Charlie Hebdo

Originally posted by FMF
Well if you don't understand where I am coming from you should just read what I wrote in page 1. You talked about increasing the insult and making it harsher. Is this the same as increasing the "satire" and making the "satire" harsher? What would be the harshest possible "satire" of Muslims you could imagine?

I have read what you wrote on page 1. It is not clear to me what it is you are saying there.

For clarification: I don't think CH is insulting Muslims. I think Muslims feel they are being insulted. It is a case of victim playing, which is what a lot of theists do, luckily most of whom do not do much more than b*tch and moan about it in forums.

Yes, I think the satire should continue and harsher if possible. I am not a satirist, so I cannot answer your question. I could say something about Mohammed being depicted as a gay man watching porn while smoking weed - that would probably be quite insulting - but if you really want to know the answer you'd have to ask many Muslims about their idea of the harshest possible satire.

I have stated that the satire - or insults - should be harsher. I have also stated it should be more frequent. You've not talked about that second point, only the first. How do you feel about that? Very soon after the shootings the remaining employees of CH stated the magazine would continue to exist, and indeed, a week later a new magazine appeared, again depicting Mohammed. How do you feel about this? Do you think magazines like CH have the right to do this, but ideally shouldn't?

How do you feel about Life of Brian and satire in general? Do you think it might play a role in developing the world further (for the good)? When would you say it is not but is in fact holding back developments?

Originally posted by FMF
Well I don't think they showed much "want" to be funny or to be persuasive or to inform. So that's three motivations struck out, leaving only "to insult". I don't think they even try to disguise it, do they?

I think they are satirists. Satirists and for that matter many comedians often use humor to commentate on touchy subjects. I think it is a huge and possibly dangerous simplification to reduce their work to “made to insult”.

Do you think that Life of Brian was made to insult?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So when will you accept the culpability of the US government. Are you disputing that they have trained Islamic militants, provided them with weapons? left huge regional grievances? Kill innocent women and children by remote control? How is that any different?

EVERY country has had its terror incidence, the US is no different. But we don't go in wiping out whole villages because they won't convert to Christianity. Besides, I think the US has learned, or is learning a bad lesson about all this. You may go on blaming the US for every evil on the planet, be my guest but that is not the whole story.

Originally posted by sonhouse
EVERY country has had its terror incidence, the US is no different. But we don't go in wiping out whole villages because they won't convert to Christianity. Besides, I think the US has learned, or is learning a bad lesson about all this. You may go on blaming the US for every evil on the planet, be my guest but that is not the whole story.

No you would rather arm and train Islamic militant fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda and the Mujihadeen so that they can fight those godless commies!

Your government is still killing innocent people with drones. Your government has re-entered the Iraqi war, body count of 150,000 civilian deaths to date and thousands of young American lives. Today so far there are 54 people dead.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

If you cannot recognise the hypocrisy then I don't hold out much hope for you. US government is no different than any other terrorist organisation, simply more efficient at killing and trying to hide the facts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you would rather arm and train Islamic militant fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda and the Mujihadeen so that they can fight those godless commies!

Your government is still killing innocent people with drones. Your government has re-entered the Iraqi war, body count of 150,000 civilian deaths to date and thousands of young American lives. Today s ...[text shortened]... ferent than any other terrorist organisation, simply more efficient at trying to hide the facts.

You seem to forget the allied forces in Iraq were not JUST Americans and I thought at the time when Bush decided to attack Iraq he was dead wrong. It was obvious to anyone here they just wanted an excuse to go to war.

If they knew their ass from a hole in the ground they would have realized Saddam was as much an enemy of Al Qaeda as anyone else.

I still have not heard you condemn Boko Haram for the killing of male students and kidnapping the females or razing entire villages. I guess that is ok, you must think it's not happening in Scotland so what's the big deal.

Did you hear any reports of the US capturing school girls to sell on the open market?

You have had a long time hard on against the US anyway so whatever we do, it will be wrong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You seem to forget the allied forces in Iraq were not JUST Americans and I thought at the time when Bush decided to attack Iraq he was dead wrong. It was obvious to anyone here they just wanted an excuse to go to war.

If they knew their ass from a hole in the ground they would have realized Saddam was as much an enemy of Al Qaeda as anyone else.

I s ...[text shortened]... ?

You have had a long time hard on against the US anyway so whatever we do, it will be wrong.

you are becoming hysterical again.

America kills people to protect its corporate interests. Its why they intervened in Kuwait, why they fabricated a pretext for going to war against Iraq.

If you are going to moralise over other atrocities elsewhere in the world why do you seem oblivious to your own governments? I have no bias in this, one terrorist organisation is a culpable as another as far as I am concerned. But you seem willing only to scream and shout against anyone that commits terror for religious reasons or does not share your ideology. That is a hypocritical stance. Does it matter to the people who are being killed why they are being killed, whether its a religious ideology or corporate America protecting its interests?

Rather than condemn anyone I have tried to understand why these events have transpired, what were the forces that could have shaped them. Why that should be condemned I cannot say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are becoming hysterical again.

America kills people to protect its corporate interests. Its why they intervened in Kuwait, why they fabricated a pretext for going to war against Iraq.

If you are going to moralise over other atrocities elsewhere in the world why do you seem oblivious to your own governments? I have no bias in this, one terro ...[text shortened]... d, what were the forces that could have shaped them. Why that should be condemned I cannot say.

It might be hypocritical if I was the one doing the killing. I can only imagine killing to protect a child or someone in my family. I couldn't kill for idealogical reasons. ever. Don't confuse me with my government. I already said they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when they attacked Iraq.

I suppose you also think the US was the terrorist country in WW2. You do realize we saved YOUR ass that time, otherwise you would be speaking German.

Of course, that doesn't count.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The right for the Charlie Hebdos of this world to publish cartoons that may offend should be indisputable. The only way to do this is to keep publishing – offending, if you will.

Think of it as arachnophobia. The only way to truly overcome ones irrational fear of spiders is to confront that fear head on. Avoiding spiders will not make the fear go a ...[text shortened]... . But cartoons will still need to be published in order to ascertain this has actually happened.

To me, what you propose here is thought control. You have no more right to tell people what ought and ought not to offend them than they have a right to censor cartoons.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It might be hypocritical if I was the one doing the killing. I can only imagine killing to protect a child or someone in my family. I couldn't kill for idealogical reasons. ever. Don't confuse me with my government. I already said they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when they attacked Iraq.

I suppose you also think the US was the terrori ...[text shortened]... d YOUR ass that time, otherwise you would be speaking German.

Of course, that doesn't count.

You don't think the bombing of German civilians in Dresden and elsewhere constitutes a war crime? The bombing of innocent Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You justify these crimes to yourself if you need to, to me they are one and the same with any other act of terrorism. How you can tell the difference is a testimony to your bias, nothing more.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Missing your buddies in the Debates forum, are you? 🙂

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I think Hitler would have won if he hadn't been so stupid as to think he could take Russia.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
To me, what you propose here is thought control. You have no more right to tell people what ought and ought not to offend them than they have a right to censor cartoons.

I most certainly have the right to tell people what ought and ought not to offend them. I also have the right to draw cartoons which might offend people if I feel that by doing so these people will eventually grow thicker skins.

Call it thought control if you like, I maintain that a world where people aren't so fecking easily offended is preferred to the one we have now.

Similar question to you as I asked FMF: do you think satire has a role to play in society?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You don't think the bombing of German civilians in Dresden and elsewhere constitutes a war crime? The bombing of innocent Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You justify these crimes to yourself if you need to, to me they are one and the same with any other act of terrorism. How you can tell the difference is a testimony to your bias, nothing more.

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-dresden

It says here 800 RAF bombers hit Dresdin. They certainly did that out of spite but it was BRITAIN that did that bombing not the US.