OK that's a fair point, but then you also need to look at this in relation to what some call the Algerian Genocide.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Paris
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
OK that's a fair point, but then you also need to look at this in relation to what some call the Algerian Genocide.
H
howells
Guest
This makes it sound like Charlie Hebdo were only targeting Muslims which is incorrect.
They made cartoons of Jews, Christians, politicians, celebrities etc. Charlie Hebdo was not racist at all.
Have read a lot of their cartoons the last few days. Some i don't even understand, some i don't like at all, some i find quite good.
However, I have several options to chose regarding the ones I don't like. I can turn away, discuss it and make others see why it is bad (or learn why it is actually quite good), I could write thing etc etc etc. One option I do not have is to harm the cartoonists.
johnola
Mauricio Taricco
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Easier said than done (ask those on both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict, Palestinians, the families of the Hillsborough victims etc)
Some people call marshmallows Marmite sandwiches, but that does not mean that marshmallows are Marmite sandwiches, just because some call them that.
That's actually a pretty crass use of the word genocide and devalues the real genocides that have happened in history, like the genocide of Armenian Christians in Turkey.
Again you talk on subjects that you know nothing about, Do you know how many Algerians died? Do you know that French alledgedly used ex (if there can be such a thing as an 'ex nazi') Nazis to commit some of the atrocities.... Do you know what the atrocities were? Now run off to wikipedia, to look some of it up (thats the least you can do) better still read some books on it (plenty reputatble ones written)
Or Here is an article to make things easier for you
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/05/50-years-algeria-independence-france-denial
and come back so we can have a more informed and adult discussion.
But my point which you totally missed, was in relation to Milo bringing up volitare and Frances traditions, there in. And me countering with the fact that some of the images claimed as satire by that magazine hark back to the the propagander images used by France to justify the slaughter and to be honest ( by most definitions) genocide in Algeria thus having particular resonance with the Algerian diaspora....
Again nothing to justify what the dingdongs done at all in any way shape or form, just bringing up a counter point to Milos.
Last edited:
Again obviously my point was lost... The Algerian genocide that the French committed is not my point, it's the fact that some of Charlie H's charactorures of Muslims were similar to the propaganda used when France was committing said genocide in Algeria... This was a specific counter to Milos reference to French culture and history... I was bringing forward another part of French cultural history, which made the images even more unacceptable....
Ps the terrorists are still cun.ts
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Good posting DTA
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
I have been thinking a bit more about the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo drew that were perceived to be anti-Islamic.
Many on here have said that anybody trying to stop Charlie Hebdo doing these cartoons were wrong as it was against Free Speech.
Would those people saying "Je Suis Charlie" etc, also say "Je Suis Benoit"? I mean after all he was given a ban for making the 'Quenelle', a sign which was perceived as being anti-Jewish.
So was banning him wrong? Was doing that also against Free Speech?:-k
Many on here have said that anybody trying to stop Charlie Hebdo doing these cartoons were wrong as it was against Free Speech.
Would those people saying "Je Suis Charlie" etc, also say "Je Suis Benoit"? I mean after all he was given a ban for making the 'Quenelle', a sign which was perceived as being anti-Jewish.
So was banning him wrong? Was doing that also against Free Speech?:-k
Baleforce
Martin Peters
no, he made the gesture, and received the punishment, he still exercised his right to free expression
if charlie hebdo had printed something considered illegal by french law i'm sure there would have been consequences (for all I know they have been in the past), its not for a member of the public to become a vigilante and exact their form of justice with violence
Gloryeze is not justifying the public taking the law in to their own hands, he is just asking where the line for free speech starts and where it ends.
For me anything racist goes beyond free speech.
Last edited:
I did not say the French did not behave abdominally in Algeria, BUT IT WASN'T GENOCIDE! That is a big word, and it should be used only when appropriate.
But you are trying to subtly, almost, kind of, in a roundabout way, - "I don't condone what they're doing but..." - trying to find mitigating circumstances for the COLD BLOODED MURDERS OF UNARMED CIVILIANS committed by a couple of French Algerians.
You're very well read up on the book of "Look what the evil western world has done to us poor Muslims." Why don't read the book, "Look at what Muslims have done to others." As the Islamic empire expanded, the Muslims slaughtered and pillaged, colonized whole civilizations, stripped them of their language and culture - ALGERIA IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES. Why don't you learn to look at the world objectively, instead of solely from a Muslim perspective?
Did you actually read what wrote... Because you are not even trying to counter the point that i made explicit, in my, Simple explanation over two posts. Go back and read it, and let's deal with that, rather than you going off in to tangents, meant as a distractions from my exposing of your lack of knowledge you are displaying here.
When you done with that, read up on what the definition of genocide is, then read up on what the French did in Algeria and then try to explain how the two in your mind don't fit.
You seem to be trying to justify the murders in Paris. That's the tone I am getting here. What atrocities have the French committed recently? The past is the past. Europe was a very different place during the colonial era and before. There is no justification for anything that happened in Paris. None. None, whatsoever. At all. There is no argument that "because X did Y back in the day, then its ok to do Z now". Absolute horse-doop. Total cr**. It's feeding the mindset of the jihadist, who still refer to the fr*88in Crusades 100s of years ago to justify their actions.
Unfortunately, these attitudes are held by a lot of 'moderate' muslims. This is my point. The attitude is "well, i'm not condoning islamic extremism, but I understand it. I mean, look at what Europeans did 100s of years ago. I mean, in a way its only fair they pay the price now, but I'm not condoning these terrorist attacks, before anyone asks, nope, not one bit *snigger* "
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Saying you understand someones cause is not the same as agreeing with their actions. Look at Mandela, a terrorist but with a noble cause. He fought apartheid. ANC lead by him killed unarmed white civilians. But he died a hero for most.
But the difference here is that these guys seem to have been influenced by ISIS, their cause is sick. There is no noble cause and they are nobodys freedom fighter.
But the difference here is that these guys seem to have been influenced by ISIS, their cause is sick. There is no noble cause and they are nobodys freedom fighter.