PF does.DavidSnider said:http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/charlie-hebdo-terror-attack-media-mohammed-cartoons/index.html
Almost nobody will show the cartoons.
This is appalling, how can one make up a religion, then make rules that apply to those that do not belong to that religion? This is cowardice, not respect. The rules of their religion only apply to those that choose to believe in that religion, they do not apply to me or anyone else not belonging to that religion. The insanity has to stop.DavidSnider said:http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/charlie-hebdo-terror-attack-media-mohammed-cartoons/index.html
Almost nobody will show the cartoons.
We may just have to wait 30 more years. The Middle East has had value to the West since the Crusades -- then for religious reasons, now for oil. In 30 years or so, we won't have any more reason to try to engage them (positively or negatively), so the conflicts may just evaporate due to lack of interest.Dotini said:Agreed. We need a less obvious way to end the violence, but what is it? Perhaps a time machine and a little chat with Sykes and Picot? Really, it all began at the Crusades.
I'm not sure it would be easy, but we do take it serously and we have had good success on that front. Al Qaeda peaked on 9/11/01 (not too far above 8/7/98) and has been in decline ever since 9/11 caused us to take notice and action. If this attack proves to be Al Qaeda coordinated (some analysis is suggesting it may be), it would be the first successful al Qaeda attack on Western soil since 9/11 -- and not for lack of trying.nikkkom said:It's quite easy to end this kind of violence, as soon as you remove ideological blinders that "all religions are equal" and "police can't racially or religiously profile people".
Governments should take the threat of Islamist terror seriously. They should start serious counter-espionage operations against them.
Be...cause...it's...illegal? Why is it illegal? 4th Amendment? Frankly, this line of discussion is a little disturbing to me.As in: bugging mosques with mics and cameras. Why is it not okay, again?
They have and have been quite successful. Example (not Al Qaeda):Finding terrorists via undercover agents pretending to sell weapons/explosives, or disseminating extremist Islamist literature.
...StephaneCharbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
"Satanic Verses"? In any case:I_am_learning said:So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad. I have't heard violence in retaliation on a non-ridiculing and factual articles comparing and contrasting the problems in Islam.
You do understand that pretty well, but note that it isn't just difficult: the problem is that it requires a government office (probably the FCC) to monitor and judge speech. That's just not kosher in a society that values freedom of speech. (I need to get back to that "Interview" thread...)Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary? Ok, let's not modify the law on freedom of expression to exclude ridicule, because the demarcation might be difficult and prone to abuse...
That's a really poorly chosen analogy for making your point: dogs who bite people a lot get put down.For example, If your dog would bite you every-time you make a face to it, isn't it wise to stop doing it?
Here's the list (not that it is very coherent), straight from the horse's mouth (not that he has a mouth anymore): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserverGreg Bernhardt said:It's a slippery slope. What will they demand next time?
It says "You've seen the play, now read the book." I was very impressed by that.DavidSnider said:When "The Book of Mormon" play came out (by the creators of South Park) which ridiculed Mormons the church bought an advertisement in the playbill. This is how civilized people react to criticism.
What actions are the Muslim community taking to stop this? I know there have been people denouncing the atrocities, but I feel that many people know things that could turn these people in before they acted and aren't. I still remember all of the cheering from the Muslims in the streets in the Middle East when the twin Towers were brought down. Just stating fact, not passing judgement.Astronuc said:The three individuals represent themselves and intolerant individuals, not the majority of Muslims.
Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo AttackEvo said:What actions are the Muslim community doing to stop this? I know there have been people denouncing the atrocities, but I feel that many people know things that could turn these people in before they acted and aren't. I still remember all of the cheering from the Muslims in the streets in the Middle East when the twin Towers were brought down. Just stating fact, not passing judgement.
The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, has long been a concern in the religion's history. Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.[1][2] The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[citation needed]
Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[3] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[4] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry.[5] In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions.[4][6] Still, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.
There is perhaps a network of sympathizers helping the Kouachi brothers, but I think it's up to the intelligence and law enforcement to discover such a network.French brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, in their early 30s, should be considered armed and dangerous, according to a police bulletin released early Thursday. Mourad Hamyd, 18, surrendered at a police station in Charleville-Mezieres, a small town in France's eastern Champagne region, said Paris prosecutor's spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre. She did not offer details on Hamyd's relationship to the men, but said he turned himself in because he heard his name on the news in connection with the attack.
McVeigh was a recluse, I can't believe you would use him as an example. Seriously? What does he have to do with religious killings? And how, exactly, do you expect the authorities to discover these plans without informers? Psychics?Astronuc said:Hunt for 2 in French shooting that killed 12; 1 surrenders
http://news.yahoo.com/hunt-2-french-shooting-killed-040725179.html
There is perhaps a network of sympathizers helping the Kouachi brothers, but I think it's up to the intelligence and law enforcement to discover such a network.
One could speculate that there were folks who may have known or should have known what Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were planning when the blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995 and killing 168 people and injured over 600. McVeigh struck at the US government because of some perceived wrong. Unfortunately, he killed a lot of innocent people.
I think we need to let the authorities do their work.
Evo said:Actually they have no agreement that pictures aren't ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
I've stated earlier in this thread that I go out of my way to avoid profaning other peoples' religions; this is going excessively out of the way to be offensive. The idiots who shot up Hebdo went excessively out of their way to be offended. There is going to be a thin-skinned lunatic fringe of incompetents in any religious, political, or other social group who simply do not belong at large in this world. Identify them. Isolate them. Ignore them.HossamCFD said:I feel like more and more news outlets should publish the cartoons as a response to this attack.
Bystander said:I've stated earlier in this thread that I go out of my way to avoid profaning other peoples' religions; this is going excessively out of the way to be offensive. The idiots who shot up Hebdo went excessively out of their way to be offended. There is going to be a thin-skinned lunatic fringe of incompetents in any religious, political, or other social group who simply do not belong at large in this world. Identify them. Isolate them. Ignore them.
Bystander said:I've stated earlier in this thread that I go out of my way to avoid profaning other peoples' religions; this is going excessively out of the way to be offensive. The idiots who shot up Hebdo went excessively out of their way to be offended. There is going to be a thin-skinned lunatic fringe of incompetents in any religious, political, or other social group who simply do not belong at large in this world. Identify them. Isolate them. Ignore them.
I agree completely. The danger in being as gratuitously reactionary as the lunatic fringe of the world's Islamic population is that the situation can be escalated to the point where that xenophobic lunatic fringe is in a position to enlist sane, civilized Moslems in a holy war against sane, civilized populations from the rest of the world who've been enlisted by their own xenophobic lunatic fringe to eradicate Islam.HossamCFD said:and I think it's dangerous to actively avoid making fun of Mohamed, effectively granting muslims a special status in western society.
You may take that as a paraphrase of the "plausible deniability" embodied in JFK's instructions vis a vis Diem. Whatever it takes.OmCheeto said:So isolating them
HossamCFD said:In general, I agree with you. And I concede that my reaction is largely emotional. But I think it's important to stress the point that religion is not sacred anymore in the west; Islam is only sacred to muslims and they should not expect non-muslims to refrain from poking fun at its symbols. People make fun of Jesus (who is even more holy to christians than Mohamed is to muslims) and Moses all the time and I think it's dangerous to actively avoid making fun of Mohamed, effectively granting muslims a special status in western society.
However, after an early brainstorming stage, and despite being non-believers, they agreed that Jesus was "definitely a good guy" and found nothing to mock in his actual teachings: "He's not particularly funny, what he's saying isn't mockable, it's very decent stuff..." said Idle later.
Yes you are right. Doing that in an excessive and a reactionary way will have global repercussions, especially in some muslim majority countries who would largely see it as a targeted attack not as a point about freedom of speech.Bystander said:I agree completely. The danger in being as gratuitously reactionary as the lunatic fringe of the world's Islamic population is that the situation can be escalated to the point where that xenophobic lunatic fringe is in a position to enlist sane, civilized Moslems in a holy war against sane, civilized populations from the rest of the world who've been enlisted by their own xenophobic lunatic fringe to eradicate Islam.
OmCheeto said:These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over
...
Known for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as critical depictions of Catholics, Jews and French politicians, the magazine regularly stirred controversy.
...
If you stir the ****pot, on this planet, be prepared to eat the spoon.
It might be a French thing.256bits said:It's a funny thing, but I don't find the cartoons even the least bit funny.
Here's one example I could findOmCheeto said:Actually, I'm not aware of an incidence of Jesus being made fun of. His followers maybe, but never Jesus.
As wiki states, regarding "The Life of Brian" & Jesus:
Most of what we (think we) know about Mohamed doesn't come from the Quran (in which Mohamed was only mentioned about 5 times) but rather from the later compiled Hadith tradition. In fact most of Sharia rulings and Islamic doctrine in general is in the Hadith, which is regarded by Sunni muslims as almost as authoritative, but not as holy, as the Quran.And on a, let's get this straight as to what has been going through Om's mind for the last 55 years side-note: The gentleman at my convenience store was a Muslim, so after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, I asked him if he was crazy too. He said; "No". and he introduced me to Islam. I then read the Quran, and couldn't really find anything mockable.
So I decided, that the prophets were not the problem, but merely their followers.
I beg to disagree, but I feel like if I expanded on that I might go massively off topic and anger Evo, so I will leave it at that at this point :)And as I implied before, the followers of atheism, are just as bad.