‘Charlie Hebdo’ Will Cease Publishing Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If his view does not matter to you, you are simply mocking him for his belief and opinion.

This is what the cartoonists did - they mocked Muslims for fun, for profit as part of their job, and because they could.

Wrong.
I am mocking him because we used to get on and after a bust up how he cannot move on, where I have attempted to do so.
I am happy to move on now, but he seems to have no wish to do so.
See you just proved how you are insensitive to religion.
Which shows how it is religious people who are the problem.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. Didge seems to take the view that simply having a different belief is mockery, and perhaps some people might take that view. However, the cartoonists were not killed for not believing in Islam or for having a different faith, they were killed for directly mocking it, and for mocking the Islamic Prophet.

You miss the point, as why is it for the last few thousand years people have been killed for just having a different faith.
For example, explain to me why there is no more followers of Catharism or Arianism?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It seems some people need to looking up the dictionary definition of "mocking".

Yes. Didge seems to take the view that simply having a different belief is mockery, and perhaps some people might take that view. However, the cartoonists were not killed for not believing in Islam or for having a different faith, they were killed for directly mocking it, and for mocking the Islamic Prophet.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Wrong.
I am mocking him because we used to get on and after a bust up how he cannot move on, where I have attempted to do so.
I am happy to move on now, but he seems to have no wish to do so.
See you just proved how you are insensitive to religion.
Which shows how it is religious people who are the problem.

So you're not actually interested in debating with him then.

He has made some points which are valid in my opinion, so he doesn't have to "move on" from anything.

Why do you think that mocking people for their faith is a good thing?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You miss the point, as why is it for the last few thousand years people have been killed for just having a different faith.
For example, explain to me why there is no more followers of Catharism or Arianism?

You missed the point that this is not why the cartoonists were killed, and it is that issue which we are discussing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Wrong.
I am mocking him because we used to get on and after a bust up how he cannot move on, where I have attempted to do so.
I am happy to move on now, but he seems to have no wish to do so.
See you just proved how you are insensitive to religion.
Which shows how it is religious people who are the problem.

So you're not actually interested in debating with him then.

He has made some points which are valid in my opinion, so he doesn't have to "move on" from anything.

Why do you think that mocking people for their faith is a good thing?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If his view does not matter to you, you are simply mocking him for his belief and opinion.

This is what the cartoonists did - they mocked Muslims for fun, for profit as part of their job, and because they could.

Wrong.
I am mocking him because we used to get on and after a bust up how he cannot move on, where I have attempted to do so.
I am happy to move on now, but he seems to have no wish to do so.
See you just proved how you are insensitive to religion.
Which shows how it is religious people who are the problem.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you're not actually interested in debating with him then.

He has made some points which are valid in my opinion, so he doesn't have to "move on" from anything.

Why do you think that mocking people for their faith is a good thing?

Neither of you have made any valid points because you are both religious and defend religious as if somehow it is free from mocking when  it is not.
Its the faith being mocked, not the individual, which is where you go wrong

.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You missed the point that this is not why the cartoonists were killed, and it is that issue which we are discussing.

Its the same thing, having a belief different to others has been seen throughout the ages as mocking.
The joke is there is disagreement over whether Muhammad can be drawn in islam.
So not all Muslims agree it is insulting which proves my point about how subjective "mocking" is. 
Again why is it no followers are left of Catharism or Arianism?
Why would people be killed for having a different belief if they were not seen as an insult by their belief?
They were seen as heretics that mocked the Christian faith and the former had a crusade to wipe them out.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Wrong.
I am mocking him because we used to get on and after a bust up how he cannot move on, where I have attempted to do so.
I am happy to move on now, but he seems to have no wish to do so.
See you just proved how you are insensitive to religion.
Which shows how it is religious people who are the problem.

Ffs! What bust up now? I can't keep up.

Please move on. I don't live in the past and couldn't care less about what's been said previously.

Man up and stop being such a sensitive sissy.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you're not actually interested in debating with him then.

He has made some points which are valid in my opinion, so he doesn't have to "move on" from anything.

Why do you think that mocking people for their faith is a good thing?

Neither of you have made any valid points because you are both religious and defend religious as if somehow it is free from mocking when  it is not.
Its the faith being mocked, not the individual, which is where you go wrong

.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Neither of you have made any valid points because you are both religious and defend religious as if somehow it is free from mocking when  it is not.
Its the faith being mocked, not the individual, which is where you go wrong

.

You're not willing to even try to understand us. Now, how open minded are you?

You don't have to answer that. I don't really care.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Its the same thing, having a belief different to others has been seen throughout the ages as mocking.
The joke is there is disagreement over whether Muhammad can be drawn in islam.
So not all Muslims agree it is insulting which proves my point about how subjective "mocking" is. 
Again why is it no followers are left of Catharism or Arianism?
Why would people be killed for having a different belief if they were not seen as an insult by their belief?
They were seen as heretics that mocked the Christian faith and the former had a crusade to wipe them out.

Well no, it's not the same thing. If the killers had shot a load of people in the street just because they weren't Muslims, I would have had an entirely different view about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Neither of you have made any valid points because you are both religious and defend religious as if somehow it is free from mocking when  it is not.
Its the faith being mocked, not the individual, which is where you go wrong

.

Yes we have - you just don't like them. Your points are no more valid because you dislike religion, and therefore you support the mockery of it. You are biased.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Neither of you have made any valid points because you are both religious and defend religious as if somehow it is free from mocking when  it is not.
Its the faith being mocked, not the individual, which is where you go wrong

.

You're not willing to even try to understand us. Now, how open minded are you?

You don't have to answer that. I don't really care.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes we have - you just don't like them. Your points are no more valid because you dislike religion, and therefore you support the mockery of it. You are biased.

Wrong, I have got on with Zack for years, am more disdappointed he is acting so immature between us.
So your opinion is wrong.
I am proving your views are invalid as you both are ignoring history.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You're not willing to even try to understand us. Now, how open minded are you?

You don't have to answer that. I don't really care.

It's crazy isn't it? I've now been told that I'm bound to stick up for Muslims because I have religious faith. However, I am not a Muslim, and Didge has also said that HF and VOD thought Islam is an insult to Christianity.

He needs to make up his mind.  

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no, it's not the same thing. If the killers had shot a load of people in the street just because they weren't Muslims, I would have had an entirely different view about it.

Its the same thing.
Again how do you explain people wiped out as a religious faith?
How were they not seen as anything else but an insult?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Wrong, I have got on with Zack for years, am more disdappointed he is acting so immature between us.
So your opinion is wrong.
I am proving your views are invalid as you both are ignoring history.

Your relationship with Fuzzy is not relevant to my post. I said you don't think our views are valid because you don't like them - I didn't say it was because you don't like Fuzzy.

You have proved nothing, except that you cannot see anyone else's point of view except your own.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's crazy isn't it? I've now been told that I'm bound to stick up for Muslims because I have religious faith. However, I am not a Muslim, and Didge has also said that HF and VOD thought Islam is an insult to Christianity.

He needs to make up his mind.  

You are not a literal believer though Rags, as you said you do not count the Old testament or other parts in this book.
Dibs though are literal believers.
You see how you poorly twist out of what has been said to you and then run for support because you cannot counter my points.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ffs! What bust up now? I can't keep up.

Please move on. I don't live in the past and couldn't care less about what's been said previously.

Man up and stop being such a sensitive sissy.

Contradiction, the later shows you cannot move on and are an immature child.

Learn to move on properly.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Your relationship with Fuzzy is not relevant to my post. I said you don't think our views are valid because you don't like them - I didn't say it was because you don't like Fuzzy.

You have proved nothing, except that you cannot see anyone else's point of view except your own.

I keep proving your view is invalid as again explain why religious people of a faith have been wiped out if they were not seen as an insult and mocking the faith of those who butchered them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Its the same thing.
Again how do you explain people wiped out as a religious faith?
How were they not seen as anything else but an insult?

We're not talking about that, we're talking about cartoonists being killed for creating cartoons which mocked Muslims and the Islamic Prophet.

Try to stick to the point.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You're not willing to even try to understand us. Now, how open minded are you?

You don't have to answer that. I don't really care.

Understand?
I fully understand, you wish to make a religious faith protected from taking the piss as if it is something special.
Its not special, as its based on no evidence but the most asburd stories and beliefs, which if coming from another religion you would easily state is absurd.
So I think its the pair of you that fail to grasp this as again for the last few thousand years countless people have died just for believing something else.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I keep proving your view is invalid as again explain why religious people of a faith have been wiped out if they were not seen as an insult and mocking the faith of those who butchered them?

No you don't - you just keep introducing irrelevant points.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Understand?
I fully understand, you wish to make a religious faith protected from taking the piss as if it is something special.
Its not special, as its based on no evidence but the most asburd stories and beliefs, which if coming from another religion you would easily state is absurd.
So I think its the pair of you that fail to grasp this as again for the last few thousand years countless people have died just for believing something else.

When have I said I want religious faith protected? Why would I want thay when it would make Dawah illegal. Think about it.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes we have - you just don't like them. Your points are no more valid because you dislike religion, and therefore you support the mockery of it. You are biased.

Wrong, I have got on with Zack for years, am more disdappointed he is acting so immature between us.
So your opinion is wrong.
I am proving your views are invalid as you both are ignoring history.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

When have I said I want religious faith protected? Why would I want thay when it would make Dawah illegal. Think about it.

Nice try but again you have been arguing over the difference of criticism and mocking, when as seen they both overlap to believers.
So you are now changing your stance.
Happy that you do, but again you need to make your mind up here.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Wrong, I have got on with Zack for years, am more disdappointed he is acting so immature between us.
So your opinion is wrong.
I am proving your views are invalid as you both are ignoring history.

Please stop pretending we were best friends. I've always thought you were a sanctimonious, arrogant dick and I've said this to you many times.

I'm not mocking, I'm critiquing. The problem is, you can't tell the difference.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Nice try but again you have been arguing over the difference of criticism and mocking, when as seen they both overlap to believers.
So you are now changing your stance.
Happy that you do, but again you need to make your mind up here.

Where? Prove it.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Please stop pretending we were best friends. I've always thought you were a sanctimonious, arrogant dick and I've said this to you many times.

I'm not mocking, I'm critiquing. The problem is, you can't tell the difference.

Now who is lying.
You used to suck up to me many times Zack and look for my support and even posted videos of islam which was your intent to try and convert me, which I was okay about you doing even though you had no hope of being able to.
So you feel that way about me, that is your choice and you are welcome to this view, it just proves how easily I am able to wind you up silly as I have no such views of yourself as you are just another poster who I once got on with where now you want to be a cry baby lol

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Now who is lying.
You used to suck up to me many times Zack and look for my support and even posted videos of islam which was your intent to try and convert me, which I was okay about you doing even though you had no hope of being able to.
So you feel that way about me, that is your choice and you are welcome to this view, it just proves how easily I am able to wind you up silly as I have no such views of yourself as you are just another poster who I once got on with where now you want to be a cry baby lol

Lol! Please show me where I attempted to convert you. of course you can't.

You live in a fantasy world.

Anyway, please stop bringing up how you were once my friend and then I rejected you. It's embarrassing for both of us.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Please show me where I attempted to convert you. of course you can't.

You live in a fantasy world.

Anyway, please stop bringing up how you were once my friend and then I rejected you. It's embarrassing for both of us.

So why did you post me so many videos on Islam? lol

Nothing worse than the fact you are a bad tempered little brat who cannot move on. lol

Many people are used to be rejected by Muslims, we see it daily and understand why some of them do not want to fit in within society.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean like your lack of concern for the Wako bikers sounded disgustingly like a "they were asking for it" argument?

I never said they were asking for what happened to them, but they were gang members who showed up to a remote meeting with weapons -- not cartoonists.

The primary biker gang at the Waco incident, the Bandidos, are considered a criminal organization roughly as dangerous as the Crips and Bloods gangs of California, or the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Hardly law-abiding citizens trying to publish a magazine.

But you sympathised with the Baltimore rioters, who certainly did not have innocent intentions.

Also, what about the bikers who were not in the Bandidos? You have assumed that all the bikers were out for trouble.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Evening Zack

Do you think that you should shut up because someone else tells you to?

If I choose to shut up, then I don't expect others to bully, coherse or encourage me to do so otherwise.

If you liked or agreed with what I said, you should have the courage to say it yourself when I stop saying it (for whatever reason).

My point is, don't be a coward by expecting me to be brave on your behalf.

Well put Fuzzy. That's what I meant earlier, but you put it better than I did.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well put Fuzzy. That's what I meant earlier, but you put it better than I did.

Erm both of you are missing the point? I don't work in publishing and I don't want to publish pics of Mohammed, Jesus or the green giant
But if I did. I fucking would!

You better believe it.

eddie wrote:Okay I'm going round in circle now so I'm just going to end my input on this note:

I don't think we should ever let bullies win: anyone who threatens you or causes you harm because they don't like something you say, do or think, and wants to stop you, is a bully.

This is a step backwards for the victims of bullying the world over.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I'm going round in circle now so I'm just going to end my input on this note:

I don't think we should ever let bullies win: anyone who threatens you or causes you harm because they don't like something you say, do or think, and wants to stop you, is a bully.

This is a step backwards for the victims of bullying the world over.

It's easy to say that though eddie. I appreciate that you mean what you say, but if you were afraid every time you went into work, would you really keep it up for very long? Of course, that might not be the reason they're not doing the cartoons any more, but if it is, it's understandable.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's easy to say that though eddie. I appreciate that you mean what you say, but if you were afraid every time you went into work, would you really keep it up for very long? Of course, that might not be the reason they're not doing the cartoons any more, but if it is, it's understandable.

We have been under threat for decase through terrorism. I see your point that some people fear, but its exactly the aim of the terrorists that you do fear and then bow down to their demands. What is worse here is that people are mistakenly believeing that the actions to stop publishing about Muhammad will in anyway diminish the threat to them. Its naive to think that radical extremists would not strike again. If anything it would encourage them to do so, if their aim was to enforce closing the magazine all together.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


We have been under threat for decase through terrorism. I see your point that some people fear, but its exactly the aim of the terrorists that you do fear and then bow down to their demands. What is worse here is that people are mistakenly believeing that the actions to stop publishing about Muhammad will in anyway diminish the threat to them. Its naive to think that radical extremists would not strike again. If anything it would encourage them to do so, if their aim was to enforce closing the magazine all together.

I think though that the threat is usually a vague one - ie, might one be in the wrong place at the wrong time - on a bus, train, or whatever? This case is a bit different because it was a very specific target for a specific reason. Are these people at the same office as when the killing took place? I can see how that might make them very nervous.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think though that the threat is usually a vague one - ie, might one be in the wrong place at the wrong time - on a bus, train, or whatever? This case is a bit different because it was a very specific target for a specific reason. Are these people at the same office as when the killing took place? I can see how that might make them very nervous.

Again you are not trying to think of how the extremist might be thinking.
You have seen that by the actions of such an attack it has led to people bowing down through fear. They still continued to publish more after the attack, which will make them targets to extremists still. I agree its a specific target which makes it more a reason to stand defiantly up to the extremists. If we allow fear to rule our lives and look continually over our shoulders, you will never have any freedom in your life.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Again you are not trying to think of how the extremist might be thinking.
You have seen that by the actions of such an attack it has led to people bowing down through fear. They still continued to publish more after the attack, which will make them targets to extremists still. I agree its a specific target which makes it more a reason to stand defiantly up to the extremists. If we allow fear to rule our lives and look continually over our shoulders, you will never have any freedom in your life.

As I said, it's not clear why they have stopped now. I think Sassy said that it's different staff who might have different ideas. However, if they did stop out of fear, I think it's understandable that they might have been defiant at first - amongst all the publicity - and then become more fearful and stressed as time went on. Can you not understand what it might be like to go to work every day and be afraid that you might not come home again?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well put Fuzzy. That's what I meant earlier, but you put it better than I did.

Erm both of you are missing the point? I don't work in publishing and I don't want to publish pics of Mohammed, Jesus or the green giant
But if I did. I fucking would!

You better believe it.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:


Erm both of you are missing the point? I don't work in publishing and I don't want to publish pics of Mohammed, Jesus or the green giant
But if I did. I fucking would!

You better believe it.

You don't work in publishing and therefore you have no right to judge. It's that simple.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As I said, it's not clear why they have stopped now. I think Sassy said that it's different staff who might have different ideas. However, if they did stop out of fear, I think it's understandable that they might have been defiant at first - amongst all the publicity - and then become more fearful and stressed as time went on. Can you not understand what it might be like to go to work every day and be afraid that you might not come home again?

But their actions will have no bearing on the extremists themselves. Yes I can understand what it is like to have my life under threat and it made me feel more defiant I would not bow down to that fear. The aim of terrorists is to enforce their views and deny you your freedom. I could get run over tomorrow, be hit by lightning, anything could happen to me and there is no point worrying about something that if it does happen, I can do nothing about it. They can do nothing about stopping another extremist attacking them. All their actions have done is make more extremists believe they can enforce their beliefs onto others through fear. If fear overcomes your life, then how on earth can you expect to live your life free and happy?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


But their actions will have no bearing on the extremists themselves. Yes I can understand what it is like to have my life under threat and it made me feel more defiant I would not bow down to that fear. The aim of terrorists is to enforce their views and deny you your freedom. I could get run over tomorrow, be hit by lightning, anything could happen to me and there is no point worrying about something that if it does happen, I can do nothing about it. They can do nothing about stopping another extremist attacking them. All their actions have done is make more extremists believe they can enforce their beliefs onto others through fear. If fear overcomes your life, then how on earth can you expect to live your life free and happy?

How would they know what would have a bearing on what extremists would do? If they continued with the cartoons, there's more chance of being targeted again than if they didn't.

This is their daily life we're talking about. If you live in fear every day, that's going to take its toll. Maybe they wanted to be defiant but what about their families? Perhaps they were afraid too and wanted them to stop.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How would they know what would have a bearing on what extremists would do? If they continued with the cartoons, there's more chance of being targeted again than if they didn't.

This is their daily life we're talking about. If you live in fear every day, that's going to take its toll. Maybe they wanted to be defiant but what about their families? Perhaps they were afraid too and wanted them to stop.

How is there more or less of a chance of being targeted when they still continued to publish after the attack? That means in the eyes of an extremist they have commit a sin that needs to be punished. That is the mentality of a religious extremist. Maybe they did think about their families, of that I an mot denying, but has it in anyway stop a threat to their families?
The answer to that is no.

To resolve a problem you have to tackle that problem at its root cause, and the root cause here is an interpretation of religious teaching. If it was taught that within your faith you should turn the other cheek when your religions is mocked and never to commit violence. Do you think that would encourage violence or not? If on the other hand your faith interprets that to insult your religion is punishable by death, do you think that encourages people to violence or not?

Terrorists want  you to fear so they can control you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


How is there more or less of a chance of being targeted when they still continued to publish after the attack? That means in the eyes of an extremist they have commit a sin that needs to be punished. That is the mentality of a religious extremist. Maybe they did think about their families, of that I an mot denying, but has it in anyway stop a threat to their families?
The answer to that is no.

To resolve a problem you have to tackle that problem at its root cause, and the root cause here is an interpretation of religious teaching. If it was taught that within your faith you should turn the other cheek when your religions is mocked and never to commit violence. Do you think that would encourage violence or not? If on the other hand your faith interprets that to insult your religion is punishable by death, do you think that encourages people to violence or not?

Terrorists want  you to fear so they can control you.

I would have thought it was obvious that there would be a greater risk if they continued to publish the mocking cartoons.

I didn't mean their families would be at risk - I mean their families might not want to lose them in another attack.

I doubt you will be able to convince these people that mocking their prophet is a good thing Didge. Why not educate people to stop mocking instead? That would be the best thing. There's no need for it, and it serves no purpose.