Je Suis Charlie - The Bear and Badger

Kow

Brooks

I suppose the scariest thing is that none of us are immune to those sort of appeals. I can't get myself comfortable with polygamy, for instance, though on paper that's probably healthier than locking in another human being for exclusive use.

Kow

dynamiteReady wrote:

You could easily put together a list of horrors to describe America too, if you wanted - police murdering and imprisoning ethnic minorities, Westboro church, the Klan, imperialist invaders, CIA torture etc etc. Fuck it we should round up the yanks.

Precisely. The issue is how all of these are various expressions of control and the need to control. People grasping for simplifications of the real to the detriment of decency.

It's almost as though no one ever mentioned that before, eh?

The difference is that because of our constant exposure to American media - quality authors, musicians and directors - we know that such a picture is facetious. We don't have the information to realise that it's equally true of Islamic countries.

Facewon

IanHamlett wrote:

Not a fan of America either. Fuck Israel too.

I'm choosing to read this as somewhat flippant, but surely you still see the inherant weakness with simplistic generalisations like this? You hate all 300 million + Americans? You hate every Israeli? Even those that criticise government policy and don't support settlements (for intance)?

IanHamlett

No. I said I'm not a fan. Not a fan of their foreign policy, gun loving, religion in politics, institutionalised racism etc.

Israel I'm a little more hard line on. Bombing kids is wrong. It says it right there in the bible. The occupation of Palestine has more than a little in common with South Africa a few years back.

I dare say I could get along with around 80% of any country though.

Facewon

But not 80% of "Islam" apparently.

IanHamlett

Them too. Although I do think their imaginary friend is currently more of a problem than any of the other popular imaginary friends.

Blue Swirl

The cover for Wednesday's issue of the magazine.

All is forgiven.

Blue Swirl

IanHamlett wrote:

Them too. Although I do think their imaginary friend is currently more of a problem than any of the other popular imaginary friends.

This. People are free to choose their faith... but not to use it to make others unhappy. Or dead. We have to be able to study and criticise any school of thought, including a religion, in order to progress. We have to realise that criticising a school of thought is not the same as attacking a particular creed, race, or other subgroup of humanity. People are deserving of a baseline level of respect; religions, philosophies, political views are not.

Please note I am using "criticise" in the proper way, rather than the colloquial meaning of "to point of flaws or be mean about something". We should be free without fear of violent reprisal to respectfully and thoroughly critique a school of thought, whether it be an ancient religion or the latest diet fad.

Skerret

I count two cocknballs on that cover.

dynamiteReady

IanHamlett wrote:

Them too. Although I do think their imaginary friend is currently more of a problem than any of the other popular imaginary friends.

I think a supposed 'superpower' rolling through a populations' most valuable land and imposing a rule of law upon it, is a bigger problem than anyone's choice of 'imaginary friends'.

Blue Swirl wrote:

Please note I am using "criticise" in the proper way, rather than the colloquial meaning of "to point of flaws or be mean about something". We should be free without fear of violent reprisal to respectfully and thoroughly critique a school of thought, whether it be an ancient religion or the latest diet fad.

So since we're taking it there...

Nicolas Anelka...

Where the fuck was his defense, eh?

Jimmy The Lips

Jews are exempt

Brooks

Skerret wrote:

I count two cocknballs on that cover.

Well these guys are basically 4chan Institutionalised so.

Skerret

Meta-commentary.

Brooks

We have to realise that criticising a school of thought is not the same as attacking a particular creed, race, or other subgroup of humanity.

It depends how you do it, this is the problem.

IanHamlett

I realise I'm sounding way racist on this. This attack was the straw that broke a racially-neutral load-carrying animal's back. I was already on edge about self censorship via fear of violent reprisal. I'd usually stand up for protection of minority cultures but not to the point where I'm protecting their ill treatment of women.

The other side of this kind of has me in a pincer, trying to say what I mean without sounding racist. Far right racist parties stopped calling the "other" by their race and started calling them by their religion to avoid race-hate laws. I assure you my bile is coming from a different place than theirs.

Yossarian

I've yet to read all of this, but here's an article on satire in the Muslim world:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/12/laughing-in-face-of-danger-satire-in-muslim-world

It certainly suggests that it is possible to criticise parts of Islam without having to create images of Mohamed.

Brooks

It also suggests the best satire of shenanigans in the Islamic world is done by locals, not a bunch of old white guys in France.

Facewon

whodathunkit.

Kow

There are actually plenty of articles and books which are well written (and not so well written) criticisms of Islam, the authors of which have not been killed. They probably did not contain bug eyed penis faced Mohammeds.

acemuzzy

I've just noticed that "JE SUIS" is basically "JESUS", so even the comeback stance has overt Christian overtones.

Mayber.

mistercrayon

read the context, it says "all is forgiven".
CONtEXT
CONTEXT
context
CONTEXt

oh it's still a penis face.

Lord_Griff

Didn't the historian who did made a critical piece on the history of Islam get one o' them fatwas put on him. No penises in that little ditty.

nick_md

Anyone watch Panorama last night? I know it's the state broadcaster so propaganda ahoy, but there was one section which just flat-out dismissed foreign policy having an influence on acts of extremism, and even went to suggest that the trend of blaming FP is worrying.

Just, I honestly don't know what to say. It seems hugely retarded to me to dismiss, considering illegal action either carried out or supported (Iraq, Palestine etc) serves as one humungous recruitment drive for clowns like IS.

It's head in the sand stuff. Some argue that if no offensive cartoons were drawn then IS would still want to lop heads off. Yeah, but would IS be in the power they are were it not for destablising the region? To take from a Chomsky article:

"Jihadism's most fearsome current manifestation is the Islamic State, or ISIS, which has established its murderous caliphate in large areas of Iraq and Syria.

"I think the United States is one of the key creators of this organization," reports former CIA analyst Graham Fuller, a prominent commentator on the region. "The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS," he adds, "but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the War in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS." "

Yeah but apparently it's disgusting to suggest that western FP plays a part. They just hate our freedom, innit.

Yossarian

Lord_Griff wrote:

Didn't the historian who did made a critical piece on the history of Islam get one o' them fatwas put on him. No penises in that little ditty.

No idea. Who do you mean?

IanHamlett

It's daft to think that western aggression isn't a big part of it. But looking at the number of fired up young muslims that think 9/11 was mossad, I'm not sure actual facts are totally necessary for radicalisation.

Yossarian

There are enough facts facts to anger people regardless of September the 11th.

Kow

Plenty of Americans think America was behind 9/11.

IanHamlett

About a third at last count.

IanHamlett

Yossarian wrote:

There are enough facts facts to anger people regardless of September the 11th.

Yes, the ridiculous number of sunni vs shia deaths for one.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories