees, provoking to extremists, encouragement to far right, intellectual debate to us and money to charlie. I gave said this many times. Disagree if you want but stop making me restate my point. I

volchitsa

melissak wrote: »

No. I said it is unwelcoming to the refugees, provoking to extremists, encouragement to far right, intellectual debate to us and money to charlie. I gave said this many times. Disagree if you want but stop making me restate my point. I

Why do you feel so invested in this view of Charlie Hebdo, a tiny magazine unknown outside the French-speaking world until it was brutally attacked by religious extremists, and yet so resolutely disinterested in the exact same sort of behaviour by Banksy, a world-famous British artist?

What's the difference? Banksy hasn't been attacked by Muslims yet, so you don't need to justify the attack by blaming it on something completely unrelated, is that it?

130Kph

melissak wrote: »

No. I said it is unwelcoming to the refugees, provoking to extremists, encouragement to far right, intellectual debate to us and money to charlie. I gave said this many times. Disagree if you want but stop making me restate my point. I

Are you coming up with this laughable (& intellectually insulting) ‘unwelcoming to refugees’ mis-conception yourself or is it something you are reading elsewhere from some other ‘deep thinker’ on the internet?

Do you object to all Charlie Hebdo satire or is it just one or two cartoons?

Now that I ask this, why do I bother! I vaguely remember some allegations of Zionist conspiracy sh1te about CH earlier in the thread.

omnithanos

volchitsa wrote: »

Why do you feel so invested in this view of Charlie Hebdo, a tiny magazine unknown outside the French-speaking world until it was brutally attacked by religious extremists, and yet so resolutely disinterested in the exact same sort of behaviour by Banksy, a world-famous British artist?

What's the difference? Banksy hasn't been attacked by Muslims yet, so you don't need to justify the attack by blaming it on something completely unrelated, is that it?

Nor has Banksy involved himself in staging a fake attack by masked antagonists purporting to be Muslims with the sole purpose of creating hatred towards the Muslim population.

Check out the recent Virginia shooting for the most obvious hoax yet.

The following link makes a serious attempt to debunk the claim that the Virginia shooting was a hoax however they fail to mention the fact that the lack of cartridges being ejected from the hand gun proves that it is fake.
http://wideshut.co.uk/wdbj-virginia-shooting-hoax-theories-debunked/
They even put up a gif of the equally fake shooting of Walter Scott as evidence of real life shootings online.

Kev W

omnithanos wrote: »

Nor has Banksy involved himself in staging a fake attack by masked antagonists purporting to be Muslims with the sole purpose of creating hatred towards the Muslim population.

Check out the recent Virginia shooting for the most obvious hoax yet.

The following link makes a serious attempt to debunk the claim that the Virginia shooting was a hoax however they fail to mention the fact that the lack of cartridges being ejected from the hand gun proves that it is fake.
http://wideshut.co.uk/wdbj-virginia-shooting-hoax-theories-debunked/
They even put up a gif of the equally fake shooting of Walter Scott as evidence of real life shootings online.

What does any of this conspiracy theory rubbish have to do with the topic of discussion?

ilkhanid

melissak wrote: »

Where are the bombs france is dropping landing? Was it daeesh they were after in iraq etc as well. They could be bombing the bogeyman for all it matters. They are killing syrians,
I don't believe a 3year old has a religion btw. They are children and one is the same as another.

Syrians, Iraqis..so? Daesh doesn't believe in countries,only in the Caliphate. They're probably killing foreign fighters too:Tunisians, British, Swedes, maybe even French fighters. I'm not weeping for them.

Kev W wrote: »

What does any of this conspiracy theory rubbish have to do with the topic of discussion?

Apparently,everything is part of the conspiracy.

omnithanos

In case you weren't aware the offices of Charlie Hebdo were purchased in December last year, a month before the first French terrorist attack, by the Rothschild family.

Kev W

omnithanos wrote: »

In case you weren't aware the offices of Charlie Hebdo were purchased in December last year, a month before the first French terrorist attack, by the Rothschild family.

Nothing more suspicious than large companies buying small companies. It's so rare!

omnithanos

Kev W wrote: »

Nothing more suspicious than large companies buying small companies. It's so rare!

Well it happened before both French terrorist attacks. The Bataclan was sold on 9/11 this year.

Kev W

omnithanos wrote: »

Well it happened before both French terrorist attacks. The Bataclan was sold on 9/11 this year.

And? You think the illuminati are sentimental about that sort of thing?

ilkhanid

omnithanos wrote: »

Well it happened before both French terrorist attacks. The Bataclan was sold on 9/11 this year.

Who cares? Did the attackers know this? Did they mention it? Did they attack the Rothschilds....or cartoonists and concert goers? Did the Rothschilds buy all those bars and restaurants too?

volchitsa

omnithanos wrote: »

Well it happened before both French terrorist attacks. The Bataclan was sold on 9/11 this year.

And was it bought by a Jewish company, like Charlie Hebdo (assuming that is even true)?

omnithanos

ilkhanid wrote: »

Who cares? Did the attackers know this? Did they mention it? Did they attack the Rothschilds....or cartoonists and concert goers? Did the Rothschilds buy all those bars and restaurants too?

I'd research that and get back to you but I'm not allowed to talk about conspiracies on here for some odd reason.

strelok

Kev W wrote: »

And? You think the illuminati are sentimental about that sort of thing?

it's not enough to control the world, you have to torment the five or six weirdos on the internet who have it all figured out

omnithanos

strelok wrote: »

it's not enough to control the world, you have to torment the five or six weirdos on the internet who have it all figured out

There are more than 5 or 6 of us and if you check the other post I started about Charlie Hebdo today, which was promptly shut down, you will find 100% proof that the January shooting was a hoax.

strelok

omnithanos wrote: »

There are more than 5 or 6 of us and if you check the other post I started about Charlie Hebdo today, which was promptly shut down, you will find 100% proof that the January shooting was a hoax.

well duh. everyone knows the fake grieving parents of the sandy hook shootings are behind the whole thing

Kev W

strelok wrote: »

it's not enough to control the world, you have to torment the five or six weirdos on the internet who have it all figured out

So the illuminati is essentially The Riddler.

volchitsa

strelok wrote: »

it's not enough to control the world, you have to torment the five or six weirdos on the internet who have it all figured out

You have to love the idea that these lizard people a going round organizing huge, expensive hoaxes to fool everyone and leave a trail of deliberate clues behind them.

Wibbs

Loonies gonna loon.

omnithanos

strelok wrote: »

well duh. everyone knows the fake grieving parents of the sandy hook shootings are behind the whole thing

Rather the policeman being shown to be complicit in staging his own death scene.