Je ne suis pas Charlie

[LigH]

§166 StGB (German Penal Code) claims monetary or prison sentence for insulting a religious denomination or organization if the amount or method may breach the public order. So the legal hurdles may be high (about a riot to be expected with certainty), but there is still a probability.

Not many religions are notorious for being easily provokable, though... some level of bias is not surprising here.

[novacadian]

I conceded that many other terrible things are happening all over the world, and you are right that many of them are much less covered in Western media than the Charlie Hebdo murders. But when I ask whether these other terrible things make the Charlie Hebdo murders any less terrible, you do not answer - again.

The Charlie Hebdo murders were a sad and terrible acts. Such acts are not condoned by me. There does seem to be a hypocrisy of defending Charlie Hebdo's mockery of Islam when it would have been condemned if, say, it was directed at the Jewish religion. That is not meant as an attack against the Jewish religion but used as an example of the hypocrisy.

All those other terrible things are related. The west is creating much of the terror. Studies have shown the marked increase of terrorist activity in direct relation to the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Without the open dialogue of how the west is bringing their own form of terror round the world we shall continue to spiral into more and more violence. This plays into the hands of the multi-national corporations making profits from the wars and the unrest that is generated.

Not sure what you mean by how the way my views have been expressed need explaining unless you mean it made my points not understandable?

[gonger]

I conceded that many other terrible things are happening all over the world, and you are right that many of them are much less covered in Western media than the Charlie Hebdo murders. But when I ask whether these other terrible things make the Charlie Hebdo murders any less terrible, you do not answer - again.

The Charlie Hebdo murders were a sad and terrible acts. Such acts are not condoned by me. There does seem to be a hypocrisy of defending Charlie Hebdo's mockery of Islam when it would have been condemned if, say, it was directed at the Jewish religion. That is not meant as an attack against the Jewish religion but used as an example of the hypocrisy.

Thank you for clarifying this. But as I said in one of my postings in the original thread:

Charlie Hebdo publishes satire. About everything they consider worth of being satirised. In other words, they are not an anti-Muslim / anti-Islam publication, but they target also Christians, the Pope, or politicians of every wing. Anything, anyone.
This is a link to a short video that might make this a bit more clear. It also shows and translates several other covers of Charlie Hebdo:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7515673/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-translated

Charlie Hebdo has been in trouble more than once. But until recently nobody thought of murder. You might wish to google for "Charlie Hebdo" in connection with "Charles de Gaulle". Or google for jewish jokes in Charlie Hebdo. In short, do some research!

All those other terrible things are related. The west is creating much of the terror. Studies have shown the marked increase of terrorist activity in direct relation to the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Without the open dialogue of how the west is bringing their own form of terror round the world we shall continue to spiral into more and more violence. This plays into the hands of the multi-national corporations making profits from the wars and the unrest that is generated.

Wars and terror for power and profit. Perfect example is the War for Oil under Bush jr., but historically speaking this is nothing the West has exclusive rights on. See for example the Iran - Iraq wars.

Not sure what you mean by how the way my views have been expressed need explaining unless you mean it made my points not understandable?

I am talking about my posting from the original thread which I quote here:

Reply #18 on: January 10, 2015, 06:44:18 PM

Quote from: novacadian on January 10, 2015, 01:29:05 PM

    They poked at the hornets' nest and were bitten.

They were not bitten, but savagely slaughtered. Does this really seem like a proportionate, adequate reaction to you?
If someone throws paint bombs, for example, we can talk about bitten. It is still wrong, but at least moderate, and does not kill anybody.

Bitten. Yeah.
PS This post does not look too nice because of the mix of quotes. But I think it is still clear who said what.

[Rigwyn]

If a man who is dressed "provocatively" is beaten and raped on his way home from work, is the rape his fault for having dressed provocatively?

This is what it sounds like when you blame the authors at charlie hebdo for "poking the hornet's nest."

In this hypothetical example, its erroneous to look at the victim and blame their prior actions when the violent action was commited by the rapist - not the victim. It makes more sense in this example to look at the rapist and their prior actions instead.

Using this simple example, you can apply the same logic to the hebdo case. The problem was not with the things that the victim did prior to the violence, the problem was on the shooter's side prior to the incident.

[Roled]

Yeah, what he ^ said. Rigwyn's player is one sharp, thoughtful being

RR

[LigH]

Another curiosity currently happening in Germany (and possibly elsewhere too?): On one hand, when there is violence in the (probably abused) name of the Islam, Muslims usually counter that "this is not the Islam"; on the other hand, Islam leaders appear to be uneasy about discussing the real meaning of the Islam in public. As if they were afraid that the one famous quote from the Koran related to killing people is not the only point of view. But well, I wouldn't try to explain the Crusades either with my hardly existing knowledge about the Bible. I know so little about all the different "Holy Books" that confusion is all that remains to me. My hope was that religions were all about encouraging societies to a cooperative life, and any violence is always an abuse of a religion. Is that too simple thinking?

[ecirtaeB]

Nice article. Some of the things written reflect my own thoughts and concerns on the matter.

I think it's important to sometimes remind ourselves that it's all the different individuals, the people that make up the world... and also, that the Earth isn't flat 

Here's a "Q&A" by an American Muslim woman:
Ask a Muslim: 10 Weird Questions I'm Often Asked, But am Happy to Answer
It's not related to the recent events but it might still prove to be an interesting read for you, if only to have an insight from a Muslim herself and have a different perspective on some things.

...My hope was that religions were all about encouraging societies to a cooperative life...

Many could tell you that they not only believe in it, they live it

[novacadian]

My feeling is that if we in the west do not except that our foriegn policy to the Muslim world is helping to incite the terrorist violence upon us and do not stand up to halt the violence that our military or military puppets exert upon them for corporate interests and the military complex then this situation will only spiral further out of control. In my mind Charlie aids/aided in that continued conflict. That does not let the murderers off the hook, nor does it forgive Charlie for stirring that pot of hatred. For that reason je ne suis pas Charlie.

[gonger]

My feeling is that if we in the west do not except that our foriegn policy to the Muslim world is helping to incite the terrorist violence upon us and do not stand up to halt the violence that our military or military puppets exert upon them for corporate interests and the military complex then this situation will only spiral further out of control. In my mind Charlie aids/aided in that continued conflict. That does not let the murderers off the hook, nor does it forgive Charlie for stirring that pot of hatred. For that reason je ne suis pas Charlie.

Again, you do not answer. Which in itself is an answer, of course.
I will not pursue your silence any further, my time is way too precious for this.