World Politics

[Buffalo Soldier]

I passed by the Place de La République in Paris yesterday, and I was happy to see that when some guys started to tear up a Koran, they were booed by the rest of the crowd.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Hitch, I apologize. I misattributed Glenn_Wilsons' comments on "religion of peace", etc to you. I was wrong. I'll leave my original post unedited unless you want it deleted, in which case I will re-write it (essentially the same content) in response to Glenn Wilson.

John Swanson

 

[Amsterhammer]

I passed by the Place de La République in Paris yesterday, and I was happy to see that when some guys started to tear up a Koran, they were booed by the rest of the crowd.

The cop who was murdered in cold blood while already injured was a Muslim.

French police are now also calling the shooting of a woman police officer this morning a 'terror' act.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Also happened yesterday: 22 killed in Yemen by muslim extremists.

It's important not to forget that most of the victims of muslim extremists are muslims.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hitch, I apologize. I misattributed Glenn_Wilsons' comments on "religion of peace", etc to you. I was wrong. I'll leave my original post unedited unless you want it deleted, in which case I will re-write it (essentially the same content) in response to Glenn Wilson.

John Swanson

I replied to your post with regards to my opinion of the muzlims.

I have been inside mosques before but I doubt you would like why I was there.

 

[Bavarianrider]

 

[Bavarianrider]

Obviously nobody in this topic is suggesting anything remotely close to this.

But there's two simple facts which prompts one to ask the questions hrotha and sniper are asking.

1) Mainstream Islam doesn't support these types of terrorist actions. For all that might be wrong with mainstream Islam, the average Muslim walking around in Europe doesn't support terrorism.

2) Increasingly, young Muslims in Europe are attracted away from traditional mainstream Islam to forms of Islam that do promote terrorism.

Nobody is questioning the heinous nature of Islamic terrorism. But the question remains; why do Muslim youths who grow up in the West radicalize and support terrorism? There is a real problem, but the problem isn't with mainstream Islam, but with specific jihadist forms of Islam which are unfortunately becoming more prominent and appear to be appealing to young European muslims.

Just ranting about Islam in general will only cause polarization and increase the hostilities between Islam and the West. So I fully agree with hrotha; if our response to these types of heinous acts is antagonizing all of Islam, it only furthers the cause of the terrorists.

Well, still they worship a child absuer who slaughtered tousands of people, stoned women and comitted pretty much every cruelty you can think of.

 

[rhubroma]

nah Glen, you misinterpreted the analogy/metaphor.

was, taking the West to war in Mesopotamia = War Crime, the criminals in Paris who committed colded blooded mass murder = debased criminals.

the post was about ciminal action.

The cartoonists, they were just unwitting victims. Tho, they may have considered they were invoking some press freedom, when another interpretation may have been they were invoking samuel huntington's debunked thesis on Clash. Like those in Cophenhagen. Yes, you can do satire. But satire in context when George W talks about a crusade, and the conflagration in Mesopotamia.

The one situation has nothing to do with the behavior of the "debased crimminals" in the other. Its like saying Russian repression in Chechenia lessens the barbarism of the Belson school hostage attack in North Ossetia.

Secondly, the cartoonists weren't "unwitting victims." They, as unrepentent provocateurs, were all too aware that they were at the front battle lines in the war between France's and the West's freedom of expression and Islamic fundamentalisms' calling to expunge any "offence" to their creed in the name of intolerance, which "officially" began in 1989 with the fatwa against Rushdie. Satire, contemplated in terms of "human law," is necessary and valid (as we have been taught since Juvenal) as much when it is directed at George Bush, as it is when His Prophet (or Christ, or Yaweh) is the target. Otherwise we allow in our society "freedom of expression" to exist, only when it doesn't offend the sensibilities of fanatics and religious totalitarianism.

 

[Amsterhammer]

A very substantial demo is building in Amsterdam. A procession from the French embassy to Dam Square is being led by uniformed police, followed by the editors of Holland's main newspapers, well known cartoonists, the entire Dutch cabinet, led by the PM, the mayor of Amsterdam, and so on. I would have gone too but for a stinking cold.

There are also demos timed to coincide with the 6 pm start in Paris in all other main Dutch cities.

 

[blutto]

Secondly, the cartoonists weren't "unwitting victims." They, as unrepentent provocateurs, were all to aware that they were at the front battle lines in the war between France's and the West's freedom of expression and Islamic fundamentalisms' calling to expunge any "offence" to their creed in the name of intolerance, which "officially" began in 1989 with the fatwa against Rushdie. Satire, contemplated in terms of "human law," is necessary and valid (as we have been taught since Juvenal) as much when it is directed at George Bush, as it is when His Prophet (or Christ, or Yaweh) is the target. Otherwise we allow in our society "freedom of expression" to exist, only when it doesn't offend the sensibilities of fanatics and religious totalitarianism.

...good point....and something that is becoming the basis of quite a swirl of activity on the internets ( some parts interesting along the lines of your comment and others bordering on despicable and beyond when it is being claimed something along the lines of "they had it coming" because they put themselves directly in harm's way...).....

...and articles such as below...comments most welcome yay or nay...

http://johnhilley.blogspot.ca/

http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/01/i-am-not-charlie.html

Cheers

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch, I apologize. I misattributed Glenn_Wilsons' comments on "religion of peace", etc to you. I was wrong. I'll leave my original post unedited unless you want it deleted, in which case I will re-write it (essentially the same content) in response to Glenn Wilson.

John Swanson

No worries.

 

[rhubroma]

...good point....and something that is becoming the basis of quite a swirl of activity on the internets ( some parts interesting along the lines of your comment and others bordering on despicable and beyond when it is being claimed something along the lines of "they had it coming" because they put themselves directly in harm's way...).....

...and articles such as below...comments most welcome yay or nay...

http://johnhilley.blogspot.ca/

http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/01/i-am-not-charlie.html

Cheers

For anyone condemning their type of satire in our culture, I'd recomend taking a good look into Giordano Bruno's case in the late XVI century. If you are happy to not have to even be remotely at risk at suffering his same fate today in our state of laws, then no satire, however radical, can for one instance be viewed as a "they had it coming to them" in regards to their own executions.

 

[RetroActive]

Let the good times roll...

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/01/australian-private-debt-and-dont-skimp-on-the-pate/

We need to try harder in Canada; Australia has us beat in the household sector and Luxembourg has a commanding lead in the non financial business sector (and total). Don't worry about deflation and commodity dumps, or real estate bubbles...spend, spend, spend. haha

 

[Echoes]

A pub in Villefranche sur Saone exploded, closed to a mosk. The mosk was the target.

Gunshots against a mosk in Port-la-Nouvelle (Aude, Southern France) and in Le Mans.

tags full of hatred on the mosk of Poitiers.

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-dive...bab-pres-d-une-mosquee-08-01-2015-4428491.php

Only the beginning, I guess. French equivalents to Brown one one one are waking up and got what they wanted probably.

17-year-old Arabic school guy assaulted by a group of 4 or 5 people in Bourgoin-Jallieu (Isère), after racist insults prior to the minute silence that his high school had organised.

Doctor prescribed him three days off.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2...-charlie-hebdo-agression-raciste-en-isere.php

Some are rubbing their hands, I guess. To be continued probably.

 

[blutto]

For anyone condemning their type of satire in our culture, I'd recomend taking a good look into Giordano Bruno's case in the late XVI century. If you are happy to not have to even be remotely at risk at suffering his same fate today in our state of laws, then no satire, however radical, can for one instance be viewed as a "they had it coming to them" in regards to their own executions.

If we examine the sweep of human history since A.D. 1600, the single most important philosophical change has been the ascendancy of reason over dogma. I chose 1600 as my starting point because that was the year Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. He was killed by the Church for his heretical claim that there might be other places much like earth, with other life forms, and that all perspectives are relative (e.g. there is no special, preferred perspective). According to the dogma of the time, Earth was the center of the universe, Rome was the center of Earth, and the Church was the center of Rome. According to the intellectual tradition of the time, you either accepted what the Church believed or you were put to death.

Church officials cannot have known this, but Bruno's execution marked the beginning of the end of Church authority, and by the time of Galileo Galilei's heresy trial in 1633, the option of publicly executing a noted critic had pretty much evaporated (Galileo was placed under lifetime house arrest instead).

Both these men were far ahead of their time and both took great personal risks. Before the time in question the Church provided simple answers to the most complex questions, even though the answers were often quite wrong. Since that time an intellectual tradition has evolved that replaces dogma with reason and evidence.

...and/or....


Giordano Bruno was the martyr; though the cause for
which he suffered was not that of science, but that of
free imaginative speculation. His death in the year
1600 ushered in the first century of modern science in
the strict sense of the term. In his execution there was
an unconscious symbolism: for the subsequent tone of
scientific thought has contained distrust of his type
of general speculativeness.

Cheers

 

[Echoes]

For 456,421 times, Galileo has never been a martyr of science, in anyway. There was no reason for it because the Church has never had any veto on the heliocentric model. They had never claimed the Sun revolved around the earth. Purely made-up by atheists.

He's been arrested because he published his book in Florence despite the promise he gave the Pope to publish it in Rome. The mistake is his. Beside he tried to interpret the Bible his own way while he was not a theologian but a scientist.

Besides, he never could prove that the earth revolved around the sun, he just made assumptions. In order to prove that the earth was turning, he used the tide movement as argument, which we know today is wrong.

The evidence only came with Newton and even experimental proof came after him (18th century).

Galileo was much too arrogant. He claim to have proven something he never could.

Copernicus never got any thread from the Church for his similar assumptions. Kepler found shelter within the Catholic Church, for similar assumption, while persecuted in protestant areas.


The atheistic re-writing of history is more and more ludicrous. The worst thing is that they not only lie but they also know that they lie. It's pathetic (Putin mode).

Who knows what he scrupulous historical research on the Bruno trial might reveal? I personally don't know. But since he's defended by the same liars, of course, the story cannot be trusted.

 

[blutto]

For 456,421 times, Galileo has never been a martyr of science, in anyway. There was no reason for it because the Church has never had any veto on the heliocentric model. They had never claimed the Sun revolved around the earth. Purely made-up by atheists.

He's been arrested because he published his book in Florence despite the promise he gave the Pope to publish it in Rome. The mistake is his. Beside he tried to interpret the Bible his own way while he was not a theologian but a scientist.

Besides, he never could prove that the earth revolved around the sun, he just made assumptions. In order to prove that the earth was turning, he used the tide movement as argument, which we know today is wrong.

The evidence only came with Newton and even experimental proof came after him (18th century).

Galileo was much too arrogant. He claim to have proven something he never could.

Copernicus never got any thread from the Church for his similar assumptions. Kepler found shelter within the Catholic Church, for similar assumption, while persecuted in protestant areas.


The atheistic re-writing of history is more and more ludicrous. The worst thing is that they not only lie but they also know that they lie. It's pathetic (Putin mode).

Who knows what he scrupulous historical research on the Bruno trial might reveal? I personally don't know. But since he's defended by the same liars, of course, the story cannot be trusted.

...hmmm....never considered Alan Watt and Alfred North Whitehead as liars...must be more naïve than I thought possible...

...so please pray tell who do you rely upon for your insight in these matters?...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....here is an interesting look at stuff, then and now and in the future....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norway Didn't Give in to Islamophobia, nor should France


Three and a half years ago, the far-right Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik bombed Oslo, and then gunned down dozens of young people on the island of Utøya. His rationalisation for the atrocity was to stop the “Islamisation” of Norway: that the Norwegian left had opened the country’s doors to Muslims and diluted its Christian heritage. But Norway’s response was not retribution, revenge, clampdowns. “Our response is more democracy, more openness, and more humanity,” declared the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. When Breivik was put on trial, Norway played it by the book. The backlash he surely craved never came.

Here’s how the murderers who despicably gunned down the journalists and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo do not want us to respond. Vengeance and hatred directed at Muslims as a whole serves Islamic fundamentalists well. They want Muslims to feel hated, targeted and discriminated against, because it increases the potential well of support for their cause. Already, there are multiple reports of attacks in France against mosques, and even a “criminal explosion” in a kebab shop. These are not just disgraceful, hateful acts. Those responsible are sticking to the script of the perpetrators. They are themselves de facto recruiting sergeants for terrorists.

Social media abounds with Islamophobes seizing this atrocity to advance their hatred. Islam as an entire religion is responsible, they cry: it is incompatible with “western values”. They wish to homogenise Muslims, as though Malala and Mo Farah have anything in common with the sectarian murderers of Isis. Most victims of Islamic extremists are of course themselves Muslims: including Ahmed Merabet, the French police officer killed at close range by the terrorists in Paris yesterday.

This is a dangerous moment. Anti-Muslim prejudice is rampant in Europe. The favoured target of Europe’s far-right – like France’s Front National, which currently leads in the opinion polls – is Muslims. France is home to around 5 million Muslims, who disproportionately live in poverty and unemployment, often in ghettoised banlieues. This incident should rightfully horrify, but it will now undoubtedly fuel an already ascendant far-right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

 

[blackcat]

The one situation has nothing to do with the behavior of the "debased crimminals" in the other. Its like saying Russian repression in Chechenia lessens the barbarism of the Belson school hostage attack in North Ossetia.

Secondly, the cartoonists weren't "unwitting victims." They, as unrepentent provocateurs, were all too aware that they were at the front battle lines in the war between France's and the West's freedom of expression and Islamic fundamentalisms' calling to expunge any "offence" to their creed in the name of intolerance, which "officially" began in 1989 with the fatwa against Rushdie. Satire, contemplated in terms of "human law," is necessary and valid (as we have been taught since Juvenal) as much when it is directed at George Bush, as it is when His Prophet (or Christ, or Yaweh) is the target. Otherwise we allow in our society "freedom of expression" to exist, only when it doesn't offend the sensibilities of fanatics and religious totalitarianism.

as unwitting victims, I used in unwilling victims. Ok, the Editor was willing to do the Salman Rushdie putative martyr thing for his Satanic Verses and fatwa list. however you spell fatwa, it aint that common in ones lexicon.
ok, now i read your ful post i just replied back what you had actually wrote. I better read the full post in future before replying.

 

[blackcat]

Wasnt he the one that did a film with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Now there is a woman badly let down by the Netherlands establishment

just perhaps, she managed to make up alot of her backstory, and confected a tale for refugee status. There was some issue with her refugee approval half a dozen years after she had her Dutch citizenship.

I dar say, she has confected the persona like michelle malkin and anne coulter and bridgette gabriel. And there is a 21yo black female student at some uni like Texis-Austin who is taking up the cudgels on anti-semitism too.

I think that Nyall Hirsi Ali has an intellect no doubt, and a stunning set of cheekbones, and is the squeeze of Niall Ferguson Chimarica or whatever that debt forex thesis is, the Oxford economic historian who now sits in the Kennedy School in Boston.

caveat: i mean, i am not so quick to swallow what she says holus bolus. I think she might be a little bit bull$hit for cut-thru and spectacle.

 

[blackcat]

What's with them? Fortuyn was killed by a leftist nut, Van Gogh by an Islamic nut, and Wilders is still alive.

BTW Van Gogh wasn't a politician, but a film director.

they were all nuts too. But these nuts were our nuts, and not divorced from the conflagration raging in mesopotamia when they wished to throw metaphorical grenades at the islamic gettos in their cities.

i invoke the jan ullrich epigram of i cant help with summing 2 + 2.

 

[blackcat]

...good point....and something that is becoming the basis of quite a swirl of activity on the internets ( some parts interesting along the lines of your comment and others bordering on despicable and beyond when it is being claimed something along the lines of "they had it coming" because they put themselves directly in harm's way...).....

...and articles such as below...comments most welcome yay or nay...

http://johnhilley.blogspot.ca/

http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/01/i-am-not-charlie.html

Cheers

it has less to do with the fatwa that was rescinded by the shia ayatollah in iran, (on rushdie), than the salafi wahhabi organisations that are the vanguard of the terrorist asymmetrical strike.

the context is more to do with the West's adventures in mesopotamia and afghanistan and managing to pass of islam as the sole cause. and like the Germans said communists as code for jews, when the West talks of terrorism, they talk in code for muslims.

 

[blackcat]

...good point....and something that is becoming the basis of quite a swirl of activity on the internets ( some parts interesting along the lines of your comment and others bordering on despicable and beyond when it is being claimed something along the lines of "they had it coming" because they put themselves directly in harm's way...).....

...and articles such as below...comments most welcome yay or nay...

http://johnhilley.blogspot.ca/

http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/01/i-am-not-charlie.html

Cheers

but you cant divorce "Shock and Awe" from this confected battle. The provocation has context. The US and their allies in central asia and the middle east.

Then, only then, lets have this fight over satire in the press, without outside influence. Then mock the prophet.

Mock the prophet now, I will approve of the right to cartoon the image of the prophet, but i wont allow you to whitewash the context as tabula rasa. uhah, no its not tabula rasa.

 

[Echoes]

...so please pray tell who do you rely upon for your insight in these matters?...

Cheers

Jean Sévillia in "Historiquement incorrect", himself quoting Aimé Richardt "La vérité sur l'affaire Galilée"

Dr Bernard Plouvier "L'affaire Galilée, une supercherie du sot XIXe siècle" (Plouvier is an atheist but an honest one, that still seems to exist).

Mock the prophet now, I will approve of the right to cartoon the image of the prophet, but i wont allow you to whitewash the context as tabula rasa. uhah, no its not tabula rasa.

As I said a lot of comedians make use of that right, and abuses. They never risk anything (though they are not as filthy as CH was, but nobody read CH anymore, they were on the verge of brankruptcy, no more readers). The shooting has nothing to do with the caricatures. You are right it's all about the context (CH supported all the French neo-imperialistic wars in the Arabic world). Besides, it's a blatant false flag.

 

[Amsterhammer]

For 456,421 times, Galileo has never been a martyr of science, in anyway. There was no reason for it because the Church has never had any veto on the heliocentric model. They had never claimed the Sun revolved around the earth. Purely made-up by atheists.

He's been arrested because he published his book in Florence despite the promise he gave the Pope to publish it in Rome. The mistake is his. Beside he tried to interpret the Bible his own way while he was not a theologian but a scientist.

Besides, he never could prove that the earth revolved around the sun, he just made assumptions. In order to prove that the earth was turning, he used the tide movement as argument, which we know today is wrong.

The evidence only came with Newton and even experimental proof came after him (18th century).

Galileo was much too arrogant. He claim to have proven something he never could.

Copernicus never got any thread from the Church for his similar assumptions. Kepler found shelter within the Catholic Church, for similar assumption, while persecuted in protestant areas.


The atheistic re-writing of history is more and more ludicrous. The worst thing is that they not only lie but they also know that they lie. It's pathetic (Putin mode).

Who knows what he scrupulous historical research on the Bruno trial might reveal? I personally don't know. But since he's defended by the same liars, of course, the story cannot be trusted.

I can safely say, that never before in my life have I seen anyone launch an apologia for the medieval church, and against Galileo. I am truly stunned.