UKC

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/satirical-french-magazine-charlie-hebdo-attacked-by-gunmen

Another heroic action by our Islamist friends. Probably a rhetorical question, but what do they think this will achieve?

In reply to Ridge:

Word fail me.

In reply to Ridge:

Young Muslims are deeply frustrated and out of control, it's simple.

In reply to Ridge:

Silence more of the press?
hebdo was one of the few willing to continue running cartoons of Mohammed etc.
Think the safe bet is on the Islamists. Although I believe the magazine has plenty of other enemies as well those morons are the most likely to attack,

In reply to dissonance:

Witness reports say the 'religion of peace gunmen' screamed they had "avenged the prophet"
Go figure.

In reply to dissonance:

From the article it sounds like fans of that Alan Akbar bloke rather than someone else they've upset. It probably will be fairly effective in silencing the mainstream press, but it will definately be effective increasing Islamophobia, (although that might also be the intent).

In reply to Ridge:

Our own satirical magazine sails a little close to the wind from time to time with some of its cartoons and Hislop's quips on HIGNFY. He would be an easy target.

In reply to Ridge:


I think it would definitely be considered a bonus by them.
More islamphobia and the chances are more angry young men suitable for recruitment.

In reply to Ridge:

Our state broadcaster Al-Bbc was very keen to say, the editorial team were meeting to discuss the 'Sharia Ebdo' edition.

In reply to Ridge:
I work in the 5th & we were wondering quite why we'd heard so many police sirens late morning, before one of my colleagues was phoned by a friend in Quebec asking if she was OK - at which point we looked at the web & found out what was happening.

Latest I've heard is 12 dead (including 2 police) & several seriously wounded, and with the murderers being chased by the police, although not clear if still in Paris 'intra muros' in the near suburbs

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/07/attaque-au-siege-de-charli...

In reply to Ridge:


Greater polarity of views on the matter across Europe, followed by further backlash against Muslim communities, allowing them (through some kind of twisted logic) something of a "See? I told you the west hates us!" attitude, at which point membership numbers soar.

In reply to Doug:

Four of the most famous cartoonists in France were killed, Wolinski, Cabu, Charb, and Tignous, The first two I've "known" for decades, they're part of French culture. It was islamists, or at least they shouted islamist slogans.

It's hard to know what to say, or what to do. Looks like it could be Mrs Le Pen next election.

In reply to Ridge:


There is no such thing as "Islamophobia" and it is abuse of the language and an attempt at emotional manipulation to peddle this neologism. Basically it is an attempt at victim blaming and appeasement.

A phobia is an irrational and obsessive fear of something essentially harmless, but for some reason such as appearance or texture, unpleasant. There is nothing irrational about fearing Islam or viewing it with distaste or loathing, given both its root doctrines and the practical implementation of those doctrines both in those countries where Islam is dominant or in Western countries where it is spreading fast, but not reforming or moderating as it does so.

In reply to Pete Houghton:


Or they get kicked out? Muslims, moderate ordinary ones, would be foolish to ignore the warning signs, the extreme right is growing in many European countries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Agreed to an extent. More and more "reasonable" people will start to vote for more extreme parties like UKIP and Le Pen . The Dresden marches in Germany will probably get more popular and will probably see more tit for tat attacks on mosques across Europe.

Maybe every magazine/newspaper in Europe should publish all the cartoons on their front pages as a sign of solidarity, or an annual could be published that we could all buy alongside the Beano and Viz

In reply to Simon4:


Did you mean that last bit (in bold)

In reply to Ridge:

Seen Anjem Choudray's tweets?

They obviously took the words "irony" and "freedom" out of his dictionary, the piece of shit.

I recall Michael Mansfield smacking him down once when he bleated about freedom to express his views. Mansfield reminded him that to have freedom for his views means to grant others the same, to oppose him. His little confused face was a picture.

In reply to Ridge:

Terrible news. My thoughts go out to the families whose lives have been torn apart by this atrocity.

If it demonstrates anything its that the one thing all religious fundamentalists fear most is a free and questioning press.

As we all know, 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - however some people seem to think that the Kalashnikov is mightier than the pen.

In reply to Simon4:

"Islamophobia'?

A term created by clerical fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

(The late, great Hitchins .....alledgedly)

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

I think what these people fail to realise (or maybe they do) is that the people who read, work for or understand Hebdo are the same who vehemently oppose the like of Pegida.

In reply to Ridge:

Religion of peace ......my fcking arse!

Hope our government grow some balls and do more to shut extremists up.freedom of speech goes out of the window when people die.
Something is going to happen here,its only time.
Horrible bastards.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"la Maire de Paris réagit dans un communiqué officiel et appelle à défiler "dans le recueillement" ce jeudi à 18h au départ de la place de la République "
Also some reports of another march this evening, also place de la Republique

In reply to mark s: Freedom of speech shouldn't go "out of the window" because people have died.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Perhaps the gruniard could lead the way.....? .....nah!

In reply to Doug:

What is needed is the muslim community to arrange a march with a "not in our name" theme for it to have much impact I would think.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Fully agree with the sentiment however it is hard to see how similar journalists will not be in some way intimidated by this.

In reply to Ridge:

It's a shocking cowardly act yet sadly all to predictable. I note the editor in chief was under police protection due to earlier death threats.
This book is due to be released in France next week. Some have condemned it as anti Islamic scare mongering.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30694811

In reply to Simon4:

Thanks for the quality rant as always, but it's a lot easier to use the word Islamophobia than type a lengthy discourse on the etymology of the word.

The important issue, as others have pointed out, is the polarising effect of acts like this. I have no issue with providing the bearded frothers with a one way ticket to whatever mediaeval shithole takes their fancy, (landing or parachute optional). However I have no desire to see Mr Patels innocent family get burned to death in an arson attack in any backlash to acts like this.

There will be a significant number of people itching to join in and attack the kuffirs / pakis (delete as applicable) should things begin to escalate. The important thing is to prevent that escalation.

In reply to wynaptomos:

They probably will be, but Mark seems to want to legislatively restrict the freedom of speech specifically for religious nutters - because that's bound to be effective, after all, shooting magazine staff is illegal and no religious nutters do that.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Not heard of a march, but the Grande Mosquée de Paris has condemned the attack

"Le Conseil français du culte musulman et les musulmans de France condamnent avec la plus grande détermination l’attaque terroriste d’une exceptionnelle violence commise contre le journal Charlie Hebdo. Cet acte barbare d’une extrême gravité est aussi une attaque contre la démocratie et la liberté de presse."

In reply to Ridge:

As you correctly say, its the innocent Mr Patels family that could easily end up suffering as a result of terrorist attacks like this, which is why it makes so much sense for the Muslim community to respond in a very strong fashion against this attack (and others) and help root out the enemy within by education, ostracisation and liaising closely with the authorities.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


We may have a long wait.................

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It seems that an injured police officer was 'executed' as the terrorists left the building. These people are beneath contempt and one can only hope they are quickly caught and brought to justice.

In reply to Gone for good:

It annoys me when the media refer to victims as having been "executed". The word is MURDERED. Execution is a judicial killing.

A minor point maybe but one which I think should be made.

In reply to Gone for good:


I had the misfortune to come across that video whilst following a link about this incident. I was almost sick.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near that simple. Radical Muslims - old, young, and middle-aged - want to impose Islamic values on non-Islamic nations. They're not going to achieve it by persuasion, and their holy book endorses violent enforcement, so that's what they go with. This is an oversimplification, I know, but I think it covers the situation better than the idea of young hotheads letting off steam.

In reply to Ridge:

LOL :-D

In reply to GrendeI:

Same here, my advice to anybody would be to not watch it, truly sickening.
No doubt after watching this that these bastards were utterly calm, cold blooded, and probably well trained. Horrifying. I hope they are caught and brought to justice promptly.

In reply to Ridge:


I'm afraid this comes a bit too late, this latest horror comes after several others. I don't know how to get across what these people mean to many French people, they come from 68 and are admired right across the political spectrum, we've chuckled at their cartoons and admired the wit with which they unmasked establishment scoundrels for over 50 years for Wolinski at least, it's as if a whole load of people like a cross between Tommy Cooper and Tony Benn who could draw too have been cut down in one go... It leaves an empty, powerless feeling mixed with anger.

PS. Sorry for the poor simile, best I could do.

In reply to Simon4:


Well said, sir. It disturbs me that this sly, slimy phrase has so easily passed into common usage. It would make as much sense to claim that I have GreatWhiteSharkophobia, or HavingMyHeadCutOffWithaMacheteophobia.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce,

Just wanted, as something of a Francophile, to let you know that I feel for everyone in France following these terrible events.

Condolences.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well said Bruce, I think you described quite well what these people meant. Feeling quite deflated and angry right now.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
If you're a Muslim who has never done anything to hurt anyone (and, indeed, in the case I'm thinking about has mainly been a positive and cheerful part to the local community) and then you get spat at and abused on the street because you wear a headscarf, it must feel rather like there is something that can be called Islamophobia, even if you and Simon assure us there isn't. If that kind of blind hate of people you don't know isn't Islamophobia, what is it exactly?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Pretty much what my wife said.

This is good:
https://twitter.com/davpope/status/552844593046097920/photo/1

In reply to TobyA:
I don't know what the answer is.

Integration is where we can solve the problem Integration brings jobs, brings down barriers, alienation and prejudice on all sides and creates empathy. It brings economic gainm whereas poverty and unemployment just fuels the fanatics.

The question is,

Would you let your daughter marry a Muslim?

As a Muslim, would you let your daughter marry a non-believer?

Hopefully the answer to both would be yes.

All "multiculturalism" seems to do is create ghettos and tribes, there is no dialogue for fear of someone shouting racist or apostate.

In reply to TobyA:

Well said.
jk

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Oddly, one of my course-mates was telling me just this afternoon that her sister (she's a headscarf wearing British-Pakistani BTW) is married to white English guy. She said her family thinks he's great but her sister has had abuse from other people in their community (i.e. other British-Asians) for marrying a non-Muslim and he has had abuse from other white people for marrying a "Paki".

I think here we really need to wait and see what happens (hopefully after the French police find and shoot the f***ers). There are reports that the attackers in this case shouted they were from AQ in Yemen. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330636/Terrorists... If it turned out they were actually Yemeni, than really questions of integration of anyone in France would be rather by-the-by, but then if they were actually French men from Yemeni originating families, it would be totally different.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Actually a very good point. At present it seems that Muslims could do a lot more to distance themselves from the acts of extremists.
If atrocities such as these are sanctioned in the Koran and both extremist and non-extremist parties both refer to themselves as Muslims, it becomes hard not to lump both into the same category: as surely by definition Islamic Extremism is a set of accepted Islamic rules or beliefs followed to the extreme letter.
If this is not the case (which I actually believe to be true) then the normal, upstanding members of the Muslim community need to speak out much more forcefully against such acts of violence, encourage a free-thinking Muslim faith where out-of-date and ridiculous practices are openly challenged and discussed without the threat of violence and above all, make it crystal clear that the scum who committed the horrendous acts earlier today are not recognized as Muslims and that they, and all who sympathize with them are following an out-dated set of ridiculous rules that have been taken out of context and blown out of all proportion.
A march would definitely go a long way towards achieving this goal.

In reply to Tony Naylor:


racism directly specifically at those who practice Islam or are presumed to....what do you want to call it? And are you arguing that there's not such a feeling or that you just don't like the etymology?

In reply to Philo22:


I somewhat agree. And to the point I agree I do so strongly. However it does appear that the media is also very much to blame for this.

Bad thing done by some muslims? Massive front page shocker.
Muslim leaders condemn the act? footnote on page 16.

As I say, I do agree to a point and so it's something I have kind of looked out for and looked in to a bit, and it does appear to follow this pattern. If the BBC said "hey Muslim leaders, we hear you're pretty against this act too, would you like to come on the prime time news and have your say?" it would do a lot of good I think.

In reply to mypyrex:



minor point, but (I haven't seen any videos of this one to say if relevant here) most 'executions' in this context are done in a ritualistic manner (eg. on camera, purposefully, prisoner restrained) where 'Islamic Law' (as believed to be by those committing the murder) is being followed/carried out. So I think we're getting really in to a technical use of the language here.

In reply to Doug:



ah! an example of what I was talking about. They speak out, they don't get any media attention.

In reply to mark s:


You can not be serious!

In reply to Scarab9:


I'm not sure - this feels a bit like victim blaming to me. Do we expect mainstream Catholics to continuously and vocally distance themselves from dissident Republican bombers and paedophile priests? Or are we happy to assume that they're normal, peace-loving people and hence have no more sympathy for those people than any other normal peace-loving people? Why is there an assumption Muslims are murderous fanatics and an onus on them to publically demonstrate that they aren't?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Usually because Republican bombers say they are supporting a Republican cause and not a Catholic cause, so there is a difference.

In reply to Scarab9:

I dislike everything about Islam* - I am therefore anti-religious and not racist, as you put it. I have many Islamic friends and one close friend in particular with whom I will happily debate why I dislike Islam over a beer (he has juice). We will shake hand afterwards and go our separate ways.

Please, please, please do not confuse race and religion. Muslims are not, I repeat, not a race and criticism of their beliefs should be allowed without the spectre of race shrouding sensible discussion.

*I also have similar dislike for all Abrahamic religions and their equally corrosive derivitives.

In reply to Philo22:


Twitter is awash with Muslims condemning the attacks, even when they don't really have anything to do with it; other countries etc. But look under #NotinMyName and the big Muslim organisation in France, prominent Imams, etc. have condemned it too: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/france-comes-together-to-condemn-the-...

In reply to neilh:

I'm not sure that that's relevant, to be honest.

To be brutally honest, I think the main difference is that to a lot of people in the West, Islam is a strange, foreign religion practised by strange, foreign people and hence is easy to make unwarranted assumptions about. And this attitude is where the problem lies, not with the failure of "moderate Muslims" to make it clear enough that they aren't in favour of massacring journalists.

(Edit: the problem with run-of-the-mill Muslims getting associated with extremists, that is. The problem with extremists committing atrocious acts like the one today lies with the fucktards who did it and the fucktards who made them think it was a good idea...)

In reply to Simon4:

Islamophobia is well and truly proven to exist in your very post you try to 'reason' for it not to exist


Here's a little fact, not all followers of Islam are terrorists or extremists. Islam in and on itself is not harmful, and it's only a very small minority of people within the religion that become radicals. And just so you know, not all Christians are child raping paedophoiles, not all black people are in gangs, and not all Welsh have amorous relations with sheep.

In reply to Scarab9:


I know what you are saying. These b******s can think what THEY like but it's still murder to anybody else

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Spot on

In reply to Mr Lopez:



Liar

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It's never that simple though is it? The majority of Muslims in Britain (and in France) are of immigrant background, even if they are themselves British (or French) born. In Europe, prejudice against Muslims, racism and a more generalised xenophobia are far too intertwined to separate.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Probably there is a lot of ignorance in the west about the peaceful and generous side of Islam. The Quran expressly forbids murder.

Sadly it's the fanatics that keep on grabbing the headlines, spurred on by their hothead preachers who only give voice to those parts of the Quran and the Suras that they feel justify their perverted view of the world - much of which has more to do with medieval tribal culture than about the spiritual side or things.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

This is a particularly peculiar denouncement of murder:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Have you seen the homepage of that site? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

In reply to Ramblin dave:

It really "hacks me off" when moderate muslims do not stand up more loudly and say this is wrong. They hide away and say it to you personally but they do not shout it out. Its time they stood up for themselves.

They would do themselves a huge favour if they did this.

You hear the odd public comment, but you never really see what I call a big show of support.I know they would get a huge round of applause if they did this.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


To be honest, no, I didnt look. It didnt make any difference to my point.

In reply to neilh:


Like this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_64...

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I think that would be very welcome yes. We have seen how Catholics quietly ignoring (or worse) paedophiles has had horrendous consequences worldwide.

Or are we happy to assume that they're normal, peace-loving people and hence have no more sympathy for those people than any other normal peace-loving people? Why is there an assumption Muslims are murderous fanatics and an onus on them to publically demonstrate that they aren't?

Well a significant minority are. A bit more of this sort of thing, rather than boiler-plate not wholly convincing condemnation of the more major atrocities would help

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/28/maajid-nawaz-muslim-lib-dem...

In reply to MG:

Some reactions from cartoonists around the world...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-attack-cartoonis...

I particularly like Dave Pope's one.

In reply to Clauso:

Unfortunately quotes such as

"... This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this."

Are part of the problem. It clearly is Islam! The no true Scotsman argument doesn't help.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Well it does, because that is an out of context extract from a book that has different translations and multiple interpretations and which is intentionally extracted like that for the advancement of an agenda.

I did a very brief google on it just because i found it quite interesting, and the meat of it is that said text is a passage of 'what will happen' in 'the end of times'.

As much as i could surmise the story goes that after Jesus makes his return to Earth (the second coming), two opposite factions will form. The followers of Jesus (muslims are in there) and the followers of the anti-christ and enemies of Jesus (Jews). This factions will fight each other and on victory of the followers of Jesus the World will end and those follower will ascend to heaven.

Not dissimilar to other religion's scriptures and certainly not a call to kill all Jews

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Islam in and on itself is not harmful, and it's only a very small minority of people within the religion that become radicals.

A problem is that that very small minority appears to be becoming more influential, more violent and gaining more adherents.... so many people not surprisingly see Islam as a threat.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

It is human nature to generalise and assign traits to groups of people as a whole based on usually misled perceptions. That is the basis of racism, sexism and discrimination and the reason they are so widespread.

That does not make it right though, and as a civilised society we have come to know that and were making quite a bit of progress. It would be a shame if we regress decades of hard work by losing sight of what is what.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Not saying it is right but the greater frequency of such atrocities and the fact that they are increasingly close to home rather than in some distant and remote area changes people's perceptions

In reply to AdrianC:



Some brilliant responses there.

In reply to TobyA:


But you can also go a little further perhaps, for this killing the various Imams came out and condemned it - are we supposed to be surprised by this? I'd say it's really the least they could do, but going a little further what was their reaction when Charlie Hebdo published the 12 cartoons 10 years ago? They condemned it, as did quite a few posters on ukc saying it was going to far, shouldn't offend people bla bla bla. So back then they sowed the seeds for this act today.... Freedom of speech and freedom of the press and religion, or none, are fundamental parts of a democratic republic and they must be absolute as long as they remain within law. Even if such a barbaric act as this one makes people think twice about publishing something critical if islam, or any other religion for that matter a basic value of our countries has been destroyed.

In this case they were almost certainly islamic militants, a false flag attack seem very unlikely, and what they did was in accordance with islam, even if not all muslims apply this rule, and was even encouraged by what we call moderate muslims like the Imam of Paris back then. Furthermore a great many Muslims did find the cartoons offensive and complained about them, even burnt Charli Hedo's office down,which shows that even today there is gulf between the values of a modern democratic country and even moderate Muslims. Of course there are muslims, or rather ex-muslims who have fully accepted democratic values, including gender equality. If people spit at women in burkhas it's because they don't agree with the enslavement of women, not because they racist... I wouldn't do it myself but I can understand it, seeing women all covered in black walking a few steps behind their hubby, and usually carrying the shopping is not a pleasant thing to see in 2015.

Finally I just watched a TV program about the murders and according to one of the panel, himself an Algerian journalist the accent that we can heear is Franco/Algerian, not Yemeni. One of the other people said that the build up and the choice of target made him think of what happened in Algeria a few years ago when many journalists, teachers, writer etc were murder to terrorise the Algerian people to turn to radical islam. Which is no a pleasant perspective.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Whilst I pretty much agree with your argument, (apart from the sheep bit), at the moment Islam does seem to have more than it's fair share of batshit mental psychos and gobshite oxygen thieves like Anjem Choudrey.

Despite what the BNP would have us believe about the muslamic hoardes invading, Muslims make up about 5% of the UK population. Christians make up about 60%. Unless I've missed it, we haven't in recent years had a dozen beheadings by Methodists, 600 people blown up by the Salvation Army, or between 5,000 and 24,000 former Sunday school pupils head off to Syria for a gap year of rape and murder.

I agree completely that we shouldn't overreact and start vilifying perfectly decent and respectable Muslims. However, as a group, people who have an imaginary mate called Mohammed might need to reflect on the state of their religion.

In reply to Ridge:

I am taking great faith in the number of brilliant cartoons that are already available to the world online.
Probably the best riposte to the atrocity.

In reply to Ridge:

So, out of 3.2 million muslims that live in in the UK, 2 of them who were born and bred Christians but converted recently and who are obviously missing a brain cell or 800 get together and commit an unspeakable crime, and that somehow is representative of the other 3,199,198 people?

There are plenty examples of people from other religions going nuts and chopping bodyparts, it just doesn't sell papers as effectively as Islam http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/god-told-me-to-saw-off-victims-...

In reply to Ridge:

I pretty much agreed with all of your message, but I did want to comment on a tangent... (Edit: and it's not relevant to the context in which you go on to use the statistics!)


I suspect those statistics don't reflect reality that much.

The number of people identifying as Christian has decreased by 14% between the 2001 census and the 2011 census, where as the number identifying as Muslim has increased by 46% - Islam is growing 3x as fast as Christianity is shrinking.

There is further evidence - as if the shrinking wasn't enough - that many people who identify as Christian in a census are barely religious if at all, whereas I suspect most of the additional people identifying as Muslim are strongly religious. I do not have evidence to hand back this up however.

Really we need a metric that is the weighted average of the religiosity of each person towards each religion to give a true picture, but I can't see such an effort easy to run or validate.

A simple projection assuming fixed growth/contraction rates suggests the two will equalise to populations of around 16 million by 2071. I suspect the decline of Christianity will accelerate, and I wouldn't like to speculate on the growth of Islam, but change is written in the trajectory. Certainly the dominant religion in a nation changes over long enough times, it has done many times in many countries, and whilst I dream of the final change to irreligion, who knows what other diversions lie in wait first.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Don't know where the figure of just two comes from but apart from Lee Rigby's murderers there are thousands who have gone off to wage jihad in Syria etc, the London bombings, plenty of plots which are constantly being uncovered, preachers of hate, radicalisation in schools etc etc.

In reply to Ridge:




What an awesome reply.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Someone firebombing a building in protest is almost by definition not moderate. To lump the millions of people quietly and peacefully going about their lives in with the few who commit such atrocities demeans you.


If people spit on other people because of their faith or how they dress it's because they're nasty ignorant shits, there's nothing to understand, it's not some sort of feminist protest (FFS Bruce!) and you really shouldn't be making excuses for them.

Let's keep our heads and remember we're talking about four people involved in this horrid attack, not the millions of ordinary law abiding muslims who may (or may not) share the attackers faith in name at least, most will be as appalled as you are.

jk

In reply to Clauso:

So where are all the othermuslims standing behind him in that photo publicly showing their oppositon. Give me a photo of Trafalgar square full of Muslims standing up for themselves and shouting for the moderate majority.That is what I call a symbol and is something most of us would respect and applaud.

In reply to atrendall:

For the sake of argument lets put the highest number we can to that.

Lee Rigby - 2
London bombings - 6 + lets say a 10 people 'support' crew
Jihadis - 2000 (or what the hell, make them 3000)
Preachers of hate - Uh, i don't know... 100 ok?
School radicals - 500? Right no, 1000 to be sure.

So that leave us with a grand total of 4118 'bad' muslims.

So if Islam is the problem, how come the other 3,195,882 muslims are not out there cutting people's heads and murdering innocent people? Did those 99.9 percent of muslims not get the memo?

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Ok let's accept your extrapolation of the figures but then factor in all the friends, relatives and acquaintances who know what is going on, have a suspicion or even secretly admire these activists and then there are the extremely silent majority who do little or nothing to denounce these barbarians. As the poster above says, we don't see mass demos of so called moderate muslims filling Trafalgar Square.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Did Atrendall say "Islam is the problem?"

Clearly some interpretations of Islam are a part of the problem with 9/11, the London Bommings, Lee Rigby, Dijon, Paris etc. That is not saying "Islam is the problem"


You're pretty far off base there. There was a recent BBC article putting the number of deaths from Jihadists ('bad' muslims if you like) at about 5,000 in one month, over a wide geographic region, with the involvement of many different groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-30080914

It is not a case of "Islam is the problem" but of why a diverse, international range of organisations are committing atrocities under a self-appointed Islamic umbrella. I'm not aware of a large and growing number of terror groups around the world performing similar acts and claiming to be warriors of Jesus etc. It's pretty hard to question this without being accuse of simply "blaming Islam" which could not be further from the truth for many people.

In reply to atrendall:

> As the poster above says, we don't see mass demos of so called moderate muslims filling Trafalgar Square.

Oh, aren't there any Muslims in the crowds of people flocking to the vigils in various major cities. I didn't realise.

I'm no fan of any religion, and anyone who murders others because they feel their religious beliefs have been slighted is beneath contempt.

But this kind of extremism absolutely is not unique to Islam.

It's fewer than four years since a Christian murdered 77 people in our next door neighbour Norway, in a horrific protest -against- Islam.

Ordinary people, religious or otherwise, should not be blamed for the acts of people like these.

This is not to say that Islam, and other religions, are not part of the problem. At the very least, when they encourage the notion that they should be immune to criticism and mockery, they make this sort of thing more likely. The very concept of blasphemy is a terrible thing; our society should reject it, and ensure it has no credibility.

In reply to off-duty:

Obviously speculation on my part but you show me one photo of a mass demonstration by Muslims in the UK protesting against terrorist activities conducted in the name of their religion. The silent masses need to come out and actively work to put their side of the argument, to reclaim the religion that has perhaps been hijacked by fundamentalists.

In reply to atrendall:

I take it by "silent masses" you mean the 5% of the population that are Muslim - whose every protest against this terrorism appears to be met with "Well, there aren't very many of you protesting".

In reply to skog:

I don't think Brevik was (significantly) motivated by religion.

In reply to atrendall:

Would you expect catholics to be out protesting about attacks done by protestants?

In reply to dissonance:

Well it's been known in Northern Ireland!
Basically any civilised person, regardless of their religion, should be condemning this attack.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


I'm quite prepared to put Lee Rigby down to a couple of nutters, but I did a quick extrapolation on casualties in the 7/7 attacks and number of Brits joining ISIS to arrive at the other figures.

As wintertree pointed out, it's a very poor metric for the reasons he stated and also you'd need to factor in the world situation etc. Whatever the precise figures, theres clearly an issue here, and pretending there isn't one doesn't help rectify it.

In reply to Ridge:

reports say they may have been arrested in Reims

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/07/le-siege-de-charlie-hebo-vise-p...

In reply to atrendall:


We also dont see crowds of roman catholics calling for the vatican to investigate and prosecute peados, or crowds of teachers demonstrating against shite teachers, or crowds of police protesting against bad apples in their ranks. It doesnt mean those populations dont hold those views.

However, in case you missed it
http://m.londonlovesbusiness.com/9163.article?mobilesite=enabled muslim march against isis

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslims-in-france-protest-against-extremism/ also in paris

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You do realise there's a difference between a burkha and headscarf don't you?

And you wouldn't spit on a woman you don't know yourself, but you can understand why someone else might?!?!?!? I really don't know where to start with that, beyond saying wouldn't it be better to spit on the man you've added to this scenario (my acquaintance was on her own going to college, but whatever) rather than the woman he is enslaving? If you object to men buying sex, do you go and spit on the women selling themselves?!

Did any of the mainstream French imams etc who objected to the muhammed cartoons being published ten years ago suggest people should go into the office and shoot dead the cartoonist? Surely their freedom of speech gives them the right to object to something. And in the same way as you suggest they caused this; when you post about Israel's barbarism using all your normal purple prose, were you not then sowing the seeds to the guy who walked into the Jewish museum in Brussels last year and killed people because they might have been Jewish?

In reply to MG:

He talked a lot about it, but sure, there was much more - politics, culture, race. Isn't the same true of a lot of 'Islamic' terror?

I don't see any moral distinction between his horrible acts in 'defence' of his religion, culture and ethnicity, and those of other terrorists, acting for the extremes of other ideologies.

In reply to wintertree:

"The number of people identifying as Christian has decreased by 14% between the 2001 census and the 2011 census, where as the number identifying as Muslim has increased by 46% - Islam is growing 3x as fast as Christianity is shrinking."

"There is further evidence - as if the shrinking wasn't enough - that many people who identify as Christian in a census are barely religious if at all, whereas I suspect most of the additional people identifying as Muslim are strongly religious. I do not have evidence to hand back this up however."

Both excellent points and this is a concern. Could Islam become the main religion in the UK to the point that such a large number practiced it, it became a political force and forced change in the way we live our lives?

Maybe this is over playing the concern, or maybe it's the thin end of the wedge...

In reply to skog:

I agree, but people seem much readier to criticise nazism than Islam, or other religions, when these things happen.

In reply to atrendall:


Will this do? http://m.londonlovesbusiness.com/Pictures/web/h/h/l/ISIS-protest-November-2...

In reply to cp:

"reports say they may have been arrested in Reims"

I'm reading that this may not be the case...but if it is, Hollande, I have some WD40 if you need it for your guillotine

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

As someone always quick to defend the Putin regime you might want to spare a thought for the 50 or so journalists murdered in that country since 2000*.

* Reporters Without Borders

and did i just read that right? f*ck me Bruce, your f*cking senile.

" If people spit at women in burkhas it's because they don't agree with the enslavement of women, not because they racist... I wouldn't do it myself but I can understand it:."

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Apparently they haven't been caught, but all three have been identified and named in the French media. The Interior Ministry has confirmed the accuracy of the information. Seemingly all are French born.

In reply to MG:

Yes, I think that's true.

It may be self-perpetuating - with fewer people criticising Islam, those who do are more obvious targets, and so have more to fear. Nazis do make death threats in the UK, but they would have a hard time getting round everyone who criticised Nazism.

Maybe this event will increase the numbers willing to criticise, and reduce that fear?

In reply to Dave Williams:

I will be amazed if these guys are arrested. Either really well organised and make an escape (unlikely) or go out with a bang (likely) IMO

If the French police manage to arrest them alive I will be very very impressed.

In reply to jkarran:


No but many more protested, some started a court action which they lost so all these people don't accept freedom of the press, one of pillars which a democracy is built on. This massive support of the average muslims is what leads some to go further. As for the idea that women are inferior and must be covered from head to foot, I'll leave you the pleasure to defend that notion.

I suspected it would happen a few hours and already many of you have forgotten what this is all about - 12 people murdered for political/religious reasons and a few more who might not make it and already quite a few of you are defending the religion that is behind it.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Thanks for the links; interesting stuff and good to see.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



They have their names.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Yes, agreed.

The bottom line is that the call of martyrdom and eternal life thereafter will be a very compelling one.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


It drives my wife mad, but I suppose you aren't a women.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm not sure I see many defending the religion. There are quite a few defending non-violent followers of it, though.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


They have been arrested according to the Guardian.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Impressive if so. I can't help thinking of the Day of the Jacka l- I imagine the French police will be pretty relentless.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Never thought I'd agree with you Bruce but you hit the nail on the head with "already quite a few of you are defending the religion that is behind it."

As i said in the thread on Israel;
"Islamic fundamentalism ..... if it isn't stopped in its tracks it will be coming soon to a street near you."

Don't know where you live in France but the events in Paris are tragic and one bright lights have been extinguished today though their legacy will live on.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What? Being gobbed on by men? I would expect so!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That'll be the same religion apparently as the poor cop that was murdered by those scum.

In reply to off-duty

At least part of it, yes.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Guardian says they are still a large on my computer.

If they have arrested them....chapeau!

In reply to neilh:


F*ck me, you asked for examples of moderate Muslims denouncing the attack; I gave you some examples. Now you ask me to provide a photo of Trafalgar Square full of moderate Muslims? Where is this going to end?

If I provide you with the Trafalgar Square photo, then what's your next demand likely to be? If you're going to want a photo of Wembley Stadium full of moderate Muslims, or something similar, then let me know now as I'll probably be able to get them at a discount for bulk buying.

In reply to TobyA:
The difference is the muslims were objecting to someone criticising, calling it blasphemy (you may have heard of the pleasant little things that happens to blasphemers in Pakistan). In the notion of freedom of expression everyone can criticize everybody but not deny the other person this right. Geddit?

Just to remind you in this case muslim extremists have just killed 12 (or more) people in the name of their religion. Perhaps we should try not forget this.

PS. For information these artists have formed several generations of French people to take a critical view of the world, they are irreplaceable. Furthermore can you think of another time when a whole edition team of an important magazine have been murdered in one go, I can't. It's not banal.

In reply to off-duty:

2 or 3 policeman were killed too.

In reply to Ridge:

This terrible act just shows how religion has the capability to twist and distort minds. The world will be a better place without religion. One can only hope that the human race eventually realises that.

Andy F

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I heard two were murdered. Apparently one was a Muslim.

In reply to atrendall:

The freedom of speech, that same freedom the staff and those coppers died for (the one who had his brains put out onto a Parisian sidewalk was called Ahmed), is also the freedom to practice religion, whichever it may be.

That is what people are defending.

It is quite fair to dissociate maintream Islam from the atrocities that are committed in it's name, just as it is fair to have a n open and free dialogue as to how Muslims can root out the cancer that is islamism.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Did any prominent french "mainstream" Muslim call or take steps that were illegal against the magazine a decade ago? People can condemn, protest, campaign to their heart's content if they don't break the law. You can do the same to them (or about Israelis). But you are saying that these people are responsible now for this murder spree years later. You have use very robust language against Israelis without breaking any law - why is that so different? You've even said today that you understand people spitting on random strangers (random female strangers at that); I'm sure off-duty can tell us if spitting on someone is common assault or something along those lines; but even if not - "understanding it" comes pretty close to condoning it. It is definitely justifying prejudice against people who have nothing to do with what happened today.

In reply to Ridge:

Gonna throw my two pence to the wind, whether or not anyone reads it.

The attack today was nothing to do with anyone's religion, or anyone's right to be offended. It's about dividing communities further, spreading more hatred and misunderstanding, creating more extremism on both sides. The only way to rise above it is through tolerance.

In reply to Trevers: That's just wrong, it does appear to have been about the murderers' religion. You can argue their interpretation of Islam is wrong, but if (note the "if") they claim the murders were carried out in the name of Islam then it is about their religion.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Of course they claim it's in Islam's name. They're trying to create hatred of Islam, not respect.

In reply to Trevers:

"We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" and "God is Greatest" in Arabic ("Allahu Akbar"). The alleged words of one of the murderers. If this proves to be correct then I fail to see how anyone can say this atrocity was nothing to do with religion.

In reply to Trevers:


You seem to be suggesting it was a false flag attack?
Odds of that are extremely slim given the number of nutters willing to kill for their version of Islam.

In reply to Trevers:

Why should we tolerate religions that endorse and encourage violence in the name of religion? That's like saying it's okay to kill someone because they have offended your invisible imaginary friend.

Andy F

In reply to Trevers:


Well maybe, you don't know that. But if you're right your statement that it's "nothing to do with anyone's religion" is clearly incorrect.

In reply to atrendall:

Of course it has to do with religion, but we are in danger of demonising a religion for the actions of a few.

We would not create an equivalence between the Bishop of Durham and Lenny Murphy.

In reply to dissonance:


That's not what I'm trying to say at all really. I'm struggling a little to articulate my feelings. I have no doubt that they were Muslims, from a Muslim background, fed a particularly nasty and twisted version of Islam which includes the nasty violent parts and ignores the tolerant parts.

There's hatred and ignorance behind it sure, but that comes from an ideology that has nothing to do with the religion, and I don't really believe they're killing for Allah or Muhammad or that they believe they are either. Religion's used as a badge and as as shield but it's not the cause. And I'm far more moved by calls for tolerance than for revenge or fear.

Does that make sense?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


They're not equivalent. Religious practices include FGM, smoking weed, marrying many wives, killing unbelievers - essentially whatever you like - in case of blasphemy it's directly opposed to free speech. Of course it's technically true that free speech gives you the right to argue to ban speech, but if Muslims are going to keep teaching that Islam requires that pictures of Mohammed (or whatever) are against their religion and that Muslims should act to defend their religion then conflict will never end - and you can't dissociate Islam with attacks based on their religious teachings.

In reply to andy farnell:


Who said Islam does encourage that? You can create an equally hateful and intolerant version of Christianity without too much difficulty.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Very well put. I love Charlie Hebdo, I discovered it some years back in a friend's father's study, piles of albums from many years.

To quote Mark Twain, "Sacred cows make the best hamburgers."

In reply to Trevers:


Not really no.
I am baffled as to how you can think their religion isnt a major part of their ideology?
Thats not to say some leaders dont use religion as a tool without believing in it themselves. However the reason they do is because it works on the lower ranks (personally if someone suggested a suicide bombing was gods will i would suggest they go first and then i might think about it).

Its just as dubious to claim religion had nothing to do with it as opposed to claiming that all muslims are accountable.

In reply to thomasadixon:
You are to an extent conflating cultural "norms" with religion and picking choosing as you see fit.

Of course you cannot disassociate Islam from what happened, but you can step back and see that it is an extreme and twisted form of a religion which is practised peacefully by the majority of it's followers.

We are in danger of demonising a populus purely due to their religion. What is needed is a greater understanding on all sides., Even the Umma are not in agreement that the face of Mohammed cannot be shown. Nowhere in the Quran does it so it should not be. it is an interpretation based on the hadiths, and certain Sunni (I think) elements have portrayed him, since they do not see it as idolatry.

it is much more nuanced and complex and robust discussion needs to begin, but pointing the finger and shouting muslim, as you would fire in a crowded cinema is not the answer.

In reply to Trevers:

Where did I say Islam?

Andy F

In reply to Scarab9:


Utter r bullsh!t

The left wing press are giving much prominence to Muslim apologists.

In reply to Ridge:

Bbc are reporting that police are conducting a raid in reims where they think the gunmen are...

In reply to Ridge:

What we need to do is integrate these people into our society. Give them places to worship, separate schools to teach their children their religion, Sharia regulated areas where western women and alcohol are banned. We need to make sure al meat is halal and that bacon and pork products are not on supermarket shelves, but only available through specialist butchers. We should give them a separate legal and judicial system under Sharia law and legislation. We should make it illegal to insult the prophet Muhammad and and make criticism of Islam a capital offence.

We should get down on our knees and grovel.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

They're essentially the same. Religious practice is culture, it shouldn't get any special status.

True, it's just these guys that did this particular thing, and there's danger other Muslims will be blamed for something they didn't do (and I'm sure a large majority disagree with). What's needed is an understanding that free speech is a basic tenet of our law (and French law) and that you need to follow it - not greater understanding on all sides. How do we compromise on this? Say picturing Mohammed's okay but picturing him doing something irreligious/sacrosanct isn't? Check which Imam's opinion is closest to ours and follow that?

The discussion has been ongoing for years, it doesn't need to begin. This was a vicious attack that virtually all will condemn. The paper had done absolutely nothing wrong, and neither have any who say free speech should be upheld. People are rightly going to be angry and there's a risk of attacks on people seen as associated - those attacks are illegal, and should be prevented. Of course all Muslims aren't to blame, but there's no denying that Islam's the problem here.

In reply to Trevers:

FWIW I think that anyone who believes in sky fairies of any denomination unfortunately has no right to comment on another's actions in the name of another sky fairy,

If I say that I won't kill someone because a sky fairy tells me that's the wrong thing to do, then there is the inevitable rejoinder that I am listening to the wrong one - logically there is no way of refuting that.

Roll on secular humanism.

In reply to Trevers:


Well said.
jk

In reply to Ridge:

Je Suis Charlie

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Spot on.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

But without Crim, there'd be no Crimbo.
Sky fairies bring presents, and Easter eggs.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Your opening sentence is a shallow attempt to belittle a serious atrocity.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Seen a few Muslims interviewed on the vigil in Paris - Disliked the cartoons but totally in favour of the right to publish them and condemning the attack.
To blame "Islam" for the actions of cowardly murdering scum is gross oversimplification.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I don't think so. Care to expand?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

seems one of the 3 gave himself up & is under 'garde à vue' (more or less equivalent to police custody)

"Le plus jeune des suspects, âgé de 18 ans, s'est livré à la police dans la nuit de mercredi à jeudi dans un commissariat de Charleville-Mézières (Ardennes). Les deux autres suspects sont toujours activement recherchés. Il s'agit de Chérif Kouachi et Said Kouachi, deux frères âgés de 32 et 34 ans. Le premier, Chérif Kouachi, avait été condamné en 2008 pour avoir participé à une filière d'envoi de combattants en Irak, la filière dite des « Buttes Chaumont »
En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/live/2015/01/07/en-direct-des-coups-de-feu-au..."

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/live/2015/01/07/en-direct-des-coups-de-feu-au...

In reply to Dave Williams:



But with a disappointing "outcome" for the "martyrs".

In reply to Trevers:

The only way to rise above it is through tolerance.

Tolerance of what? Murder, arbitrary restrictions on expression?

In reply to Bruce (the brain) Hooker:
"If people spit at women in burkhas it's because they don't agree with the enslavement of women"

I know it's early in 2015, but I nominate this remark as candidate for the "Most asinine comment on UKC in 2015" award. Well done that man!

Come on soppygob - top that.

In reply to off-duty: "Seen a few Muslims interviewed on the vigil in Paris - Disliked the cartoons but totally in favour of the right to publish them and condemning the attack."

Fine, but people will say anything when they are frightened, so many will take with a pinch of salt.

Le Figaro's front page features an editorial claiming that "we did not, for a long time, want to admit that this war existed." Sounds like a penny dropping

In reply to MG:" Tolerance of what? Murder, arbitrary restrictions on expression?"

Tolerance of intolerance to satisfy a liberal inclusion agenda ? Good idea ? Apologists and multiculturalists will say yes, secularists and and (probably) an increasing amount of average joes will say no.

The pendulem swings.....

In reply to Ridge:

It`s really awful this. I think in our secular society we struggle to understand how deep a religious belief is. I visited this place http://dargahajmer.com/ earlier in the year were 125000 pilgrims a day visit and it was pretty intense, and I could grasp just how offensive these cartoons are, and think that it was ill advised to keep publishing, but then I believe in free speech and that it is worth fighting for...........
I really do not know how this circle can be squared of intense religious belief clashing with a deep belief in expression.

In reply to MG:


Tolerance of difference.
jk

In reply to Ridge:

The 3000 or so killed primarily in Northern Ireland, but also in the rest of the UK, in what was primarily a religious conflict may disagree with your statistical assessment.

It is clear that radicalization of Muslims (mainly young) is a serious problem, but it is hardly a unique one in our history. The history or bloodshed in our established religion somewhat puts it in the shade. Thankfully this is mostly in the past, but probably best not to ignore it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



FFS, are you getting tips from Bruce.

In reply to The New NickB:


Perhaps but I think his point that the religions involved in each case do need to look carefully at themselves rather than blaming everything else is correct. This has happened to an extent in Northern Ireland with some success.

In reply to jkarran:



Well we have that. In fact this tolerance is precisely what is being attacked and threatened by these murders. What are we meant to tolerate that we don't already that will help matters?

In reply to The New NickB:

Hardly, just pointing out that humans will say anything to appease a potentially dangerous situation for them. So whilst it's encouraging that a few Muslims condemned the attack on TV at a demo, some watching will, rightly or wrongly, see it as a disingenous placation out of fear of reprisals.

Do you disagree?

Seems there has been another shooting just south of Paris (http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/08/coups-de-feu-dans-le-sud-d... )

Apparently unconnected

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I think that saying that Muslim should condem the attacks, then claiming they don't mean it when they do, doesn't suggest the most open minded of approaches.

In reply to MG:


I'm not sure that was Ridge's point, but it is true that the only people who can solve the problem of radicalization of Muslim with any success are other Muslims. The blowhards on here and worse elsewhere will only add fuel to the fire.

In reply to The New NickB:

True, but my post was macro/human nature viewpoint of the message (Muslims condemn attack and defend right to publish cartoons) and it's acceptance (do they really mean it, are they just saying it?)

It's a trust issue, and it's a mess

In reply to MG:

Northern Ireland "primarily religious"? That can't go unchallenged. Republicans and Loyalists at "war", yes, and with historical religious and social alignment reinforcing hatred and distrust, yes.

But your statement is false

In reply to TobyA:

How about racism? We've had dim-witted thugs doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years.

In reply to wercat:

Which bit of my statement is false?

(Note I didn't say it was primarily religious, although religion certainly did and does play a large part).

In reply to Tony Naylor:


Toby didn't say anything about her race, he said she wears a headscarf.
jk

In reply to wercat:


It was my statement actually.

You mean a bit like Sunni and Shite.


Your own statement concedes it is true.

In reply to Scarab9:

Yep, I'd call it racism. Racist groups such as the BNP (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) are just jumping on an 'anti-terrorist' bandwagon to justify their racism.


It's certain that there is such a feeling, simply because if it's possible to feel something then there's always *someone* who will feel it. But what I'm arguing is that it's not a feeling that is widespread enough to justify inventing a phrase for it. I'm also arguing that lying manipulative people like Anjem Choudray, who seek to impose Islamic values on secular cultures, use 'Islamophobia' as a synonym for 'racism' because it's a great way of shutting down debate; faced with an implied accusation of racism, a lot of people (and media organisations) will halt their criticism and back off fast. Most people don't want to be thought of as racist, and most (who are woefully in error, IMHO) are equally pained by the idea of criticising someone's religion. 'Islamophobia' is a handy get out of jail free card.

Moving on slightly from your question, I think it's worth asking another question: do western secular nations have anything to fear from Islam? The answer is quite clearly 'yes'. The Koran explicitly and repeatedly endorses violence and murder against infidels. And radical Muslims are acting upon these endorsements by flying planes into skyscrapers, setting off bombs on buses, and shooting or hacking to death civilians. There is also a concerted push by spokesmen like Choudray to get Islamic values and laws embedded in secular cultures. I think the oppression of women and the death sentence for apostasy - to take just two examples - are things we should oppose. Phobias are irrational, unfounded fears. Fear of violence and murder is entirely rational, reasonable, and normal. It is no way phobic (or racist) to oppose Islam.

In reply to TobyA:


Yes, the Imam of Paris tried to prevent the magasine publishing and there was a court case (as I said above), you'd have to look it up to see who did it, they lost anyway. People are saying that at the time various fatwas were launched (or whatever the word is) and that this attack results from one of them. This morning two brothers have been identified as suspects, according to the press they were known to the police and had been converted to radical islam in a Paris mosque. It's not just one or two nutters.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's a no then.

In reply to Trevers:


Clearly they believe they are as youcan hear them say the phrases mentioned above. They also say in French "We have taken revenge for Mohamed" It's quite clear on the videos.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"converted to radical islam in a Paris mosque. "

a comment from the guardian

"There is no radical Islam, only TRUE Islam, and then the refined form cherry picked by civilised human beings trying hard to align their modern world lifestyle with stone age scripture. Followers who understand Islam and the true word of Mohammed are the radicals...and also the terrorists"

Interesting perspective

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I heard an interview with him (or maybe another senior muslim preacher) on TV last night where he clearly made the difference between taking legal action, where they lost and then accepted the verdict, and shooting the staff of a journal because you don't like the contents.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
There is a lot of what you say which is fair, and Choudray is just a festering canker sore on the arse tube of humanity

but

I do not think it is a case of "opposing" Islam. I think it is case, and this takes all parties, to integrate it. If we can do that there will be a greater understanding of the religon itself and the more conservative elements of the muslim community will move to the centre.

f*ck it - I'm just an old liberal but it would be better to see the segregation you encounter in northern mill towns especially disappear, as conservative and reactionary elements are replaced by more a more modern generation with a differing interpretation of the quran, which greater economic prosperity will bring. The same integration will dissolve the fear that creates spunkpebbles like Britain First.

The alternative is the middle ground becomes trapped between polarised camps of the right and the Deobandis / Taawhid schools.

In reply to The New NickB:


No, it's a yes. Are you hard of reading?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Thats fine, but for it to happen it firstly needs to be a two way street of integration and it also needs to be a majority view point. Is the country a majority of "old liberals" wanting more integration? Jury is out on that as far as I am concerned. More due to government mishandling of immigration rather than the awful events of yesterday.

In reply to Ridge:
Without getting into the Islam debate, I feel this is a great blow to the freedom of expression that has been fought so hard for so long for in the west.
The famous paraphrasing of Voltaire keeps running around my head. These cartoonists have certainly shown that there are still people out there willing to pay the ultimate price for the freedoms we all take for granted, how many of us can say the same? They kept their ideals right till the end, in the face of the many threats.
I hope the cowards that did this are bought to justice.


Edited to add that, having just thought of several other famous voltaire quoates, it was "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" that I was thinking of.

In reply to birdie num num:

Both festivals that have been around long before Christianity, and where hijacked and re-named when early Christianity was converting Pagans and didn’t want to rock the boat by stopping their festivals.
So we can certainly have a winter solstice festival, more about Santa than Christ for most people anyway (I mean Christ isn’t a jolly man who brings you presents), and a spring festival (more about the more original Easter bunny for many). No need for Christianity for either…….

In reply to Simon4:


You're a racist arse, it's sweeping statements like that that have no place in a modern society. So all Muslims should be viewed with distaste and loathing should they. Wank3r!!

It wasn't very long ago you were calling people anti-Semites because they spoke out against the bombing in Gaza, yet you see fit to make this statement?

In reply to krikoman:

Disliking a religion doesn't necessarily mean you dislike all those who follow it. And Islam isn't a race, but you know that really.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


But part of the issue with the two-way street of integration is that for decades a sizeable minority of white bigots have been saying things like "you wouldn't want them moving in next door or marrying your sister would you?" But now that they've decided that the problem is actually "failing to integrate", ie not moving in next door or marrying your sister.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Black isn't a race either.

And it's quite obvious what he meant.

Ty advertising a job and stating "No followers of Islam need apply" and see what happens.

If the religion is such a part of the people then what exactly are you saying?

In reply to krikoman:
Right, so you think criticism of Islam is off the cards and anyone who ignores that is racist. Marvellous, call a set of ideas a religion and krikoman thinks they are sacrosanct and untouchable. You would be quite at home in the middle ages.


Am I allowed to criticise Zionism in your eyes? Or is that different?

In reply to krikoman:


Fair enough, if there are no races there can't be any racism.


Of course it is, he specifically talked about Islam as a religion rather than its adherents. You, of course, can interpret that however you choose.


You're still failing to understand/accept that Muslims aren't Islam. Hate the sin and love the sinner old boy.


Sorry, I don't understand your question.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

He's saying if you criticise someone's religion, you criticise them and therefore they can blow you up. Roughly.

In reply to krikoman:

"Ty advertising a job and stating "No followers of Islam need apply" and see what happens."

Please choose the most likely answer
a) You will be shot
b) Your offices will be fire bombed
c) You will be offered police protection
d) All of the above


NB. this is a satirical reply

In reply to MG:


Depends whether you mean Zionists or criticising all Jews based on what the Zionists position.

Clearly there are problems with certain branches of Islam being unable to play well with others. This problem is exacerbated due to, unfortunately, some of those branches having a lot of funding behind them (thanks to the Saudis mostly).

In reply to dissonance:


Yes, I was careless, hence my edit.

In reply to MG:


Missed that.
Krikoman and Simon4 are good examples of the extremes on either end.
No blame vs blaming all.
Both of which positions are problematic.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No, but you clearly are. The prominent Muslim you mention took LEGAL steps, Toby asked about ILLEGAL steps. Would you like someone to explain the difference?

In reply to krikoman:

Nonsense. as I said above, being against Islam is anti-religious, not racsist. You can describe me perfectly well by one label and completely wrong with the other. You chose.

As far as your statement about distaste is concerned, yes, all muslims who think that women are subservient, that the word of the Koran is final and any other perverted interpretation of their 'belief' should be imposed on their or our society should be viewed with distaste. I will also state (and I am quite prepared for a flaming) that all carnivorous muslims should be viewed with distaste and loathing. I'm sure you can work out why I may feel this way without an explanation.

I dont want to appear to be picking on islam here and will quite happily state that many other relgious people should be viewed with distaste. I will cite creationists whom want intelligent design taught in science lessons at school, christians who see non-believers having lower standing than others (most US folks), catholics who feel that secular kids should have a lower standard of education than catholics because they dont believe and jehovahs witnesses whom would rather see their kids die that allow a blood transfusion. Im picking on easy examples but there are many others.

My view on religion is simple. It and all its variants should be expelled from the human psyche. It has no place in modern thinking or the modern world. Its a legacy up from a bye gone era and is used and contorted by its practitioners to devastating effect as seen yesterday and what for - some bloody cartoons for crying out loud.

"But wait! What about all us peaceful god botherers whom happily go to church and dont hurt a fly" Problem is,wherever there is religion and ancient scriptures which inevitable promote some form of violence there will always be people prepare to take it at face value and kill innocent folks.

I only hope that one day, the 'modern' religions will go the same way as Zeus et al and be seen as nothing more than a period of time before we knew better but which we will be grateful for some wonderful architecture, writing, artwork and language. Religion is superfluous to our needs.

In reply to krikoman:



This statement of Simon's is not racist. Though I'm not sure about the accuracy of the "but not reforming or moderating as it does so" bit.

However, if it's -only- Islam someone feels that way about, they might do well to consider why.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I do, but then I also think we should oppose (in the sense of argue against with a view to eradicating) all religions. I know, I know, pie in the sky


Agreed, and - Iron Age wannabes notwithstanding - I think this is achievable in a reasonably short time, although I'm thinking of maybe 100 years as 'short'.


That would indeed be a good thing. And a big step in the right direction.

In reply to SCrossley:


I think this is the crux of the issue. However, in a secular society we have to say that you can believe what you like but you need to exert self-restraint in how you react to what you find offensive.

In the context of what's just happened in Paris, it's quite difficult to separate the religious from the cultural. The immediate justification is religious but the impulse to act is partly cultural, based on a concept of honour and the instinct to fight to protect one concept of the community. An idea of justice based on Sharia suggests that, as a believer, you are justified in taking extreme action to punish what you interpret as a religious crime but which we, in a secular society, might regard as a breach of good taste at worst. In short, some Muslims (like some Jews and some Christians) take their religion seriously, or even literally, in a way that is approved of by the culture in which they grew up.

It occurs to me that this idea of a lack of self-control, justified by religious conviction, also applies to the treatment of women; the idea that women must dress 'modestly' because obviously men can't be responsible for their own actions in the face of intolerable provocation. Whether it's a woman in a short skirt or a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, all citizens in a secular society need to accept that, whatever they think, the rules are that they are required to exercise self-restraint.

I accept that, as a secular rationalist, I struggle to tolerate what I regard as deluded religious zeal; behaviour that would be very difficult to distinguish from mental illness in another context. That's my side of the compromise. In return, the least the god botherers of all persuasions can do is restrain themselves from raping or murdering anyone, whatever they are wearing or drawing.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Nice summation.

In reply to MG:



No I don't think it's off the cards, I personally don't "get" religion at all being an atheist.

I tend to take the view that if anyone's God is so powerful and wise, then why would they be bothered what anyone said or printed about them.

It was the language and the and the veiled threat behind it that I objected to, I might have read a bit too much into it, or I might not have. He might have toned down what he really thought for fear of vilification, only he knows.

The broad brush strokes, that most racists use, the all encompassing "ALL somethings are dangerous /thieves / scum bags" It's the emotive language of the EDL and their ilk used to set one people against another. Which does nothing to help the situation and only breeds fear and animosity, which feeds the cycle of violence and distrust.

The Islamic faith doesn't tell people to kill other people, that's what twisted power hungry fanatics do, it's no worse than most religions if you look deeply enough.

As has been said Muslim's aren't Islam, but equally Islam isn't murderers and terrorists.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Sheesh. Some scary stuff there.

I tend to think that telling people what they can / cannot believe in doesn't really solve the problem.

In reply to MG:


The first part is right. I'd didn't mean the bit about blowing you up ( but you knew that because you were clever enough to workout the first bit ).

I'll spell it out for Mr. Chasm, If you criticise someone's religion who is very religious they might take it a an insult to them. But you might be insulting the people for whom Islam is the religion of peace and harmony and friendship (which it is to a lot of Muslims). Rather than the one's who have twisted the religious teachings, or selectively cherry pick the parts to suit their needs i.e. the nutters / terrorists / fundamentalists.

Tarring everyone with the same brush doesn't help. All Millwall fans are thugs?

In reply to krikoman:


Football fans are thugs. You can tell because some football fans show thuggish behaviour. The religion of football is a corrupting influence.

In reply to krikoman:

You are on really dangerous ground with this line of thinking. Basically all anyone has to say is "that offends me" and it is off limits. Had this been enforced over the last 200 hundred years, pretty much all modern science would not have happened, and much of modern thinking about equality would not have developed. The point about freedom of expression is that examining ideas leads to more "good" than offending people does harm, and you can't second guess where the good will come from.

In reply to krikoman: Is criticism of what someone considers to be the bad interpretations of a religion allowed? Because all you seem to be saying is don't criticise because "someone" may take offence (and if they don't then you'll jolly well take offence for them).

re. your Millwall analogy, can someone say they hate football without calling all Millwall fans thugs? Of course they can, don't be silly.

In reply to MG: This is well worth a read.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30714702

In reply to The New NickB:


They also campaigned publicly to try and stop their prophet being mocked publicly - legal of not legal? in as much as it is an open attack on the French constitution? As for illegal steps is passing a fatwha to kill those concerned legal? I'd say not but although this has been mentioned in the press at present I doubt that there is any way of proving it, especially as it would have been in Arabic 10 years ago but if you want proof then do some research. I heard someone say it on the telly and that's good enough for me.

This time the Muslim reps are being supportive of the general mood and have called for muslims to support the mass demo called on Sunday, along with all political parties. We will see how many turn out.

As for the yemeni line that is out of the door, the two suspects are two French born muslims, brothers of Algerian descent. They are a present going up and down the N2 in a car loaded with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers. They have already robbed a petrol station for petrol and food which would seem to knock on the head the theory of them being highly trained. One of them left his identity card in the getaway car! As this is near where I live I am staying at home today.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
"campaigned publicly" & "open attack on the French constitution" - those both sound like activity protected by the consititution

In reply to krikoman:



Quote - "Dr Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Nothing justifies the taking of life. Those who have killed in the name of our religion today claim to be avenging the insults made against Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. But nothing is more immoral, offensive and insulting against our beloved Prophet than such a callous act of murder. Our thoughts, prayers and solidarity go to the families of the victims and the people of France."

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The whole argument about self restraint is a very dubious one, if freedom of expression depends on what another person thinks of what you express then that is the end of freedom of expression. Self censuring is still censuring and it was exactly against this sort of notion that the free press fights.

A interesting example is that at the moment the photos of the dead cartoonists being shown in some US and UK press are being censored, the actual cartoons of Momo are being missed out or the page is scrambled. In other words not 24 hours after 12 people died for our freedom of expression the cowards have already given in to the murderers.

If we follow your logic the bastards have won.

In reply to elsewhere:


Even when the hate whipped up ends in a massacre of the entire editorial team of a magazine and a few others who had nothing to do with it?

The fact is that freedom of expression is one of the pillars of most modern democracies, if you fight against that you are fighting against democracy. Is that illegal or not? I've no idea but it doesn't seem to be something we should encourage? do you?

In reply to Ridge:
On twitter and youtube the usual morons claiming it to be a big set up are out.
Quotes like why didn't the police mans head explode when shot.no blood etc etc

No real debating with people who believe in conspiracies.just leave them to create the best fantasies they can.

In reply to Andy Say:


This is my whole point. DR SS is right to condemn but then he still acknowledges that insult was made to the prophet. What insult, they are cartoons, it was satire for goodness sake. Muslims should stop being so precious about it. Look at Family Guy, or the Simpsons, or Viz or many other satirical cartoon. They are continuously poking fun at Jesus and God. Ned Flanders is being ribbed most episodes. Christian's take this in good humour and you dont get Fatwas issued, even by the mentalist inhabitants of the bible belt.

What right does Islam have to be excluded from such mockery when it deserves it? Followers need to modernise or at least get a sense of humour.

In reply to



Less than 24 hours after this massacre the BBC have decided to suppress any discussion on the events in Paris and have chosen an obscure story about battery chargers as the HYS. I have never seen so many comments removed 'because the moderators found it broke the house rules'. The BBC are cowards and should hang their heads in shame for suppressing free speech today of all days.

In reply to Gone for good:

You've seen the front page of BBC News, right?

Cowards? FFS, get a grip. Take a look at Paul Wood's reporting in Syria, among many other examples.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't see where he's asking for Islam's exemption from insult.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:



Read it again. What he said was that 'they' claimed to be avenging insults but what they did was immoral and offensive, I see nowhere it that quote that Dr Shuja Shafi is stating that the magazine had insulted the prophet.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I wouldn't respect or encourage somebody arguing against democacy but I wouldn't ban their views and I doubt the French Constituition does.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Ok, this is the final time I attempt to explain what I mean in this thread.

I'm NOT suggesting some kind of false flag attack. However, shouting these things adds considerably to their cause if it's captured on camera, which isn't unlikely in this day and age.

Do I think the killers believe they're executioners appointed by Mohamed to carry out just vengeance against some ignorant infidels? I don't know, maybe they did, or tried to justify it to themselves in that way.

Do I think they carried out the attack with a target carefully selected to create the maximum amount of fear, anger, hatred, social division and mistrust of Islam? Absolutely. Do I think the timing with the Pegida march is relevent? Yes. Do I worry that this gives power to right wing nationalist voices in France and the rest of Europe? Yes.

In a conventional war between two countries, nationality might mark one as an enemy, but it's not because your country's values include killing people from that other country. That's the sort of context in which I see it, an act of war not of punishment.

In reply to Gone for good:



I don't know where you get that from. The lead story on the BBC News website is all about the shooting, and there's a lot of related content. The idea that the BBC is shying away from the issue is nonsense.

In reply to Andy Say:


That's not my interpretation, nevertheless, my wider point stands. Perhaps we should as the Doc to explain how he would feel about the prophet being drawn somehow on paper. You know, Mohammed's face. He would be offended, as all muslims would be because it is against their beliefs for the prophet to be shown like that. Even is it was a respectful depiction the average moderate muslim would be aggravated. We are scared to draw pictures of an imaginary person following an imaginary God.

Lets take this to the silly extreme. I am going to start a religion in my back garden as I think my lovely red watering can is holy. I dont know why nor can I provide evidence. My WC is my saviour. My greenhouse is my Mecca. Im going to write a book about how my WC brings life through the carriage of water and my greenhouse blooms. Praise be WC. You never know, if i start talking about this down the Rose and Crown, some old boozers might start to believe me, especially if I'm persuasve enough. What gives me the special right to be offended if someone draws my watering can or mocks its shiny redness. Hey they may even insult it by depicting its spout smaller than it really is.

Islam demands and is given undue respect, we are scared to criticise it and when we rightfully ridicule and satirise, French people get killed.

In reply to Jimbo W:

I know you're the philosopher and I'm just a watch borrower, but you've lost me on that one.

Shall we just say you don't like football / don't know much about football / are drawing some existential reference beyond the average UKC punter and move on?

In reply to Ridge:

Breaking news. 8 minutes ago.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/paris-terror-attack-armed-suspects-located-102850...

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Don't you think it would be better to leave him to give his own answers rather than making them up for yourself? How do know he would be offended? Some muslims are offended by images of Mohammed, but not all are. Lumping all muslims together as having a single set of beliefs seems to me to be a big mistake. And even if he does feel offended, he may be quite able to accept that offence as part of living in a liberal democracy. I don't see that you making up your own presumptions has any use.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Having enough followers willing to kick off publicly and violently if they don't get their way seems to be the main factor. There are other approaches you could consider for your holy WC, if you are not willing to interpret its teaching as condoning violence, ask for example the Scientology brigade.

In reply

I am fully aware it is the headline story.

The BBC run a discussion forum called 'have your say' - HYS - which allows people to comment on topical news stories. Today's HYS is about battery charging ffs.
Why can't the BBC man up and allow people to express their thoughts, condolences, opinions? Because as an organisation they are gutless spineless, toothless and try to be all things to all men but never succeed. If they possessed 1/10th of the conviction of Charlie Hedbo they would earn a lot more respect.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You are making some sweeping generalizations there, departing from an unfounded and wrong assumption, and escalating from there to reach a silly conclusion...

This was pointed out before in this thread a number of times, but yet again, Islam does not have a problem with depictions of the Prophet, although some flavours of it do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

There is nothing wrong with that. People get offended by all sort of crap. People who get offended have a right to protest and ask for their beliefs or reason of offense to be respected. Sometimes we may chose to be respectful and not to intentionally offend people (making mockery of people with disabilities, writing cartoons making fun of rape, portraying Jews as coin grabbers in well intended anti-racist twits, etc.) and other times people may not.

But to ask not to be offended is as much a right as the right to offend. Of course, no need to say (and most people including those religious agree) that to be offended is no excuse to go on a killing rampage, which conversely is a situation which happens in this country on a daily basis unrelated to religion.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


You have every right to be offended if you want to. I might consider it odd, but if it offends you then it offends you. What you don't have the right to do is threaten or kill the people who cause you offence, or encourage others to do so. If you want to, you can campaign for it to be illegal to make fun of your watering can (freedom of expression cuts both ways, here) just as you could campaign for the reintroduction of hanging, drawing and quartering for parking offences or the criminalisation of cumin, although in any of these cases I'd hope that your campaign would be ignored as inimical to a liberal society.

In reply to Gone for good:




So you reckon the Have your say forum has greater prominence than the headline story of the news pages? An odd perspective I'd suggest. If you read the live pages, you'll see that there are still HaveYourSay emails being published.

In reply to Gone for good:

1/10th of the conviction of Charlie Hebdo, unfortunate use of numbers there.

I'm sure the BBC could provide a list of journalists and other staff killed in the course of working for them.

Certain irony to your selective outrage.

In reply to Gone for good:

Total rubbish.

Make a visit to Broadcasting House and learn about the 32 BBC staff who were murdered or lost their lives whilst reporting on war.

Whilst not perfect, the BBC have done as much - if not more, than any other broadcaster or news organisation to give a voice to people who otherwise would not be heard.

In reply to thomasadixon:



This.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I was talking about self-restraint in the context of not punching someone you disagree with, not self-censoring to the point of not arguing with them.

In reply to The New NickB:

I don't recall any BBC journalists being murdered because of what they had written. Killed whilst carrying out their duties maybe in much the same way a soldier might be killed carrying out their duties.
It's not really the same as yesterday's atrocity is it?

In reply to JMGLondon:

The BBC is a relic of our imperial past. Frankly it's time to sell it on and allow it to flourish in the commercial world rather than be the constant drain on our taxes it has allowed to become.

In reply to Gone for good:

If you look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098 you will see that Have Your Say postings relating to the shooting are being redirected to a live thread concerning them.

Maybe the BBC have not just 'manned up' but have better journalistic skills than you?

In reply to Gone for good:

Like Fox News or Russia Today.

By the time the BBC had got into its stride we had already handed India back.

In reply to Gone for good:


Imperial? So, that's what the 'i' in iPlayer signifies, huh?... I've often wondered about that.

P.S. Get a grip FFS.

In reply to Gone for good:
I recall a conversation I had with my friend Marie Colvin once. The long and short of it was that for serious journalists such as her the BBC was the benchmark by which other news services were judged.

That's not to say they were blind to it's faults, but few news and media operations with such a global reach could match it.

I'll take her opinion over yours.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Funny old world.

Shoot down an airliner and it's all the fault of the West.

Machine gun a cartoonist and Bruce turns into Michael Winner and suddenly becomes a poster boy for western democracy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


If a French Imam had written a fatwa calling for the killing of the cartoonists, he would be rightly arrested for making threats to life or whatever the law is in France. You might not speak Arabic, but I'm sure the Paris police and French security service have plenty of people who do. You haven't actually shown any evidence that the people condemning the murders yesterday called for them a decade ago. I'm sure there might be cases - some radical backstreet self-styled Imam of the Choudry-ilk, although I doubt they would have then condemned the killings yesterday unless they had a damascene conversion like the the ex-HuT chaps who now staff the Quilliam foundation. French Imams have free speech rights too; which includes the right to condem cartoons they find insulting, but if they don't step over the legal lines live with it, just like they have to live with people say things like... I don't know... that they can understand why people might spit on headscarf wearing women.

In reply to Gone for good:



They are still dead and they often targeted because they are western or sometimes specifically BBC journalists. Think about the attack which left Frank Gardner in a wheelchair and his cameraman dead.

In reply to Gone for good:



Deary me. Can you imagine what ISIS would do with Paul Wood in Syria, and you're brave enough to call him a coward from your keyboard? Astonishing.

In reply to Gone for good:

I totally disagree. The main reason the BBC is one of the least biased and most reliable news outlets on the planet is it is not commercial. I think the BBC is good value for money.

In reply to JMGLondon:
That's a complete misrepresentation of what I said. When making my earlier comments I was referring to the establishment not the the people who write the stories. The website is showing selected and no doubt edited emails regarding yesterday's events and are not allowing an open forum as they would normally do on current affairs. I have never stated that the BBC journalists and production crews are cowards, on the contrary they are brave and selfless in their pursuit of a story. I cannot say the same for those in more senior positions.

In reply to John Stainforth:


Then you disagree. I'm sure many think the same as you but I don't as I'm sure many others don't.

In reply to Gone for good:

Rupert Murdoch and his sons agree with you.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:




The main political parties and broadcasters are afraid to criticize Islam, for fear of reprisals, just as many were afraid to criticize the Catholic church several hundred years ago. Not to say it shouldn't be done. Yesterday just show's how important we do criticize the ridiculous ideas that all religions have.

Andy F

In reply to TobyA:

I started to type long answer but effaced it by mistake and can't be bothered to type it again and anyway as it would be mostly based on French TV shows for which I can't give you "a link" so there's not much point. Their were fatwas emitted at the time but as more or less anyone can give them they don't mean much, unless someone uses them to send these two rather thick murderers off on their mission. My point is that if this time before the horror of the act no Muslim reps dare bring it up again at the time they did. Take it or leave it, I'm not going to search for proof as I was there and saw it.

As for head scarves and all the rest either you believe equality of the sexes or don't, I do, you don't, I'm not going to bother to try to convince you of anything so basic. If muslims want to live in non-muslim democracies why not but I think they should respect the laws and culture of the land.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Hear hear!

Andy F

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
As for head scarves and all the rest either you believe equality of the sexes or don't, I do, you don't,

It's complicated the modern world Bruce, and you're quite old.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Aren't the laws and culture of most Western democracies that you can wear more-or-less what you like so long as it keeps your privates covered up?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Yes and it's also culture in the western world as well as law in France to not hide behind a veil or anything else that may conceal your identitu whilst going about your everyday business

In reply to Gone for good:

You're trying to have it both ways (here, not France).

You can't claim freedom to expression, then deny the veil.

I think all religion is bollox, but it is perfectly legal, whilst unacceptable to some, to wear the veil.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hey look everybody - it's Uncle Bruce's Bivalent Logic Hour........

Wave to Uncle Bruce as he struggles to grasp with a non binary world.

In reply to Gone for good:


Full face motorcycle helmets therefore being illegal throughout Europe?

In reply to andyathome:
What about those little dust masks that some folks have started wearing when cycling (or indeed walking) round town? Lock 'em all up.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Even by your standards Brucey this is moronic. Leaving aside TobyA wasnt arguing for headscarves I take it you dont actually realise that some women choose to wear headscarves etc.

In reply to andyathome:


I suppose that was some ill conceived attempt at mockery - whatever works for you

In reply to andy:


Be fun in London since tourists from certain countries do seem to have a habit of wearing those ineffective masks to try and ward off SARS or whatever.

The headscarves one is curious. Its a bit before my time but I have several pictures of my grandmother and friends from around second world war, if not earlier, in Manchester and Liverpool. Every single photo they are wearing headscarves. My understanding is it was required to attend mass and the pics, in those days, tended to be on Sunday when they were best dressed.
Seems to have died out now but common at one time.

In reply to dissonance:

The wearing of headscarves in this country was to keep the soot out of your hair.

In reply to Gone for good:

You said: 'it's also culture in the western world as well as law in France to not hide behind a veil or anything else that may conceal your identitu whilst going about your everyday business'.

I said: 'Bollocks'.

Yep. I guess it was mockery.

You managed to find all of those 'Have Your Say' posts on the BBC news site yet?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So where's you freedom of speech there then? DO as I want you to, or f*ck off, nice one.

You've just shown exactly what you are.

In reply to dissonance:

Christian women were not supposed to attend church without a head covering well into my lifetime. For men it was OK. 1960's?

In reply to andyathome:


Still is in some churches in Italy and Spain.

In reply to andyathome:

Meanwhile, apparently the two murderers have decided to spend the night in a forest. I expect that the French special forces will enjoy getting some use out of their thermal imaging cameras and night vision equipment. And assault rifles.

In reply to andyathome:

You didn't say bollox. You came up with some half arsed riposte that was highly predictable and entirely missed the point I was making.

As for the BBC website and its failure to allow a full and frank debate on this shocking act of mass murder, well I have said what I had to say and will leave it at that.

In reply to Clauso:


Wot? You mean those evil Jeehadee Basturds, are going 'bouldering' in the morning!

In reply to Ridge:


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

In reply to dek:


I suspect that they'll be smouldering by the morning dekko, me old mucker.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
And you keep going on about Jews in Israel being invaders and colonists who massacre and murder, so how much responsibility are you willing to take for setting the ground for the jihadi who murdered three people in Brussels at the Jewish museum then? Sauce for the goose etc.

As to your "belief in equality between the sexes", i guess it means you would understand people spitting on Muslim men as well as Muslim women, then? You'll just have to put me down as old fashioned as I don't understand spitting on anyone, regardless of their choice of hat.

In reply to dissonance:


This getting off subject, you're a man too, and not a muslim so you will never be brought up in a family where women have to wear scarves or even worse burkas, where if you don't your "older brothers" take care of you, going up to acid or razor blade attacks. If in France the previous government banned burkas in public it was at the request of women's groups. I don't think you know anything about the subject.

Freedom to be downtrodden is not a valid freedom.

In reply to krikoman:

There are some aspects of the culture of muslim countries which are cruel or illegal, fixed marriages, honour killings, excision, forced dress practices, unfair heritage practices which systematically give girls half the heritage of boys.... surely you don't believe they should exist in civilized countries?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Quite right Bruce, women in Iran need to watch out for allahs Dress code Nazis, too! But let's all pretend it's there's a widespread choice involved!


http://persian2english.com/?p=12659

In reply to TobyA:


Except the Jewish people killed, you could add the children and a teacher killed by Merah, were not in Palestine, they were in France. I have already said I think we can expect more such killing, as in Israel it gets more difficult the may decide to go for soft targets outside Palestine... after all Israel has no qualms to butcher children with bombs and shells in Gaza. Otherwise of course I accept responsibility for what I post or say, but not for the extrapolations.


And yet this is what happens to Muslim girls who walk through muslim area in France if some bloke thinks they shouldn't be wearing clothes that abase them ie. modern clothes. You don't know much about life in the real world, do you?

In reply to dek:
True, I know that, it's changed a lot since I went there but perhaps we could ask ourselves why the Islamic Revolution took place?

It's not a reason for nuking the place though, nor is it a country in which no progress is being made.

PS. There are no boulders in those woods.

In reply to Clauso:


Let's hope not.

Let's hope our French friends take the pair of bastards alive.

The sad events in Paris have left me rather full of anger.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

So you don't believe in gender equality either? It doesn't surprise me though when I go to Britain, which is quite often, I'm often struck how young people have gone backward politically compared to when I was young. Especially the men, all you seem interested in is making money and careers? Shows up clearly in the voting too.

In reply to andymac:


Judging on form it seems unlikely.


Me too, it doesn't stop some posters on this thread justifying some of the least acceptable aspects of Islam though. I guessed it would happen.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Logic would suggest that the scarves would be the least of their problems and that its a rather pointless attack on a symptom not the cause whilst managing to victimise others.
However why dont you pretend that your intolerance is for a good reason. Just like the nutters on the other side do.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yeah, I was kidding!

Btw, did the French papers print some of the Hebdo cartoons today? Last night it was mentioned the majority of European papers would as an act of solidarity.
All the British rags chickened out!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And that's your reply to someone saying that you struggle to comprehend a non-binary world. Perfect.

In reply to dek:

Courage isn't too present in British like theses days, just read what the politically correct wankers are posting on this thread. I've heard that they are going to run a million copies on Monday but I imagine it's hard when most of the people have been killed. Other papers are going to help out on the technical side.

What's amusing is that back a few decades it was called Hari Kirri and then when Gl De Gaulle died they printed a cover page that was considered "disrespectful". The ancestors of those shedding tears now banned the paper - so much for freedom of the press. That's why it is now called "Charlie Hebdo" - Charles De Gaulle. I've got copy of that last Hari Kiri, some people collect them.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Isn't it about time that you had a lie down for a bit?...

And that comes from somebody who might not always be politically correct, but positively enjoys a good wank FWIW.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Best I can be bothered with - fundamentally that's the problem though, isn't it? Islam considers women to be inferior to men and all these visible signs are just the way this inferiority is expressed and imposed. Christianity did the same, and still does in some respects especially for RC and Orthodox but for lay Christians, nominal or real, gender equality is becoming accepted...ukc seems to be haven for backward boys

There are plenty of books about Islam if you are interested in discovering the reality of the religion. They're quite thick though as the variants are numerous.

In reply to Clauso:

With the drugs I take wanking is a waste of time. I'm sorry though but woman haters get on my nerves, especially when they try to cover it up with a load of garbage. You either believe women have same rights as men or you don't, there's no half way.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yep! It's been noted on some other Web forums, the usually squawking left liberal rags, still don't have the balls to print the cartoons despite, ten of "their own" far leftists being slaughtered, for insulting the mohammedan death cult, that pretends to be a religion.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Which is why people are arguing that womens dress code shouldnt be f*cking restricted.
So if i was a simple minded type I would therefore conclude you didnt care for womens rights. As opposed to just being simple minded.

Its not a difficult concept I would have thought. if women are being forced to wear Burkhas chances are they are being made to do other things as well. So the solution isnt to ban burkhas but to address the root cause.

In reply to dek:

unlike the right wing rags eh?
To be honest the entire UK media has been a tad embarrassing. Particularly bad for the right wing rags who have been going on about how press freedom is essential and government oversight bad.
Clearly rather than laws the government should have just bumped a few off them off.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Made all the more ironic due to his rather disgusting statement in this thread that he understands people spitting on women who wear headscarfs. He tells everyone else they don't believe in equality between the sexes, yet "understands" violence towards women who are visibly Muslim!? I'm not really sure how even in Bruce's twisted logic he's got to a point where Muslim men abusing Muslim women for not wearing modest clothes is despicable, but racist thugs spitting on muslim women for wearing a scarf is understandable? Surely both are as disgusting and as wrong as each other.

In reply to dek:


Time for you to take a lie down too, I suspect...

I met one of them once. Looked almost human. Didn't murder me... Could play guitar like f*ck though. Didn't quite catch his name, but it might have been Richard Thompson, or something similar...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I should have thought of this ages ago - if I just copy and paste the following every time your drivel starts to dribble out, it saves time and effort. So, lifted from another thread:


So, just to be clear, your contributions to this are - as always - going to be:

1. A world view you copied from your Big Bumper Book of World Politics for Pre-teens
2. Ham-fisted misrepresentation of other people's *actual* statements, to make them simple enough for you to (still fail to) rebut
3. The asinine insistence that only *you* understand the topic at hand, despite being, as someone put it, 'as thick as mince'.

Much easier. You actually had the opportunity to add something to this discussion, Bruce - and your first couple of posts were thoughtful and useful. But this, here and now, is your level, isn't it? Pitiful.

All the best

Martin

In reply to dissonance:


The press in the UK have been pathetic. "We will staunchly defend freedom of speech, unless it involves us upsetting those beardy nutcase types, in which case we're scared shitless...erm...Je n'est suis pas Charlie".

In reply to Clauso:

Are you propositioning me again, sweet cheeks?

I met one too...He used to be called Cat Stevens....then he 'reverted' and wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for that old offensive chestnut 'blasphemy'. A bearded clerical fascist told him it's his duty.
Small flat world, eh Dazza. Mibbe they could make an album?

In reply to Trevers:

It makes sense to me. Its rather like sectarianism, its just religion as an excuse to behave badly.

In reply to Ridge:

In many ways I cant blame them,. I would be shitting it just a bit. However if they do want to try the whole free press is essential for democracy line then they really should step up to the task,
Independent came across the best I thought with their front page. The rest not so much. Especially those showing the tw*ts about to shoot the injured officer. Something to give their fellow arseholes something to masturbate over.

In reply to dek:

Sweet nothings aside, do you seriously believe that all Muslims want to kill you?... All of them? Really?

In reply to Clauso:


Don't be so f*cking stoopid. But the Charlie E offices received "numerous death threats" from Islamic f*ckwits, so when they say they are going to kill you, they 'seriously' mean it.Right?

Btw
A two second Google for 'arab anti semitic cartoons' brings up some shockers, from the easily offended, religion of peace.

In reply to Ridge:

I think the main problem with these cartoons is that taken out of context and country in which they were published, they do seem outright racist, so I understand why UK newspapers would choose to not publish them.

For example one cover of Charlie Hebdo I see people complaining about on Twitter has French black minister depicted as a monkey. If you don't know the context it would seem extremely racist, but actually it was an anti-racist cover, they were caricaturing an extreme right French magazine that made comments in this way.

Just watched newsnight and there was this Myriam Francois Cerrah from Newstatesman complaining about a cartoon in Charlie of Boko Haram sexual slaves asking for their welfare benefits.
Sounds wicked and racist indeed, but in fact Charlie was simply mixing two pieces of news and denouncing Boko Haram's crimes as well as taking the piss of those who complain about benefit scroungers by pushing their point to the absurd.

This is a kind of very "French" humour that is very sensitive to the cultural and media context you just can't publish this stuff in an UK newspaper, people would just not get it unless they had lived in France for a long while and followed the news.

In reply to dek:

You labelled the followers of an entire religion as death cultists. I pointed out that they don't all murder people. Now, who's being stoopid, stoopid?

P.S. I ain't religious, but I'm northern English and don't even own a ferret. What do you think of that?

In reply to dek:


I had a good look and couldn't find a single one depicting the Jewish Gods or Prophets. Are you sure you understand the issue here?