Multiple shootings in Paris

Talking of PR, why are the murdering b******s given the publicity that their naming on the world's news programmes provides? If they're simply called religious extremists rather than Osama bin Deddorist, they'll be less of the martyrs, surely?
 
Nod said:
Talking of PR, why are the murdering b******s given the publicity that their naming on the world's news programmes provides? If they're simply called religious extremists rather than Osama bin Deddorist, they'll be less of the martyrs, surely?
Click to expand...

I think even calling them religious extremists / terrorists glorifies them. Just call them criminals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Rapscallion said:
I think even calling them religious extremists / terrorists glorifies them. Just call them criminals.
Click to expand...

trouble is if you call them criminals you can't justify shooting them in the face, nor can you give them capital consequences when you catch them. Just as they can't have it both ways being 'soilders of allah' one moment and 'civilians' the next, so we can't have it both ways either, if we say they are just criminals then we are limited to the consequences of criminal law and the use of police firearms team with very restricted ROE to deal with them

on the otherhand if we say that they are enemy combatants in the war on terror ,then we legitimise their cause through recognition but we can deal with them under the rules of warfare which give us a lot more lattitude for shooting them in the head
 
JonathanRyan said:
This is interesting.

http://mic.com/articles/108166/one-...-hypocrites-marching-for-free-speech-in-paris

TL;DR - a student is pointing out that some of the world leaders standing strong in Paris and declaring everybody's right to free speech don't have, um, a stellar reputation for allowing freedom of speech themselves. Even that nice Mr Cameron gets a mention.
Click to expand...

Yes, Yvonne alluded to the Saudi dodgepots being there. Kim Jong-un would have fitted in with some of the participants.
 
You don't have to kill them. They want to be martyrs so denying them this is in our advantage.

Some jihadists have even reversed their extremist beliefs in prison and have been authentic voices to convince their ex counterparts and future jihadists of the error of their ways.
 
Rapscallion said:
You don't have to kill them. They want to be martyrs so denying them this is in our advantage.

Some jihadists have even reversed their extremist beliefs in prison and have been authentic voices to convince their ex counterparts and future jihadists of the error of their ways.
Click to expand...

as i said on the other thread they become martyrs/cause celbre by being locked up - look at all the terrorist activity in the 70s/80s with airliners being hijacked and the release of this or that terrorist being demanded - the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist imo (i'd just prefer us to bring that about intelligently not with massive collateral fdamage as the americans are prone to do)
 
What saddens me are the idiots now reportedly attacking muslim targets like the arson attack on the Mosque. That is just not right.
 
What saddens me are the idiots now reportedly attacking muslim targets like the arson attack on the Mosque
Click to expand...

Welcome to Terrorism 101!
Part of the idea is to create terror, hence the name. But of course by winding up the population you will always get a backlash. That then makes more people look at the terrorist groups propaganda, and more likely to believe they will be protected backing the terrorists. More backing more attacks, more backlash and so on.
 
Seems that a US Military Database has allegedly been hacked by Islamic terrorists and details of soldiers names and addresses posted on a military social network account (since taken down by the military) claiming them to be targets.

Sky News
 
Article only says that twitter and youtube accounts were hacked.
Nothing about a military database hack.
 
gramps said:
Seems that a US Military Database has allegedly been hacked by Islamic terrorists and details of soldiers names and addresses posted on a military social network account (since taken down by the military) claiming them to be targets.

Sky News
Click to expand...

Blooin'heck, does the US military useTwitter as their database? ;)

Probably some disgruntled Sony employee pretending to by ISIS....
 
PMK said:
Not to go off topic, but I only remembered today that France banned the Burqa.
Slight hypocrisy here, no? Freedom of speech / freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

Other than the fact their law related to ALL face coverings for everyone, so along with the burqa went balaclavas, hoods, crash helmets (when not on a motorcycle) and similar face covering items and applied whether the wearer was Muslim, Catholic, atheist or even a Jedi you might have a point...
 
Last edited:
PMK said:
Not to go off topic, but I only remembered today that France banned the Burqa.
Slight hypocrisy here, no? Freedom of speech / freedom of expression.
Click to expand...


Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Nothing to do with what a person wants to wear, its about personal opinion and ideas not cultural choice....after all it is banned as part of the french internal security legislation........and as mentioned above it applies to all face coverings and it doesn't matter who you are.....and as previously mentioned I would welcome that law introduced to the UK
 
Can I just mention how gratifying it is that this thread is still going? :-)
 
Forget about religions telling us how to live our lives, Bill and Ted had it right in 1989...

beexcellent.jpg



Steve.
 
archangel said:
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them.

Nothing to do with what a person wants to wear
Click to expand...

Seems to be a contradiction there.
 
archangel said:
" to anyone who is willing to receive them. "

You forgot to highlight the above bit....so no contradiction on my part
Click to expand...

Should freedom of expression therefore be limited by those willing to listen? But yes, in that sense you're correct there was no contradiction.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Seems to be a contradiction there.
Click to expand...

There always has to be limits to what can be said or worn.

Imagine a T-Shirt with the SS runes and "Heil Hitler" on the front with "Gas the Jews" on the back or "White Power" and "Kill the N*****s" on the back.

They would be rightly banned, just as other items that incite hatred or cause security issues could (and should) be.

In the current security climate why should people be allowed to walk around in public with their faces covered? Whether by a hood, mask, balaclava or burqa?

Even the ECHR has ruled positively on it.

Allow an insignificant personal freedom or not allow it for the greater good?

It goes back to the original freedom of speech issue, you are free to say what you want, but you may not stand up and falsely shout "fire" in a crowded cinema, your actions then impact and can cause injury to others. There has to be a limit to what can be said, and following on from that, what can be worn.
 
Dave, while I understand and largely agree with you, this is an area in which multiple standards are freely applied. So in the situation with Charlie Hebdo we have a magazine happily publishing things that they know will be intensely insulting to another group to exercise their freedom of speech, but in order to preserve certain sensitivities one could not wear a shirt of the kind you describe. You may see it differently, but that, to me, is double standards. Using the current security climate to justify this position is what oppressive governments do to justify taking away freedoms.

That's a slippery slope, if you care to follow it.
 
It is a difficult area - if we support Charlie Hebdo's right to print something that is grossly offensive to muslims, how do we stand on the Front Nationale printing something that is grossly offensive to Jews ?

Personally I don't necessarily support CH printing that kind of thing , as I'd say setting out to cause offence is not something we should encourage. However I do support their right not to be murdered for printing it
 
ancient_mariner said:
Dave, while I understand and largely agree with you, this is an area in which multiple standards are freely applied. So in the situation with Charlie Hebdo we have a magazine happily publishing things that they know will be intensely insulting to another group to exercise their freedom of speech, but in order to preserve certain sensitivities one could not wear a shirt of the kind you describe. You may see it differently, but that, to me, is double standards. Using the current security climate to justify this position is what oppressive governments do to justify taking away freedoms.

That's a slippery slope, if you care to follow it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but would add, they (like everyone) should have a right to offend, but not to incite (within reason).

I don't view a cartoon of a mythical person to be sufficient reason to be called incitement, Muslims are free to not want pictures or caricatures of Mohammed, just like Christians of Jesus, but if someone else wants to caricature that, so be it. They can dislike it, even peacefully protest, but that is where the line is.

A picture of Mohammed or Jesus or a Jewish caricature is not the same as "Gas the Jews" "nuke all Muslims" etc.
 
There is a line of respect that's needed, and has been very purposely overstepped with an absolute intent to offend very very deeply. Dave, with all respect, referring to Mohammed as a mythical person also shows that you really don't understand their perspective at all.

I'm actually in France right now, though not Paris, and there's a very strong reaction even in a holiday resort. People had placd candles with the words Liberte Fraternite Egalite outside the Mairie (town hall) in very much the way people of other faiths might place pieces with religious symbolism meaningful to them. It makes me wonder if, in fact, we are seeing a clash of faiths, but with the beliefs of one side taking a less obvious form. People have a need to believe in something, and a reassurance they are doing the 'right thing', which therefore means that others who disagree MUST be doing the wrong thing, and are therefore fair game. Could Charlie Hebdo have been doing the French equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses door knocking?
 
The line of respect has been crossed when artist get murdered for making and publicising a cartoon.

If one religion can't be touched then there is no hope to come closer. Heck in my opinion respect is rather rich when religions murder, rape, prostitute, abuse. When politicians, artists, aristocracy, big business displays their hypocrisy.

It is very simple, this is a small publication, normally not even imported into the UK not other countries, however if us all didn't provide them the material to apply the Satire then there wouldn't be a need for organisations like theirs.

Sweeping it under the table out of respect? b*****ks to that.

I think the cartoon on today's issue is brilliant, simple and to the point. And actually supportive of the comments a lot of people on here have made. Heck it is biting back at the hypocrisy of those supporting them. Now that deserves respect in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Mohammed is a mythical figure, irrespective of a faith, or rather belief without real evidence that he ever existed. The same applies to both God and Jesus, or the trinity or however you want to express those characters.
France is a patriotic country, the symbolism of candles at the town hall is just an expression of that, it's not a faith though. So, this isn't one 'faith' is right ergo the other is wrong. France does exist, it's tangible it is an entity. Islam as an entity is the same, but Mohammed is not.

There is also a big difference between lampooning a religious figure and encouraging the murder of a religious group. Hence the comments about Jews are unacceptable. Islam or more properly Mohammed in case of CH is for them therefore fair game, as is the Pope, Jesus and God in the Christian sense.

They aren't the first to lampoon, or parody a religious icon, Monty Python did it with Life of Brian. Nor are the first to be what some would call insulting to a faith or religion, Dan Brown's awfully book The De Vinci Code was offensive to the Catholic Church, as well as offensive to the art of story telling.

Not all Muslims have found the front cover of the latest edition insulting anyway, some have seen it as an attempt at reconciliation. An example of that being Sophie Khan interviewed on BBC this morning.

But whatever it is, however it is meant and however it is seen there is no justification for murder. In fact, Islam teaches that a response should not be extreme.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
The line of respect has been crossed when artist get murdered for making and publicising a cartoon.

If one religion can't be touched then there is no hope to come closer. Heck in my opinion respect is rather rich when religions murder, rape, prostitute, abuse. When politicians, artists, aristocracy, big business displays their hypocrisy.

It is very simple, this is a small publication, normally not even imported into the UK not other countries, however if us all didn't provide them the material to apply the Satire then there wouldn't be a need for organisations like theirs.

Sweeping it under the table out of respect? b*****ks to that.

I think the cartoon on today's issue is brilliant, simple and to the point. And actually supportive of the comments a lot of people on here have made. Heck it is biting back at the hypocrisy of those supporting them. Now that deserves respect in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that.

3 million copies printed and they are going to do another print run.(y)
 
I agree with Bernie. And on the subject of Life of Brian, I recently watched (on YouTube) a discussion including John Cleese and some church leaders who were complaining about the film being released. John Cleese stated "four hundred years ago, we would have been burned for releasing this, I think we have moved on a bit since then". And now, thirty years later, I don't think many church leaders would condemn Life of Brian today - so we have moved on a bit further.

And yes, The Da Vinci Code was truly terrible. Have you seen what Stephen fry wrote about it?

Steve.
 
arclight said:
I agree with all of that.

3 million copies printed and they are going to do another print run.(y)
Click to expand...


I haven't seen today's copy but if I could find somewhere to buy one I would.......any ideas to where one can be purchased?
 
And yes, The Da Vinci Code was truly terrible. Have you seen what Stephen fry wrote about it?
Click to expand...

I haven't, but I'll go and look for that!

On the subject of life of Brian, Not the 9 O'Clock news lampooned the churches response with a sketch about the "General Synods Life of Christ", an obvious parody of the life of our Lord John Cleese. That was also very funny! But no one felt the need to execute Pamala Stevenson. Although she did end up with that not very funny hairy scots 'comedian', which was in fact worse.
 
Last edited:
archangel said:
I haven't seen today's copy but if I could find somewhere to buy one I would.......any ideas to where one can be purchased?
Click to expand...

LBC reported that there was one on ebay ............. £500 !! Some newspaper editors reported that all they can get their hands on is tiny facsimilie of the front cover.
 
BBC report:-

The issue will be available in six languages - including English, Arabic and Turkish - some in print and some online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top