There is no question to which the answer is to wander round killing people. It takes a few words or keystrokes for any right thinking person to condemn the killings in Paris today. But that really doesn’t take us very far.
It is impossible to stop evil from happening. Simple low tech attacks by individuals, a kind of DIY terrorism, cannot always be pre-empted. If you try to do so universally, you will end up even further down the line we have gone down in the UK, where people are continually arrested and harassed who have no connection to terrorism at all, often for bragging on websites. These non-existent foiled terrorist plots are a risible feature of British politics nowadays. Every now and then one hits the headlines, like the arrests just before Remembrance Day. Their defining characteristic is that none of those arrested have any means of terrorism – 99% of those arrested for terrorism in the UK in the last decade – possessed no weapon and no viable explosive device.
In fact the only terrorist in the last year convicted in the UK, who possessed an actual bomb – a very viable explosive device indeed, was not charged with terrorism. He was a fascist named Ryan McGee who had a swastika on his wall and hated Muslims. Hundreds of Muslims with no weapons are locked up for terrorism. A fanatical anti-Muslim with a bomb is by definition not a terrorist.
I am assuming that the narrative that Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Islamists is correct, though that remains to be proved. For argument, let us assume the official narrative is true and the killings were by Muslims outraged at the magazine’s depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.
It is essential to free speech that it includes the freedom to offend. That must include the freedom to offend religious belief. Without such freedoms, the values of societies would freeze. Much social progress has caused real anguish and offence to some people. To have stopped Charlie Hebdo by law would have been wrong. To stop them by bullets is beyond any mitigation.
But that doesn’t make the unfortunate deceased heroes, and President Hollande was wrong to characterise them as such. Being murdered does not make you a hero. And being offensive is not necessarily noble. People who are persistently and vociferously offensive are often neither noble nor well-motivated. Much of Charlie Hebdo‘s taunting of Muslims was really unpleasant. That they also had Christian and other targets did not make this any better. It is not Private Eye – it is a magazine with a much nastier edge. I defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish whatever it wants. But once the shock dies off, I do hope a more realistic assessment of whether Charlie Hebdo was entirely admirable or not may be possible. This in no way excuses the dreadful murders.
The ability to say things that offend is an important attribute of a free society. Richard Dawkins may offend believers. Peter Tatchell may offend homophobes. Pussy Riot offended Putin and the Orthodox Church. This must not be stopped.
But that must cut both ways. Abu Qatada broke no British laws in his lengthy stay in the UK, but was demonised for things he said (or even things newspapers invented he had said). Most of the French who are today in solidarity for freedom of expression, are against people being able to express themselves freely in what they wear. The security industry who are all over TV today want to respond to this attack on freedom of expression by more controls on the internet!
I condemn, you condemn, we all condemn, and so we should. But the amount of nuanced thought in the mainstream media is almost non-existent. What will now happen is that conservative commentators will rip individual phrases from this article and tweet them to show I support terrorism. The lack of nuanced thought is a reflection of a general atmosphere of anti-intellectualism which has poisoned public life in modern western society.
In as much as Shia, Sunni conflict or or other differences are organic, rather than externally stoked, they seemed to get on tolerably well prior to the last few decades, though with the Shia very much repressed, their antagonisms didn’t really affect us, they weren’t having a go at each other on the South-Coast beaches such as Brighton over the advantages and superiority of the Brylcreemed quiff, scooters versus bikes, the length of a hem or style of a collar. We’re used to media-fuelled moral panics increasing the very phenomena the panic is about. This one is different only in that it has been sustained over-long, and we’re well weary of it, though for some the substance and sometimes mere ephemera of a passing fad or craze is never let go. In an alternative, truer reality, the majority were simply along for the ride, a day-out in the weak sun with their mates, away from the routine and reality of their lives, feeling briefly part of Something. In another as true reality, even the hard-core ultra Muslims of that now teetering over-egged legend, as well as the many more simply swept along, smile, laugh, share a joke, feel pain and experience love, like every other of us. Until a little mutual matter of a rogue establishment common enemies you might say, responsible for monstrous state crimes is sorted out, it’s a bit too soon still, maybe to sit down and laugh over how slight our differences are and were, and the times we had, the friends and friendships lost and found, but that will come.
Canspeccy
New evidence emerging on the Charlie Hebdo HOAX according to http://truther911insidejobexposetheCIAlies.com
Looks like the shooters were actually HOLOGRAMS. There were NO shooters. The whole event was FAKED but the sheeple are buying it.
The more I read Canspeccy getting excited about his current pet topic (Pussy Riot/sex) the more I think that, while, everyone has freedom of speech, some should be gently encouraged to speak it only to the grass. Insh’allah, it would take some time for the trees to code it into web form.
“Western military meddling in the Middle East, is responsible for turning many moderate Muslims into extremists”
They’re responsible for turning themselves into extremists, especially as they live thousands of miles away from the Middle East and are motivated by some doodles of Mohammad.
KingOfWelshNoir, 7:08 pm; you are right that “good taste” should not obstruct investigation. But my specific complaint was that glimpses of smiles on people’s faces are being used to dismiss grieving, bereaved family members as utterly cynical actors. Videos alleging this are spattered all over the ‘net.
So maybe a camera caught me smiling after Marion killed herself, so now the whole world can gawp at me and claim I must have killed her, I suppose; after all, what did I have to look so pleased about?
Anon –
“Jemand .. Clark tried this game with me when I expressed opposition to limitless mass-immigration, claimed I have some personal dislike of foreigners. When he’s been found out he starts calling you “angry” and when he was a moderator would delete and allow posts in such a way that made it look as though you were getting angry for no good reason. You buried him over his support for that link Technicolour posted so he’s doing his usual trick of coming back at you with his “it looks like you have something personal against…”, “why are you so angry?” routine. He always does this when he’s been found out.”
– – –
They both play it, don’t they? It’s an ad hominem tactic similar to “I feel sorry for you because there’s obviously something wrong”.
Clark is a phoney and an arrogant wanker who can’t admit when he’s wrong. He is so invested in his image here amongst his ‘friends’ that he cannot back down because of that single character flaw. Notice how he and his buddies, who normally express outrage at the loss of human life, say nothing the loss of innocents. Jihad Mary is conspicuous by her welcome absence.
Oh, and another stunning, unarguable broadside from white knight Jemand! What a shame you can’t take over us all now, isn’t it – you’re just so much *nicer*.
(((:~(>
There’s a comical mirror element in the discussion of False Flags; there are those that ridicule people who are open to the possibilities as conspiracy nuts, as if certified historical False Flags have never ever happened before, which itself is rather a strange conspiracy like position to hold; and then when False Flag advocates point out anomalies in the official accounts, the rubbishers sometimes resort to very conspiracy theory attempts at explanations to back the official record !
Hey listen, I’ve got your next post sorted for you:
“Tosser; collaborator; hung as a traitor; wanker (keep current fixation with onanism going at all costs); more violence; our way is better; slighting reference to gender; more stuff about sex; goddamit why won’t they see *Muslims* as the enemy” etc.
Amiright?
They had “no problem” turning themselves into “extremists” way before “9/11”.
A “Jihad” isn’t a “modern day” thing. They were quite apt at it many years ago.
Khalid ibn Walid was good at it !
Canseccy, intellectual honesty insists that to consider a matter fairly, we have to consider each piece of evidence in favourable and unfavourable light.
I can see how that article could be consistent with a cached version of a news article released earlier than announced. It took me one swift reading to see that it is not necessarily consistent. You have the skills to do the same, but you have not yet done so. You have taken the time to call me a shill and a tosser.
Correct your error or lose respect.
Canspeccy, who’s the shill here? While I argue your nonsense, a horde of bigots crowd in to demonise anyone Muslim as inherently violent.
“Oh, and another stunning, unarguable broadside from white knight Jemand! What a shame you can’t take over us all now, isn’t it – you’re just so much *nicer*.”
While I normally consider sarcasm to be the best form of wit, coming from you is like hearing a White Chapel prostitute complaining about the tip.
Technicolour, if your fist can reach that far, go fuck yourself.
*hug*
“Hey listen, I’ve got your next post sorted for you:
“Tosser; collaborator; hung as a traitor; wanker (keep current fixation with onanism going at all costs); more violence; our way is better; slighting reference to gender; more stuff about sex; goddamit why won’t they see *Muslims* as the enemy” etc.
Amiright?”
– – –
Technicolour, are you off your meds? That just came out as a sad, emotional, angry lashing out at no one in particular. Are you ok?
“Canspeccy, who’s the shill here? While I argue your nonsense, a horde of bigots crowd in to demonise anyone Muslim as inherently violent.”
What horde, Clark? What bigots? Who’s demonising ANYONE muslim as INHERENTLY violent?
Some evidence please. You often demand it. Put up or shut the fuck up.
Anon, 7:42 pm; you seem to have missed the announcement of the French police saying that one of the killers had led fighting groups in Iraq.
Maybe you also missed the fact that one of the killers of Lee Rigby had been delivered into foreign police hands by British secret services and tortured at their request, specifically so that secret services could stage a “rescue” in order to “turn” him and recruit him as an agent.
I’m concerned that Technicolour’s overt manifestation of cognitive dissonance is indicating the onset of a mental breakdown. You know, “IT DOES NOT COMPUTE”, flailing arms, sparks shooting out the back of her head. The best thing she can do is go back on her meds, see the doctor for an up-dose, and get some rest.
“Maybe you also missed the fact that one of the killers of Lee Rigby had been delivered into foreign police hands by British secret services and tortured at their request, specifically so that secret services could stage a “rescue” in order to “turn” him and recruit him as an agent.”
Oh, that must explain and excuse why he MURDERED and attempted to CUT THE FUCKING HEAD OFF A HUMAN BEING.
Poor fellow. Islam is the VICTIM.
“Some evidence please. You often demand it. Put up or shut the fuck up”.
Clearly, no idae of Islamic history and conquest.
Well I have to love you and leave you Clark and Tech – have to wax my legs for my cancan dance class. Please send my regards to the old witch, Mary.
x
What we’re dealing with here, Jemand, are the jackals posted here to rip apart and smear with poop those left standing at the end of a long and unproductive debate between the defenders of the imperial (we create our own reality) truth and those with the temerity to question whether said truth is, well, true.
But one has to admit that Clark and Glenny-boy are quite ingenious in demanding that I prove for myself their own spavined and ridiculous case against my own argument.
Macky, I won’t call the Paris murders anything other than a crime. I can’t call it “false flag” as to do so is inherently racist. It implies that because the killers looked Muslim, then if it turns out that they weren’t, or someone else gave the orders, then it was “false flag”. The same goes for 9/11. The assumption of a “true flag” is inherently racist.
Crime has no flag.
USS Liberty was False Flag. Israel did it and tried to make it look like Egypt.
In war, there are flags.
@ craigmurray.org.uk and @ Jermand
My usually reliable Apple Mac recently gave up the ghost and I’ve had to fall back on a PC laptop that’s more than 15 years old. It was a top range machine in its day, which is why it still works, but it runs Windows 2000 (do you remember when Microsoft used to flog half-way decent operating systems?) which can’t handle any up to date software, particularly when it comes to web browsers. I’m now using another old, knackered laptop to try and get this post past the spam filter. Talking of which, I’ve never found Akismet to be particularly good. You might perhaps be better off using a Captcha, with local rules applied, if you need them.
And getting back to the subject of this thread, which seems to have wandered off into conspiracy theory land, let me point out Rene Descartes, the 17th century French philosopher (just to sort of get back on subject). Descartes believed that Greek metaphysics was a load of tosh and instead posited that there were two quite separate entities: ‘material substance’ and ‘thinking substance’. His seminal work was ‘The Meditations’, which is still required reading for anyone studying philosophy. Descartes begins by doubting everything; ie, what in your existence can you be sure of with certainty? Think about that. In The Meditations he comes to the conclusion that the only thing he can be certain of is his own mind; everything else, including the body, could be trickery or illusion/dreams (hence the famous quote: Je pense donc je suis, I think therefore I am).
Doubting/questioning everything is the sign of a healthy mind. Accepting everything that is spoon-fed to you is not, yet it seems to be part of the human condition…
[craigmurray.org.uk – spam filter collateral damage. I note the new IP address didn’t work. Er, try not putting the url in the website field?]
From Canspeccy
“Why don’t you go and do what habby is lusting to do with the back end of Pussy Riot bitch instead of being such a tosser here.”
which came hard on the heels of this, also from Canspeccy:
“If without an argument, Habby’s always handy with an insult”.
Conclusion : onanism causes memory loss.
Komodo
“If it’s ok to make images of the Prophet (whose religion prohibits any such thing) and mock them, then it has to be ok to go into church and scream obscenities.”
No, such a disturbance would constitute a breach of the peace and the person doing it would likely be bound over to prevent further public order violations. Drawing Muhammad is an entirely different matter and I really couldn’t care less if their religion prohibits it.
Please read my post RIGHT through, this time, and then tell me what part of it you are actually disagreeing with. Clue: I suggest there that you’d have to change the law to scream the obscenities. And link to some of the law.
Nul points.
“Jihad Mary is conspicuous by her welcome absence.”
____________________
Yes, I’d noticed that as well.
But, hey, she’s probably working on her next post(s) about Zionism or OUR NHS.
Canspeccy, how are you progressing? Want some clues, or shall I just tell you the answers? You’ve already failed statistics twice; this is your first go on English comprehension with computer studies.
@Clark, not sure why you are addressing me iro the Paris murders, as I haven’t expressed an opinion as to whetever they might be false flags or not; my position is that I discount no rational possibility, but I fear that all the relevant details will be withheld, so we will never actually know for sure.
As for your “The assumption of a “true flag” is inherently racist”, I can only imagine that you went to the same logic destroying university that Craig “It Is Racist To Be Worried About Immigration” Murray went to !