World Politics

[blutto]

The burden of proof is on those who claim they aren’t safe to eat. ,

....just showed the bit above to my partner who happens to be a medical researcher ( her resume includes several major drug trials )....her first response was, uhhh, stunned silence....then she said "That is the stupid beyond words...."....she went on to say that you may be a perfect fit in the drug industry as your idea would save them piles of money and much bother...

...and frankly I didn't/couldn't put up much of an argument...

...those that care about this issue may want to read the following...

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/sc...-effects-of-genetically-modifying-food-crops/

Cheers

 

[Jagartrott]

How hypocritical is it, by the way, that Mohammed cartoons are not shown or censored in that self-proclaimed bastion of liberty and free speech, the USA?

 

[python]

The entire "Je Suis Charlie" phenomena is complicated to analyse.

Although I am shocked by the useless violence and experienced a certain amount of emotion after the events of last week, I do not consider myself "Charlie". That would be hypocritical as I don't even appreciate the paper itself.

There have been similar attacks recently that have not solicited even a small amount of the buzz created by the Charlie massacre despite being equally horrible in nature. Mohammed Merah assassinated 7 including 3 children and a teacher that he shot in their school. The liberty of the press is an important principle to defend, but so is the right for children to be able to go to school without worrying about being shot to death yet there weren't 4 million people on the streets in protest. I don't recall a minute of silence after the Merah killings either. Why not?

Don't get me wrong, it isn't a lack of sympathy for the victims of last weeks carnage, it is just that we should be prepared to display the same sympathy for all victims of similar attacks even if it isn't the fad of the day. There has been an enormous amount of political recuperation the past few days, complete with a catchy slogan to rally under.

On the other hand, there is a real problem when the killings of this nature are exploited to encourage more of the same - which is happening to a certain extent. It is one thing not to adhere to a minute of silence imposed by a wave of political correctness and surfing a trend, and yet another to express satisfaction that journalists were assassinated because they satirized the excesses of a religion (or more correctly the excesses of a group who exploit a religion to justify their actions).

There is a lot of work to be done to encourage tolerance within certain communities, but PR slogans are not enough to obtain a satisfactory result.

this is a good post frenchfry. intellectually very honest. and balanced.

i did not post much on the subject because i feel mixed along the lines you drew. but you said it better than i could with my tardy english.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As Echoes wants us to believe (even though you never ever tricked me, and you will never) that Saudi Arabias Islam has nothing to with the Islam, he certainly can explain us why women are not allowed to drive a car, many 9/11 terrorists came from there, that there is a religion-police, and this man gets tortured to death:

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article136420082/Auspeitschen-ist-Mord-auf-Raten.html (use google translator, or google in english sites for this blogger, Raif Badawi)

Yes, I know, the islam has nothing to do with the islam.

Echoes your "truth" is dangerous. I hope nobody buys your propaganda BS...

 

[rhubroma]

The entire "Je Suis Charlie" phenomena is complicated to analyse.

Although I am shocked by the useless violence and experienced a certain amount of emotion after the events of last week, I do not consider myself "Charlie". That would be hypocritical as I don't even appreciate the paper itself.

There have been similar attacks recently that have not solicited even a small amount of the buzz created by the Charlie massacre despite being equally horrible in nature. Mohammed Merah assassinated 7 including 3 children and a teacher that he shot in their school. The liberty of the press is an important principle to defend, but so is the right for children to be able to go to school without worrying about being shot to death yet there weren't 4 million people on the streets in protest. I don't recall a minute of silence after the Merah killings either. Why not?

Don't get me wrong, it isn't a lack of sympathy for the victims of last weeks carnage, it is just that we should be prepared to display the same sympathy for all victims of similar attacks even if it isn't the fad of the day. There has been an enormous amount of political recuperation the past few days, complete with a catchy slogan to rally under.

On the other hand, there is a real problem when the killings of this nature are exploited to encourage more of the same - which is happening to a certain extent. It is one thing not to adhere to a minute of silence imposed by a wave of political correctness and surfing a trend, and yet another to express satisfaction that journalists were assassinated because they satirized the excesses of a religion (or more correctly the excesses of a group who exploit a religion to justify their actions).

There is a lot of work to be done to encourage tolerance within certain communities, but PR slogans are not enough to obtain a satisfactory result.

There is something fundamental at stake here, and it is those Enlightenment principles of which France itself laid the foundations and which, with varying degrees of fruition, are at the basis of a more civil, because more tolerant and less obscurantist, society than the reigns of terror that had accompanied humanity, more or less, from the dawn of civilization (at the forefront of which religion had often played the protagonist's role). Many have died so that we live under no such (at least religious) obvious oppression.

The message we must send out thus must be strong and unequivocal. The dictators and religious fanatics are free to decide what their subjects and subjugated can see, say and hear (terrible though this is); however, we have no intention to live that way, nor do they have any authority to decide what we can see, say or hear. We are free to choose how we want to comport ourselves in this regard, always, though, within the limits of the law. It is the legal state, in its secularism, that in our world has the exclusive authority to place limits on my freedoms, but only to prevent my freedom from placing under threat, or negating, someone else's.

But satirizing religion does not limit another's liberty to practice it, thus no censure is possible, nor correct. Nor does someone have the right not to be offended, murder, yes, stollen from, yes, etc.; but being offended is not something we can protect people against, without giving up the same freedom of expression that permits us to challenge anothers ideas, beliefs and all those powers to which people willingly, or unwillingly, embrace or succumb. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, being offended (when such offence is not an insentive to violate another person's rights or dignity) is simply part, at times even nessecary, of existing within society. Thus if we were not allowed to satire religion, then the secular principles upon which a more civil and tolerant society rests (again, the absence of which, was frequently religiously motivated) would not be defended in favor of obscurantism. For this reason to abolish religious satire, would be a de-civilizing act, not a civilizing one (and I would like to believe that any reasonable person of faith in our society would completely agree).

The other thing is that the fanatics need to take responsibility for what they choose to view. I realize this is far too much to expect from these imbeciles, allthough this has been overlooked. By no means is anyone forced to look at anything they find offensive. What happened to Charlie Hebdo, by contrast, was a vile and unacceptable act of religious fascism that de facto attempted to determine what is sanctioned to be seen and that which is not, for those who believe in their god, for those that do not, nor any for that matter, and in the country that founded the Enlightenment. This is what is ultimately at stake and it is a principle that the West cannot renounce, without caving into the terrorists.

 

[rhubroma]

As Echoes wants us to believe (even though you never ever tricked me, and you will never) that Saudi Arabias Islam has nothing to with the Islam, he certainly can explain us why women are not allowed to drive a car, many 9/11 terrorists came from there, that there is a religion-police, and this man gets tortured to death:

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article136420082/Auspeitschen-ist-Mord-auf-Raten.html (use google translator, or google in english sites for this blogger, Raif Badawi)

Yes, I know, the islam has nothing to do with the islam.

Echoes your "truth" is dangerous. I hope nobody buys your propaganda BS...

Apropos, its worth taking a look at what Claude Levis-Straus wrote of Islam in 1955: "More than upon the evidence of a revelation, this important religion was founded upon the incapacity to create bonds outside its own community of the faithful. In contrast with the benevolent Buddhist, or the Christian that seeks a dialog [not always been the case, me], Muslim intolerance adopts an unconscious form toward those who are not responsible. Even when they don't seek a brutal means to constrain others to agree with their religion, they are in any case (which is rather more dire) incapable of tolerating the existence of others, in as much as they are other. The only way for them to shelter themselves from all doubt and humiliation, consist of extinguishing the other as testimony to a different faith and different behavior. Islamic brotherhood excludes the infidels, with no possibility of allowing them to coexist within the community. That's because if they consented the other's own nature of being different, it would be tantamount to affirming their right to exist."

The question of the recent Islamic violence began with the fatwa against Rushdie in 1989. I don't think Europe's and the West's intelligensia and political class realized the import of such an act. It appeared to us an absurd religious and tribal "archaism" of a bygone, pre-Enlightenment age. Instead it was sinisterly current. The reaction of most Muslims in Europe, however, doesn't confirm what Levi-Straus wrote about being "incapable of supporting the existence of others." On the other hand, I'm not so ingenuous as to think that good words are enough, and am well aware that in many Muslim communities they don't even pose themselves the question of whether or not other faiths or ways of life should be tolerated. At the same time for economic reasons the West maintains solid relations with a country like Saudi Arabia, in which two women were arrested for daring to drive. Yet I am lucidly convinced that there doesn't exist another course but working with the majority non-terrorist Islamic community in Europe, who, besides, are fellow citizens. This is the only way (as fellow citizens) I can find, as a lay secularist, that might possibly forge stronger bonds. I'm also firmly convinced that if we don't forge them, then the alternative would be an epoch making catastrophe.

 

[RetroActive]

There is something fundamental at stake here, and it is those Enlightenment principles of which France itself laid the foundations and which, with varying degrees of fruition, are at the basis of a more civil, because more tolerant and less obscurantist, society than the reigns of terror that had accompanied humanity, more or less, from the dawn of civilization (at the forefront of which religion had often played the protagonist's role). Many have died so that we live under no such (at least religious) obvious oppression.

The message we must send out thus must be strong and unequivocal. The dictators and religious fanatics are free to decide what their subjects and subjugated can see, say and hear (terrible though this is); however, we have no intention to live that way, nor do they have any authority to decide what we can see, say or hear. We are free to choose how we want to comport ourselves in this regard, always, though, within the limits of the law. It is the legal state, in its secularism, that in our world has the exclusive authority to place limits on my freedoms, but only to prevent my freedom from placing under threat, or negating, someone else's.

But satirizing religion does not limit another's liberty to practice it, thus no censure is possible, nor correct. Nor does someone have the right not to be offended, murder, yes, stollen from, yes, etc.; but being offended is not something we can protect people against, without giving up the same freedom of expression that permits us to challenge anothers ideas, beliefs and all those powers to which people willingly, or unwillingly, embrace or succumb. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, being offended (when such offence is not an insentive to violate another person's rights or dignity) is simply part, at times even nessecary, of existing within society. Thus if we were not allowed to satire religion, then the secular principles upon which a more civil and tolerant society rests (again, the absence of which, was frequently religiously motivated) would not be defended in favor of obscurantism. For this reason to abolish religious satire, would be a de-civilizing act, not a civilizing one (and I would like to believe that any reasonable person of faith in our society would completely agree).

The other thing is that the fanatics need to take responsibility for what they choose to view. I realize this is far too much to expect from these imbeciles, allthough this has been overlooked. By no means is anyone forced to look at anything they find offensive. What happened to Charlie Hebdo, by contrast, was a vile and unacceptable act of religious fascism that de facto attempted to determine what is sanctioned to be seen and that which is not, for those who believe in their god, for those that do not, nor any for that matter, and in the country that founded the Enlightenment. This is what is ultimately at stake and it is a principle that the West cannot renounce, without caving into the terrorists.

It would be nice if it was that simple.
A Message From the Dispossessed
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111

 

[rhubroma]

It would be nice if it was that simple.
A Message From the Dispossessed
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111

I didn't say it was nice, but necessary.

 

[RetroActive]

I didn't say it was nice, but necessary.

It's also necessary for the West to do a little self reflection; dig a little deeper into the cause and not just analyze the effect. Circling the wagons around "our Enlightenment principles", "we must not concede", is all well and good but a more enlightened analyses of the 'other' side of the cause is required. That's something the West is woefully bad at doing, so we have effects. Round and round...

 

[frenchfry]

There is something fundamental at stake here, and it is those Enlightenment principles of which France itself laid the foundations and which, with varying degrees of fruition, are at the basis of a more civil, because more tolerant and less obscurantist, society than the reigns of terror that had accompanied humanity, more or less, from the dawn of civilization (at the forefront of which religion had often played the protagonist's role). Many have died so that we live under no such (at least religious) obvious oppression.

The message we must send out thus must be strong and unequivocal. The dictators and religious fanatics are free to decide what their subjects and subjugated can see, say and hear (terrible though this is); however, we have no intention to live that way, nor do they have any authority to decide what we can see, say or hear. We are free to choose how we want to comport ourselves in this regard, always, though, within the limits of the law. It is the legal state, in its secularism, that in our world has the exclusive authority to place limits on my freedoms, but only to prevent my freedom from placing under threat, or negating, someone else's.

But satirizing religion does not limit another's liberty to practice it, thus no censure is possible, nor correct. Nor does someone have the right not to be offended, murder, yes, stollen from, yes, etc.; but being offended is not something we can protect people against, without giving up the same freedom of expression that permits us to challenge anothers ideas, beliefs and all those powers to which people willingly, or unwillingly, embrace or succumb. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, being offended (when such offence is not an insentive to violate another person's rights or dignity) is simply part, at times even nessecary, of existing within society. Thus if we were not allowed to satire religion, then the secular principles upon which a more civil and tolerant society rests (again, the absence of which, was frequently religiously motivated) would not be defended in favor of obscurantism. For this reason to abolish religious satire, would be a de-civilizing act, not a civilizing one (and I would like to believe that any reasonable person of faith in our society would completely agree).

The other thing is that the fanatics need to take responsibility for what they choose to view. I realize this is far too much to expect from these imbeciles, allthough this has been overlooked. By no means is anyone forced to look at anything they find offensive. What happened to Charlie Hebdo, by contrast, was a vile and unacceptable act of religious fascism that de facto attempted to determine what is sanctioned to be seen and that which is not, for those who believe in their god, for those that do not, nor any for that matter, and in the country that founded the Enlightenment. This is what is ultimately at stake and it is a principle that the West cannot renounce, without caving into the terrorists.

It seems to me that the apologists (including most of the "elite" political class) are taking the point of view that what happened at Charlie Hebdo was not a religious act, but rather the act of deranged individuals. Islam is the victim here, not the perpetrator.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

It is not easy to define the relationship between the atrocious acts committed in the name of Islam, and the religion itself.

 

[RetroActive]

It seems to me that the apologists (including most of the "elite" political class) are taking the point of view that what happened at Charlie Hebdo was not a religious act, but rather the act of deranged individuals. Islam is the victim here, not the perpetrator.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

It is not easy to define the relationship between the atrocious acts committed in the name of Islam, and the religion itself.

It's not easy to define the relationship between atrocious acts committed in the name of secular Enlightenment principles, and the principles themselves.

 

[Echoes]

It's amazing to see the lies vented by the same liar despite being proved that his lies were lies. It's pathetic. And then he's got the balls to claim that I am an obscurantist.

The Enlightened Philosophers were tolerant. Okay, Voltaire wished to kill - physically - Rousseau because he had the misfortune not to agree with her Highness' opinions. That's what you call tolerance. Strange form of tolerance.

Besides, Voltaire's works were a tissue of lies. I don't know if he ever put one thing right. At uni, I already was informed about his relationship with Rousseau but when I first realised he was a liar was with regards to the Man in the Iron Mask story, that he completely distorted while probably knowing the truth.

Furthermore, the Enlightenment advocated for free-trade, all the way, already under the monarchy but they failed and then the Revolutionaries took it up and sanctified it, while traditionally the monarchy gave protection for the workers and the peasants. By 1791, the French revolutionaries passed two ignominious laws, the loi d'Allarde and Le Chapelier which banned the corporations and "compagnonage" and prohibited all kinds of labour coalition (trade unions) and strikes. That is the Enlightenment. Let's not talk about slavery, child labour, they all advocated for that, okay?

And then, as Retro suggested the secular society was based on one of the first massive genocide. The Genocide of the Vendée. No decent society can be based on such a massacre. I'm not even talking about the Napoleonic wars, the Commune and all massacres of workers for more than a century.

This two century era has been the worst that the common people have ever lived.

 

[RetroActive]

....just showed the bit above to my partner who happens to be a medical researcher ( her resume includes several major drug trials )....her first response was, uhhh, stunned silence....then she said "That is the stupid beyond words...."....she went on to say that you may be a perfect fit in the drug industry as your idea would save them piles of money and much bother...

...and frankly I didn't/couldn't put up much of an argument...

...those that care about this issue may want to read the following...

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/sc...-effects-of-genetically-modifying-food-crops/

Cheers

...and then you throw epigenetics into the ring and it's pretty clear that we don't understand all the subtleties involved in the operation of genes. Tossing unstable gene sequences into the environment and ourselves, when everything is interacting in ways we don't understand doesn't seem like a great idea to me. People talk about genetics like science is tinkering with a clock but it's becoming increasing clear that's not what's going on.

 

[rhubroma]

It's amazing to see the lies vented by the same liar despite being proved that his lies were lies. It's pathetic. And then he's got the balls to claim that I am an obscurantist.

The Enlightened Philosophers were tolerant. Okay, Voltaire wished to kill - physically - Rousseau because he had the misfortune not to agree with her Highness' opinions. That's what you call tolerance. Strange form of tolerance.

Besides, Voltaire's works were a tissue of lies. I don't know if he ever put one thing right. At uni, I already was informed about his relationship with Rousseau but when I first realised he was a liar was with regards to the Man in the Iron Mask story, that he completely distorted while probably knowing the truth.

Furthermore, the Enlightenment advocated for free-trade, all the way, already under the monarchy but they failed and then the Revolutionaries took it up and sanctified it, while traditionally the monarchy gave protection for the workers and the peasants. By 1791, the French revolutionaries passed two ignominious laws, the loi d'Allarde and Le Chapelier which banned the corporations and "compagnonage" and prohibited all kinds of labour coalition (trade unions) and strikes. That is the Enlightenment. Let's not talk about slavery, child labour, they all advocated for that, okay?

And then, as Retro suggested the secular society was based on one of the first massive genocide. The Genocide of the Vendée. No decent society can be based on such a massacre. I'm not even talking about the Napoleonic wars, the Commune and all massacres of workers for more than a century.

This two century era has been the worst that the common people have ever lived.

Your baseness knows no ends. Apart from what you say being ludicrous and factually ridiculous (other than moi being a liar), there are serious mental issues in it. I'd recommend a psychiatric visit chap.

 

[rhubroma]

It seems to me that the apologists (including most of the "elite" political class) are taking the point of view that what happened at Charlie Hebdo was not a religious act, but rather the act of deranged individuals. Islam is the victim here, not the perpetrator.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

It is not easy to define the relationship between the atrocious acts committed in the name of Islam, and the religion itself.

While this is very true, Islam must take account for the atrocious acts commited in its name, the same way the the Enlightenment movement had to take responsibility for its principles being used in such a reprehensible way as the reign of terror..

Eventually this did happen, when we remember that the first laws to abolish torture, the death penalty, and a lot of things we now take for granted, came out of it.

 

[frenchfry]

It would be nice if it was that simple.
A Message From the Dispossessed
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111

"The terrorist attack in France that took place at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was not about free speech. It was not about radical Islam. It did not illustrate the fictitious clash of civilizations. It was a harbinger of an emerging dystopia where the wretched of the earth, deprived of resources to survive, devoid of hope, brutally controlled, belittled and mocked by the privileged who live in the splendor and indolence of the industrial West, lash out in nihilistic fury."

This is a load of crap, at least in the context of France.

The Kouachi brothers didn't have an easy life, their father didn't stick around and their mother had trouble making ends meet but that is the story of lots of kids who don't become terrorists. They found their mother dead on the return from a day at Disneyland, hardly a situation of not having enough resources to survive. When their mother died they lived in the Corrèze, far from the Paris banlieues.

The excesses of capitalism is a problem, but France is a very socialist state and the above argument just doesn't cut it. Painting the muslim immigrant population as the ultimate victims is pretty rich.

In any case, a lot of the kids that go to Syria to fight the jihad come from white middle class backgrounds.

 

[RetroActive]

"The terrorist attack in France that took place at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was not about free speech. It was not about radical Islam. It did not illustrate the fictitious clash of civilizations. It was a harbinger of an emerging dystopia where the wretched of the earth, deprived of resources to survive, devoid of hope, brutally controlled, belittled and mocked by the privileged who live in the splendor and indolence of the industrial West, lash out in nihilistic fury."

This is a load of crap, at least in the context of France.

The Kouachi brothers didn't have an easy life, their father didn't stick around and their mother had trouble making ends meet but that is the story of lots of kids who don't become terrorists. They found their mother dead on the return from a day at Disneyland, hardly a situation of not having enough resources to survive. When their mother died they lived in the Corrèze, far from the Paris banlieues.

The excesses of capitalism is a problem, but France is a very socialist state and the above argument just doesn't cut it. Painting the muslim immigrant population as the ultimate victims is pretty rich.

In any case, a lot of the kids that go to Syria to fight the jihad come from white middle class backgrounds.

Hedges seems to be trying to shoehorn the event into a larger narrative. It does get a bit sickly sweet in places but he also reminds us that there's a bigger picture. It was a useful counterpoint to rhub's 'circle the wagons'.

I don't know what to make of it all. I watch some the videos on youtube about all the problems in Europe with Muslims and it's clear there are some real crazy problems brewing. I watch what goes on in the ME and it's clear there are some real crazy things happening. Bombs are being dropped, that's pretty crazy.

I think I'll just try to meet people as individuals. I won't be surprised when there are more bombs dropped and more terrorist attacks either.

ps, the bolded is an interesting statement. Any insights as to why they would be doing that?

 

[blackcat]

The other thing is that the fanatics need to take responsibility for what they choose to view. I realize this is far too much to expect from these imbeciles, allthough this has been overlooked. By no means is anyone forced to look at anything they find offensive. What happened to Charlie Hebdo, by contrast, was a vile and unacceptable act of religious fascism that de facto attempted to determine what is sanctioned to be seen and that which is not, for those who believe in their god, for those that do not, nor any for that matter, and in the country that founded the Enlightenment. This is what is ultimately at stake and it is a principle that the West cannot renounce, without caving into the terrorists.

agree with everything you write.

however, the "satirists" at Hebdo, wish their prism of caricature to be the mullahs, that everyone sees Hebo with this lens.

they wish the viewer, to consume the magazine with the mullah lens.

and thus, they can create a spectacle (before the attrocity this is). And they can get the MSM media to do their PR and marketing to sell their magazine.

In this case, are they really satirizing mad islam, and a prophet, or are they giving it a platform with their act?

RAZER: JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE
BY HELEN RAZER
http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/razer-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie/17180

 

[python]

... I don't understand Turkey...it flirts with everybody, strange country.
....

far from being a turkey expert, i did follow some of its foreign policy with regard to the middle east mess in general and the syrian conflict specifically...at the first glance, as you said, it is strange. but the flirting stage is far behind now.

indeed, until literally 2-3 years ago, turkeys official foreign policy principle was 'friends with all neighbors'. it is now a long gone memory. most analysts that i consider aware, now believe that the erdogan's govt goal is creating a regional mini superstate reminiscent of the great turkey empire. indeed, the latest military, economic and political steps of turkey seem to support the notion. their accommodation with russia, - or basically playing along the vlad game of screwing ukraine and europe, pls note, while remaining a full nato member !- appear most intriguing.

besides turkey's 180 on syria, another fascinating aspect of their foreign policy is the cold shoulder to israel. see this, just in

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...KP21920150116?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Turkish PM says Israeli 'provocations' radicalising Muslim world

"(Netanyahu) himself killed, his army killed children in the playground. They killed our citizens and an American citizen in international waters. This is terrorism

no, turkey is no flirting anymore. more like another assertive state with its own ambitious agenda and a calculus. befriended to russia, plus they have more than normal relationship with iran, i see turkey as a regional superstate that will try to curb the west influence and clip zionist's zeal.

add to the mix that erdogan is essentially an authoritarian leader in a country and the head of a party that increasingly based its policies on islamic slogans and principles...

so far, they all seem moderately islamic. will they be in the future ?

 

[ray j willings]

I dropped my young son off at school and one of the other mums told me that she thought the cartoons went a bit to far. I replied that fundamentalist Muslim's posting beheading's on you tube is going to far. She did not know how to respond. I realise that is a simplistic point of view but it does have validity. Muslims did used to draw pics of Muhammad.
The Qur’an doesn't forbid images of Muhammad.
This has become more of an issue as Muslims integrate into a western capitalist arena IMO
In my view a great chance was missed. Every major newspaper should have printed the cover of wed Charlie Hebdo magazine.
Free speech should not be stifled , looks what is going on in Saudi.
The World has moved on and religion and it's sadistic rules and sadistic ideology have no place.

 

[rhubroma]

agree with everything you write.

however, the "satirists" at Hebdo, wish their prism of caricature to be the mullahs, that everyone sees Hebo with this lens.

they wish the viewer, to consume the magazine with the mullah lens.

and thus, they can create a spectacle (before the attrocity this is). And they can get the MSM media to do their PR and marketing to sell their magazine.

In this case, are they really satirizing mad islam, and a prophet, or are they giving it a platform with their act?

RAZER: JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE
BY HELEN RAZER
http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/razer-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie/17180

Twenty years ago there were Muslims from N. Africa at an international satire festival in Italy, who lampooned the mullahs. Who knows what happened to them?

This is a case for which over intellecualizing what happened becomes an exercise in radical chic.

Look I don't particularlly have much invested in Charlie Hebdo, or their motives. What I do care about is that they recieved a death sentence for what they did. This is not something which can be in any way contemplated. And it is the opposite of what we witnessed in ****stan today.

I don't know what the solution is, if there is a solution, but I have no doubts that the multitudes with long beards (always men) burning the French flag is a most contemporary archaism that demands reflection. That prism I want nothing to do with, just as I want nothing to do with the imbeciles in America who thought they could bring democracy to the Middle East with the bombs of fighter planes.

 

[rhubroma]

It's also necessary for the West to do a little self reflection; dig a little deeper into the cause and not just analyze the effect. Circling the wagons around "our Enlightenment principles", "we must not concede", is all well and good but a more enlightened analyses of the 'other' side of the cause is required. That's something the West is woefully bad at doing, so we have effects. Round and round...

I'm well aware of the more Enlightened analysis and anyone that has read my posts knows this. Retro I'm the first to admit that the West must take a hard look at it's own hypocrisy and brutality, which is to be condemned. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The incredibly arduous leap from being burned at the stake, to freedom of speech, is something that I cannot foresake, no matter what crimes have been commited by us.

If that were the case, then any form of tyranny is free to thrive, or at any rate implicitly legitimized. There are, in fact, many crimes commited independent of us and despite us, more to the point, which are beyond us, but with which all of us must come to terms like the ones we commited.

 

[RetroActive]

I'm well aware of the more Enlightened analysis and anyone that has read my posts knows this. Retro I'm the first to admit that the West must take a hard look at it's own hypocrisy and brutality, which is to be condemned. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The incredibly arduous leap from being burned at the stake, to freedom of speech, is something that I cannot foresake.

If that were the case, then any form of tyranny is free to thrive.

I know you are, it's not really you I'm thinking about. Your beating on the religious aspect, while necessary, disturbs me as I hear how that gets translated on the street. It's a "when you fight monsters" sort of thing. There are monsters on both sides, but the islamophobia falls out of peoples mouths too easily these days, imo.

I agree with you far more than I don't. I don't know, crazy apes.

 

[RetroActive]

far from being a turkey expert, i did follow some of its foreign policy with regard to the middle east mess in general and the syrian conflict specifically...at the first glance, as you said, it is strange. but the flirting stage is far behind now.

indeed, until literally 2-3 years ago, turkeys official foreign policy principle was 'friends with all neighbors'. it is now a long gone memory. most analysts that i consider aware, now believe that the erdogan's govt goal is creating a regional mini superstate reminiscent of the great turkey empire. indeed, the latest military, economic and political steps of turkey seem to support the notion. their accommodation with russia, - or basically playing along the vlad game of screwing ukraine and europe, pls note, while remaining a full nato member !- appear most intriguing.

besides turkey's 180 on syria, another fascinating aspect of their foreign policy is the cold shoulder to israel. see this, just in

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...KP21920150116?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Turkish PM says Israeli 'provocations' radicalising Muslim world


no, turkey is no flirting anymore. more like another assertive state with its own ambitious agenda and a calculus. befriended to russia, plus they have more than normal relationship with iran, i see turkey as a regional superstate that will try to curb the west influence and clip zionist's zeal.

add to the mix that erdogan is essentially an authoritarian leader in a country and the head of a party that increasingly based its policies on islamic slogans and principles...

so far, they all seem moderately islamic. will they be in the future ?

Yeah, you hit most of the highlights. NATO member, Russia, Iran, on and off and on and now clearly off with Israel. The whole Gladio B thing is kind of interesting and, if true, throws more confusion into the mix. Buying oil off ISIS (or whatever it's called now) was/is quite a stunt.

It looks as though moderate Islam is dying on the vine almost everywhere.

 

[rhubroma]

I know you are, it's not really you I'm thinking about. Your beating on the religious aspect, while necessary, disturbs me as I hear how that gets translated on the street. It's a "when you fight monsters" sort of thing. There are monsters on both sides, but the islamophobia falls out of peoples mouths too easily these days, imo.

I agree with you far more than I don't. I don't know, crazy apes.

I'm not talking about islamaphobia, also because I have traveled to several Muslim countries. And it disturbs me too those reactionaries that don't understand that the permescuity is here to stay, who thus don't know what to do about it except contemplate building new concentration camps. For this reason, finding a common civic ground is the only alternative to the unfathonable. But this doesn't in any way mean I can tollerate long men with beards telling me how to live.