jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

I apologize. I should have said, "Don't be so sensitive."

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

Re-read what was posted ,circle the part where it says "if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots, not to expect violence" and I will eat it. Clearly, Charlie Hebdo fired one of its employees for anti-Semitism, why the special treatment?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very thoughtful post pp.

Small blurb in today's Post: Judge orders women soldiers to stop accompanying 5 Guantanamo defendents as it is causing them religious distress.
So we have as a society fought for these women's inclusion in the armed forces, prepped and sent them to this locale, and now they are not allowed to perform their duties....because they are women? What am I.missing here??????

Cultural relativism.

Think about how these guys treat women back home, but we are having American women soldiers defer?

Thats like saying that if a woman is arrested in the US she has no right to have a female strip search her because it is a function of male guards job to strip search prisoners.

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Not a fan of that article. You/he are talking out of both sides of your/his mouth. Let's see. Freedom of speech should allow me to wear a burka, but it's arrogant, intransigent, and hypocritical to use your freedom of speech to publish cartoons that are offensive to me. Violence is wrong, but you're as responsible for the violence as the attackers because, uh, you used free speech in a way that's offensive to me, and this diminishes accountability for the violence.

Not a fan of the New Yorker article, either. Coming up next.

I am not. I cited the niqab ban to show the hypocrisy of the freedom of speech discourse. If Muslims are expected to accept the danish cartoons in the name of Freedom, then they should be allowed to dress as they pleased in the name of that same freedom. Nowhere in what was posted was it ever said that Violence was right or should be expected because of published cartoons or personal grievances of Muslims

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?