Vienna Shooting

[BobKowalski]

Fucking hilarious.

You and a few others in here have made this forum your own personal support group the last 4 years with your whining.

I suppose dictating what can and can't be discussed is about the only victory most of you will experience.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

That's what the people at Charlie Hebdo failed to understand in my view. No one of sound mind in any way condones killing people over cartoons but no one of sound mind should condone deliberately and knowingly carrying out actions that will cause deep offence to others. And while that happens the cycle will continue.

The problem is that these sorts of people will always find an excuse. Their aim, however ridiculous, is to impose Islamist norms on the countries they live in and they're willing to use violence to do it. That's why most people in Pakistan support repealing the blasphemy law, but it doesn't happen because politicians that support it frequently find themselves murdered. The initial Danish cartoons controversy occurred after both 9/11 and 7/7. And that's not to make this a "they started it" point, but to highlight that Islamist terrorism occurs regardless.

The other thing to mention is that the "deep offence" in no way needs to be deliberate for it to cause a violent reaction. Salman Rushdie wasn't setting out to offend the Muslim world and yet has found himself the target of death threats for the second half of his life (his translator wasn't lucky enough to just have threats). The Life of Brian was in no way a deliberate insult to Christians, and yet Christian groups at the time, full of their own self importance, deliberately chose to be offended because what they actually found offensive was the lampooning of religious belief more generally. And that's what happens.

What often doesn't get talked about is that when those initial Danish cartoons were circulated around the Muslim world (by people who were clearly so offended that they wanted to make sure as many other Muslims saw them as possible), they actually added in cartoons of their own that they thought people would find even more offensive. This is not people who are genuinely offended, it's people who think they can whip up a mob to fulfil their own goals (political or otherwise). There are people out there, and we even see this in our own political discourse, who make a career out of finding and sharing things to be outraged by. And they frequently do this by deliberate misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the things they find. Islamists are no different, and that's why ending "deliberate offence" will make no difference.

 

[Rascal]

I sound like an EDL member. I'm snide. Give over Russ.

Eco's "hero" was a man who called himself 'Franchi' but whose real name was Edgardo Sogno. He was ultra right-wing so maybe Umberto Eco is a little short-sighted on this. Most neutral commentators equate the word "fascism" with the right.

And, as usual, you're deflecting as your own short-sightedness is laid bare. One of the reasons that people carry out attackes like this is to achieve matyrdom in either a religious or political sense, They also want to encourage large-scale polarisation so that Western society reacts negatively to Islam in general and Muslims personally. In turn, that will polarise the Muslim community to turn inwards and be much more defensive. And they hope that, eventually, will lead to a civil war between the two groups.

There's clear parallels to the situation in the Labour Party where people like Rachel Riley have been forced to confront who they really are, because they know that certain groups will never let them forget it. And your short-sightedness fails to see that when you're crying about "Blairite witch-hunts" it's about trying to achieve political martyrdom and looking to cause a political civil war, forgetting that it's those who have been shown to be antisemitic who have caused the offence and their the ones you'd be standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the trenches with.

That's what the people at Charlie Hebdo failed to understand in my view. No one of sound mind in any way condones killing people over cartoons but no one of sound mind should condone deliberately and knowingly carrying out actions that will cause deep offence to others. And while that happens the cycle will continue.

I am not going to take your bait.

 

[BobKowalski]

The FT has taken down an oped on the recent murders in France which was (allegedly) critical of Macron and the French belief in secularism. Politico also have done the same.

I say allegedly as I didnt read the articles, but taking them down because they were (allegedly) misrepresenting the French position is interesting.

 

[Fame Monster]

The FT has taken down an oped on the recent murders in France which was (allegedly) critical of Macron and the French belief in secularism. Politico also have done the same.

I say allegedly as I didnt read the articles, but taking them down because they were (allegedly) misrepresenting the French position is interesting.

It wasn't the same nonsense put out by this guy was it?

 

[The perfect fumble]

I am not going to take your bait.

For Prestwich_Blue there are two types of left winger, proud anti-Semites and closet anti-Semites.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Tragic scenes in Vienna, shootings in city center by suspected Islamic terrorists. Many details unclear, fluid situation

We are a vile species

I'm not "vile". I can't understand why you (and plenty of others) would attribute such abhorrent, unnatural behaviour as a characteristic of yourself, and mankind as a whole, unless it is to, somehow, rationalise the actions of social deviants. You don't come across as "vile" either.

 

[FCBarca]

I'm not "vile". I can't understand why you (and plenty of others) would attribute such abhorrent, unnatural behaviour as a characteristic of yourself, and mankind as a whole, unless it is to, somehow, rationalise the actions of social deviants. You don't come across as "vile" either.

Compared to all the species on the planet and the destruction we are responsible for, it’s accurate

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The problem is that these sorts of people will always find an excuse. Their aim, however ridiculous, is to impose Islamist norms on the countries they live in and they're willing to use violence to do it.

I think you're wrong on that. They're far more interested in fomenting unrest and division. They tend to be more political Islamists than religious. There's a significant difference. someone like bin Laden was a political Islamist whereas the Mujihadeen in Pakistan/Afghanistan tended to be religious Islamists.

 

[Damocles]

It wasn't the same nonsense put out by this guy was it?

The "you can't call these people violent because if you do it will cause them to become violent" is right at the top of my list for spectacularly stupid ideas.