Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

so awful to wake up to this. 12 dead including editor in chief, cartoonists and policemen assigned to protect them.

the video footage is chilling.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/07/france-charlie-hebdo-satirical-publisher/21377861/

Hunt them down. Capture them alive and let them rot in jail forever.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:36 pm

reports are now suggesting that at least one of the killers is a returnee from syria

sigh...this would probably NOT have happened if they implememted a "kill on sight" policy for any returning jihadis

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:38 pm

Modify?
How is being civil and decent, one of the very values we hold dear in the west modifying by then being as intolerant of that which we claim is?
Please answer that?

There is nothing wrong with being critical but again you fail to grasp the point.
People are intentionally offending for the intent of deliberately enticing anger, why?
What does that achieve?
What need is there for doing so?

Now again should people be able to do so, of course they should, the point you seem unable to answer though is why?
Why do people feel the need to want to insult people knowing again it can have consequences?

I am not suggesting anything should be stopped but for people to act responsibly.

To then make the most absurd claim you have made to date, that now I endorse people to say women asked to be raped, is of no comparison nor have I ever claimed any such thing. You do understand why men rape women, which is down to the power of control and placing fear into the victim. People who make arguments that women are asking for this are normally clueless conservatives who again hold Christian values, claiming that they are asking for it. Men though do not set out to rape a woman on how she dresses. If you think that why do women no matter how they are dressed or how they look are raped? It is idiot conservatives who perceive that, not the rapists, hence your view had no comparability. Women can wear as they please as they should be able to, but what they wear is is not intended to offend, so how on earth you find that comparable is sheer gobbledygook.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:53 pm

darknessss wrote:reports are now suggesting that at least one of the killers is a returnee from syria

sigh...this would probably NOT have happened if they implememted a "kill on sight" policy for any returning jihadis

Are you suggesting that people stepping off a plane at LHR should just be shot on sight?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:54 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:ohho....
whatever

the point is YOU seem quite willing to be the one on your knees, suggesting WE should modify what WE do to suit THEIR sick agenda

afterall you are the one who is suggesting that the magazine was and is wrong to satirize islam (note along side of christianity and every other beife system going...its not like they were selective in their target

now are you suggesting therefore that ALL satire should be stopped
only religious satire?
only satire aimed at islam?
what about political satire, perhaps we should not satirize kim jomg un lest he send a killer squad
what about personal satire
perhaps we should not alow our royal family to be satirised and send the SAS to kill anyone who dares...because it "offends"

you are making the exact same argument that the sexist fools who say women "ask to be raped" because of how they dress?

Modify?
How is be civil and decent, one of the very values we hold dear in the west modifying by being as intolerant of that which we claim is?
Please answer that?

There is nothing wrong with being critical but again you fail to grasp the point.
People are intentionally offending for the intent of deliberately enticing anger, why?
What does that achieve?
What need is there for doing so?

what does it matter...this time satire ...next time criticism and again you would kneel and say why is it necessary...are we to be retricted to a world of merely that which is "necessary" that fate is worse than islam (did I just say that???)
satire is an old and valuable litery form the problem lies NOT with the form or contnt of the medium but the mental sickness that infests these people they are offended by almost anything

they are offended by the way western women dress
they are offended by people eating pork products in their presence
they are offended by a kid calling its prize soft toy mohammed
they are offended by a simple and non humerous drawing of how someone imagines mohammed to be.
they are offended virtually by anything they fell they would LIKE to be offended by

they are in fact playing the same game as the zionists

and people like you fall into line with them

Now again should people be able to do so, of course they should, the point you seem unable to answer though is why?

so because the bloke up the road is a thug and violent...I should be cowed into "respecting him"?

Why do people feel the need to want to insult people knowing again it can have consequences?

I am not suggesting anything should be stopped but for people to act responsibly.

no you are making a roundabout case for bowing down to their threats

To then make the most absurd claim you have made to date, that now I endorse people to say women asked to be raped, is of no comparison.

No I did not. So stop with the victim card, you are now playing the same game....I said your arguments above bear the same hallmarks as the argument below...

you are saying that if the magazine hadnt "insulted" then it wouldnt have happened....
exactly like the "conservatives" as you put it, say if the woman had dressed modestly it wouldnt have happened...

both your argument AND that one are spurious and do not tackle the REAL problem....

You do understand why men rape women, which is down to the power of control and fer of the victim. People who make arguments that women are asking for this are normally clueless conservatives who again hold Christian values, claiming that they are asking for it. Men though do not set out to rape a woman on how she dresses. If you think that why do women no matter how they are dressed or how they look are raped it is idiot conservatives who perceive that, not the rapists, hence your view had no comparability. Women can wear as they place as they should be able to, but what they wear is is not intended to offend, so how on earth you find that comparable is sheer gobbledygook

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:55 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
darknessss wrote:reports are now suggesting that at least one of the killers is a returnee from syria

sigh...this would probably NOT have happened if they implememted a "kill on sight" policy for any returning jihadis

Are you suggesting that people stepping off a plane at LHR should just be shot on sight?

well perhaps not on sight, it might upset the other passengers, take em round the back of the terminal and do it. Then chuck em in the skip...

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:56 pm

darknessss wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
darknessss wrote:reports are now suggesting that at least one of the killers is a returnee from syria

sigh...this would probably NOT have happened if they implememted a "kill on sight" policy for any returning jihadis

Are you suggesting that people stepping off a plane at LHR should just be shot on sight?
well perhaps not on sight, it might upset the other passengers, take em round the back of the terminal and do it. Then chuck em in the skip...

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:02 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
darknessss wrote:
well perhaps not on sight, it might upset the other passengers, take em round the back of the terminal and do it. Then chuck em in the skip...

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?

well we would have to increase border security..who goes out and comes back

if they are known to have gone "jihadi" then that fact alone is suficient evidence and proof. Never mind if they actually did anything out there the offence is "going jihadi" (in reference to those war zones...NOT a pilgrimage to mecca before the morons bite)

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:03 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
darknessss wrote:
well perhaps not on sight, it might upset the other passengers, take em round the back of the terminal and do it. Then chuck em in the skip...

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?

my thoughts exactly.

in doing this don't you become as bad as the other terrorists killing their own people?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:06 pm

Cass wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?

my thoughts exactly.

in doing this don't you become as bad as the other terrorists killing their own people?

possibly, possibly, however if you DONT then you end up with what has just happened and you kill your own people by neglect.

rock/hard place anyone?

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:06 pm

darknessss wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
darknessss wrote:
well perhaps not on sight, it might upset the other passengers, take em round the back of the terminal and do it. Then chuck em in the skip...

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?
well we would have to increase border security..who goes out and comes back

if they are known to have gone "jihadi" then that fact alone is suficient evidence and proof. Never mind if they actually did anything out there the offence is "going jihadi" (in reference to those war zones...NOT a pilgrimage to mecca before the morons bite)

But people could go out to another country and go on from there. And how many do we know of for certain that have been involved in killings or gone "jihadi" ?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:06 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

what does it matter...this time satire ...next time criticism and again you would kneel and say why is it necessary...are we to be retricted to a world of merely that which is "necessary" that fate is worse than islam (did I just say that???)
satire is an old and valuable litery form the problem lies NOT with the form or contnt of the medium but the mental sickness that infests these people they are offended by almost anything
they are offended by the way western women dress
they are offended by people eating pork products in their presence
they are offended by a kid calling its prize soft toy mohammed
they are offended by a simple and non humerous drawing of how someone imagines mohammed to be.
they are offended virtually by anything they fell they would LIKE to be offended by
they are in fact playing the same game as the zionists
and people like you fall into line with them
so because the bloke up the road is a thug and violent...I should be cowed into "respecting him"?
no you are making a roundabout case for bowing down to their threats
No I did not. So stop with the victim card, you are now playing the same game....I said your arguments above bear the same hallmarks as the argument below...
you are saying that if the magazine hadnt "insulted" then it wouldnt have happened....
exactly like the "conservatives" as you put it, say if the woman had dressed modestly it wouldnt have happened...
both your argument AND that one are spurious and do not tackle the REAL problem....

Sorry I cannot debate with someone so clueless they fail to see any point being made and then assume things I have not even stated.
Some Muslims are offended at things, this is not the point of what I am even asking you.
Neither am I asking you to cower to anything.
We claim that these Muslims are intolerant, so why are you wishing to be as intolerant like them?
That makes you just as intolerant as they are.
It achieves nothing.

This is a very simple point you have failed to answer in every post. One last chance to redeem yourself because you have not grasped a single point I have made.

Again I am not asking anyone to bend over, bow down, that people can say as they please, that people have freedom of expression, which I backed to the hilt. Why though do people feel they need to offend something when they have no need to do so?
Why do they set out to offend knowing it is going to create anger?
Why do they do this knowing that some extremists will kill based on their extremists beliefs.
What does this achieve by offending them?
What does it achieve to offend anyone?
What does the person hope to gain by offending someone?

Nobody is asking you to respect anyone, I do not respect racists, or homophobes, or sexists etc, but would there be a need to offend them?
No, why would they be, if I did, and believe me I have fallen victim to doing this, then this makes me as intolerant as they are.
You see because some Muslims are intolerant some people here want to be as intolerant as them and what sets us apart from any of the Theocratic nations is we are tolerant.

Do you understand this simple point.??

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:08 pm

darknessss wrote:
Cass wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?

my thoughts exactly.

in doing this don't you become as bad as the other terrorists killing their own people?

possibly, possibly, however if you DONT then you end up with what has just happened and you kill your own people by neglect.

rock/hard place anyone?

So if you're going to throw right and wrong out the window, what's left to decide who deserves to be shot on sight in the first place?

I think I know your answer, because you're kind of a hatey sort of person, right?

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:10 pm

Cass wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
darknessss wrote:
well perhaps not on sight, it might upset the other passengers, take em round the back of the terminal and do it. Then chuck em in the skip...

How would you know for sure who they are and if they had killed anyone or taken part in killing anyone?

my thoughts exactly.

in doing this don't you become as bad as the other terrorists killing their own people?

Exactly. By all means arrest them and put them on trial and if found guilty then punish them under the law.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:12 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:

possibly, possibly, however if you DONT then you end up with what has just happened and you kill your own people by neglect.

rock/hard place anyone?

So if you're going to throw right and wrong out the window, what's left to decide who deserves to be shot on sight in the first place?

I think I know your answer, because you're kind of a hatey sort of person, right?

Tad unfair, he is angry, at what goes on, as we all are but allows negative emotions like fear to control his views.
His is intelligent and is making for a good debate, though am not going to keep asking for the same question to be answered.
So am glad he is here to debate and on that note I wish all a good evening and to you darkness, welcome to have you on board.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:14 pm

darknessss wrote:
Cass wrote:

my thoughts exactly.

in doing this don't you become as bad as the other terrorists killing their own people?

possibly, possibly, however if you DONT then you end up with what has just happened and you kill your own people by neglect.

rock/hard place anyone?

I agree with you about rock/hard place but......

we brought this shit on ourselves by meddling in the area for thousands of years. ive said it before, payback is a bitch. There is no easy answer. BUT the West (mainly the US) must pull out of the middle east and end ALL funding to other countries that support terrorists within their borders.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:26 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Sorry I cannot debate with someone so clueless they fail to see any point being made and then assume things I have not even stated.
Some Muslims are offended at things, this is not the point of what I am even asking you.

BUT IT IS relevant is it not....since IF they silence satire then what next ...the same attack in a cafe serving pork on a bap? because it "offends" them?
shoot down a few women because their dress "offends them"

Neither am I asking you to cower to anything.
We claim that these Muslims are intolerant, so why are you wishing to be as intolerant of them?

because i beleive in fighting fire with fire if necessary, because i beleive that sometimes radical surgery is necessary to ssave the patient

This is a very simple point you have failed to answer in every post. One last chance to redeem yourself because you have not grasped a single point I have made.

Again I am not asking anyone to bend over, bow down, that people can say as they please, that people have freedom of expression, which I backed to the hilt. Why though do people feel they need to offend something when they have no need to do so?
Why do they set out to offend knowing it is going to create anger?
Why do they do this knowing that some extremists will kill based on their extremists beliefs.
What does this achieve by offending them?
What does it achieve to offend anyone?
What does the person hope to gain by offending someone?

The problem is your questions are largely irrelevent to the subject, it is NOT a question of whether the magazine was right or wrong (in the moralistic sense you suggest)
the question is why WE allow such deviant views that fed this atrocity to have breathing space in our society.
No matter HOW you dress it up, to question in the least the irredeemable right to offend without retribution (bar a returned insult) is to give oxygen to thiose who would use it to restrict ALL criticism and debate.

I repeat
"Index chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: "The ability to express ourselves freely is fundamental to a free society.

"This includes the freedom to publish, to satirise, to joke, to criticise, even when that might cause offence to others. Those who wish to silence free speech must never be allowed to prevail."

Nobody is asking you to respect anyone, I do not respect racists, or homophobes, or sexists etc, but would there be a need to offend them?

how do you define "offend"
you certainly (perhaps in many cases rightly) criticise them (and the things they belive in) and therefor according to the Muslim attitude you have perforce "offended" them....

does that mean they should, as these Muslims have done, shoot you, would you reasonably expect them to, and therefor will you henceforth refrain from doing so?

No, why would they be, if I did, and believe me I have fallen victim to doing this, then this makes me as intolerant as they are.
You see because some Muslims are intolerant some people here want to be as intolerant as them and what sets us apart from any of the Theocratic nations is we are tolerant.

Do you understand this simple point.??

I see well enough your argument, but I discount it as it is simplistic and fails to see the whole picture and fails to allow for the inevitable increase in scope. today satire tomorrow criticism.

moreover arguing as you do, you are still, despite your emphatic denial, whilst not overtly justifying this attack, certainly giving it some legitimacy....

"if he didnt say that i wouldnt have done this" is not allowed....

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:32 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:

possibly, possibly, however if you DONT then you end up with what has just happened and you kill your own people by neglect.

rock/hard place anyone?

So if you're going to throw right and wrong out the window, what's left to decide who deserves to be shot on sight in the first place?

so what do you want me to say? how about "shoot the feckin lot and let allah pick out the good ones?" meh...make "going jihadi " (NOT as I pointed out earlier going on a pilgrimage to mecca) should be the offence and the penatly should be death...or at least permanent exile....

I think I know your answer, because you're kind of a hatey sort of person, right?

yeah I hate the world and everyone in it..cue manic laughter...

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:40 pm

darknessss wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
So if you're going to throw right and wrong out the window, what's left to decide who deserves to be shot on sight in the first place?
so what do you want me to say? how about "shoot the feckin lot and let allah pick out the good ones?" meh...make "going jihadi " (NOT as I pointed out earlier going on a pilgrimage to mecca) should be the offence and the penatly should be death...or at least permanent exile....
I think I know your answer, because you're kind of a hatey sort of person, right?
yeah I hate the world and everyone in it..cue manic laughter...

so wouldn't that be counter-productive and actually would be used as a recruiting tool by AQ IS and any affiliates?

and as sadly shown by today, the wests' intelligence services are not infalliable so how could you prove someone went on jihadi and not end up shooting an innocent person?

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:43 pm

Jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam, only a very few label it as violence against Westerners (for oppression of Islamic populations) or against non-believers. Actually, the concept exists in Christianity as a very mainstream idea, though the word's not used. Basically, think of when Christians refer to carrying their crosses, a symbol of an added burden created by religious obligation; or when Jesus told Christians they would be persecuted, but that persecution was a blessing.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:46 pm

So finally after many times asking I get an answer.

You want to be as intolerant as they are, by saying fight fire with fire.

That is a very flawed philosophy, which just pulls more people into a vicious cycle of hate that is unending which sees more and more people surfer unnecessarily.

You did fail to see the point of all the questions I asked you because your negative emotions are ruling any rational reasoning.
You have taken the view now that this must be a fight now to be as intolerant of them. Where ever you go down the road of intolerance there is always going to be people on the Muslim extremist side thinking the same as you and reacting the same as you and many more join this hate.

The biggest point you failed to understand in any of this is there is no need for people to act irresponsibly, what you are in fact saying is that it is morally and ethically justified to offend people. Not on any level will it ever be, which is the problem again you wrong view that you are justified to do so and off a belief of freedom of expression. If you believe that hate will achieve something being as it is hate what they are trying to achieve then you fall into the very hands they set out for you to follow. Extremists and far right extremists in the west are trying to argue again of a belief centered around a view to fight a war that has continued on and off for centuries as I have stated earlier and nobody won anything other than many people dying.

The thing that stands us apart from Muslim Theocracies is that in the west we have overcome such religious control with secular views and it is these secular views. This has brought about much change and equality, because it uses a base point that what is fundamental to each person is the your own well being and equality, which does not conflict with the well being and equality of others.
You do understand this very principle is how we have set life in the west around. Yet now people want to throw this away based on others being intolerant to then be as intolerant as they are. It was fighting this intolerance in the west standing up to it, not with intolerance but rational arguments that brought about change from Christian control and for this change to happen in the Middle east, needs to come from seeing we are tolerant. This has had an affect there and why also we have seen an increase in extremism. With the advent of the Arab springs many Young Muslims in the said countries wanted this same well being and equality and rose up for it. Sadly they have been crushed in the main because they were not string enough yet to bring about change from the Muslim conservatives but in time it will change and happen.

This you fundamentally don not understand and by seeking to fight some battle you wish to wage, will set this back years the more people stand divided on both sides. It was our views in the west that many young Muslims were striving to obtain and we should not allow many of them to have died in vain, because they wanted to bring about equality, religious freedom and democracy free from religious rule. You will not bring about this change with intolerance, the west never brought about the change of over coming religious control with intolerance of Christianity, did it, reason did.

That is what you need to begin to understand, so no I do not justify this attack at all, it is yourself that by your anger and fueling of hate that is going to ensure such attacks continue.

Think again about the questions I asked you in the previous post:

Again I am not asking anyone to bend over, bow down, that people can say as they please, that people have freedom of expression, which I backed to the hilt. Why though do people feel they need to offend something when they have no need to do so?
Why do they set out to offend knowing it is going to create anger?
Why do they do this knowing that some extremists will kill based on their extremists beliefs.
What does this achieve by offending them?
What does it achieve to offend anyone?
What does the person hope to gain by offending someone?

Right really have to go

Night Darkness

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:46 pm

Cass wrote:
darknessss wrote:

so wouldn't that be counter-productive and actually would be used as a recruiting tool by AQ IS and any affiliates?

and as sadly shown by today, the wests' intelligence services are not infalliable so how could you prove someone went on jihadi and not end up shooting an innocent person?

Ok I get it ...better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent die....

so ...just permanently exile them its then up to them to prove otherwise.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:48 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam, only a very few label it as violence against Westerners (for oppression of Islamic populations) or against non-believers. Actually, the concept exists in Christianity as a very mainstream idea, though the word's not used. Basically, think of when Christians refer to carrying their crosses, a symbol of an added burden created by religious obligation; or when Jesus told Christians they would be persecuted, but that persecution was a blessing.

yah dont say Rolling Eyes

i think the meaning of my usage of jihad is evident from the context its used in dont you??

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:51 pm

Brasidas wrote:So finally after many times asking I get an answer.

You want to be as intolerant as they are, by saying fight fire with fire.

That is a very flawed philosophy, which just pulls more people into a vicious cycle of hate that is unending which sees more and more people surfer unnecessarily.

You did fail to see the point of all the questions I asked you because your negative emotions are ruling any rational reasoning.
You have taken the view now that this must be a fight now to be as intolerant of them. Where ever you go down the road of intolerance there is always going to be people on the Muslim extremist side thinking the same as you and reacting the same as you and many more join this hate.

The biggest point you failed to understand in any of this is there is no need for people to act irresponsibly, what you are in fact saying is that it is morally and ethically justified to offend people. Not on any level will it ever be, which is the problem again you wrong view that you are justified to do so and off a belief of freedom of expression. If you believe that hate will achieve something being as it is hate what they are trying to achieve then you fall into the very hands they set out for you to follow. Extremists and far right extremists in the west are trying to argue again of a belief centered around a view to fight a war that has continued on and off for centuries as I have stated earlier and nobody won anything other than many people dying.

The thing that stands us apart from Muslim Theocracies is that in the west we have overcome such religious control with secular views and it is these secular views. This has brought about much change and equality, because it uses a base point that what is fundamental to each person is the your own well being and equality, which does not conflict with the well being and equality of others.
You do understand this very principle is how we have set life in the west around. Yet now people want to throw this away based on others being intolerant to then be as intolerant as they are. It was fighting this intolerance in the west standing up to it, not with intolerance but rational arguments that brought about change from Christian control and for this change to happen in the Middle east, needs to come from seeing we are tolerant. This has had an affect there and why also we have seen an increase in extremism. With the advent of the Arab springs many Young Muslims in the said countries wanted this same well being and equality and rose up for it. Sadly they have been crushed in the main because they were not string enough yet to bring about change from the Muslim conservatives but in time it will change and happen.

This you fundamentally don not understand and by seeking to fight some battle you wish to wage, will set this back years the more people stand divided on both sides. It was our views in the west that many young Muslims were striving to obtain and we should not allow many of them to have died in vain, because they wanted to bring about equality, religious freedom and democracy free from religious rule. You will not bring about this change with intolerance, the west never brought about the change of over coming religious control with intolerance of Christianity, did it, reason did.

That is what you need to begin to understand, so no I do not justify this attack at all, it is yourself that by your anger and fueling of hate that is going to ensure such attacks continue.

Think again about the questions I asked you in the previous post:

Again I am not asking anyone to bend over, bow down, that people can say as they please, that people have freedom of expression, which I backed to the hilt. Why though do people feel they need to offend something when they have no need to do so?
Why do they set out to offend knowing it is going to create anger?
Why do they do this knowing that some extremists will kill based on their extremists beliefs.
What does this achieve by offending them?
What does it achieve to offend anyone?
What does the person hope to gain by offending someone?

Right really have to go

Night Darkness

THIS

"Nobody is asking you to respect anyone, I do not respect racists, or homophobes, or sexists etc, but would there be a need to offend them?

how do you define "offend"
you certainly (perhaps in many cases rightly) criticise them (and the things they belive in) and therefor according to the Muslim attitude you have perforce "offended" them....

does that mean they should, as these Muslims have done, shoot you, would you reasonably expect them to, and therefor will you henceforth refrain from doing so?"

and THIS

"I see well enough your argument, but I discount it as it is simplistic and fails to see the whole picture and fails to allow for the inevitable increase in scope. today satire tomorrow criticism.

moreover arguing as you do, you are still, despite your emphatic denial, whilst not overtly justifying this attack, certainly giving it some legitimacy....

"if he didnt say that i wouldnt have done this" is not allowed...."

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:56 pm

Claiming something is simplistic shows you fail to see how your own view is. You hold intolerant views, that is as simplistic as it gets, mine is one that has shaped society in the west and has continued to do so based off learning how dangerous intolerance can be, where the 20th century shows to the cost of millions.
So you need to do better next time I am here, as intolerance is the most simplistic reason you can find, one that has no logic and one that lacks rational thinking.
Again you fail to see it is actually yourself giving legitimacy to the extremists, who's use is terror and the main aim of terror, is to instill fear and it is fear, that is making you act to be intolerant.

Until tomorrow

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:57 pm

darknessss wrote:
Cass wrote:

so wouldn't that be counter-productive and actually would be used as a recruiting tool by AQ IS and any affiliates?

and as sadly shown by today, the wests' intelligence services are not infalliable so how could you prove someone went on jihadi and not end up shooting an innocent person?

Ok I get it ...better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent die....

so ...just permanently exile them its then up to them to prove otherwise.

it sucks but that's how I rather it would be rather than playing into their hands which is exactly what your fight fire with fire route would do.

by exiling them you then go against everything that we, as the West, are collectively supposed to have been fighting for I.e. democracy. If this is the case then pray tell what exactly has this "War on Terror" been really about? is it another case of "let's get dem damn commies " but substitute Muslims?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:58 pm

Brasidas wrote:Claiming something is simplistic shows you fail to see how your own view is. You hold intolerant views, that is as simplistic as it gets, mine is one that has shaped society in the west and has continued to do so based off learning how dangerous intolerance can be, where the 20th century shows to the cost of millions.
So you need to do better next time I am here, as intolerance is the most simplistic reason you can find, one that has no logic and one that lacks rational thinking.
Again you fail to see it is actually yourself giving legitimacy to the extremists, who's use is terror and the main aim of terror, is to instill fear and it is fear, that is making you act to be intolerant.

Until tomorrow

I could keep you here all night...you realise that dont you? Cool

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:58 pm

You want me to define offend.
Anything that affects your well being and your equality.
Is that good enough to understand
See how this measure works on everything?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:59 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Claiming something is simplistic shows you fail to see how your own view is. You hold intolerant views, that is as simplistic as it gets, mine is one that has shaped society in the west and has continued to do so based off learning how dangerous intolerance can be, where the 20th century shows to the cost of millions.
So you need to do better next time I am here, as intolerance is the most simplistic reason you can find, one that has no logic and one that lacks rational thinking.
Again you fail to see it is actually yourself giving legitimacy to the extremists, who's use is terror and the main aim of terror, is to instill fear and it is fear, that is making you act to be intolerant.

Until tomorrow

I could keep you here all night...you realise that dont you?

I love to debate, but "not tonight Josephine", I have work tomorrow?

See ya darkness

Laughing

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:03 pm

Cass wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Ok I get it ...better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent die....

so ...just permanently exile them its then up to them to prove otherwise.

it sucks but that's how I rather it would be rather than playing into their hands which is exactly what your fight fire with fire route would do.

by exiling them you then go against everything that we, as the West, are collectively supposed to have been fighting for I.e. democracy. If this is the case then pray tell what exactly has this "War on Terror" been really about? is it another case of "let's get dem damn commies " but substitute Muslims?

Well....when everyone is forced to conceed to islam "because we are democratic" you will finally learn your lesson....

If as Bras says the magazine is the one at fault and that view gains ascendency, then we are finished that will become the defining point of islams victory over the west and its institutions...

why, because after satire
criticism will be murdered
then dissent
then
merel;y "not likeing"
then
not becoming the same......

and before you say "thats absurd...answer me this...what or who will stop it??

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:04 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

I could keep you here all night...you realise that dont you?

I love to debate, but "not tonight Josephine", I have work tomorrow?

See ya darkness

oh and you are missing two "s" s

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:13 pm

darknessss wrote:
Cass wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Ok I get it ...better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent die....

so ...just permanently exile them its then up to them to prove otherwise.

it sucks but that's how I rather it would be rather than playing into their hands which is exactly what your fight fire with fire route would do.

by exiling them you then go against everything that we, as the West, are collectively supposed to have been fighting for I.e. democracy. If this is the case then pray tell what exactly has this "War on Terror" been really about? is it another case of "let's get dem damn commies " but substitute Muslims?

Well....when everyone is forced to conceed to islam "because we are democratic" you will finally learn your lesson....

If as Bras says the magazine is the one at fault and that view gains ascendency, then we are finished that will become the defining point of islams victory over the west and its institutions...

why, because after satire
criticism will be murdered
then dissent
then
merel;y "not likeing"
then
not becoming the same......

and before you say "thats absurd...answer me this...what or who will stop it??

but that's just a problem in Europe and UK Neutral

Aussie Muslims don't get offended by that stuff....
the Magazine provokes but the individuals engaging in terrorism are still at fault..

What will stop it? secularism, kindness and compassion.
why? because they are what is right.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:16 pm

@darknessss

yeah the crusaders, Christians, west neo-cons etc...have been saying that for yonks....first it was the Jews, then Islam, protestants, Huns, Japs, Nazis, commies and back to Islam again......and it still hasn't happened. can you give me a firm date because, I for one, am tired of putting off getting my hair done due to the encroaching apocalypse .....

well when you satirize something that means a lot to a huge number of people and it is rude and disrespectful, you cant then simply throw your hands up and scream freedom of speech when shit hits the fan....you have to take some responsibility....sadly there are loonies around who will act out against insults real and perceived.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:18 pm

dammit.....stoopid technology

as to your final point Veya beat me to it

because it is what separates us from terrorists

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:22 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Well....when everyone is forced to conceed to islam "because we are democratic" you will finally learn your lesson....

If as Bras says the magazine is the one at fault and that view gains ascendency, then we are finished that will become the defining point of islams victory over the west and its institutions...

why, because after satire
criticism will be murdered
then dissent
then
merel;y "not likeing"
then
not becoming the same......

and before you say "thats absurd...answer me this...what or who will stop it??

but that's just a problem in Europe and UK
Aussie Muslims don't get offended by that stuff....
the Magazine provokes but the individuals engaging in terrorism are still at fault..

What will stop it? secularism, kindness and compassion.
why? because they are what is right.

and since when has "being right" of itself and soley ever won the day?

the jews at massada were "righteous" how much good did THAT do them?
the mayans were within the context of their lives "right" ...uhm......
your own native people were "right" nuff said

right does not equal might OR success

doing the "right thing" has made more dead heros than anything else
doing the right thing has made more dead than any other things full stop.

hell even the dinosaurs were "right"...untill the great one changed the rules

I recon you upside down lot must have got all the upside down Muslims, perhaps we could do a swap?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:30 pm

Cass wrote:@darknessss

yeah the crusaders, Christians, west neo-cons etc...have been saying that for yonks....first it was the Jews, then Islam, protestants, Huns, naps, Nazis, Commissar and back to Islam again......and it still hasn't happened. can you give me a firm date because, I for one, am tired of putting off getting my hair done due to the encroaching apocalypse .....

well when you satirize something that means a lot to a huge number of people and it is rude and disrespectful, you cant then simply throw your hands up and scream freedom of speech when shit hits the fan....you have to take some responsibility....sadly there are loonies around who will act out against insults real and perceived.

you dont get it do you

satirising islam is a gross insult ok...I can see that, but ...tough life as they say is a bitch....insult back if you want...we like wars of words..."your mother is a hamster and your father smells of geraniums" blah blah

BUT so is critcising islam, questioning allah's words in fact almost anything. is fuel to the idiocy these people indulge in.

so i ask you whats next if we suppress satire....At what point will these people be satisfied...

the answer is there in front of you...their beliefe of a universal caliphate......Dar as salam

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:44 pm

or most of us down here don't get offended by much Wink

really... you think any of them were right? and none were secular a crucial point, what binds us is not our gods or faith but our humanity.

there is also the other side of it it we are strong, we are so much stronger we can Choose to be kind. for no reason other than kindness.

and it works, an individual that is isolated by the community is far more like to be able to attack that community as they see themselves as separate from it. this also causes people to search for acceptance elsewhere, basically plays right into the hands Zealots trying to radicalise the young and dispossessed.

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:48 pm

no I get it.
the point is that its just a more gruesome and deadly version of tit for tat.

perhaps if people realized what the responsibility and price is for freedom of speech then just maybe it would've stopped a whole lot of crap going down

BUT this whole fubared mess is so much more....today is only a by-product of the bigger picture that rests mostly with the West dicking around in the middle east.

Until THAT issue is sorted out, we will continue to see them play the bait with this and beheadings etc.....

there is no win situation, we damn well made sure of that.

Anyhoos I'm done. thanks for an interesting chat.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:53 pm

veya_victaous wrote:or most of us down here don't get offended by much

really... you think any of them were right? and none were secular a crucial point, what binds us is not our gods or faith but our humanity.

there is also the other side of it it we are strong, we are so much stronger we can Choose to be kind. for no reason other than kindness.

and it works, an individual that is isolated by the community is far more like to be able to attack that community as they see themselves as separate from it. this also causes people to search for acceptance elsewhere, basically plays right into the hands Zealots trying to radicalise the young and dispossessed.

are you certain thats what is saving you?

and not the fact that you are entirely unimportant and on a global footing impotent
you are hradly a nation that is a doer or mover, you have rolled over to the far eastern block
you are, globally at least, financially unimportant,
your exports are in general of secondary concern
granted you have a nice rocket launch facility
and some fine wildlife
but seriously...

when worldwide concerns arise Australia is an after thought

untill the rest of the world needs an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the southern ocean...

Razz

Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 2 4233679493

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:54 pm

Cass wrote:no I get it.
the point is that its just a more gruesome and deadly version of tit for tat.

perhaps if people realized what the responsibility and price is for freedom of speech then just maybe it would've stopped a whole lot of crap going down

BUT this whole fubared mess is so much more....today is only a by-product of the bigger picture that rests mostly with the West dicking around in the middle east.

Until THAT issue is sorted out, we will continue to see them play the bait with this and beheadings etc.....

there is no win situation, we damn well made sure of that.

Anyhoos I'm done. thanks for an interesting chat.

good night ma'am

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:14 am

darknessss wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:or most of us down here don't get offended by much

really... you think any of them were right? and none were secular a crucial point, what binds us is not our gods or faith but our humanity.

there is also the other side of it it we are strong, we are so much stronger we can Choose to be kind. for no reason other than kindness.

and it works, an individual that is isolated by the community is far more like to be able to attack that community as they see themselves as separate from it. this also causes people to search for acceptance elsewhere, basically plays right into the hands Zealots trying to radicalise the young and dispossessed.

are you certain thats what is saving you?

and not the fact that you are entirely unimportant and on a global footing impotent
you are hradly a nation that is a doer or mover, you have rolled over to the far eastern block
you are, globally at least, financially unimportant,
your exports are in general of secondary concern
granted you have a nice rocket launch facility
and some fine wildlife
but seriously...

when worldwide concerns arise Australia is an after thought

untill the rest of the world needs an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the southern ocean...

we have twice the Islamic population of Britain for a start
and we are the 11th largest economy in earth, we are one of the only nations that has trade SURPLUSES with India and China.
And we are the Largest (only other than Russia) exporter of military grade Uranium in the World.
UK exports??? Suspect

Basically we haven't beaten you yet but it is inevitable like the rising of the sun. pirat

the UK GDP per Capita (what 1 Brits is worth )
39,336.91 USD
the Australian GDP per Capita (what 1 Aussie is worth)
67,468.07 USD

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:16 am

Wait are you one of the old people that Think Europe is Not 3rd world Razz

man you guys over there in your crazy time capsule nations. So cute the way you are so far behind the times.

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:46 am

you might like this

from http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-massacre-how-the-west-will-respond/

though already one of the points (number 5) has already been well pushed by brasidias.

5. Warming to this theme – and once the bodies are sufficiently cold, so as not to offend anyone’s good taste – one or two braver liberal commentators will suggest that while, of course, they wholly condemn all such acts of violence, it’s nevertheless the case that one or two of Charlie Hebdo’s editorials and cartoons could be quite needlessly provocative and that their contribution to the current climate of Islamophobia may have been responsible for heightening religious tensions in the broader culture. There have to be limits to free speech, after all. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.

I have trimmed it out since I assume that C&P of an entire article is discouraged????

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:13 am

Secularism must prevail
they can be offended everyone has the right to be offended and be offensive, but that doesn't in anyway allow killing someone.

we do need to consider that the magazine was provocative as why the crazy individuals attacked them specifically but again that doesn't change the fact that they are crazy murderers. the people at fault are the crazy murders the people society should focus on removing are crazy murderers.

the Idea that 'killing someone because the disagree or are different is Okay' is the REAL issue.

that article is pretty poor considering after the Sydney terrorist attack it was Murdock Papers (Right wing) trying to inflame hatred and Aussies twitter users without media affiliation that told him to fuck off.
You see to Me and Most Sydneysiders, Muslims just aren't that special they are just normal people most of us work and are friends with a least one Muslim. we know there is not some secret conspiracy because that is just plain fucking stupid. that article and the comments sound like someone accidentally connected the internet to some archaic hill peasants that just garble on about what they heard drunken Father Ned say about those Commies based on the Spaniard he meet once.
Fuck me there is even a commentator saying Muslims and Communist get along??? what a retard, Who the fuck does he think we gave the guns to them to fight in the first place ??????

you accuse Aussies of walking on our heads
considering how scrambled everyone's brains are in your part of the world I'd be considering that You go things the wrong way up.
Mind you we are the land of Snakes, not God so we got all that understanding of right and wrong stuff Wink

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:58 am

Brasidas wrote:You want me to define offend.
Anything that affects your well being and your equality.
Is that good enough to understand
See how this measure works on everything?

ok so now I'm offended because my earnings are below that of my neighbours thus making me unequal
can i go all explosive about it?

see your definition doesnt work...

I'm offended because I'm not considered the equal of the prime minister....
or....whatever......

I'm even MORE offended because (practically as opposed to good law) my word would be cionsidered worth less than that of a police officer in court

etc etc etc....

and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???

you are funny......

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:36 am

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:You want me to define offend.
Anything that affects your well being and your equality.
Is that good enough to understand
See how this measure works on everything?

ok so now I'm offended because my earnings are below that of my neighbours thus making me unequal
can i go all explosive about it?

see your definition doesnt work...

I'm offended because I'm not considered the equal of the prime minister....
or....whatever......

I'm even MORE offended because (practically as opposed to good law) my word would be cionsidered worth less than that of a police officer in court

etc etc etc....

and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???

you are funny......

'offend' something you find unpleasant in a confrontational way.

I actually agree with Darknessss it is not always about well being and equality (but you would be right to be offended by something effecting those things) some times it is personal taste and preference.

Regardless, being offended doesn't entitle you to commit violent acts. Personally I think so many issues are caused by people paying too much attention to people being offended. like the crying toddler, all it does is make them believe the legitimacy of their complaint.
Every one has a right to be offended and to be offensive. that right doesn't mean people don't get to abuse you for it (offend you back) it is alright, everyone doesn't have to agree and be friends they just have to agree to not kill each other.

it is a lot better if everyone also agrees to work together in building a strong nation. part of the Europe issue is that even amongst Europeans there is a lot of racism/dislike towards other Europeans (that look almost identical and have very similar culture) so it must be Very hard for someone that is not even from Europe to fit in and fell like they belong and are represented.

I know a lot of this is historical but well Europe forced the rest of the world to adapt, so it is a bit pathetic now to cry about how hard it is. geek

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:26 am

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:You want me to define offend.
Anything that affects your well being and your equality.
Is that good enough to understand
See how this measure works on everything?

ok so now I'm offended because my earnings are below that of my neighbours thus making me unequal
can i go all explosive about it?
see your definition doesnt work...
I'm offended because I'm not considered the equal of the prime minister....or....whatever......
I'm even MORE offended because (practically as opposed to good law) my word would be cionsidered worth less than that of a police officer in court
etc etc etc....
and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???
you are funny......

You are indeed because you just showed you do not understand equality and well being

Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 2 3489511464

Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 2 3489511464

You do understand equality do you not? And think about what you said about the Prime Minister, as how do you not have the same equal rights?
Seriously that was a real no egg on face tie on your part.
If your equal rights are being denied what does that tell you?
Equality is having the same rights, not because somebody has been elected Prime Minister through democracy you could also do yourself.
Seriously you really show up not being smart on that
So if your rights have been denied and your well being affected,for example you are discriminated, your well being affected and not treated with equality is then being offended.
Very simple and again you can apply to everything as this for a standard.

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:32 am

darknessss wrote:
Cass wrote:

it sucks but that's how I rather it would be rather than playing into their hands which is exactly what your fight fire with fire route would do.

by exiling them you then go against everything that we, as the West, are collectively supposed to have been fighting for I.e. democracy. If this is the case then pray tell what exactly has this "War on Terror" been really about? is it another case of "let's get dem damn commies " but substitute Muslims?

Well....when everyone is forced to conceed to islam "because we are democratic" you will finally learn your lesson....

If as Bras says the magazine is the one at fault and that view gains ascendency, then we are finished that will become the defining point of islams victory over the west and its institutions...

why, because after satire
criticism will be murdered
then dissent
then
merel;y "not likeing"
then
not becoming the same......

and before you say "thats absurd...answer me this...what or who will stop it??

Why is it people keep wrongly refereeing to something as if it is an entity, since when did Islam become a being?
You do understand cause and affect and still fail to understand there is no reason to openly offend someone.
If I was to come into your own home and you have guests and openly insulted them you clearly would ask me to leave, the same principle applies here.
You seem to be excusing people offending others deliberately based around nothing more than something which is more than a personal dislike of a religion.
The point even worse you have used fire with fire is now for you to think of something which does not affect you and you want to now insult this based on you think it is acceptable to insult.
Show me and ethical or moral reason it is ever okay to insult?
There never is, so what is creating this problem here?
Two things, one, an over insensitive religion and two and over insensitive offender.
Neither are right, and neither are justified, yet you attempt to justify one.
Learn cause and affect, the fact is there is never a reason to offend, yet people think it is acceptable, when it never is.

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:52 am

As I was saying yesterday, in regards to the precision of the attack:

The killers carried out their lethal mission with military precision. They sought out the cartoonists by name before executing them and turning their guns on the others.

The video clip from the street showed a high level of training: they used their Kalashnikov AK-47s in a semi-automatic mode, rather than fully automatic and spraying the bullets.
This gave them greater accuracy. Windscreens of cars hit show a cluster of shots around where the driver and passenger would have been, picking them out, rather than a shattered windscreen. This would be particularly difficult to achieve using a Kalashnikov, a rifle prized for its durability rather than its accuracy.

The rounds, twice as heavy as Nato rifles such as the American M 16, tends to push the barrel upwards, thus giving the appearance at times that guerrilla fighters, for whom the Kalashnikov is the cheap and hardy weapon of choice, are firing wildly into the air. Only prolonged training would have allowed them to master the AK-47 in this fashion.

The array of shots also signify the use of the ‘double tap’ method used by professionals, especially special forces, to finish targets off clinically using the minimum amount of ammunition. The shooter would fire two rounds in quick succession, managing the recoil between the squeezing of the trigger without lining up more bullets

The advance of the killers down the street is deliberate and synchronised in army fashion, one covering the other before swapping positions. This gives them maximum protection, especially in an urban environment, where opponents can hide behind cars and in alleyways.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-attack-killers-carry-out-their-deadly-mission-with-military-precision-9963687.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330420/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-Paris-gunmen-showed-advanced-military-skills.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/paris-attack-lacked-hallmarks-of-islamist-assaults-in-west/2015/01/07/7a6c54f6-96a6-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:54 am

There's no doubt that the cartoons were offensive and provocative to some Muslims, and I don't see the need for that kind of thing.

Of course that doesn't excuse the shooting of 12 people. The French won't like it at all - they're already a bit hostile to Islam, and they certainly won't like extremists going around shooting police officers.

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:37 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

ok so now I'm offended because my earnings are below that of my neighbours thus making me unequal
can i go all explosive about it?
see your definition doesnt work...
I'm offended because I'm not considered the equal of the prime minister....or....whatever......
I'm even MORE offended because (practically as opposed to good law) my word would be cionsidered worth less than that of a police officer in court
etc etc etc....
and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???
you are funny......

You are indeed because you just showed you do not understand equality and well being

You do understand equality do you not? And think about what you said about the Prime Minister, as how do you not have the same equal rights?
Seriously that was a real no egg on face tie on your part.
If your equal rights are being denied what does that tell you?
Equality is having the same rights, not because somebody has been elected Prime Minister through democracy you could also do yourself.
Seriously you really show up not being smart on that
So if your rights have been denied and your well being affected,for example you are discriminated, your well being affected and not treated with equality is then being offended.
Very simple and again you can apply to everything as this for a standard.

well Im not going to argue YOUR agenda driven misuse of words
nor am I going to sit here arguing semantics with some one who considers his own redefinition of a word as the corerect one and gets all shirty when corrected.....

offend .....

Definition of offend in English:
verb
1 [with object] Cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful: e.g. 17 per cent of viewers said they had been offended by bad language

from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/offend

and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???

by Sponsored content