‘Charlie Hebdo’ Will Cease Publishing Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

First topic message reminder :

http://www.newsweek.com/charlie-hebdo-will-cease-publishing-cartoons-prophet-muhammad-355272

Right move, or did the terrorists just win?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

Why would you think there would be a greater risk when they have already still commited a sin viewed to them as punishable by death? The act has been committed making them still a target. The fundemental problem is found within the religion itself. Take the burning of the Qurans by American troops which led to innocent people being murdered who's only connection was their nationality. Only a belief system within an ideology can cause that. So the best thing again is tackling the problem at its root cause and that is in this case a belief found within religion. The problem with religion is it allows people to take some call to action through commands found within a book, that if they do not act, they will be punished themselves in an after life. It is fear itself through a belief in an after life of what might happen that can allow for some people to commit the most inhuman acts to others. Aagin you are trying to blame people being murdered for mocking a man that lived 1400 years ago who its claimed heard voices in his head of which he interpreted as an angel.
I mean when you think about that, and that this is the only claim to some devine belief in the existence of a God in this faith and some other babble about it being beautiful to say, is nothig short of insanity. Religion is nothing short of a form to control people, it denies them free will.

Didge, from their point of view, they're going to think that continuing will put them at more risk than not continuing. They probably feel that the "punishment" has been carried out, and that if they stop there will no more "punishment".

You know, it's possible that these cartoonists don't even have strong feelings about Islam anyway - they're just cartoonists. If they knew the people who were shot, can you not see how they might lose heart? They could have sat there drawing a cartoon of the Islamic Prophet after the attack, and then wondered if it was worth someone losing their life over a cartoon.

It's you who is blaming these people for not carrying on with the cartoons. I'm talking about their possible reasons for stopping.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Why would you think there would be a greater risk when they have already still commited a sin viewed to them as punishable by death? The act has been committed making them still a target. The fundemental problem is found within the religion itself. Take the burning of the Qurans by American troops which led to innocent people being murdered who's only connection was their nationality. Only a belief system within an ideology can cause that. So the best thing again is tackling the problem at its root cause and that is in this case a belief found within religion. The problem with religion is it allows people to take some call to action through commands found within a book, that if they do not act, they will be punished themselves in an after life. It is fear itself through a belief in an after life of what might happen that can allow for some people to commit the most inhuman acts to others. Aagin you are trying to blame people being murdered for mocking a man that lived 1400 years ago who its claimed heard voices in his head of which he interpreted as an angel.
I mean when you think about that, and that this is the only claim to some devine belief in the existence of a God in this faith and some other babble about it being beautiful to say, is nothig short of insanity. Religion is nothing short of a form to control people, it denies them free will.

Didge, from their point of view, they're going to think that continuing will put them at more risk than not continuing. They probably feel that the "punishment" has been carried out, and that if they stop there will no more "punishment".

You know, it's possible that these cartoonists don't even have strong feelings about Islam anyway - they're just cartoonists. If they knew the people who were shot, can you not see how they might lose heart? They could have sat there drawing a cartoon of the Islamic Prophet after the attack, and then wondered if it was worth someone losing their life over a cartoon.

It's you who is blaming these people for not carrying on with the cartoons. I'm talking about their possible reasons for stopping.

Again what they are thinking is as I have already stated naive. They already continued to publish and mock afterwards. So they will be seen as legitimate targets to attack, because they will have been seen to have sinned. I understand that some people will lose heart, but this is the point, it is being overcome with fear, the ultimate intention of the terrorrists. They are now controlling your actions and where and what can that lead to next Rags? I mean what if for argument sake now they are seen by extremists as easy tools to be used. Have you even thoughtat how they have now made themselves more susceptible through the fear they already feel?. No loss of life is ever acceptable and I am not saying they even had to carry on with the cartoons. What they did was announce they would not and they did this naively thinking it would stop them being a target. I know you are talking about their reasons for stopping and I am talking about how their reasons could have far greater consequences. I am also talking about how they have not even stopped themselves from being  a target. Again the problem here is found within the interpretation of a faith.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge, from their point of view, they're going to think that continuing will put them at more risk than not continuing. They probably feel that the "punishment" has been carried out, and that if they stop there will no more "punishment".

You know, it's possible that these cartoonists don't even have strong feelings about Islam anyway - they're just cartoonists. If they knew the people who were shot, can you not see how they might lose heart? They could have sat there drawing a cartoon of the Islamic Prophet after the attack, and then wondered if it was worth someone losing their life over a cartoon.

It's you who is blaming these people for not carrying on with the cartoons. I'm talking about their possible reasons for stopping.

Again what they are thinking is as I have already stated naive. They already continued to publish and mock afterwards. So they will be seen as legitimate targets to attack, because they will have been seen to have sinned. I understand that some people will lose heart, but this is the point, it is being overcome with fear, the ultimate intention of the terrorrists. They are now controlling your actions and where and what can that lead to next Rags? I mean what if for argument sake now they are seen by extremists as easy tools to be used. Have you even thoughtat how they have now made themselves more susceptible through the fear they already feel?. No loss of life is ever acceptable and I am not saying they even had to carry on with the cartoons. What they did was announce they would not and they did this naively thinking it would stop them being a target. I know you are talking about their reasons for stopping and I am talking about how their reasons could have far greater consequences. I am also talking about how they have not even stopped themselves from being  a target. Again the problem here is found within the interpretation of a faith.

It just seems to me that some people on here are expecting these cartoonists to be brave and defiant on their behalf. They're human Didge, and they have fears like anyone else - they had to live what that fear daily. Sure, in the early days after the attack of course they're going to display some bravado, but perhaps they couldn't sustain it. They're not going to think the way you want them to - they're going to think that carrying on will make it more likely they will be targeted again, and that if they stop, they might not be. I believe some of the staff left anyway - they lost interest in the whole thing.

Let's look at what the editor actually said.

“We have drawn Mohammad to defend the principle that one can draw whatever one wants,”

Now that suggests to me that they did it because they could, and because they wanted to stick two fingers up at anyone who didn't like it. It doesn't suggest some kind of passionate anti-Islam stance which they'd be prepared to die for. Does it suggest that to you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Again what they are thinking is as I have already stated naive. They already continued to publish and mock afterwards. So they will be seen as legitimate targets to attack, because they will have been seen to have sinned. I understand that some people will lose heart, but this is the point, it is being overcome with fear, the ultimate intention of the terrorrists. They are now controlling your actions and where and what can that lead to next Rags? I mean what if for argument sake now they are seen by extremists as easy tools to be used. Have you even thoughtat how they have now made themselves more susceptible through the fear they already feel?. No loss of life is ever acceptable and I am not saying they even had to carry on with the cartoons. What they did was announce they would not and they did this naively thinking it would stop them being a target. I know you are talking about their reasons for stopping and I am talking about how their reasons could have far greater consequences. I am also talking about how they have not even stopped themselves from being  a target. Again the problem here is found within the interpretation of a faith.

It just seems to me that some people on here are expecting these cartoonists to be brave and defiant on their behalf. They're human Didge, and they have fears like anyone else - they had to live what that fear daily. Sure, in the early days after the attack of course they're going to display some bravado, but perhaps they couldn't sustain it. They're not going to think the way you want them to - they're going to think that carrying on will make it more likely they will be targeted again, and that if they stop, they might not be. I believe some of the staff left anyway - they lost interest in the whole thing.

Let's look at what the editor actually said.

“We have drawn Mohammad to defend the principle that one can draw whatever one wants,”

Now that suggests to me that they did it because they could, and because they wanted to stick two fingers up at anyone who didn't like it. It doesn't suggest some kind of passionate anti-Islam stance which they'd be prepared to die for. Does it suggest that to you?

I am well aware what they think and how they have succumed to fear and have raised the white flag where even Islam was never top of their list to mock. They have not said they are stopping to draw anything else just Islam. Its a self defeating argument you are protraying one that denies free speech and claims something has now been done it should stop. By stopping the terrorists have won and that religion then enjoys a protective shield from any mockery through the use of psychopathic violence. Again I am well aware of your views as to why they themselves think its best to stop. This white flag is stained in the blood of their former co-workers, who never bowed down to any fear. What sort of lasting memory are they showing to those who died by doing what they were not afraid to do or should be even in fear of doing?
They just basically insulted the very memory of those that died though mindless violence.
If you will ever look at history you never stop those intent on violence with appeasement, it just encourages them to think they can commit more.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It just seems to me that some people on here are expecting these cartoonists to be brave and defiant on their behalf. They're human Didge, and they have fears like anyone else - they had to live what that fear daily. Sure, in the early days after the attack of course they're going to display some bravado, but perhaps they couldn't sustain it. They're not going to think the way you want them to - they're going to think that carrying on will make it more likely they will be targeted again, and that if they stop, they might not be. I believe some of the staff left anyway - they lost interest in the whole thing.

Let's look at what the editor actually said.



Now that suggests to me that they did it because they could, and because they wanted to stick two fingers up at anyone who didn't like it. It doesn't suggest some kind of passionate anti-Islam stance which they'd be prepared to die for. Does it suggest that to you?

I am well aware what they think and how they have succumed to fear and have raised the white flag where even Islam was never top of their list to mock. They have not said they are stopping to draw anything else just Islam. Its a self defeating argument you are protraying one that denies free speech and claims something has now been done it should stop. By stopping the terrorists have won and that religion then enjoys a protective shield from any mockery through the use of psychopathic violence. Again I am well aware of your views as to why they themselves think its best to stop. This white flag is stained in the blood of their former co-workers, who never bowed down to any fear. What sort of lasting memory are they showing to those who died by doing what they were not afraid to do or should be even in fear of doing?
They just basically insulted the very memory of those that died though mindless violence.
If you will ever look at history you never stop those intent on violence with appeasement, it just encourages them to think they can commit more.

White flag? There you go again - expecting these people to be brave and risk their own lives because you don't approve of them stopping. Why on earth should they risk their lives on behalf of their dead colleagues? That won't bring them back, and if those dead colleagues could send a message, how do you know they would want their colleagues to continue?

I can't believe that you say these these people are insulting the memory of their colleagues by stopping - that's just awful.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I am well aware what they think and how they have succumed to fear and have raised the white flag where even Islam was never top of their list to mock. They have not said they are stopping to draw anything else just Islam. Its a self defeating argument you are protraying one that denies free speech and claims something has now been done it should stop. By stopping the terrorists have won and that religion then enjoys a protective shield from any mockery through the use of psychopathic violence. Again I am well aware of your views as to why they themselves think its best to stop. This white flag is stained in the blood of their former co-workers, who never bowed down to any fear. What sort of lasting memory are they showing to those who died by doing what they were not afraid to do or should be even in fear of doing?
They just basically insulted the very memory of those that died though mindless violence.
If you will ever look at history you never stop those intent on violence with appeasement, it just encourages them to think they can commit more.

White flag? There you go again - expecting these people to be brave and risk their own lives because you don't approve of them stopping. Why on earth should they risk their lives on behalf of their dead colleagues? That won't bring them back, and if those dead colleagues could send a message, how do you know they would want their colleagues to continue?

I can't believe that you say these these people are insulting the memory of their colleagues by stopping - that's just awful.

Yes it is a white flag of surrender, they have bowed down to fear. There is no other way to say otherwise, because the intent of the terrorists to stop people mocking their prophet. The factis those who died risk their lives daily already with countless threats and yet they never stopped. The very fact they did not stop to threats shows you they never did bow down to fear. They are completely insulting the memory of those who died and like I say their white flag is stained in their blood. The problem with people like you Rags, is you are already rulled by fear, religious people already are, they fear death and need some belief that is not the end. Their belief systems are already controlled by this fear. You could ask the very same question in reverses is how do you know they would want the paper to stop publishing cartoons? Their co-workers died defending the right to free speech, and those now running the magazine now have caved in and surrendered the right of free speech to exist. Psychopathic violence committed to their co-workers has allowd them to surrender their free speech.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

White flag? There you go again - expecting these people to be brave and risk their own lives because you don't approve of them stopping. Why on earth should they risk their lives on behalf of their dead colleagues? That won't bring them back, and if those dead colleagues could send a message, how do you know they would want their colleagues to continue?

I can't believe that you say these these people are insulting the memory of their colleagues by stopping - that's just awful.

Yes it is a white flag of surrender, they have bowed down to fear. There is no other way to say otherwise, because the intent of the terrorists to stop people mocking their prophet. The factis those who died risk their lives daily already with countless threats and yet they never stopped. The very fact they did not stop to threats shows you they never did bow down to fear. They are completely insulting the memory of those who died and like I say their white flag is stained in their blood. The problem with people like you Rags, is you are already rulled by fear, religious people already are, they fear death and need some belief that is not the end. Their belief systems are already controlled by this fear. You could ask the very same question in reverses is how do you know they would want the paper to stop publishing cartoons? Their co-workers died defending the right to free speech, they now have caved in and surrendered the right of free speech to exist in their magazine. Psychopathic violence committed to their co-workers has allowd them to surrender their free speech.

Oh, I thought you said that the terrorists would target them whether they stopped or not, and now you say that's not the case - you say they just wanted them to stop.

The people who have now stopped didn't bow down to the threats either, but seeing people lying in pools of blood, and the reality of "revenge" probably shook them up a bit, don't you think?

I would call it being ruled by common sense. If the price of drawing a cartoon is being blasted with a gun, I don't think I'd bother either.

The reality is that it doesn't matter what their dead colleagues would have wanted. They are dead, they can no longer decide. Those who are still living have the right to decide if they want to go on living, or whether they want to die because they drew a cartoon. They have no duty to carry on to appease you or to uphold free speech.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes it is a white flag of surrender, they have bowed down to fear. There is no other way to say otherwise, because the intent of the terrorists to stop people mocking their prophet. The factis those who died risk their lives daily already with countless threats and yet they never stopped. The very fact they did not stop to threats shows you they never did bow down to fear. They are completely insulting the memory of those who died and like I say their white flag is stained in their blood. The problem with people like you Rags, is you are already rulled by fear, religious people already are, they fear death and need some belief that is not the end. Their belief systems are already controlled by this fear. You could ask the very same question in reverses is how do you know they would want the paper to stop publishing cartoons? Their co-workers died defending the right to free speech, they now have caved in and surrendered the right of free speech to exist in their magazine. Psychopathic violence committed to their co-workers has allowd them to surrender their free speech.

Oh, I thought you said that the terrorists would target them whether they stopped or not, and now you say that's not the case - you say they just wanted them to stop.

The people who have now stopped didn't bow down to the threats either, but seeing people lying in pools of blood, and the reality of "revenge" probably shook them up a bit, don't you think?

I would call it being ruled by common sense. If the price of drawing a cartoon is being blasted with a gun, I don't think I'd bother either.

The reality is that it doesn't matter what their dead colleagues would have wanted. They are dead, they can no longer decide. Those who are still living have the right to decide if they want to go on living, or whether they want to die because they drew a cartoon. They have no duty to carry on to appease you or to uphold free speech.

They will still target them, because they had continued to publish cartoons, they have still got their wish, which in no way would stop them being targets. They have forced their views onto others through fear and again you stand by fear as a means to stop doing something. They completely bowed down to violence, as it was violence that made them fear it could be them. To say otherwise is nothing short of ridiculous Rags and you are again attempting to excuse the violence committed now. It is because of an ideology that justifies murder that has made them also bow down in fear. If the price is to be denied freedom of speech, they you have sacrificed their freedom through fear. The ultimate goal of terrorism is through fear and to claim otherwise shows you really have not looked at or understood terrorism. They have every right to decide what they want. What's being stated is there will be consequences because of their decisions, just like there has always been by those who appease to violence and hate. They sacrificed their freedom of speech, the very foundation of what the magazine was founded on. They have capitulated not through any reason, but through fear. Again at every turn you are ignoring the root cause of the problem here and pushing the problem onto people who have freedoms. That they should bow down to psychopathic violence committed to others. I can give you countless examples of people who have stood up to threats of violence and by countering by non-violent means. They were constantly threatened with violence and yet never surrendered their right to being free.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh, I thought you said that the terrorists would target them whether they stopped or not, and now you say that's not the case - you say they just wanted them to stop.

The people who have now stopped didn't bow down to the threats either, but seeing people lying in pools of blood, and the reality of "revenge" probably shook them up a bit, don't you think?

I would call it being ruled by common sense. If the price of drawing a cartoon is being blasted with a gun, I don't think I'd bother either.

The reality is that it doesn't matter what their dead colleagues would have wanted. They are dead, they can no longer decide. Those who are still living have the right to decide if they want to go on living, or whether they want to die because they drew a cartoon. They have no duty to carry on to appease you or to uphold free speech.

They will still target them, because they had continued to publish cartoons, they have still got their wish, which in no way would stop them being targets. They have forced their views onto others through fear and again you stand by fear as a means to stop doing something. They completely bowed down to violence, as it was violence that made them fear it could be them. To say otherwise is nothing short of ridiculous Rags and you are again attempting to excuse the violence committed now. It is because of an ideology that justifies murder that has made them also bow down in fear. If the price is to be denied freedom of speech, they you have sacrificed their freedom through fear. The ultimate goal of terrorism is through fear and to claim otherwise shows you really have not looked at or understood terrorism. They have every right to decide what they want. What's being stated is there will be consequences because of their decisions, just like there has always been by those who appease to violence and hate. They sacrificed their freedom of speech, the very foundation of what the magazine was founded on. They have capitulated not through any reason, but through fear. Again at every turn you are ignoring the root cause of the problem here and pushing the problem onto people who have freedoms. That they should bow down to psychopathic violence committed to others. I can give you countless examples of people who have stood up to threats of violence and by non-violent means. They were constantly threatened with violence and yet never surrendered their right to being free.

Of course I understand terrorism, I just don't think that others should be brave to appease you. You want to go and draw cartoons mocking Islam? Go and do it - don't expect others to do it on your behalf. You weren't there, you know nothing about what it was like for them. They wanted to piss Muslims off, and they succeeded in pissing at least some of them off big time. Why would they want to carry on doing that?

Would you stick your head into a lion's den just to prove you could do it?

I think you're just repeating yourself now Didge, so I'm doing it too.

Raggs, I think the CH staff would be offended to see their work categorized as something merely done to "piss off" Muslims. I think they'd say they were trying to provoke thought and discourse about social issues in their country. They publish a magazine of satire, not a newsletter for a hate movement.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Raggs, I think the CH staff would be offended to see their work categorized as something merely done to "piss off" Muslims. I think they'd say they were trying to provoke thought and discourse about social issues in their country. They publish a magazine of satire, not a newsletter for a hate movement.

Hmmmmm, I think the aim was to piss off Muslims. I daresay they want to piss off other groups too - but they're not likely to burst in and shoot them all.

Its not to appease me, this is where your understanding falls apart and you are now just repeating tried points already shown to be poor. Its about these people surrendering their own freedoms themselves and how also their actions can lead now to more believing violence can achieve their aims. All of this has gone way above your head. I piss you off sometimes, does that mean you believe you are commanded to shoot me? Of course not, you ignore the fundamental root cause of the problem and arguing against the right to free speech. We already stick our heads in the lions den by not bowing down to threats of violence made to us from extremists by carrying on with our lives. 

You can bow down to fear and be led by fear Rags, that is of course your choice, but again what you fail to see is the consequences of the those bowing down to fear here. You fail to grasp they have allowed for more to think violence is the means to get their way. How many more will die as a consequence of this for you to understand that? You see the problem will not stop by bowing down to fear, what will happen is that the probability is now that more will suffer such violence. Every action has consequences and you do not resolve the problem of those following extremism by bowing down to their terror they commit.

Cuchulain wrote:Its not to appease me, this is where your understanding falls apart and you are now just repeating tried points already shown to be poor.
Its about these people surrendering their own freedoms themselves and how also their actions can lead now to more believing violence can achieve their aims. All of this has gone way above your head.
I piss you off sometimes, does that mean you believe you are commanded to shoot me? Of course not, you ignore the fundamental root cause of the problem and arguing against the right to free speech. We already stick our heads in the lions den by not bowing down to threats of violence made to us from extremists.
You can bow down to fear and be led by fear Rags, that is of course your choice, but again what you fail to see is the consequences of the those bowing down to fear here. You fail to grasp they have allowed for more to think violence is the means to get their way. How many more will die as a consequence of this for you to understand that? You see the problem will not stop by bowing down to fear, what will happen is that the probability is now that more will suffer such violence. Every action has consequences.

If they want to surrender their own freedoms, it's entirely up to them. Maybe they just couldn't be arsed to draw cartoons saying basically the same thing all the time, especially after what happened. You are saying more than that though - you're pretty much saying that these people would be responsible for the deaths of others because they have given up drawing the cartoons. Why should they sacrifice themselves?

If I think there's a high chance the Underground is going to be blown up, I'll take a bus. If you think that makes me a coward, well I just don't care.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Its not to appease me, this is where your understanding falls apart and you are now just repeating tried points already shown to be poor.
Its about these people surrendering their own freedoms themselves and how also their actions can lead now to more believing violence can achieve their aims. All of this has gone way above your head.
I piss you off sometimes, does that mean you believe you are commanded to shoot me? Of course not, you ignore the fundamental root cause of the problem and arguing against the right to free speech. We already stick our heads in the lions den by not bowing down to threats of violence made to us from extremists.
You can bow down to fear and be led by fear Rags, that is of course your choice, but again what you fail to see is the consequences of the those bowing down to fear here. You fail to grasp they have allowed for more to think violence is the means to get their way. How many more will die as a consequence of this for you to understand that? You see the problem will not stop by bowing down to fear, what will happen is that the probability is now that more will suffer such violence. Every action has consequences.

If they want to surrender their own freedoms, it's entirely up to them. Maybe they just couldn't be arsed to draw cartoons saying basically the same thing all the time, especially after what happened. You are saying more than that though - you're pretty much saying that these people would be responsible for the deaths of others because they have given up drawing the cartoons. Why should they sacrifice themselves?

If I think there's a high chance the Underground is going to be blown up, I'll take a bus. If you think that makes me a coward, well I just don't care.

Again consequences. You never took on a single point on this. They could be very much responsible for others now to think violence is a means to get their way. Absolutely they could be the cause, there is no denying this. You fail to grasp that every action has a consequence and that their action could very easily lead more to think violence is the way forward to enforce their views on others. You readily admit they make you fear that you cannot carry on with your previous normal life. They have have forced you to act and do things differently. You have surrendered to them also and that again is your choice. If you think you are in some way decreasing your chances of being attacked, you are again very much mistaken. Nobody has any idea of how and what could be the next area or place targeted.

The most important point you eluded to in your reply to Ben and failed to understand its significance. Can you see what that was?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Raggs, I think the CH staff would be offended to see their work categorized as something merely done to "piss off" Muslims. I think they'd say they were trying to provoke thought and discourse about social issues in their country. They publish a magazine of satire, not a newsletter for a hate movement.

Hmmmmm, I think the aim was to piss off Muslims. I daresay they want to piss off other groups too - but they're not likely to burst in and shoot them all.

Honestly, why go to all the trouble of publishing a magazine if you're just trying to piss people off?

Wikipedia wrote:Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication describes itself as above all secular and atheist,[4] far-left-wing,[5][6] and anti-racist[7] publishing articles about the extreme right (especially the French nationalist National Front party),[8] religion (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism), politics, culture, etc. According to its former editor Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb"), the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers".

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they want to surrender their own freedoms, it's entirely up to them. Maybe they just couldn't be arsed to draw cartoons saying basically the same thing all the time, especially after what happened. You are saying more than that though - you're pretty much saying that these people would be responsible for the deaths of others because they have given up drawing the cartoons. Why should they sacrifice themselves?

If I think there's a high chance the Underground is going to be blown up, I'll take a bus. If you think that makes me a coward, well I just don't care.

Again consequences. You never took on a single point on this. They could be very much responsible for others now to think violence is a means to get their way. Absolutely they could be the cause, there is no denying this. You fail to grasp that every action has a consequence and that their action could very easily lead more to think violence is the way forward to enforce their views on others. You readily admit they make you fear that you cannot carry on with your previous normal life. They have have forced you to act and do things differently. You have surrendered to them also and that again is your choice. If you think you are in some way decreasing your chances of being attacked, you are again very much mistaken. Nobody has any idea of how and what could be the next area or place targeted.

The most important point you eluded to in your reply to Ben and failed to understand its significance. Can you see what that was?

So you think that these people are responsible for the lives of everyone else then Didge, and that they should draw some cartoons in order to prevent more deaths.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

If the underground is going to be blown up, of course I'll decrease my chances of being blown up by getting a bus - that's logical. Better still, I just won't go to London. I do know that an attack can happen anywhere - I've reported suspicious packages, but nobody else seems to take them seriously.

The point about the Charlie Hebdo staff is that they probably think they know where the next attack might happen - in the same place.

If Ben thinks I have missed something, he is free to tell me.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmmmm, I think the aim was to piss off Muslims. I daresay they want to piss off other groups too - but they're not likely to burst in and shoot them all.

Honestly, why go to all the trouble of publishing a magazine if you're just trying to piss people off?

Wikipedia wrote:Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication describes itself as above all secular and atheist,[4] far-left-wing,[5][6] and anti-racist[7] publishing articles about the extreme right (especially the French nationalist National Front party),[8] religion (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism), politics, culture, etc. According to its former editor Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb"), the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers".

It makes money ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Again consequences. You never took on a single point on this. They could be very much responsible for others now to think violence is a means to get their way. Absolutely they could be the cause, there is no denying this. You fail to grasp that every action has a consequence and that their action could very easily lead more to think violence is the way forward to enforce their views on others. You readily admit they make you fear that you cannot carry on with your previous normal life. They have have forced you to act and do things differently. You have surrendered to them also and that again is your choice. If you think you are in some way decreasing your chances of being attacked, you are again very much mistaken. Nobody has any idea of how and what could be the next area or place targeted.

The most important point you eluded to in your reply to Ben and failed to understand its significance. Can you see what that was?

So you think that these people are responsible for the lives of everyone else then Didge, and that they should draw some cartoons in order to prevent more deaths.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

If the underground is going to be blown up, of course I'll decrease my chances of being blown up by getting a bus - that's logical. Better still, I just won't go to London. I do know that an attack can happen anywhere - I've reported suspicious packages, but nobody else seems to take them seriously.

The point about the Charlie Hebdo staff is that they probably think they know where the next attack might happen - in the same place.

If Ben thinks I have missed something, he is free to tell me.

Again you miss the point and the consequences of actions, hence your silly first point. Its up to them what they decide but every act has a consequence. I am not sure how many times this needs to be said before it registers. That means their actions can have consequences, its still up to them what they decide, but again they have not even stopped themselves from even being a target. I also know the debate is turning more silly when the smiles appear. If the bus is going to be the next target of which has already happened, how on earth have you decreased your chances? That let alone fails to factor in if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who even says London would be the next target? You seem to think the obvious is the next target when we see more and more terror being committed that was not obvious. The bombing at the marathon, lone wolf attacks on civilians. The best chances we have is in the intelligence services to prevent attacks at present until a resolution has been found to combat the actual ideology itself.

Its you that has missed something in your own reply and its significance.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that these people are responsible for the lives of everyone else then Didge, and that they should draw some cartoons in order to prevent more deaths.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

If the underground is going to be blown up, of course I'll decrease my chances of being blown up by getting a bus - that's logical. Better still, I just won't go to London. I do know that an attack can happen anywhere - I've reported suspicious packages, but nobody else seems to take them seriously.

The point about the Charlie Hebdo staff is that they probably think they know where the next attack might happen - in the same place.

If Ben thinks I have missed something, he is free to tell me.

Again you miss the point and the consequences of actions, hence your silly first point. Its up to them what they decide but every act has a consequence. I am not sure how many times this needs to be said before it registers. That means their actions can have consequences, its still up to them what they decide, but again they have not even stopped themselves from even being a target I also know the debate is turning more silly when the smiles appear. If the bus is going to be the next target of which has already happened, how on earth have you decreased your chances? That let alone fails to factor in if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who even says London would be the next target? You seem to think the obvious is the next target when we see more and more terror being committed that was not obvious. The bombing at the marathon, lone wolf attacks on civilians. The best chances we have is in the intelligence services to prevent attacks at present until a resolution has been found to combat the actual ideology itself.
Its you have missed something in your own reply and its significance.

What I said was if I thought there was a good chance the Underground would be blown up, I'd take a bus. I do think that some places are more obvious for an attack. I would say that there's more chance of a terrorist attack in London than there is of one in a small village in the middle of nowhere, but hey ...

The point is that the Charlie Hebdo staff weren't merely in the wrong place at the wrong time - they were specifically targeted. You said the killers wanted them to stop drawing the cartoons, so if they continued, they would still be targets, yes? That's how I'd think if I were one of those staff. How do you know that stopping the cartoons hasn't averted another attack?

I'm quite interested in how you plan to combat this ideology Didge. Any ideas?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Again you miss the point and the consequences of actions, hence your silly first point. Its up to them what they decide but every act has a consequence. I am not sure how many times this needs to be said before it registers. That means their actions can have consequences, its still up to them what they decide, but again they have not even stopped themselves from even being a target I also know the debate is turning more silly when the smiles appear. If the bus is going to be the next target of which has already happened, how on earth have you decreased your chances? That let alone fails to factor in if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who even says London would be the next target? You seem to think the obvious is the next target when we see more and more terror being committed that was not obvious. The bombing at the marathon, lone wolf attacks on civilians. The best chances we have is in the intelligence services to prevent attacks at present until a resolution has been found to combat the actual ideology itself.
Its you have missed something in your own reply and its significance.

What I said was if I thought there was a good chance the Underground would be blown up, I'd take a bus. I do think that some places are more obvious for an attack. I would say that there's more chance of a terrorist attack in London than there is of one in a small village in the middle of nowhere, but hey ...

The point is that the Charlie Hebdo staff weren't merely in the wrong place at the wrong time - they were specifically targeted. You said the killers wanted them to stop drawing the cartoons, so if they continued, they would still be targets, yes? That's how I'd think if I were one of those staff. How do you know that stopping the cartoons hasn't avoided another attack?

So if you want to carry out an attack, why would you chose the obvious when the the obvious will be the areas with the most tightest security and surveillance?

OMG how many more times, its not just stopping this magazine but stopping anyone insulting Muhammad. They are still going to be targets like we all are. How many more times must this be explained to you?
Again they still published cartoons after the attack. That means they have still insulted their prophet.
Again how many more times does this need to be said until it sinks in?
Do you think the extremists will now forgive them because they have said they will stop? Even though in the eyes of the extremist they have committed an act to them punishable by death? You really do not understand much about extremism. How do I know it has not stopped avoiding another attack?
Has any of the extremist groups publicly said they will now leave them alone?
None of them have and that is just the organized ones, let alone individual extremists.
Your view is so naive, its ridiculous. Again such a stance makes more believe violence is a means to enforce their views.

Right have a good evening, have to go and will catch up tomorrow.


Night everyone

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm quite interested in how you plan to combat this ideology Didge. Any ideas?

Have many ideas, one that will come most of all from Muslims themselves.

Night.

having won over CH, who;s next then

Perhaps the BBC for reporting all those nasty videos about the peaceful ISIS caliphate.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What I said was if I thought there was a good chance the Underground would be blown up, I'd take a bus. I do think that some places are more obvious for an attack. I would say that there's more chance of a terrorist attack in London than there is of one in a small village in the middle of nowhere, but hey ...

The point is that the Charlie Hebdo staff weren't merely in the wrong place at the wrong time - they were specifically targeted. You said the killers wanted them to stop drawing the cartoons, so if they continued, they would still be targets, yes? That's how I'd think if I were one of those staff. How do you know that stopping the cartoons hasn't avoided another attack?

So if you want to carry out an attack, why would you chose the obvious when the the obvious will be the areas with the most tightest security and surveillance?

OMG how many more times, its not just stopping this magazine but stopping anyone insulting Muhammad. They are still going to be targets like we all are. How many more times must this be explained to you?
Again they still published cartoons after the attack. That means they have still insulted their prophet.
Again how many more times does this need to be said until it sinks in?
Do you think the extremists will now forgive them because they have said they will stop? Even though in the eyes of the extremist they have committed a punishable death? You really do not understand much about extremism. How do I know it has not stopped avoiding another attack?
Has any of the extremist groups publicly said they will now leave them alone?
None of them have and that is just the organized ones, let alone individual extremists.
Your view is so naive, its ridiculous. Again such a stance makes more believe violence is a means to enforce their views.

Right have a good evening, have to go and will catch up tomorrow.


Night everyone

Well you'd think there would have been more security at Charlie Hebdo wouldn't you?

Why do you want to insult Mohammed anyway? Can't you just ignore him?

The point is that you are not putting yourself in the shoes of the staff Didge. You take the view that they will still be targeted, so they might as well continue. I doubt very much that they take that view themselves. You also fail to understand that they may well have just lost heart because their colleagues died because of a cartoon, and that it's not worth it to them.

I will answer this one last point before I go.
You think I should not mock a person 1400 years ago, that heard voices in his head and believed he was talking to an angel.

Here is the best way to reply to that:





Listen to the part about Elvis and then you will understand why such claims in belief should be ridiculed, even more so when many beliefs in that faith go against the very well being of people.

Night

You're so intolerant Didge.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're so intolerant Didge.

Incorrect, I have the ability to rightly say something is completely insane, like believeing a person who readily admits to hearing voices in their head is talking to an angel.If someone came up to me and said they had today, I would no doubt laugh, even more if they said that homosexuals should be executed and that women should be submissive to men based on the voices in their head, claiming it came from a deity. Now most people ignore these glaring problems within their faith and allow yet again fear of retribution in an after life to deny them the ability to see how something claimed is utterly absurd and wrong.Should something like religions be mocked when they are based on the most insane ideas where they abuse the well being of others?

Absolutely, so in ore for people to wake up from the nightmare they believe in, because at the moment they are being led by fear and not any reason. If anyone belives such a deity exists like this, then that deity is not love but hate, which allows people to blindly follow hate.

So I am certainly intolerant of the discrminating views taught within any religion, as a religion is nothing more than an ideology and we should never be tolerant of bad ideologies. Ideologies have to change and become tolerant themselves Rags. The fact is the Abrahamic faiths have some of the most intolerant doctrines and if you think I will  not speak out against discrmination preached in these faiths, then you are sadly mistaken. The fact is more you should speak out to the wrongs in any of these faiths. As they did oin the west which helped change the perceptions of people. You do not bring about change to wrongs commited and practiced by staying silent. So much equality has happened by standing up to and challenging religious beliefs.

Right really have to go, but to claim intolerance when the ideology is intolerant itself is nothing short of hypocrisy. If people want to believe in a loving God that does not effect the lives of others, they have my blessing. If they do not impose their beliefs onto others, they have my blessing, but the moment they preach such intolerance then I will stand up to such madness.

You see, I don't see the point in mocking the Islamic Prophet. It's not as if Muslims are suddenly going to say - oh, Didge doesn't like him much so we'd better stop revering him. Mockery does no good at all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


So if you want to carry out an attack, why would you chose the obvious when the the obvious will be the areas with the most tightest security and surveillance?

OMG how many more times, its not just stopping this magazine but stopping anyone insulting Muhammad. They are still going to be targets like we all are. How many more times must this be explained to you?
Again they still published cartoons after the attack. That means they have still insulted their prophet.
Again how many more times does this need to be said until it sinks in?
Do you think the extremists will now forgive them because they have said they will stop? Even though in the eyes of the extremist they have committed a punishable death? You really do not understand much about extremism. How do I know it has not stopped avoiding another attack?
Has any of the extremist groups publicly said they will now leave them alone?
None of them have and that is just the organized ones, let alone individual extremists.
Your view is so naive, its ridiculous. Again such a stance makes more believe violence is a means to enforce their views.

Right have a good evening, have to go and will catch up tomorrow.


Night everyone

Well you'd think there would have been more security at Charlie Hebdo wouldn't you?

Why do you want to insult Mohammed anyway? Can't you just ignore him?

The point is that you are not putting yourself in the shoes of the staff Didge. You take the view that they will still be targeted, so they might as well continue. I doubt very much that they take that view themselves. You also fail to understand that they may well have just lost heart because their colleagues died because of a cartoon, and that it's not worth it to them.

Well congratulations, well thought out empathy. You've been fibbing all along.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you'd think there would have been more security at Charlie Hebdo wouldn't you?

Why do you want to insult Mohammed anyway? Can't you just ignore him?

The point is that you are not putting yourself in the shoes of the staff Didge. You take the view that they will still be targeted, so they might as well continue. I doubt very much that they take that view themselves. You also fail to understand that they may well have just lost heart because their colleagues died because of a cartoon, and that it's not worth it to them.

Well congratulations, well thought out empathy.  You've been fibbing all along.

Well, you won't be able to use that as an excuse again, if you are horrible about the sick, poor, disabled etc we'll know you could put yourself in their shoes, but you don't want to, you prefer being nasty about them

sassy wrote:Well, you won't be able to use that as an excuse again, if you are horrible about the sick, poor, disabled etc we'll know you could put yourself in their shoes, but you don't want to, you prefer being nasty about them

I don't think I am horrible about them Sassy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Well, you won't be able to use that as an excuse again, if you are horrible about the sick, poor, disabled etc we'll know you could put yourself in their shoes, but you don't want to, you prefer being nasty about them

I don't think I am horrible about them Sassy.

I know, but I think you are

I've been reading about Renald Luzier. He is the cartoonist who drew the front cover following the killings - the one which said Je suis Charlie - all is forgiven. He was late that day, so he missed the attack.

He left Charlie Hebdo after saying he would not draw Mohammed again because it no longer interested him. He also said this:

“Each issue is torture because the others are gone. Spending sleepless nights summoning the dead, wondering what Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous would have done is exhausting,”

I think this man shouldered the burden for long enough. It would have been too much asking him him to carry on in order to be defiant and to appease those who think it's cowardly to give up.

Have to say, I completely agree.

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, I don't see the point in mocking the Islamic Prophet. It's not as if Muslims are suddenly going to say - oh, Didge doesn't like him much so we'd better stop revering him. Mockery does no good at all.

I do not expect things to change over night, it took nearly centuries of standing up to organized Christianity in the west before it was changed. I am utterly bored of the defense made for relgious characters who have no right to a defense when there views found within the religious books are at odds with the very well being and equality of people. You think that deserves respect? Its an utter mockery that people actually buy into this bullshit and follow it. As like I said again, their fear of death and after life, denies them the ability to see what is fundementally wrong with religions. Again why should I show any repsect to a man in history who claimed to hear voices in his head that backs slavery, discrmination to women and homosexuals, allows for husbands to beat their wives and that they must submit to the sexual wishes of their husbands, in other words rape. I can go on the list is endless, but if you think that deserves respect or that a supreme intelligent being would endorse all that. It again proves how people because of a fear of punishment in an after life, allow for the worst discrminations possible. That is not anything that can be constituted as love in any shape or form. Are you claiming to tell me that such a man is deserving of any respect? He is not the worst religious character found within the Abrahamic faiths, the worst found are Moses and Josuha. The problem is these beliefs are enforced unto others daily, where many people suffer because of these backward beliefs and its time people stopped making excuses for that.

Very well said Didge.

nicko wrote:Very well said Didge.

Thanks Nicko.
I mean religions are just ideologies.
Are people saying I should not mock and insult Hitler because it may upset the sensitivities of Nazi believers?
All I am seeing is people trying to defend the indefensible, because it is a belief system where they revere someone who as seen held some of the most backward discrminating beliefs, of which calls on its followers to emulate. That is just asburd to claim I should not ridicule such an poor figure in history. I understand many Muslims do not emulate him, but the fact is many suffer in Muslim majority counties, inlcuding many Muslims because they enforce these  absurd beliefs. I mean seriously, he heard voices in his head, most rational people would seriously question the sanity of such an individual today. Religion should be a personal belief and not enforced onto others.

Off to work, catch you later.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, I don't see the point in mocking the Islamic Prophet. It's not as if Muslims are suddenly going to say - oh, Didge doesn't like him much so we'd better stop revering him. Mockery does no good at all.

I do not expect things to change over night, it took nearly centuries of standing up to organized Christianity in the west before it was changed. I am utterly bored of the defense made for relgious characters who have no right to a defense when there views found within the religious books are at odds with the very well being and equality of people. You think that deserves respect? Its an utter mockery that people actually buy into this bullshit and follow it. As like I said again, their fear of death and after life, denies them the ability to see what is fundementally wrong with religions. Again why should I show any repsect to a man in history who claimed to hear voices in his head that backs slavery, discrmination to women and homosexuals, allows for husbands to beat their wives and that they must submit to the sexual wishes of their husbands, in other words rape. I can go on the list is endless, but if you think that deserves respect or that a supreme intelligent being would endorse all that. It again proves how people because of a fear of punishment in an after life, allow for the worst discrminations possible. That is not anything that can be constituted as love in any shape or form. Are you claiming to tell me that such a man is deserving of any respect? He is not the worst religious character found within the Abrahamic faiths, the worst found are Moses and Josuha. The problem is these beliefs are enforced unto others daily, where many people suffer because of these backward beliefs and its time people stopped making excuses for that.

Do you really think that the way to stop someone doing something or believing something is to tell them you don't respect them for it? Well that worked really well for the Muslims who wanted the Charlie Hebdo staff to stop drawing cartoons mocking Islam didn't it? The more they objected, the more Charlie Hebdo defied them and drew them. It's as clear as anything that the main reason they did was to prove that they won't be told what to do.

Do you really think that telling Muslims their religion is evil, laughable, or backward is going to change their mind about it? No, it's not - you will just get more and more of them despising people like you, and they will get defensive and stick to their guns more than ever.

Cuchulain wrote:

nicko wrote:Very well said Didge.

Thanks Nicko.
I mean religions are just ideologies.
Are people saying I should not mock and insult Hitler because it may upset the sensitivities of Nazi believers?
All I am seeing is people trying to defend the indefensible, because it is a belief system where they revere someone who as seen held some of the most backward discrminating beliefs, of which calls on its followers to emulate. That is just asburd to claim I should not ridicule such an poor figure in history. I understand many Muslims do not emulate him, but the fact is many suffer in Muslim majority counties, inlcuding many Muslims because they enforce these  absurd beliefs. I mean seriously, he heard voices in his head, most rational people would seriously question the sanity of such an individual today. Religion should be a personal belief and not enforced onto others.

Off to work, catch you later.

And you think that this is the way forward do you? You say that many Muslims do not emulate their Prophet, but do you really think that telling them that he is backward, mad, and bad is going to endear you to them? They are still Muslims and their belief is centred around him.

You are are also ignoring the cultural aspects of Islam. For example, the wearing of the Burka is a custom practised by many Muslim women. Are you going to ridicule them as well? What happens when they say to you - well look at girls who aren't Muslims, they go out of the house having forgotten to put their skirt on, and they go around sleeping with boys at a young age, and make a mess of their lives. Exaggeration? Yes, it is, but do you not see that if you get aggressive about their customs, they will get aggressive about the customs you support.

The way I see it is that there are two types of Islamic extremist - the kind who want to enforce their views on others because they think they're superior, and the kind who see themselves as repressed victims because of people like you putting them down all the time.

You seem to have this view of the world whereby you tell someone they're wrong, and they say - oh yes Didge, of course you're right, we'll change our whole belief system immediately.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Thanks Nicko.
I mean religions are just ideologies.
Are people saying I should not mock and insult Hitler because it may upset the sensitivities of Nazi believers?
All I am seeing is people trying to defend the indefensible, because it is a belief system where they revere someone who as seen held some of the most backward discrminating beliefs, of which calls on its followers to emulate. That is just asburd to claim I should not ridicule such an poor figure in history. I understand many Muslims do not emulate him, but the fact is many suffer in Muslim majority counties, inlcuding many Muslims because they enforce these  absurd beliefs. I mean seriously, he heard voices in his head, most rational people would seriously question the sanity of such an individual today. Religion should be a personal belief and not enforced onto others.

Off to work, catch you later.

And you think that this is the way forward do you? You say that many Muslims do not emulate their Prophet, but do you really think that telling them that he is backward, mad, and bad is going to endear you to them? They are still Muslims and their belief is centred around him.

You are are also ignoring the cultural aspects of Islam. For example, the wearing of the Burka is a custom practised by many Muslim women. Are you going to ridicule them as well? What happens when they say to you - well look at girls who aren't Muslims, they go out of the house having forgotten to put their skirt on, and they go around sleeping with boys at a young age, and make a mess of their lives. Exaggeration? Yes, it is, but do you not see that if you get aggressive about their customs, they will get aggressive about the customs you support.

The way I see it is that there are two types of Islamic extremist - the kind who want to enforce their views on others because they think they're superior, and the kind who see themselves as repressed victims because of people like you putting them down all the time.

You seem to have this view of the world whereby you tell someone they're wrong, and they say - oh yes Didge, of course you're right, we'll change our whole belief system immediately.

Yes I do think it is the way forward for people to realise that what they emulate in a person is wrong.
Again is racism right Rags?
No and do we prevent ourselves from saying racism is wrong?
No, that would be absurd and society has moved forward from exactly stating something is wrong.
If you think teaching something is wrong does not help change people then you again fail to understand history.
Of course it will not get through to everyone, but belief in Islam has to radically change like it has with Christianity.
To say we should shy away from condeming poor beliefs is again denying our own liberal beliefs.
In fact it is surrender liberal beliefs to pander to discrminating beliefs.

The fact is more and more progressive Muslims are the way forward and to me the best way forward is to have more Muslims view the hadiths as nothing but an incorrect history of Muhammad. It is within many hadiths that problems within Islam stem and that criminal sharia law is founded upon. I am not going to shy away from stating what is a fact, that Muhammad was nothing more than a minor Warlord that held views at odds with the well being and equality of people. His views may have been ahead of the time but if again we go by the hadiths in regards to the character of Muhammad, then his is far from someone to emulate. The religion has to adpat to the 21st century as at present we are actually seeing those within the faith just as we did within Christianity fighting to prevent change, which will Inevitably happen. More and more Muslims more so in the west are progressive, but even within Christianity where I see jesus as a great teacher I still find fault within the scriptures within his character. Again if you look at the beleifs they use the fear of what happens in the after life denying people tyo see what is fundementally wrong within the faith. Again religions are just an ideology and just because a billion people believe in that fairytale does not make it right.

The well being and equality of people far outweighs any claim to religious beliefs that directly effect the well being and equality of others. Religions follow direct commands and when you look aat ther faiths, there is nothing loving about these deities at all when a punishment is resevered for being even ignorant of that faith in the first place. I mean when you seriously look at religious beliefs the many bad points are fundementally ignored or endorsed by believers. The sad fact is many believers place their diety first and foremost over their own children. How utterly warped is that? All again because they fear not doing so will entail a lasting punishement. To even think such a supreme intelligence would punish people for not being loved is like slowly torturing your own child you created over years. Now any person caught doing that would be locked up for child abuse and violence, yet religious believers deny this with belief in their own deity. The abrahamic beleif systems are shocking poor and deny peeople the ability to reason the most basic rights for people.

So yes its utterly important to show the wrongs found within a religion just as it is important to speak out to anu ideology that is discrminating and wrong. Again belief in a religion should be a personal belief that does not effect the well being and equality of others.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I do not expect things to change over night, it took nearly centuries of standing up to organized Christianity in the west before it was changed. I am utterly bored of the defense made for relgious characters who have no right to a defense when there views found within the religious books are at odds with the very well being and equality of people. You think that deserves respect? Its an utter mockery that people actually buy into this bullshit and follow it. As like I said again, their fear of death and after life, denies them the ability to see what is fundementally wrong with religions. Again why should I show any repsect to a man in history who claimed to hear voices in his head that backs slavery, discrmination to women and homosexuals, allows for husbands to beat their wives and that they must submit to the sexual wishes of their husbands, in other words rape. I can go on the list is endless, but if you think that deserves respect or that a supreme intelligent being would endorse all that. It again proves how people because of a fear of punishment in an after life, allow for the worst discrminations possible. That is not anything that can be constituted as love in any shape or form. Are you claiming to tell me that such a man is deserving of any respect? He is not the worst religious character found within the Abrahamic faiths, the worst found are Moses and Josuha. The problem is these beliefs are enforced unto others daily, where many people suffer because of these backward beliefs and its time people stopped making excuses for that.

Do you really think that the way to stop someone doing something or believing something is to tell them you don't respect them for it? Well that worked really well for the Muslims who wanted the Charlie Hebdo staff to stop drawing cartoons mocking Islam didn't it? The more they objected, the more Charlie Hebdo defied them and drew them. It's as clear as anything that the main reason they did was to prove that they won't be told what to do.

Do you really think that telling Muslims their religion is evil, laughable, or backward is going to change their mind about it? No, it's not - you will just get more and more of them despising people like you, and they will get defensive and stick to their guns more than ever.

That shows you know little of history or how non-beleif is now growing faster than any religious belief.
Laughable you say?
No people are starting to wake up to the bullshit they have been indoctrinated since birth.
Why should I respect someone who believes that they can rape their wife?
Why should a I respect someone who think women should be submissive to them?
Why should I be respectful to someone who thinks someone who leaves their faith should be killed?
Why should I respect someone who believes homosexuals should be killed?
Why should I respect someone who believes that they can marry a child as young as 9?
Why should I respect someone who believes it fine to beat someone just because they commit adultery?
Why should I respect someone who tells me that I am going to burn eternally for not believing in their barbaric deity?


Shall I continue or do you think I should respect any of that?

I think your posts show how little you know about human nature Didge. You will not get a whole group to change by ridiculing them, mocking them, sneering at them, or telling them you don't respect them.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think your posts show how little you know about human nature Didge. You will not get a whole group to change by ridiculing them, mocking them, sneering at them, or telling them you don't respect them.

Well it certainly happened in the west where the majority have changed, so your claim is utterly false.
We have moved away from religious commands and beliefs.
You have utterly no grounds for your statement above.
The fact that you could not respond to my points shows you understand they ring true.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think your posts show how little you know about human nature Didge. You will not get a whole group to change by ridiculing them, mocking them, sneering at them, or telling them you don't respect them.

Well it certainly happened in the west where the majority have changed, so your claim is utterly false.
We have moved away from religious commands and beliefs.
You have utterly no grounds for your statement above.
The fact that you could not respond to my points shows you understand they ring true.

So what do you suggest Didge? Should we send out volunteers to Syria and Iraq to "educate" ISIS? Why don't you go out and tell them that their ideas are backward and stupid? Do you think they'll say that of course you're right, and invite you to stay for tea?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well it certainly happened in the west where the majority have changed, so your claim is utterly false.
We have moved away from religious commands and beliefs.
You have utterly no grounds for your statement above.
The fact that you could not respond to my points shows you understand they ring true.

So what do you suggest Didge? Should we send out volunteers to Syria and Iraq to "educate" ISIS? Why don't you go out and tell them that their ideas are backward and stupid? Do you think they'll say that of course you're right, and invite you to stay for tea?

What a daft reply.
How do you think things changed in the west?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So what do you suggest Didge? Should we send out volunteers to Syria and Iraq to "educate" ISIS? Why don't you go out and tell them that their ideas are backward and stupid? Do you think they'll say that of course you're right, and invite you to stay for tea?

What a daft reply.
How do you think things changed in the west?

Why is it daft? Because I'm ridiculing you?

The only change can come from within. Extremist Muslims will not listen to you - don't you understand that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

What a daft reply.
How do you think things changed in the west?

Why is it daft? Because I'm ridiculing you?

The only change can come from within. Extremist Muslims will not listen to you - don't you understand that?

Its daft because it was idiotic showing you know very little about history and also that you resoprt to such an immature reply because you know you have nothing of subatance so its more me ridiculing you, untill you reply with some maturity.
Again I will ask the simple question, how did it change in the west?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why is it daft? Because I'm ridiculing you?

The only change can come from within. Extremist Muslims will not listen to you - don't you understand that?

Its daft because it was idiotic showing you know very little about history and also that you resoprt to such an immature reply because you know you have nothing of subatance so its more me ridiculing you, untill you reply with some maturity.
Again I will ask the simple question, how did it change in the west?

So come on then - tell me how you are going to make ISIS change their minds and their ways. Don't post around the question this time - face it head on and be a proper man.