France Shoot-Out

[Gilrandir]

Any religion that promotes violence or has hateful texts in its scripture is evil in my eyes.

Read the Bible carefully. It is brimming over with violence.

“That's not satire, it's crass.” What? “All is forgiven”? That was the first title… Is it offensive?

Yeap, very offensive indeed

Once again: it is not offensive FOR YOU. You don't know much how Muslims feel. Or you do now if you follow the news from muslim countries.

[Hax]

You don't know much how Muslims feel

Well, neither do you.

[Gilrandir]

Well, neither do you.

I don't know, but I don't pretend to. I don't repeat like an incantation "there is nothing to feel offended at". But what I do know is the fact that millions of Muslims all over the world don't think there is nothing to be offended at.

[Hax]

The problem is that "being offended" means nothing. I feel offended when people tell me I should convert to Islam because that's what my father wants (this has happened on several occasions), but it doesn't justify me responding violently.

EDIT: I also feel offended when people burn French flags, f.ex.

[Gilrandir]

The problem is that "being offended" means nothing. I feel offended when people tell me I should convert to Islam because that's what my father wants (this has happened on several occasions), but it doesn't justify me responding violently.

EDIT: I also feel offended when people burn French flags, f.ex.

Some people prone to violence may start doing something when they are offended strong enough to start that violence. But when one has been dealing with such easily offended and easily stirred to violence people (and one knows that) he is either to stop what they see as offence or take precautions.

[Brenus]

"You don't know much how Muslims feel." To be honest, I don't care. They burn, kill, and they are the ones who are offended. And, no, these are not the Muslims. These are fanatics, obscurantist Muslim religiously driven thugs.
They are offended by a picture, a drawing they NEVER see or even understand. Do you really understand this? They choose to be offended, because their commanders of Faith told them to be, then they kill.
They burned the Churches because the Mobsters told them to do so, to protect their territories, their part of market.
By the way, where are the millions of Muslims do this? Watch BBC this morning and nothing about it. Some extreme-right newspapers are claiming this kind of figures, but I saw nothing in the main stream of news/media. Figures are closer to pair of thousands then millions.

[classical_hero]

Read the Bible carefully. It is brimming over with violence.

So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?

[Gilrandir]

"You don't know much how Muslims feel." To be honest, I don't care. They burn, kill, and they are the ones who are offended. And, no, these are not the Muslims. These are fanatics, obscurantist Muslim religiously driven thugs.

If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.

[Gilrandir]

So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?

It is not about attacking and responding, it is about bloody sacrifices, fratricidal struggle, oppression, eye for eye and what not. Violence of different kinds drips from the pages of the book.

[Hax]

So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?

Like, if you consider it to be a story with a certain moral that takes place in a historical situation and thus has no bearing on how to solve conflicts in modern-day society, then there's no problem.

If you take it in the sense that the Ancient Israelites being forced to defend themselves equals we are allowed to defend ourselves in the same way, then that's a problem.

[Brenus]

“If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.” , I don’t deny they felt (think would give them too much credit) that they have a reason to be offended. Imaginary one, but then, who I am to judge? However, if they have the right to be offended (hurt) in their feelings then THEIR answer (to kill, burn and pillage) is THEIR responsibility.
And some here think they have some justification in doing so. They murdered people, they made this choice. One again, CH (or others) have no reason(s) to bow to others demands of, how can I qualify this, respectability, un-touchability of their feelings.
To see women in bikini offends them as well, in fact to see women offends them, so do we have to lock our women at home, to ban them from workplace, hey, why not to put a police checking if we can see one of their hairs about of the burkhas that women will have to wear in order not to offend the feelings of this bench of obscurantist lunatics? And will you come with the answer that women killed (stoned to death) because they show an ankle to these thugs should have seen happening, so they should have not left home…

[Ironside]

So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?

"We conquered the entire region that God declared ours, killing everyone and stopping only because that enemy was much better fortified."

Totally a defensive move.

[Brenus]

"Totally a defensive move" Preemptive strikes... I like the "killing everyone"... "American sniper" before time... Well, somehow, David and his sling...

[Fragony]

Totally more then 2000 years old

[Gilrandir]

“If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.” , I don’t deny they felt (think would give them too much credit) that they have a reason to be offended. Imaginary one, but then, who I am to judge? However, if they have the right to be offended (hurt) in their feelings then THEIR answer (to kill, burn and pillage) is THEIR responsibility.
And some here think they have some justification in doing so. They murdered people, they made this choice. One again, CH (or others) have no reason(s) to bow to others demands of, how can I qualify this, respectability, un-touchability of their feelings.

I don't justify anything they did. I just want you to see that CH's line of behavior wasn't prudent. If one chooses to pursue such a line, well, have your premises armored and secure against any contingency.

To see women in bikini offends them as well, in fact to see women offends them, so do we have to lock our women at home, to ban them from workplace, hey, why not to put a police checking if we can see one of their hairs about of the burkhas that women will have to wear in order not to offend the feelings of this bench of obscurantist lunatics?

These are our women (as you put that), so they have no right to impose their values upon them. In case of CH, it was their value domain that was under attack.

"We conquered the entire region that God declared ours, killing everyone and stopping only because that enemy was much better fortified."

What was that which you quoted? Russian current military doctrine?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I...What was that which you quoted? Russian current military doctrine?

This is the normal condition of warfare. In our comfortable legalist and 'restrained' cultures we tend to forget that warfare boils down to:

Win.
Kill all of the enemy physically able to return to the fight.
Take all of their stuff.
Kill the elderly as a waste.
Take the children for your own property/Put babies into the women of the conquered.
Moreover, logically, this works better if you can get the drop on anyone around you so that they cannot do it to you first.

Any warfare that does not drop to this level is being attenuated by culture/ethics/etc.

[Brenus]

"These are our women (as you put that), so they have no right to impose their values upon them. In case of CH, it was their value domain that was under attack."
What was the "value" under attack? The only think is the Koran allegedly forbid is to represent the Prophet. That is not a value. It is a "blaspheme" under Islamic Laws. Their demand is we have to "respect" Islam in, well, following the rules of Islam (the ones they said are the right ones).
So, if I understand your view: They have the right to impose their view on our publications/cartoons, but they can't on how we live our lives. Err, that is the same things... What about a fashion magazine with bikini? In which category do you class it? Their values, if you want to put it like this are under attack in both cases. What about eating porc and drinking alcohol during Ramadan (or just eating)? That as well may hurt their feelings...
And it was ME whom you accused of inconsistency!!!!

[Fragony]

They will always find a reason to be offended so why bother with sensivitoes. You just can not step on their toes, they have surface to sole toes. Whatever you do, whatever concession you make, it will just be never enough to these idiots. So youbmight as well start with don't making any at all.

Respect for their feelings, screw that.

[Gilrandir]

What was the "value" under attack? The only think is the Koran allegedly forbid is to represent the Prophet. That is not a value. It is a "blaspheme" under Islamic Laws. Their demand is we have to "respect" Islam in, well, following the rules of Islam (the ones they said are the right ones).

For one so well versed in Islamic Laws it is strange to be ignorant of their values which are the backbone of any laws including islamic (though I don't understand how you can speak of religious laws - law belongs to the state not faith; in religion they have commandments, rites, perhaps rules, but not laws).
But again, your failure to see that other people may be insulted by what YOU think insignificant and not valuable (and you try to make us and them agree to your point of view) and recognizing the right of people in Donbas to be dissatisfied with what YOU think important exposes the inconsistency I spoke about.

So, if I understand your view: They have the right to impose their view on our publications/cartoons, but they can't on how we live our lives. Err, that is the same things... What about a fashion magazine with bikini? In which category do you class it? Their values, if you want to put it like this are under attack in both cases. What about eating porc and drinking alcohol during Ramadan (or just eating)? That as well may hurt their feelings...

Value systems (as many other abstract things) are categories. Wittgenstein understands the latter as notions consisting of the core (nucleus) and periphery. The core is the easiest to recognize, the deepest entrenched and the quickest to come to mind when you mention the whole category. The less a member of the category resembles the nucleus (aka prototype) the farther it is situated from it. At the margins the category has fuzzy ends which may with overlap other categories. Now back to the subject.
Has anyone started shooting others because of bikinis and pork? No? So definitely these are peripheral values, or rather rules of behavior. Evidently Muslims are tolerant enough to this. What CH did (and keeps doing) some of them thought to be endangering their core values.

As for my take on the whole situation, it was explicated more than once, yet for you I may repeat it once (just once, mind you) more:
Try not to insult the feelings of others as much as you can help. If you can't and know that you may get hurt, take precautions.

They will always find a reason to be offended so why bother with sensivitoes. You just can not step on their toes, they have surface to sole toes. Whatever you do, whatever concession you make, it will just be never enough to these idiots. So youbmight as well start with don't making any at all.

Respect for their feelings, screw that.

Can we apply this message to, say, feminists, blacks, Russians, your neighbor next door? "Screw your feelings" sounds like a good reason for anyone to start getting angry.

[Fragony]

As long as I don't have change my ways I can live with all of them

[Brenus]

“For one so well versed in Islamic Laws it is strange to be ignorant of their values which are the backbone of any laws including islamic (though I don't understand how you can speak of religious laws - law belongs to the state not faith; in religion they have commandments, rites, perhaps rules, but not laws).” A lot of words to hind the fact you don’t answer the question, once again.
I know some values of the Koran: Basic inequalities between religions, basic inequalities between gender, expansionism, killings pagans, homosexuals and apostates.
Note that most religions have the same “values”
If these are the values you want us to respect, these values being against my values, they can carry-on to have tantrum and feelings hurts.

As my knowledge of the “Islamic” Laws, I never claim to have an extensive one but nice try of a Stalinist type of smear campaign. Or perhaps was it a new vain attempt of irony? I can't tell.
The ones I see in action talk by themselves, don’t they? Between Isis, Boka Haram, Al-Quaida, whipping an blogger in Saudi Arabia, cutting limbs, stoning to death a woman in the street and others obscurantists killers, I have plenty food for though. Carry-on to defend them, carry-on to pretend they have right to do what they want to do, carry-on to do that, and you just kill any possibility for Islam to reform
Because, but perhaps you don’t know, the Koran was not given by God, but written by men. As for the Christian and the Council of Nicaea, the early Muslim Clergy made some choices (Uthman copy).
Apparently, you can change the Koran as well (abrogations), even if it is still a little bit obscure to me as I just learnt it yesterday in following a debate between a Muslim Scholar, an atheist (leftist), 3 philosophes and a specialist in international relationships.
I will have to research on this bit.

And no, laws of physic do not belong to States, so you are just trying semantic in order to keep face. No problem with me.

“Has anyone started shooting others because of bikinis and pork? No? So definitely these are peripheral values, or rather rules of behavior. Evidently Muslims are tolerant enough to this. What CH did (and keeps doing) some of them thought to be endangering their core values.” Absolute . Image of the Prophets were published during Middle-Ages, Renaissance and Modern Area. What you are describing is a choice by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics and their mobsters to be offended. They decided to be offended by the publication by someone else not belonging to their Faith and to go for a kill as a message: “Fear us”. It is a political attack, a terror attack to gain political grounds, not a religious one. No religious debate, no controversy, the use of mob rules.
The relatively small number of “Muslims” demonstrating de facto proves your theory wrong.

“Try not to insult the feelings of others as much as you can help.” The day they will stop to pretend there is a god, as it hurts my core values.
Or the day they stop to pretend that their God is the only God, as it hurts the feeling of my Christian Friends.
The day they stop to pretend there is only one God as it hurts the core values of my Hindu friends. Well, I can carry-on, as each opinions can hurts the core values of someone else.
, I forgot: these are not core values as we don’t kill for them. Well, if we exclude the Norwegian Killer Breivik, of course.
You have a very strange system to value values…

[Fragony]

If you don't want to see a picture of Mohammed, skip the grand mosque of Cordoba

[Gilrandir]

As long as I don't have change my ways I can live with all of them

By "screwing their feelings" you make changing your ways more probabale.

I know some values of the Koran: Basic inequalities between religions, basic inequalities between gender, expansionism, killings pagans, homosexuals and apostates.
Note that most religions have the same “values”

Before answering any of your philippics I must commend you on the remarkable piece of agrumentation your passionate atheism has inspired you into. Your richly embellished (I would even dare to call it picturesque) post with repetitive appeals and haughty pretense to exclusive right to be right (forgive my pun) shows that the Lord Brenus has not studied the Holy Art of Manipulation for naught. Accept my sincerest admiration.
Yet there are some points which may have escaped your consideration, so I would take upon myself the presumption to draw your esteemed attention to them.
Koran doesn't have ANY values, it has some tenets which it offers/demands from its followers to observe. Values pertain to the society. They may be created on the basis of any holy book, yet it doesn't mean that they wholly reflect the said tenets as humans (what with the time that has elapsed since their pronouncement what with the imperfectness of human nature in general) tend to distort/adapt them to their shifting purposes.

If these are the values you want us to respect, these values being against my values, they can carry-on to have tantrum and feelings hurts.

Did I even once mention "respect"? All I said is not to insult. You may have as much disrespect for anything, only there is no call to flaunt this disrespect into the face of "a rabied dog" (if my memory serves me in remembering your nomen of them). Evidently, it is hopeless for me to make you see what your are stirring against yourself. So I don't want you to do anything - I want you not to whine when you get what you could expect to get. So carry on with your atheistic crusade - but have a baseball bat in your sleeve.

The ones I see in action talk by themselves, don’t they? Between Isis, Boka Haram, Al-Quaida, whipping an blogger in Saudi Arabia, cutting limbs, stoning to death a woman in the street and others obscurantists killers, I have plenty food for though.

I can add some more - but attribute them to separatists/terrorists in Donbas, the ones you have been so vehemently defending and justifying.

Carry-on to defend them, carry-on to pretend they have right to do what they want to do, carry-on to do that, and you just kill any possibility for Islam to reform
Because, but perhaps you don’t know, the Koran was not given by God, but written by men. As for the Christian and the Council of Nicaea, the early Muslim Clergy made some choices (Uthman copy).Apparently, you can change the Koran as well (abrogations), even if it is still a little bit obscure to me as I just learnt it yesterday in following a debate between a Muslim Scholar, an atheist (leftist), 3 philosophes and a specialist in international relationships.

Regretfully, I must disappoint you - I know that neither holy book was written by God, yet it in no way diminishes their harmful/benign influence on the largest part of humanity. If you are not under this influence, so far you haven't managed to convince others that they shouldn't be either.
As for changing Koran or islam, I must disappoint you again (I understand how hard it may be to get two diappointments a day, but can do nothing about it - consider it a bad day for you). Faith/religion is about tradition and preservation. If one tries to update it (especially such conservative confession as islam), he will immediately earn the name of a renegade and create a debate or a divide which will lead to such amount of victims that CH pales in comparison.
And - once again - I don't want to defend anyone, I want you to realize what you are so obdurately are trying not to. As I'm completely "not invested", as our friend Sarmatian used to remark, I may have a different (perhaps clearer) perspective of things.

And no, laws of physic do not belong to States, so you are just trying semantic in order to keep face. No problem with me.

There is a problem - you yourself named it smoke-screening. We are speaking here of society, not of nature, so laws meant here have nothing to do with any of the sciences. So it is you who are juggling semantics.

Image of the Prophets were published during Middle-Ages, Renaissance and Modern Area.

Were they published in as much multicultural society with the same intent and sarcasm? And no one got hurt? Then you certainly don't know much about the Middle ages. With rampant religious intolerance of that time such pictures would have been enough to cause a jihad. In "Modern Area", as you put it, it resulted in terroristic attacks.

The relatively small number of “Muslims” demonstrating de facto proves your theory wrong.

You again fail to see:
MY THEORY IS NOT IMPORTANT. What is important is that your government allocated additional 0.5 billion euros (if the figure is wrong you are sure to correct me) for security measures, while the populace feels less secure. Screw the theories, as Frags says, look into the street being patrolled by armed policemen. You want to turn it into Israel? You are on the way.

“Try not to insult the feelings of others as much as you can help.” The day they will stop to pretend there is a god, as it hurts my core values.
Or the day they stop to pretend that their God is the only God, as it hurts the feeling of my Christian Friends.
The day they stop to pretend there is only one God as it hurts the core values of my Hindu friends. Well, I can carry-on, as each opinions can hurts the core values of someone else.

Do they publish insulting pictures meaning "atheists/christians/hinduists are morons and everything they believe in is crap"?

, I forgot: these are not core values as we don’t kill for them. Well, if we exclude the Norwegian Killer Breivik, of course.

By now you must realize that there are some people who are ready to kill for values. If you haven't, well carry on Hebdoing them. Just don't cry foul if they do. Because they think that, as you put it,

Not to obey someone else rules is part of freedom and in the frame of the law is a right we gain by fights.

[Fragony]

Why not cry foul if someone kills innocents because of their values. There are perfectly fine deserts to have these values. France has it's own values. It isn't like they were dragged in chains comming there.

Satire is a long lived French tradition, nothing is safe, nothing is spared. Go somewhere else if you can't handle if.

These cartoons aren't even that bad, I think I will be breaking the rules if I post them so I won't, but if Charlie offends them they must make them really mad.

[Brenus]

“Accept my sincerest admiration” Accepted.

“Koran doesn't have ANY values” Hmm, wasn’t you who wrote “their values which are the backbone of any laws including Islamic laws”. So? Quran does or doesn’t have values? Choose your pic, you lost me there.

“All I said is not to insult” They insult intelligence, and no one kill them for this.

“if my memory serves me in remembering your nomen of them” I am afraid your memories failed you. I compared (qualified) them with barbarians, which is an insult to barbarians.

“it is hopeless for me” Agree, as you misquoted and contradict yourself on almost (almost) every post.

“I can add some more - but attribute them to separatists/terrorists in Donbas, the ones you have been so vehemently defending and justifying.” Lies. When did I justify killing, slaughters and others war crimes?

“If one tries to update it (especially such conservative confession as islam), he will immediately earn the name of a renegade and create a debate or a divide which will lead to such amount of victims that CH pales in comparison” Interesting post.
You prove yourself even less inform than me about Islam. I, at least, know that there is a lot of streams in Islam, so, yes, reform(s) in Islam are possible, if Saudis, Koweit, Qatar and United Emirates stop to finance the most obscurantist one.

“I must disappoint you” I know. You never stop. I had hope, once…

“So it is you who are juggling semantics.” Still you. For your knowledge, Islam is as well a Law System, with offences and punishment included in the “core” of the Holly Book.
From BBC: All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).

“In "Modern Area": Modern Area is the 16-17 Centuries…

“Do they publish insulting pictures meaning "atheists/christians/hinduists are morons and everything they believe in is crap"?” Yes they do, a lot.

Fighting for freedom is a little more than killing for hurt feelings.

[Gilrandir]

Why not cry foul if someone kills innocents because of their values. There are perfectly fine deserts to have these values. France has it's own values. It isn't like they were dragged in chains comming there.

Satire is a long lived French tradition, nothing is safe, nothing is spared. Go somewhere else if you can't handle if.

France allowed them to come in heaps so now it must learn to handle the problems resulting from it.

“Koran doesn't have ANY values” Hmm, wasn’t you who wrote “their values which are the backbone of any laws including Islamic laws”. So? Quran does or doesn’t have values? Choose your pic, you lost me there.

"their values" means "Muslim values" not "Koran values". As I have said, values are construed by and live in societies, not by any books.

“I can add some more - but attribute them to separatists/terrorists in Donbas, the ones you have been so vehemently defending and justifying.” Lies. When did I justify killing, slaughters and others war crimes?

Siding with them means justifying them. More than once you expressed your negative attitude to current Ukrainian (nazi) government and your worry for and sympathy with the "rioting populaces" in Donbas.

“If one tries to update it (especially such conservative confession as islam), he will immediately earn the name of a renegade and create a debate or a divide which will lead to such amount of victims that CH pales in comparison” Interesting post.
You prove yourself even less inform than me about Islam. I, at least, know that there is a lot of streams in Islam, so, yes, reform(s) in Islam are possible, if Saudis, Koweit, Qatar and United Emirates stop to finance the most obscurantist one.

These are streams which do not change the overall pretty universal mainstream ideology. Like there are different breeds of horses (even ponies) yet they are all horses.

“So it is you who are juggling semantics.” Still you. For your knowledge, Islam is as well a Law System, with offences and punishment included in the “core” of the Holly Book.
From BBC: All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).

Now who contradicts himself? Sharia is the (custom) law, yet it is not the state law, governing social life in the country. Yet some Islamic countries want to make it such with different degrees of success.

“In "Modern Area": Modern Area is the 16-17 Centuries…

If 16 century is modern for you, then I must be speaking to an Ent. But even so, 16-17 centuries can hardly boast of religious tolerance.

Fighting for freedom is a little more than killing for hurt feelings.

Yet it may include the latter if the feelings are hurt badly (as they see it).

[Fragony]

Yeah.. they must deal with it, all countries who have allowed entry to people who just rolled of the mountain and only know how to herd their women and love their goats have to. The answer to that is satire untill they are tired of getting angry of it, or just kicking them out if they are dangerous. Preferably at Callais.

[Ironside]

This is the normal condition of warfare. In our comfortable legalist and 'restrained' cultures we tend to forget that warfare boils down to:

Win.
Kill all of the enemy physically able to return to the fight.
Take all of their stuff.
Kill the elderly as a waste.
Take the children for your own property/Put babies into the women of the conquered.
Moreover, logically, this works better if you can get the drop on anyone around you so that they cannot do it to you first.

Any warfare that does not drop to this level is being attenuated by culture/ethics/etc.

That seems to be the baseline in the old Testament. They usually specify when they do worse. Like in Deuteronomy 2-3.

"4 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves."

[c] Deuteronomy 2:34 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them.

[Kralizec]

What frustrates me most of all is that most politicians don't recognize these problems. Only one major party does really.

Every political party in the Netherlands recognises the problems with a certain part of our population. The difference is that most political parties respect our constitutional rights, including the freedom of religion.

I'm not a politician and for that, I will freely admit that I think some religions are more disagreeable than others. If I somehow were to start believing in God, I would sooner become jewish (allthough it's hard to get recognition as a convert) or a christian than a muslim. There's still the reality of their presence, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Any "solutions" you propose must start from that basic premise. The PVV will never accomplish anything meaningful on this subject, because they're not on the same page as everyone else.

[Kralizec]

“If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.” , I don’t deny they felt (think would give them too much credit) that they have a reason to be offended. Imaginary one, but then, who I am to judge? However, if they have the right to be offended (hurt) in their feelings then THEIR answer (to kill, burn and pillage) is THEIR responsibility.
And some here think they have some justification in doing so. They murdered people, they made this choice. One again, CH (or others) have no reason(s) to bow to others demands of, how can I qualify this, respectability, un-touchability of their feelings.
To see women in bikini offends them as well, in fact to see women offends them, so do we have to lock our women at home, to ban them from workplace, hey, why not to put a police checking if we can see one of their hairs about of the burkhas that women will have to wear in order not to offend the feelings of this bench of obscurantist lunatics? And will you come with the answer that women killed (stoned to death) because they show an ankle to these thugs should have seen happening, so they should have not left home…

I think HoreTore once said in the backroom: Of course everybody can decide for themselves if they feel offended. That does not mean, however, that the rest of the world should care.