[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

As a (admittedly not a particularly staunch) Catholic, I find the expectation of deference somewhat baffling. They're my beliefs, not yours, they give me no particular rights. I object to being thought of as stupid because of them, but realise I just have to live with this - it's certainly not worth getting shooty about. Spotted something on Facebook which I thought was appropriate, just a post that said "if you believe your religion is worth killing for, why not start with yourself", which I can't help but agree with.

Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
Josepth Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin (very much so in his case).

Not quite cut-and-dried, but I take your general point about everyday touchiness - that is not the same, however, as acting violently.

Belief system, whether religion or not might incite but they don't kill, people do.

Guns might blow you to pieces but don't kill, people do.

People = zombie maggots

(When thoughts are transformed into action. However, you are not zombie maggot until you put them into action. )

😯

Belief system, whether religion or not might incite but they don't kill, people do.

In various books, Oxford University theologian Keith Ward argues that religion properly defined is an attempt to alleviate human beings from a condition of hatred, guilt, violence, lust, etc.

Its fairly obvious that for the majority of people it doesn't achieve that. Christianity has another trick up its sleeve, however: original sin. This suggests that human beings are in a permanently fallen condition and only God's grace can liberate them.

There's been plenty of research on whether religion harms or helps people, personally I've noticed no real difference between believers and non-believers, except at the extremes: in religion, the bad people tend to be very bad (often attracted by religious Judgementalism) but the good people tend to be very good and selfless.

Woppit - does this mean, albeit not entirely, that we agree on something? This could be the start of a true bromance!

barnsleymitch - Member

Woppit - does this mean, albeit not entirely, that we agree on something? This could be the start of a true bromance!

I pronounce you husband and husband. 😆

You may proceed with "sword fighting" now ... 😆

The raising of the tired old canard already discussed and dismissed SO many times:

Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
Josepth Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin

and the return of the Pantomime Dame means...

I'm out.

Mr Woppit - Member

and the return of tyhe Pantomime Dame means...

I'm out.

Oh no you're not ... 😆

I'm out.

I'd prefer to not have to answer the boring 6th form block "Im an athiest and therefore better than you" tirades but you keep bringing it up for a regular self-esteem boost.

Likewise, though - Exit Badnewz, pursued by a beer.

Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
Josepth Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin (very much so in his case).

So what?

As a (admittedly not a particularly staunch) Catholic, I find the expectation of deference somewhat baffling.

Not as simple as Nick likes us think with his bottom line

"You have no right not to be offended" is NOT incompatible with "I am offended". I believe you have the right to say to me "I think you're less intelligent/more likely to commit crime because you're black/white/chinese/Muslim/whatever" but that doesn't mean I'd be unoffended by it if you said it. But you should have the right to say it. And I should have the right to argue against what you've said without being accused fo restricting freedom of speech.

It's back to the fundamental point of "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it". Clegg might think Whelan is a nasty racist. He might come out and say that what Whelan said doesn't belong in a modern, tolerant society. But he's not saying that Whelan should be arrested or burned at the stake for saying it. Just that he's shown some unsavoury views that Clegg doesn't agree with.

Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler

This gets trotted out semi-regularly and the sad fact is, it's not true. Hitler was raised a Catholic, was never excommunicated, and identified as Christian (at least when it suited his ends). The majority of the movers and shakers in the Nazi party were either Catholic or Protestant.

Stalin was raised Catholic also (wasn't he going to be a priest at one point, or am I misremembering?). Pol Pot, I think, was a Buddhist.

But this is largely academic. Even if all three were militant atheists it would beg the really very obvious question of "so bloody what"? What's the implication here, that all atheists are genocidal cocknockers? Do I need to compose a list of atheists who aren't murdering sociopaths in order to rebut that? I guarantee my list will be longer than yours, we can start with about 40% of the UK alive today for a kick-off.

After spending 30 pages asserting that a couple of gun-toting lunatics are in no way representative of Islam as a whole, this sort of wooly thinking leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth. Why not sit down for a minute and think about what you've done?

On the subject of offence, there seems to be some confusion.

No-one has the right not to be offended or to insist on special treatment because of their superstitions. HOWEVER, this does not equate to it being open season on being an arsehole towards your fellow man.

Ie, I have the right, should I so desire, to be offensive. Whether or not I exercise that right speaks volumes about who I am as a person, and as a rule I try not to be. Unless they've really deserved it. (-:

And you're offended, so what? Be offended. It doesn't hurt, no-one died, you can suck it up or complain or ask people nicely not to be offensive, but you don't get to start making demands and you sure as **** don't get to stroll into an office with automatic weaponry because someone drew an unflattering picture of your imaginary friend. These sorts of people don't need protecting, they need professional psychiatric help or they need to find somewhere to live which is more compatible with their world views.

You want Sharia law, fine, you can have it, fill your boots, there's plenty of places where it's in place, sod off to one of them. You'll be happy, we'll be happy, everyone's a winner.

Again, I'm agreeing with Cougar and Woppit on this one, stop dragging out the list of naughty atheists, it's meaningless. Sometimes, religion is used as an excuse to get all murdery, but if it's not that, they'll come up with something else to suit their needs. Let's just hug it out guys, what do you say?

Bails - I think you are taking my point too far (in the last para)

Clegg makes at categorical point in the heat of the moment. It contains two assumptions

1. Freedom of speech is an absolute right
2. Offence can never cause harm

Neither is true.

1) Freedom of speech [i]should [/i]be an absolute right, this is the crux of what is under thread from the likes of screwheads with assault rifles and that gobshite Choudry.

2) Offence clearly can cause harm, as a number of cartoonists would love to be able to tell you I expect.

The thing is, what's the alternative? We give religion special privilege and immunity from criticism? Congratulations, the terrorists just won. And at the risk of brushing with the "tip of the iceberg" / "slippery slope" logical fallacies, that's a really, really dangerous precedent to be setting in a supposedly secular society.

After spending 30 pages asserting that a couple of gun-toting lunatics are in no way representative of Islam as a whole

Um... I haven't totted up any totals but significant numbers of posters haven't been saying that at all.

Debating rather than asserting, then. Sorry, I was ignoring the ramblings of the simple.

The "point" cougs is that this is not a simple thing. On your first point, you have volunteered for a role that falsifies your argument. There are rules that are required to make STW forum work - they require freedom of speech to be limited. This is true for the rest of society.

I am not suggesting that terrorists should win - on the contrary I am more concerned that freedoms are nearly always restricted as a result of these events, That's is normally a bad thing.

The one thing that is certain, religion clearly gets no "special" treatment here. In fact quite the opposite, it's one topic where giving offence is clearly condoned.

But then again sticks and stones.....hey?

Edit: your edit makes my point less valid. More valid in relation to Cleggy not your revised point 1.

And you're offended, so what? Be offended. It doesn't hurt, no-one died, you can suck it up or complain or ask people nicely not to be offensive, but you don't get to start making demands

Lots of groups do get to say hey that offends me you cannot speak to me or about me/us like that and we have laws that mean you cannot
You just cannot argue it like you and Binners do as it still requires some balance as an examination of the actual law shows. Freedom of speech HAS restrictions, Some you agree with some you dont. All we are debating is whether this is one we agree with or not.
Its not a carte blanche right and we do protect some groups and restrict others freedom of speech
Racists for example have to be careful lest they offend folk. I dont see many arguing for their right to the noble principle of free speech.

what's the alternative? We give religion special privilege and immunity from criticism?

http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/01/why-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo/

Sums up better than I could what I was saying earlier about the racist and unfunny magazine everyone is so vigorously defending/promoting.

I shouldn't have to but I'll repeat the obvious point that nothing printed in a magazine could ever justify these attacks, just in case any morons want to use that particular straw man again.

How about we will criticise you any way we see fit in the written word but what we wont do is draw a picture of your prophet as we know this will cause you great upset.

In fact quite the opposite, it's one topic where giving offence is clearly condoned.

I accept [ some of] the atheists are far ruder and mean to

I shouldn't have to but I'll repeat the obvious point that nothing printed in a magazine could ever justify these attacks, just in case any morons want to use that particular straw man again.

No thanks.

Can i still use the n word then as that causes a bit of offence as well - is that just their problem as well

I need an explanation as I already knew some disagree

f you think killing cartoonists isn't justified why do you keep making excuses?

The proof is that even when he said this explicitlyy did not you did not get it

Nice link Grum they also did various with the prophet in basically pornographic poses
I am not sure what the biting satire was there either.

You can believe what you like. You can say what you believe. You can try to convince others that your beliefs are right.

You can't go around shooting people because they have offended you.

Not difficult stuff.

I need an explanation as I already knew some disagree

Banning transexuals from driving seems to draw universal derision yet killing people for cartoons has apologists? Odd world.

You can say what you believe.

See that bit where he said he was not doing it he had to do that because some folk would not see it

objecting to a drawing isn't reasonable

you need to campaign to change the law

You are just repeating your view and not explaining it

HAHAHA no one on here but a loon would think Grum is a racist 🙄

FFS even JIve hiney would disagree with that as lacking evidence

Given that reason forgive me for refusing reason lessons from you

You can believe what you like. You can say what you believe. You can try to convince others that your beliefs are right.

You can't go around shooting people because they have offended you.

Not difficult stuff.

But if someone was offensive enough in front of me I may punch them on the nose. Its not right but it could happen.

There are rules that are required to make STW forum work - they require freedom of speech to be limited.

No, I'm nnt having that.

There are rules, but I doubt you'll find many moderated forums where your freedom of speech is defended so vociferously (not least of all by me). I'm struggling to think offhand of any STW ruling which limits your freedom of speech beyond clearly defined -isms which are protected in law or things which directly undermine the continued existence of the site as per the T&Cs you agreed to when you signed up for an account. You'd be amazed how many emails we get from non-members demanding (always demanding, never asking nicely, odd that) that we take down commentary which paints them in a bad light. They universally get told to jog on.

Homophobic, racist etc comments are verboten, and rightly so, and people going too far with ad hominem attacks will also be moderated. That's about it I think. If you can think of something beyond that then I'd love to hear it, because I need to go and address it.

The one thing that is certain, religion clearly gets no "special" treatment here. In fact quite the opposite, it's one topic where giving offence is clearly condoned.

Well, no, the opposite of "not getting special treatment" is "getting special treatment." Is that what you want?

We've done this to death previously. Attacking individuals is not allowed. Challenging opinions is allowed, of course it is. Ever post which gets reported is reviewed and a decision made accordingly, and the religion threads very rarely if ever generate complaints. Oh, people piss and moan on the thread of course; but actual official complaints are rare.

Compare to say the sport ones, they're always good for a metric shitload of bleating. Criticise someone's religion and no-one says anything, criticise someone's football team and you should see the bloody letters we get.

are you and TJ discussing rugby ? 😉

Are you saying there are no visual images in the UK that, if published, are illegal and objecting to any of them is not reasonable?
you need to campaign to change the law

You are just repeating your view and not explaining it

So with that I think I'll give up.

HAHAHA no one on here but a loon would think Grum is a racist

Edit to your edit. Read it again and think. You can't be that thick.

And I'm done...

Cougar - Moderator

If you can think of something beyond that then I'd love to hear it, because I need to go and address it.

Being Grantway?

Compare to say the sport ones, they're always good for a metric shitload of bleating. Criticise someone's religion and no-one says anything, 

But Gavin Henson is my god!

Here's another one for you to discuss.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

Could be lies of course, it is the Guardian.

I take that back. I'm a stone's throw from banning people who are deliberately trying to derail threads.

But if someone was offensive enough in front of me I may punch them on the nose. Its not right but it could happen.

The you lose the argument. You may win the fight, though, so I guess it depends on what your own needs are.

It is correct that some things are not allowed to be said. I know why this is, but actually I do have an issue with it. For me it depends on whether you are inciting someone to act on your behalf. As for holocaust denial, I understand why it is a crime in Germany, but I actually don't think it should be. It happened. The deniers are wrong, and can be shown to be so. Demonstrably. They can go on denying it should they wish, but they just make themselves look even more stupid as a result.

Turn it on its head. I want there to be laws to protect the rights of idiots to make themselves look idiotic to a wide audience.

You want Sharia law, fine, you can have it, fill your boots, there's plenty of places where it's in place, sod off to one of them. You'll be happy, we'll be happy, everyone's a winner.

you really wanna go round again?

how about "I would do, but if i leave, go to that country... will you stop bombing it, please"

How about we will criticise you any way we see fit in the written word but what we wont do is draw a picture of your prophet as we know this will cause you great upset

Is this actually true, though? Apparently there are plenty of depictions of Muhammed in Islamic art. Is it ok now for people to say "this offends me" about some arbitrary thing?

FWIW I think it is slightly shameful that this thread and topic had degenerated in some parts into an in-fight about individual hang-ups about what the moderators get involved with. Have a bit of a think about the original subject matter.

As for holocaust denial, I understand why it is a crime in Germany, but I actually don't think it should be.

I know nothing about this so may be talking out of the top of my head, but I wonder if this is to do with image / perception.

Ie, Germany, rightly or wrongly, has the guilt of the holocaust to carry. By making denial illegal they're saying to the rest of the world "look, we're really sorry, and we want to send the message out that sweeping it under the carpet isn't acceptable."

how about "I would do, but if i leave, go to that country... will you stop bombing it, please"

When did we last bomb Saudi? Even the Bush / Blair administrations weren't that bloody stupid.

FWIW I think it is slightly shameful that this thread and topic had degenerated in some parts into an in-fight about individual hang-ups about what the moderators get involved with. Have a bit of a think about the original subject matter.

Agreed. I apologise unreservedly for my part in the segue. As you were.

Did Cougar honestly just delete a picture of Donald Duck, after informing us of the virtues of Freedom of Speech?

If so, seems like he might have the right stuff to be a President or Prime Minister...

Ie, Germany, rightly or wrongly, has the guilt of the holocaust to carry. By making denial illegal they're saying to the rest of the world "look, we're really sorry, and we want to send the message out that sweeping it under the carpet isn't acceptable."

Probably. But shutting down discussion (whatever it's initial thrust) stops one way of the debate being had again in front of a new generation of eyes/ears.

When did we last bomb Saudi? Even the Bush / Blair administrations weren't that bloody stupid.

Saudi have been long time allies, from co-funding Operation Cyclone (along with CIA+MI6), meeting HW Bush on 9/11, heavy investments in Carlyle Group, 2nd largest shareholder in Newscorp and no.1 customer for UK arms trade.

Of course, they are also quite well in with the Saxe-Coburg Gothas

The you lose the argument. You may win the fight, though, so I guess it depends on what your own needs are.

Knowing me I'd lose on both counts! I still dont think people morally have a free reign to be offensive though.

Did Cougar honestly just delete a picture of Donald Duck, after informing us of the virtues of Freedom of Speech?

<mod>
He did, because you saw fit to randomly post some Illuminati bollocks in the middle of a discussion and you've been warned about that before. It's nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with you deliberately trying to derail threads with completely unrelated, off-topic gibberish.

If you can come up with something to link the Illuminati (or Donald Duck) to the shootings in France then you can repost it. And there's actually a part of me that believes you probably could. But otherwise, knock it off, it's disruptive behaviour and getting bloody tedious now.
</mod>

The you lose the argument. You may win the fight, though, so I guess it depends on what your own needs are.
Knowing me I'd lose on both counts! I still dont think people morally have a free reign to be offensive though.

Morally they should know better. Legally they can if they want.

I've only ever punched someone else once. We were twelve and I regretted it for ages afterwards because I just lost my temper. Fighting isn't my thing either. People who start fights are usually:

A) 'Good' at it.
B) Nutters
C) Both of the above

It's not a long-term way of conducting oneself.

But shutting down discussion (whatever it's initial thrust) stops one way of the debate being had again in front of a new generation of eyes/ears.

That's a very good point actually.

Not sure if it's already been covered, but Rupert Murdoch slung his oar in:

[img] [/img]

which as I've touched on in the post on Saudi interests above, is a bit odd:

[img] [/img]

Wonder if house of Saud also profits from Genie Energy, like Murdoch, Jacob Rothschild, Dick Cheney etc...

Not sure if it's already been covered, but Rupert Murdoch slung his oar in:

The response on Twitter to his assertion that other Muslims should apologise has been amusing. "As a white male I'd like to apologise for Rupert Murdoch."

Maybe Rupert should try checking his facts before publishing. Oh. No. I see 🙁

[url= http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/ ]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/[/url]

To be clear cougs I am not criticising you, just your point. Look at what you wrote.

No, I'm nnt having that...then

There are rules....Homophobic, racist etc comments are verboten, and rightly so, and people going too far with ad hominem attacks will also be moderated.

So, you are clear. You limit what people can and cannot say. This is not compatible with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Yes, there may be more freedom here than on other forums, or in the UK than more authoritarian states. But that is not freedom of speech. It is simply higher levels of tolerance towards different views in some subjects.

You guys banned me for pointing out someone's (self-confessed) lack of understanding about a specific issue a few months ago and yet allow others to say that religions people are not just lacking understanding or even ignorant but actually mentally ill or insane. So your priorities are clear. And fair enough, it's your forum which you allow us to enjoy (if we accept restrictions in what we can and cannot say!)

Living in a society requires compromises in individual liberty. That has always been the case. Vince was honest, Cleggy wasn't. Which is why I bought up the issue.

Gay people - they made demands the bastards
No dogs no blacks no Irish- sensitive and not like anyone died was it ?
Transgender- ah you get the point
Jewish people

JY - your arguament IMHO is frankly ridiculous. It is fundamentally flawed for one simple reason: genetics.

You ar BORN Gay
You are BORN Irish
You are BORN black
You a BORN a scouser 😉

Therefore the laws we've established covering hate crimes rightly make it illegal to discriminate against people, or abuse them on these grounds. People cannot change what they are. They just are what they are. Its down to genetics

Nobody is born a Muslim. Nobody is born a Hindu. Nobody is born a Catholic. A religion is a belief system you choose to follow. Or not. Therefore its as open to criticism, and yes... ridicule as anything else you make a conscious decision over. What football team you support for example.

You can elevate it to a higher status in life if you want. But people are not legally obliged to respect that. Any more than people have to respect your choice of football team.

And anticipating your next argument.... You DO have a choice whether to follow a religion or not? In certain societies it is very difficult to reject a religion. These societies are far from free. In fact, mostly they're totalitarian, and are lot of them will be the ones who (overtly or otherwise) would quietly endorse the actions of the Paris Assassins

But in FREE societies it isn't or shouldn't be hard to reject any religion. Its simply a choice you're free to make. Then you're free to cricise it, mock it, or draw cartoons of it. Thats your inaliable right in a free society. Its just another part of this whole freedom of choice thing that you seem to be struggling so much with comprehending the true meaning of, without you're caveats. Which you'll observe have no place in the legal framework of true democracies. Thankfully!

No Binners than doesn't hold up either. You are not born Jewish. You may be born into a Jewish family, but such people have the choice to follow the Jewish faith. Note that the FA made a clear distribution between race and religion in the Whelan example.

You guys banned me for pointing out someone's (self-confessed) lack of understanding

I'd have to look that up to comment (and I'm off out in a minute). Though frankly, I'm amazed you haven't been banned more. (-:

Don't bother, it's not that important. Your colleague was trying to get the same bloke to react (poss trolling) earlier today. Nothing is perfectly consistent, that's life.

Still glad to know where you stand!! Makes sense....

People do get banned off the STW Forum, so it would be nice to hear from a Moderator as to how banning people may have qualified/changed/or confirmed their support for total freedom of expression.

THM - it's ironic that Jews have generally been depicted in cartoons, in an extremely offensive manner, particularly in the press in Islamic countries, more than any other faith. To my knowledge they've never regarded this as a justification to start killing people. Or demanded a level of respect for their beliefs, over and above that granted to all the other members of the same society

criticise someone's football team and you should see the bloody letters we get.

However Jive Honey Jive quoting Rupert Murdoch to support this view had me genuinely laughing - Imagine what he would do were we to quote Rupert to support our view

Good job you did not use Jew there Binners.

You DO have a choice whether to follow a religion or not? In certain societies it is very difficult to reject a religion........Its another part of this whole freedom of choice thing that you seem to be struggling so much with comprehending the true meaning of, without you're caveats.

Disagreeing with you is not struggling to comprehend it is disagreeing with you ...oh the irony.

THM seems to get progressively angry about that thread as the months pass

binners - Member
THM - it's ironic that Jews have generally been depicted in cartoons, in an extremely offensive manner, particularly in the press in Islamic countries, more than any other faith. To my knowledge they've never regarded this as a justification to start killing people.

True. Not arguing otherwise.

JY I don't have an issue with you disagreeing with me. My life would be so much poorer without my constant bickering with you 😉

But your central argument rejects and undermines our present legal framework, as a free society by saying that we should have lines drawn, that we are not allowed to cross, because of people's religious beliefs. What I'm saying is that that's about as ridiculous as according people increased legal rights based on what football team they support.

Except it's only the fans of one team that are demanding this elevated status. And if they don't get it, they're going to kick your ****ing head in!!! Maybe it's Millwall? 😉

At the risk of getting very very repetitive: nobody has a god given right not to be offended. Or have their beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, questioned, and yes... Ridiculed

On the subject of free speech on the forum, it's not your house so you have to be polite and abide by some rules. Simple as that. There have to be limits on an internet forum, otherwise the anonymity it affords will be heavily exploited.

If anyone wants to see what a forum with zero rules where anything, and I do mean anything goes, take yourself over to 4chan and look at the boards. If you've never been on it, it's an eye opening experience. If there was genuine, unregulated free speech on this or any forum it would degenerate into something quite unpleasant very rapidly and most people would be crying out for stricter rules and more moderation.

we should have lines drawn, that we are not allowed to cross, because of people's religious beliefs

Freedom of speech is non negotiable how we exercise it may be.

Unmoderated internet forums are not a thing or place I like to frequent
We need rules ...most of us on this page, myself included, need moderating at times 😳

Well if your'e ever in Saudi, DO NOT INSULT ISLAM!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi <

It's all or nothing I'm afraid JY. People are allowed to be tasteless and idiotic. I exercise this right on a daily basis. What these people are doing is intimidating people into silence. Plain and simple. And we just can't have that. Will they be extending this right to cartoons of other deities, or just theirs? I think we can probably guess. In a democracy you can present your argument as to why this shouldn't be allowed. But the only reason I've heard so far is 'because you just can't!". That's not a reason. It's a demand. A demand backed up with the threat of violence.

With the holocaust denial thing ... If you're not a German citizen, then your opinion doesn't count for much, I'm afraid. The democratically elected representatives of the German people have decided that it should be an offence. It's not really hard to see why, is it. I don't agree with it myself, but that's their prerogative

Unmoderated internet forums are not a thing or place I like to frequent

They can be brilliant in their own way though. The old Topix forum, before it was shut down was comedy gold. Likewise, the comments on Youtube, before Google ruined it. Different to a forum like this, and only really useful for the LOL's, but brilliant all the same.

jambourgie

Unmoderated internet forums are not a thing or place I like to frequent

They can be brilliant in their own way though. The old Topix forum, before it was shut down was comedy gold.

Agreed. Some of the stuff on 4chan can be genuinely hilarious. But I don't want to have to trawl through scat or paedophile porn to see the funny stuff.

What these people are doing is intimidating people into silence. Plain and simple

Is it though, or have you simplified it to suit your agenda?

Forget for a minute that a handful of psychotic murderous bastards took the law into their own hands if you can..

A quarter of the world's population are muslim, (if 1.6 billion folk were busting into public offices with guns then your point might stand, but they're clearly not) and they have all been taught that to make an image of the prophet is bad.. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that has been the case for a long long time..
Just like we have been taught that public nudity is offensive.. (we're certainly not born that way)

Forgetting the recent events that brought the subject to our attention, but how much harm does it do any of us to say OK, that's an ancient and sacrosanct part your culture, it's completely inconsequential so we'll respectfully decline from insulting you because insulting people for no reason whatsoever other than a perverse fascination with doing exactly what we please is ****tery of the highest order..?

Why are people finding it so ****ing hard to look at it from the other guys perspective?

It all just seems so pigheaded and crusadery.. absolutely bonkers

I'm sure none of us would need assistance compiling an alternative list of war mongering believers.

THM - it's ironic that Jews have generally been depicted in cartoons, in an extremely offensive manner, particularly in the press in Islamic countries, more than any other faith. To my knowledge they've never regarded this as a justification to start killing people. Or demanded a level of respect for their beliefs, over and above that granted to all the other members of the same society

And yet a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked for a cartoon that was judged to be antisemitic.

It's all or nothing I'm afraid JY

Operation Mockingbird ...

Speaking of Saudi, I found this surprising:

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudis-risk-new-muslim-division-with-proposal-to-move-mohameds-tomb-9705120.html ]Saudis risk new Muslim division with proposal to move Mohamed’s tomb[/url]

Especially this bit:

"The Independent has previously revealed how the multibillion-pound expansion of the Grand Mosque has, according to the Washington-based Gulf Institute, led to the destruction of up to 95 per cent of Mecca’s millennium-old buildings. They have been replaced with luxury hotels, apartments and shopping malls".

One might be forgiven that all this pilgrimage stuff (Canterbury, Santiago, Lourdes, Mecca) has been driven by business. But that couldn't be true could it?

Yunki - do you think that us backing off and bowing down to the demands of extremists, would lead to reciprocal actions? Or do you think it would lead to yet further, more extreme demands?

There comes a point where you have to defend democratic values against fascism - for that is what it is

Look at Steve Bell in the Guardian. The bloke is a genius. He lets rip at anyone and everyone, all richly deserving of the satire aimed at them. Are we now to tell him that one group is now off limits as they tend to get a bit shooty?

His take on it....
[img] [/img]

There comes a point where you have to defend democratic values against fascism

have another [ I preferred this tbh] again with no image

[img] [/img]