The Student Room Group

Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion

Scroll to see replies

Reply 220
Original post by missfats
That is an absurd comparison.
Sorry. I agree that it is not a completely apt comparison. At least the Israeli soldiers were facing some kind of violent provocation - even if it was only children throwing stones.

The journalists were merely involved in the publication of a satirical newspaper.

My bad.
Original post by generic_man
So in other words, the punch thing wasn't a metaphor, it was a pointless non-sequitur. Consider deleting it because it looks an awful lot like you're justifying mass murder.



Wow. Nice and authoritarian. At least they get one warning, though eh? :rolleyes: So again, as I was deeply offended by your post, would you be OK if I reported you to the authorities and got them to warn you that if you offended me again, you would no longer be allowed to post anything on the Internet?


I don't know what a sequitur is. Well if people choose to interpret it that way, that's on them.

One warning is plenty. I would if you explained the full basis of your offence, reasons why, how I can go about not offending you again etc fully explained measures
Original post by Dexa
Is it really standing up at the expense of innocent lives?

Well ultimately it would the head of the magazine that would agree to publish the material, so it was his call in the end. The workers are simply doing their job. I thought it was stupid that they publish such a thing at a time of already raised racial and religious unrest in the city.


Wow.

So on the one side, some people draw and publish a cartoon.

On the other, random people who weren't identified subjects in the cartoon crashed in and killed everybody.

And you're placing the blame on the one who published.
Reply 223
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Wtf is wrong with you?

Action lead to consequences. That's what theirs was. I don't agree with it, but that's what happens when you provoke a group of loonies.


Do you really think their intention was to provoke people who would happily kill them?
Offensive comedy is nothing new, plenty of people find things funny if they're controversial. They're the audience. The journalists weren't 'asking for it' at all.
Original post by Dexa
It was a stupid thing to do given the recent terror attacks in Paris over the last month. Why put lives at risk just to prove that you have freedom of speech?


Without events like this, we won't know we don't actually have freedom of speech any more.
Original post by Texx
Do you really think their intention was to provoke people who would happily kill them?
Offensive comedy is nothing new, plenty of people find things funny if they're controversial. They're the audience. The journalists weren't 'asking for it' at all.


Maybe they didn't realise they'd actually get killed, but yes, their intention was to offend and make a laughing stock of a persona associated with a mass of people.

I hope that audience are happy.
Original post by Dexa
The priority to should be safety of people, not freedom of speech. This incident could have been avoided.


And the way to do it is to appease the violent people? :confused:

Britain should've surrendered during WWII then, since the safety of the people should be priority.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
I don't know what a sequitur is. Well if people choose to interpret it that way, that's on them.

One warning is plenty. I would if you explained the full basis of your offence, reasons why, how I can go about not offending you again etc fully explained measures


Alright then, I was offended because I value free speech very highly and your comment suggested that it should be severely limited and that innocent people should face consequences for offending others. If you would like to avoid offending me again and thus receive another warning, preventing you from using the internet freely, please never criticise free speech ever again or suggest that it should be limited in any way.
Reply 228
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Maybe they didn't realise they'd actually get killed, but yes, their intention was to offend and make a laughing stock of a persona associated with a mass of people.

I hope that audience are happy.


What's wrong with poking fun at religious figures? It is amusing to lots of people, including some associated with the religion in question. And there's no point trying not to offend people, people will get offended by anything.
Reply 229
The cop shot dead in the video was an unarmed city policeman on bicycle. Ironically he was probably a muslim (his name was Ahmed).
Gunning down a dozen people is definitely a fair response for drawing a few cartoons of a fictional person.

Nothing wrong with that at all...







\s.
Original post by Dexa
Well we didn't win did we, 11 innocent people are dead.


Let's just surrender the world to terrorists. Maybe you should turn yourself in to set an example.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Maybe they didn't realise they'd actually get killed, but yes, their intention was to offend and make a laughing stock of a persona associated with a mass of people.

I hope that audience are happy.


How do you know that? I really doubt that many French Muslims are regular readers of a small circulation far-left anti-Islamic magazine therefore it would be rather foolish of the editors to aim cartoons at them. The cartoons were aimed at their regular readers who were likely to already be anti-religious and would agree with the cartoon's messages.
Original post by matthewduncan
this is what happens when you think its funny to trouble people that dont troubke you.
should have just left the moslems and their religion alone instead of starting trouble with those cartoons
a perfect slave mentality

congrats
Half the people on this thread actually attempting to justify this goes to show why it will never stop, extreme left-wingers will find a way to blame everybody but the terrorists.
Original post by hahahoran18
IS would definately disagree with everyone except themselves. They are a mad terror group with NOTHING to do with islam.

Posted from TSR Mobile


This is a whole new level of delusion.
Damn mad. The cause of it is definitely a religion and no one can deny it. I don't care how people interprete it- in a wrong way or not but that is causing too much troubles already.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Maybe they didn't realise they'd actually get killed, but yes, their intention was to offend and make a laughing stock of a persona associated with a mass of people.

I hope that audience are happy.
yes, yes, blame the victims...

the freedom to make fun about religion is one of the great achievements of humanity

and it will never disappear, as much as terrorists try to stifle it by violent means

the first effect of this massacre will be a wave of solidarity for anti-Islam criticism and discourse; but also (unfortunately) a wave of hostility towards individual Muslims

the terrorists hope of course for a progressive polarisation in the population : this is the best way for them to gain support among the Muslim community
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Punch is justified.
Death is not.
A reaction is also justified, although I'd have preferred something like groups protesting.

So don't put words into my mouth.

Warning. If they continued to produce the stuff, shut down.


so every muslim would have the right to punch them, or is it one punch regardless of the intensity of the devotion towards to individual, what about things that mock hitler do nazi groups also have the right to attack, or politicians and political magazines that mock them
Original post by clh_hilary
Let's just surrender the world to terrorists. Maybe you should turn yourself in to set an example.


That's quite some hyperbole.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending