Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 131

Thread: Charlie Hebdo shootings & retaliation

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,778
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    "This isn't about free speech. Free speech is just an oppressive western myth. There is no right to protect oppressive/racist discourse. Fuck free speech."

    All the while using free speech to express those very opinions.

    So if we want to do away with free speech, tell me - what better alternative do you propose?
    If people aren't "free" to voice their shitty opinions in whatever shitty way they choose - who's to say your "good" opinions should have any space either?

    We need more freedom of speech, not less.
    Yes, we need more centering of marginalized voices; yes we need more diversity in media; yes we need more emphasis on the importance of "punching up" rather than "punching down" in comedy and satire; yes we need more light shined on power, economic and race imbalances. Can't do ANY of this without freedom of speech.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    When you start censuring opinion, you lose the ability to debate and/or refute those opinions, and are betting that your opinion will never be deemed unworthy of expression. There's nothing to gain from shutting someone up, if you disagree you can always argue, shout or laugh.
    Not to mention the fact that ideas and concepts that remain shut down for too long tend to eventually come out in the most extreme ways. For instance, hadn't we allowed the marches against gay marriage, how do you think things would have fared for the gay community ? More often than not, people who cannot express themselves tend to resort to violence.
    They need to be able to blow steam, not blow shit up.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,214
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    This does become a problem when people start responding with the sort of defense that implies that they are not guilty of some really racist/awful shit. They are. The important thing is to acknowledge that and then move on. I'm not going to claim that I was really familiar with them before this happened, so perhaps I'm missing something, but this is not the sort of thing that you want to jump up and defend on the merits of its humor.



    This isn't even the one I was looking for (which involved a hassidic jew with dollar bill signs for eyes), but we don't need to defend the content to understand that we support their right to say it, especially in the aftermath of a tragedy like this.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 01-09-2015 at 10:30 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Yes or delightful pictures such as this.

    When one thing looks iffily racist... fine... but 2 ...3 ...4... how many until we just cut the crap and call a spade a spade. I stick by my assessment that they tow the line with the retreat option of claiming it's making a different point. But the same racial caricatures again and again... I just can't pretend that doesn't say something about the terms in which the paper and the readership view the world

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    How far back are you gonna dig ? That one is at least 30 years old...
    And then again, this is a weekly, illustration-based satirical journal. Its inception predates its title. It is the direct successor of Hara-Kiri, a leftist magazine that reveled in gross, vulgar, offensive humor. After being banned for making fun of the death of Charles de Gaulles (and here again, I'm not going to delve into the context of the era, or even why they made fun of that), Charlie Hebdo was born.
    This is the spirit they were carrying on. Outrageous, offensive humor.

    So yeah, you're going to find a whole lot of drawings and illustrations that are insulting and offensive, to the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Handicapped, Bankers, politicians, cops.... A bunch. That was the point. Since the mag reacted to the news weekly, you're still going to be out of context and forced to make up your own.

    Edit Charb was married to an algerian, daughter of a harki for fuck's sake, and Cabu was your typical hippie leftist pacifist...
    Last edited by Khrz; 01-09-2015 at 12:02 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    The thing is, we live in a scary fucking world, now, where this shit happens a lot. So, you can go ahead and have your right to make cartoons about whatever you want, but don't be surprised if this happens if you do.

    We used to be able to flip off other drivers on the expressway as a way to "express ourselves" and our rage. Now, we risk getting shot in the head for that shit. Guide yourselves accordingly.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    ...................
    Last edited by Your Name Here; 07-25-2016 at 11:43 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    How far back are you gonna dig ? That one is at least 30 years old...
    And then again, this is a weekly, illustration-based satirical journal. Its inception predates its title. It is the direct successor of Hara-Kiri, a leftist magazine that reveled in gross, vulgar, offensive humor. After being banned for making fun of the death of Charles de Gaulles (and here again, I'm not going to delve into the context of the era, or even why they made fun of that), Charlie Hebdo was born.
    This is the spirit they were carrying on. Outrageous, offensive humor.

    So yeah, you're going to find a whole lot of drawings and illustrations that are insulting and offensive, to the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Handicapped, Bankers, politicians, cops.... A bunch. That was the point. Since the mag reacted to the news weekly, you're still going to be out of context and forced to make up your own.

    Edit Charb was married to an algerian, daughter of a harki for fuck's sake, and Cabu was your typical hippie leftist pacifist...
    They can be all those things and still be up for cynically making money. They can also be all those things and be misguided. They can also be complicated - you can have a north african girlfriend and still be racist or xenophobic... let me put it this way, you get misogynists that marry women! No such thing as a good guy badge

    But ultimately I'm fairly convinced they do stuff that tickles racists, knowing full well they'll lap it up. And I do think it's because France is a bit more right wing and it's not seen as that outrageous

    Maybe in the UK we're all a bit pussified and politically correct, I'm open to that possibility

    The magazine may well have had a broad range of targets, but when it came to Jews, Muslims and black people... it's the same old dodgy caricatures. Like it is possible to lampoon all of those things and it not appear racist, but it's funny how in their case it appeared a bit racist pretty much every single time

    And the cartoon being 30 years old only proves it's a long tradition, and my point was this paper has been a bit dodgy for as long as it's been around, so...

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    They can be all those things and still be up for cynically making money.
    Well most of all they're dead.
    You know, I usually would be up to a healthy, if a bit circling, debate about all that stuff, but that shit hit pretty close to home as far as I'm concerned. So, I won't be able to participate in this discussion anymore and watch those guys being called racist, money-grabbing cynics who eventually got what was coming to them. I'm sorry. You guys have fun.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    who eventually got what was coming to them
    I think that's going a bit farther than what this conversation said ... certainly nobody deserves to DIE for their opinion. But when you deliberately poke the bear, the bear sometimes turns around and eats you. This isn't a big "surprise."

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    Well most of all they're dead.
    You know, I usually would be up to a healthy, if a bit circling, debate about all that stuff, but that shit hit pretty close to home as far as I'm concerned. So, I won't be able to participate in this discussion anymore and watch those guys being called racist, money-grabbing cynics who eventually got what was coming to them. I'm sorry. You guys have fun.
    I never said they got what was coming to them or deserved to die - in fact I've made three posts saying in our corner of the world we don't kill racists or cynics, and they have every right to print what they print - and we should defend them even if we disagree with them

    If you can't keep a cool head and take in what's being said then maybe it is time to back away and cool off, because if you put words like that in my mouth then this certainly is over

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,778
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    @allegro = victim blaming, fatalism, endorsement of "might is right."
    Galileo might disagree with you. He poked the Catholic Church bear - and he was right.

    Happening today, in a country that does not recognize free speech: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9967008.html

    I am not comfortable with those racist cartoons; even when racist tropes are used to mock racist tropes; they're still harmful (like the Colbert case: in that instance I agreed with Suey Park's position). But in the case of insulting Mohammed - I think it's very important we don't have sacred cows. That nobody is above mockery.

    I don't think muslims should be abused - and the attacks on muslims in France following this are awful.
    I do think religion should be mocked. Life of Brian was banned in Britain when it was released.

    I think in fact that however wrongheaded or misguided by "false consciousness" and white-savior values that get harnessed by the western imperialist war machine - I want to give these people the benefit of the doubt and think maybe they were genuine in their love for humanity and desire for people to be liberated from oppressive religion. And maybe that's why they were killed: because their work is a threat to power that uses religion to oppress people.
    Last edited by aggroculture; 01-09-2015 at 01:22 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    @allegro = victim blaming, fatalism, endorsement of "might is right."
    Galileo might disagree with you. He poked the Catholic Church bear - and he was right.
    Lots who poked the proverbial bear were imprisoned or even beheaded. But, that didn't stop people from poking the bear; they did it, anyway, knowing the risks*. It's knowing the risks that's the important part. There is no shield from the risks.

    *edit: I'm thinking, specifically, of Milton (Paradise Lost)..
    Last edited by allegro; 01-09-2015 at 02:03 PM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,649
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    According to a BFMTV journalist who was able to speak with the terrorists before they were killed, the brothers were trained by Anwar Al Awaki and were before he got blown into pieces by a drone strike. They were financed by Al-Qaeda in Yemen.
    He stated that he was avenging the prophet and that the cartoonists were not civilians but "targets". Stated that he would not kill women and children even though Westerners are killing plenty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    On the other hand, the terrorist that staged the 2nd hostage situation claimed he was not from Al-Qaeda but from ISIS. He claimed to be fighting for the rights of oppressed Muslims in Palestine. His targets were Jews, thus the Kosher supermarket.
    The beginning of his attack was coordinated with the brothers' attack.

    I just realized I used about a dozen trigger words. If you don't hear back from me within the next 24 hours, call my

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    Life of Brian was banned in Britain when it was released.
    I think that was Norway - in sweden the tagline for the film is "the film that was too funny for norway"

    In the UK Palin & Cleese had a debate with 2 bishops and totally ruined them... one of them said you wouldn't dare do this about mohammed. Cleese said "yes and 200 years ago we would have been burned at the stake... I'm suggesting we've made some progress"

    fantastic clip, well worth looking up

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    401
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    You could google it yourself in 2 seconds but very well, here's charb's cartoon depicting a black french MP as a monkey

    not a monkey because she's messy, or stupid, she's just depicted as a monkey... zero context or props or scenery

    You can accuse me of oversimplification but have you ever read the paper? It's for right wing armchair thumpers, they consciously toe the line because they can't compete with Canard. That's their audience and this is the kind of thing they put out
    It's target audince is for right wingers you say? Funny though that most of the cartoonists were lefwing themselves. French are complicated people.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Well... if you're asking for an explanation of the discrepancy, I'd say it's the left/right axis becoming outdated as the centuries go on

    how do we think of the far right? anti-semitic and racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic nationalist... but what are the the rising modern far right groups in Europe like? Not explicitly biologically racist, anti semitism largely a thing of the past with little populist appeal, gay marriage has general support - in fact the homophobia of muslims is used as a rallying point for the far right these days. The English Defence League wave Israeli flags and have an LGBT division... but they're still far right with a whiff of 30s fascism

    However "target audience" is incorrect on my part... I'd say Charlie Hebdo has a broad target audience (as they lampoon all sorts), but again (and honestly I'm not up for outlining this a 4th or 5th time), I think it's the case that they know there is a right wing element to their readership, as there is a strong right wing element in french society (at least compared to UK, DE, ES & scandinavia), and that's who they try to titillate

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,214
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    so now that I've looked into it more, some of the really anti-Semitic Charlie Hebdo comics that I've seen people use as examples of the publication's overt racism are actually... not related to the paper at all, but parodies of their covers.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Canada, West Coast
    Posts
    1,088
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    After reading about this more, I think it's far too simple to break it down to free speech vs censorship. When something borders on hate speech, shouldn't there be some sort of system to keep it in check, (regulation)? I obviously don't side with people would murder someone they disagree with, but it is extremely hard to feel bad for the paper. You could argue extreme liberalism, ( the real term, not the American definition) and it's values have allowed the dominant culture to force its views on people. You don't hear much in the mainstream about how Western nations fucked the "global south". Maybe that, and the fact Islam is portrayed unfairly in the media is the reason the attacks happened. The speech isn't really free when only the one side gets its voice heard. I feel bad for the overwhelming majority of Muslims getting grouped in with a few assholes.

    Edit: added a word
    Last edited by icecream; 01-09-2015 at 09:58 PM.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,214
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    but they aren't exclusively mocking one religion. I've heard some people make the claim that that's their fallback alibi for when they get called out for Islamophobia, but no, I don't think there should be regulation in place to stop offensive humor. The reaction is unpredictable too. I still don't get what the outrage is all about with The Satanic Verses. The comic that really pissed people off this time was the cover image with Muhammed on it, but the translation of what he's saying in the caption isn't hate speech. It's "100 lashes if you don't die laughing!"

    They're satirizing a punishment that is employed in large parts of the Middle East. Right now, in Saudi Arabia, a blogger is about to be lashed 1000 times for allegedly insulting Islam. He will be lashed 50 times every week for 20 weeks. It's insane. Mockery may not be the most effective tool for dealing with this sort of madness, but shutting up the mockery under the claim that it is hate speech is definitely not the answer, especially in response to the assassination of comic strip artists. I've heard people say that mocking images of people being beheaded for insulting Islam are in some way hateful and racist... but this actually still happens. They still publicly behead people in Saudi Arabia (for crimes like sorcery, not kidding). If your crime was deemed really awful (like blasphemy on top of apostasy, and maybe the effort to convert others away from Islam), they will occasionally crucify the headless body of the executed in public, and hang his severed head in a plastic bag above it.

    It's not just a "few assholes."

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Canada, West Coast
    Posts
    1,088
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    I understand they don't single out Islam. But, they do feed into the Islamophobic sensibilities of the far right. They know their audience.

    The issue shouldn't be about making a joke about lashing. In Islam you aren't allowed to depict Mohammad. That's the issue South Park ran into with their episode. The draconian punishments dished out in the Middle East is horrendous to us, looking at it from a liberal democratic P.O.V. But really, fucked up punishments were on the books until fairly recently. And many states still have the death penalty, which is just as bad in my opinion. Killing someone is still killing someone. Especially when there are a disproportionate number of black Americans on death row. But that's a whole different topic.

    I don't know how accurate this is, but here are a few political cartoons from Arabic papers regarding the issue: http://mic.com/articles/108076/here-...hebdo-massacre

    It's really unfair to assume everyone in the Middle East is running around beheading or lashing people who disagree.
    Last edited by icecream; 01-09-2015 at 10:38 PM.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,214
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by icecream View Post
    But really, fucked up punishments were on the books until fairly recently. And many states still have the death penalty, which is just as bad in my opinion. Killing someone is still killing someone.
    We can be opposed to the death penalty, but it's not equivalent. There may be some states that still have laws against sodomy, but these aren't enforced. We maybe got a bit carried away in the late 1600s and burned people alive for witchcraft. Nowadays though, the death penalty is reserved for only the most extreme crimes. I'm not saying I approve of the death penalty, but what it's enacted for definitely matters.

    This man in Saudi Arabia, Raif Badwadi, was originally going to be put to death for apostasy. He's also being charged with "cyberterrorism" for running a website called Free Saudi Liberals. His truly scandalous quote was "that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists are all equal."

    It's really unfair to assume everyone in the Middle East is running around beheading or lashing people who disagree.
    Depending on the country, it is absolutely fair to say that it's a lot more common than many people would seem to insist. As of October, 59 people were beheaded in Saudi Arabia last year. The year before that it was 69. Leaving Islam is an automatic death sentence. This is the court of law.

    You are stuck with the unfortunate situation where these sorts of comics could breed resentment and heat up anti-Muslim sentiments, but you cannot extend the jurisdiction of these laws to countries you do not govern. You cannot insist that people not draw the prophet in France. For a large part, many liberal principles and ideals are directly threatened by these laws. Acceptance and respect for homosexuality, equal rights for women, the freedom of speech no matter how offensive, the freedom to practice any faith you want. By comparison to the attacks in France, these cartoons themselves are a drop in the bucket with regards to potentially inflating anti-Islamic sentiments. Ultimately, the idea of censoring satire because it could be perceived as unkind to a minority group is a bad idea, and it would be especially bad now.

    *Edit: The beheading total for last year in Saudi Arabia was 83.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 01-09-2015 at 11:39 PM.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Canada, West Coast
    Posts
    1,088
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Then the lack of free speech in some Middle Eastern countries and the right to distribute hate speech in France are very different issues. Satire in the two situations become very different given the context. What you do think a good definition of satire is? Is it really satire in a country where Muslims are an oppressed minority, subjected to laws which single them out? I think at that point it is just bullying.

    I remember looking at American political cartoons during and just after the Civil War for a history class. There were several, horrible cartoons depicting freed slaves in all sorts of negative stereotypes. Is that satire? That is more in line with what Charlie Hebdo has a history of publishing. They might poke fun of themselves once in a while but I think that's to cover for their bigotry, though you have said you disagree.

    You can make a good argument Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian country. It is very different for someone to use satire to speak out against the government there. Satire is more effective when used in that instance.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,253
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    I was thinking about the concept of 'freedom of speech' and except that people seem to assume all of the 'western democracies' have it, do we actually have the right to free speech in the UK or other European countries? I can't think of any law relating to this except the hate speech one which is against free speech if anything, we don't have a constitution like the US. Is there a free speech element to the human rights act? Or any EU law about this?

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,214
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by icecream View Post
    Then the lack of free speech in some Middle Eastern countries and the right to distribute hate speech in France are very different issues. Satire in the two situations become very different given the context. What you do think a good definition of satire is? Is it really satire in a country where Muslims are an oppressed minority, subjected to laws which single them out? I think at that point it is just bullying.
    First off, while yes, muslims are still very obviously a minority in France, at over five million they have the largest Muslim population in western Europe. By comparison, the Jewish population in France is around half a million. While Catholicism is still considered the largest religious demographic in France, of the 45 million people who identify as Christian, less than 2 million consider themselves practicing believers. This is where it gets tricky. When it comes to the population with the largest number of religious believers adhering to a particular faith, it would actually seem that Islam could be considered the dominant religious belief.

    The dominant majority in France is by and large secular non-belief. The original bans on the burqa were related to wearing it in schools. Alongside this ban was a restriction against wearing a cross or a yarmulke. The restrictions on wearing it in public are prohibited by the form which completely covers the face. The law would seemingly prohibit any form of complete facial covering. This is ridiculous, of course, because even if you believe that the nature of the burqa is in some ways oppressive to women as a concept, people should be allowed to dress however they please.

    I remember looking at American political cartoons during and just after the Civil War for a history class. There were several, horrible cartoons depicting freed slaves in all sorts of negative stereotypes. Is that satire? That is more in line with what Charlie Hebdo has a history of publishing.
    There is an obvious fundamental difference. The institution of slavery is essential to the discussion there. We've moved on quite a long way, and it took a lot of time, and racism is not dead in this country. One thing that is now commonly understood to be unacceptable are outrageous demonstrations of racism. The expression of it has largely moved into more subtle, subversive, and maybe even unwitting examples. We have come a long way, and we've done it without repealing the first amendment. We allow people to say awful things.

    They might poke fun of themselves once in a while but I think that's to cover for their bigotry, though you have said you disagree.
    I can't claim to be familiar enough with their content to necessarily disagree. A cursory google image search does show them lampooning pretty much everything.

    You can make a good argument Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian country. It is very different for someone to use satire to speak out against the government there. Satire is more effective when used in that instance.
    But you cannot satirize the Saudi Arabian government from within Saudi Arabia. That's pretty much what this man Raif is being publicly whipped for. When you look at the things he was saying, it was generally inclusive, tolerant stuff. You could not publish anything remotely close to Charlie Hebdo in Saudi Arabia. Now we're getting people insinuating that they shouldn't even publish this sort of stuff in France.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorzelG View Post
    I was thinking about the concept of 'freedom of speech' and except that people seem to assume all of the 'western democracies' have it, do we actually have the right to free speech in the UK or other European countries? I can't think of any law relating to this except the hate speech one which is against free speech if anything, we don't have a constitution like the US. Is there a free speech element to the human rights act? Or any EU law about this?
    It varies. In the UK, intolerant speech is illegal. In Germany, there's a touchy aspect regarding anything that has to do with Naziism... for obvious reasons. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who believe these restrictions serve a valid purpose.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 01-10-2015 at 01:54 AM.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    200
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Your Name Here View Post
    Maybe Muslim extremists (not the entire Muslim community) but muslim extremists shouldn't live in countries that allow freedom of speech or freedom of expression.
    Maybe the Muslim community should take to the media and condemn these (all those to come) actions. I don't mean isolated outrage, I'm mean a unified front. They won't do it though, and will suffer for it before Islam is tamed.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ontari-ari-ario
    Posts
    5,658
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by green View Post
    Maybe the Muslim community should take to the media and condemn these (all those to come) actions. I don't mean isolated outrage, I'm mean a unified front. They won't do it though, and will suffer for it before Islam is tamed.
    You want over 1.5 billion Muslim people worldwide to put aside innumerable differences and be a "united front" or else, gee that's awesome, great insight.
    Last edited by botley; 01-10-2015 at 09:10 AM.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the west don't carry out terrorism or chop off people's hands for stealing... thousands in the middle east are fighting and dying to stop ISIS, millions are considered takfir (shia/sunni/ahmadiyya) by the al qaeda/ISIS/wahhabi sunni element... yet people need more proof most of them don't support fundamentalism

    I understand people are afraid and want some reassurance that most Muslims aren't supportive of all that's going on, but really the evidence they reject fundamentalism and violence is right in front of us

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    200
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by botley View Post
    You want over 1.5 billion Muslim people worldwide to put aside innumerable differences and be a "united front" or else, gee that's awesome, great insight.
    Pretty much.

    I understand people are afraid and want some reassurance that most Muslims aren't supportive of all that's going on, but really the evidence they reject fundamentalism and violence is right in front of us


    No, it's not.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Yes, it is... right in front of you, the vast majority of Western Muslims are not carrying out terrorist attacks or harassing non Muslims or leaving to join foreign conflicts

    Why doesn't that prove anything?

    And when you say "no, it's not", do you mean that scenario is not right in front of you? So the majority of Muslims around you are carrying out terrorist attacks and enforcing strict sharia, and all that stuff I said about Millions of Muslims being deemed apostate enemes by fundamentalist Sunnis is not true?
    Last edited by Sutekh; 01-10-2015 at 10:12 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions