The Student Room Group

Anyone else think Charlie Hebdo were provocative?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dandaman1
I would challenge or correct you on this, but I see this digressing into a contest over who's scholars are more reliable, with each of us inevitably siding with the ones that suit our own opinions, and the discussion will go nowhere.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a serious amount of bloodshed and conflict was involved in Muhammad's rise to power. Little of his territorial gains were exactly taken through peaceful means (how does somebody purely 'on the defensive' suddenly end up with the Arabian peninsular in their possession, might I ask?) I don't remember Jesus marching around with armies and participating in sieges and other acts of warfare, 'preemptively' or not.

* I should also add that the Banu Mustaliq never actually had any fighters - Muhammad took no causalities and got a lot of loot in the aftermath.


Banu Mustaliq actually did have forces mobilized readying an offensive, however you are right that there were little casualties, in fact only one muslim died and he was mistaken for the enemy and also that there was a lot of loot.

I also never said that territory was gained through peaceful means it was gained on the field of battle, and yes a lot of bloodshed was shed. However the gains in land were based on pre-emptive strikes. And I'm not really sure how Jesus came into this but oh well.

And tbh I would also challenge and correct you too, but again I think we have both acknowledged that we won't really get anywhere with this. Now I shall continue with my chemistry homework.
You've changed the title, which changes the whole meaning of the thread :rolleyes: It should just be binned.
Reply 122
Avatar for Simes
Simes
16
Original post by qwertyking
You've changed the title, which changes the whole meaning of the thread :rolleyes: It should just be binned.
This. The title is now feeble.
Original post by M1011
I'm sorry, but you can't seriously believe this. It's nothing to do with respecting Muslims, and you implication that it is suggests that you believe Muslims in general would condone the actions of these extremists...

It's about freedom of speech. If someone wants to make fun of something, they bloody well can. Be it a religion or anything else. Why should someone else have to respect something they don't believe in? Why should a billion people be immune from satire because of some extremist nut jobs?

Well in any case, France is hypocritical. If Muslims can't have the freedom to express their religion publicly, Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have the freedom to publish disparaging assaults on sacred religious figures... publicly. How bout that?

Reply 124
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by Truths
Well in any case, France is hypocritical. If Muslims can't have the freedom to express their religion publicly, Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have the freedom to publish disparaging assaults on sacred religious figures... publicly. How bout that?



So you can't be a Muslim if you can't hide your face?
Original post by Josb
So you can't be a Muslim if you can't hide your face?


Well some female muslims feel that way. Also public prayer is banned.
Reply 126
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by Truths
Well some female muslims feel that way. Also public prayer is banned.

The law is the same for Jews and Christians, nothing against Islam.
Original post by Josb
The law is the same for Jews and Christians, nothing against Islam.


But only muslims are required to pray several times a day no? And I'm convinced that there is a lot of social problems for muslims in France, in a way to make them feel victimised.
Original post by Truths
Well in any case, France is hypocritical. If Muslims can't have the freedom to express their religion publicly, Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have the freedom to publish disparaging assaults on sacred religious figures... publicly. How bout that?


Flawed analogy. You would be correct if Charlie Hebdo were plastering their publications over public walls in France, or handing them out in the street.

Muslims are allowed to wear the veil in their homes, and in non-public places in France, just as Charlie Hebdo are allowed to create cartoons in their private office and publish them via private retailers.
Original post by Lady Comstock


Flawed analogy. You would be correct if Charlie Hebdo were plastering their publications over public walls in France, or handing them out in the street.

Muslims are allowed to wear the veil in their homes, and in non-public places in France, just as Charlie Hebdo are allowed to create cartoons in their private office and publish them via private retailers.

They are sold in public no?
Original post by Truths
They are sold in public no?


Via private retailers. Civic buildings do not sell them.
Reply 131
Avatar for llpokerll
llpokerll
OP
2
Far too many people quoted me, and I don't think I can reply to all of them. Another point I wanted to throw out is that people need to apologise all the time for anti semitic comments but when it comes to Muslims. Then it suddenly becomes freedom of speech. Where's the logic in that?

(edited 9 years ago)
Of course they provoked it, deliberately. But the alternative is to accept that murderous, overly-sensitive idiots not only have a place in society, but must be pandered too as well. Which even if you agree with in principle, you must see the potential for exploitation by people pretending to be murderous, overly-sensitive idiots.
Reply 133
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by llpokerll
Far too many people quoted me, and I don't think I can reply to all of them. Another point I wanted to throw out is that people need to apologise all the time for anti semitic comments but when it comes to Muslims. Then it suddenly becomes freedom of speech. Where's the logic in that?


Drawings from Charlie Hebdo:




84461165_o.jpg105.6KB
CH 1.jpg159.5KB
Charlie%u00252BUne%2BAux%2Bchiottes%2Btoutes%2Bles%2Breligions.jpg108.3KB
Charlie%u00252BUne%2BBicot%2Bleche%2Bcul%2BYoupin.jpg211.5KB
CH 2.jpg111.6KB
Reply 134
Avatar for M1011
M1011
19
Original post by Truths
Well in any case, France is hypocritical. If Muslims can't have the freedom to express their religion publicly, Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have the freedom to publish disparaging assaults on sacred religious figures... publicly. How bout that?


I'm sorry, you just sprout nonsense. I have no interest in talking to you - people like you can't be reasoned with.
Reply 135
Avatar for Ganhad
Ganhad
2
Original post by M1011
I'm sorry, you just sprout nonsense. I have no interest in talking to you - people like you can't be reasoned with.


its a guardian reader or a troll.
Charb was a piece of **** in my opinion. Maybe that's distasteful because he's dead.
He wasn't a hero. Like Jon Stewart said nobody does comedy out of courage. He did it merely for provocation and offense and it had nothing to do with courage. The cofounder accuses him of taking down 11 staff with him. The stubborn fool

I just saw on RT news lots of French Muslims, potentially thousands, are being arrested for remarks on twitter and other social media.
A comedian that was arrested for saying he "feels like Charlie Coulibaly" and is being charged with defending terrorism. Hypocrisy much? Surely this underlines the murky business of true free speech:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
There was such an awful Panorama documentary on the other day. It's overall message was that it's time to take action against NON-VIOLENT Muslims because they're still considered extreme. Why should the government dictate ideas and ideals? That isn't their job and they have no right to do that. How you think, what you believe is your choice and as long as youre not hurting anyone that's okay - isn't that what we're told?
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 137
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by silent ninja
Charb was a piece of **** in my opinion. Maybe that's distasteful because he's dead.
He wasn't a hero. Like Jon Stewart said nobody does comedy out of courage. He did it merely for provocation and offense and it had nothing to do with courage. The cofounder accuses him of taking down 11 staff with him. The stubborn fool

I just saw on RT news lots of French Muslims, potentially thousands, are being arrested for remarks on twitter and other social media.
A comedian that was arrested for saying he "feels like Charlie Coulibaly" and is being charged with defending terrorism. Hypocrisy much? Surely this underlines the murky business of true free speech:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
There was such an awful Panorama documentary on the other day. It's overall message was that it's time to take action against NON-VIOLENT Muslims because they're still considered extreme. Why should the government dictate ideas and ideals? That isn't their job and they have no right to do that. How you think, what you believe is your choice and as long as youre not hurting anyone that's okay - isn't that what we're told?


"Thousands of Muslims arrested" lol :rolleyes:
Original post by silent ninja
Charb was a piece of **** in my opinion. Maybe that's distasteful because he's dead.
He wasn't a hero. Like Jon Stewart said nobody does comedy out of courage. He did it merely for provocation and offense and it had nothing to do with courage.


It takes courage to stand up for free expression in the face of threats of death from fascists.

The cofounder accuses him of taking down 11 staff with him. The stubborn fool


The staff did not have to stay. They clearly stood by Charb.

I just saw on RT news lots of French Muslims, potentially thousands, are being arrested for remarks on twitter and other social media.
A comedian that was arrested for saying he "feels like Charlie Coulibaly" and is being charged with defending terrorism. Hypocrisy much? Surely this underlines the murky business of true free speech:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
There was such an awful Panorama documentary on the other day. It's overall message was that it's time to take action against NON-VIOLENT Muslims because they're still considered extreme. Why should the government dictate ideas and ideals? That isn't their job and they have no right to do that. How you think, what you believe is your choice and as long as youre not hurting anyone that's okay - isn't that what we're told?


FYI, the Panorama documentary conveyed concern about non-violent extremism, NOT non-violent Muslims. Stop making things up.
Original post by llpokerll

Does anyone share my views?


Let's look at it this way: If someone had shot up Charlie Hebdo for cartoons depicting black people as monkeys, or hook nosed demonic Jews, or attacking gays, abuse victims or transgendered people or any other group offensively, would we be all saying "we're Charlie Hebdo"?


It's a great example of complete lack of introspection and perspective on the west's part to be relieving CH entirely of all fault.

The attacks were a tragedy and a outrageous crime, and nothing will absolve the gunmen, and I don;t believe anyone is actually trying to.


It's just a sad observation that Islamic extremism is such a hot-button issue in the west that renders wide-scale abuse and all round ****ty attitudes towards Muslims as okay when if CH was attacking any other easily identifiable group through no fault of there own and stereotyping/generalising, people would be wagging fingers.


except the xenophobic crew who use any excuse to attack others not of their immediate kin.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you