It’s because the western world cares more about the deaths of white people on their doorstep at the hands of terrorists than black people who live thousands of miles away.

I really, really doubt that's the case.

Which I consider a normal, sane behavior. That's also why I cared more about the conflict/war in Ukraine than in Afghanistan, and that didn't mean I'm indifferent to deaths there.

EDIT: excluding "white" and "black" people. Didn't notice it in Manco's post

I'm going back to the beginning of the thread here, but I feel the need to point out to Nep that there were more Muslim people defending the public, including helping save Jewish people in a kosher supermarket, than there were perpetrating this crime.

It's because, as horrible as it is, Boko Haram fall under the "business as usual" category along with our geographical and cultural separation with countries like Nigeria. Similar to hearing about suicide bombings killing hundreds in Syria. Cartoonists being massacred in Paris isn't something that happens enough to stop being such a shock to our culture.

But, fucking hell, Boko Haram are a bunch of scumbags.

In regards to the motive behind the Charlie Hebdo killings it's impossible to know exactly why they're being perpetrated. Is it what the Telegraph article supposes? Where they specifically sent on this mission to hit home that Islamic Extremism is a force to be reckoned with? Is it just a culture of brainwashing in which the depiction of Muhammed *was* their primary motivation? It's probably a combination of several things. Are these people acting independently? Are they just proving themselves? I don't know. It could be complex or it could be straightforward and delusional.

Maybe I should specify, when I say this isn't the minority, what I mean is, this isn't the teeny tiny amount the media would have us believe.
On the other hand, it's also terrible the amount of Muslims who have never hurt a soul, who are going to bare the brunt of this. This isn't their fault, it's their religion's.
As for the whole hypocrisy thing Manco pointed out, as horrible as it sounds, he's correct.
The people dying in Africa are so far removed from our culture it makes sense that we would care less, as horrible as it sounds. Similarly to how I've shed no years about the millions of people who died in the holocaust. Have you?

You weren't born at the time. You've shed no years about other approx. 100-something billions people who died in total

That's my point?

Also, in response to Mac's constant arguing that the strip was hurtful and offensive, so what? It's clearly satirical, whether you find it funny or not is a completely different matter. The point is that it was clearly and obviously in jest. Even if the people who wrote it do hold the views to heart (which they likely do, being an anti-religious satire magazine) the point is how they showed their opinions.
In summary:
[Joking about/mocking Islam and Muslims] THE LINE [Censoring Muslims, murdering Muslims]

Charlie He do didn't cross the line.

Every single religion is fucked up and every religion has extremist fanatics who don't mind killing in the name of their god. Problem is that Islam seems to have many many many more brainwashed fanatics than any other religion and those born into the religion seem extremely susceptible to such radical ideologies. I mean, the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris were born and raised in France, but were apparently still compelled to leave for Syria and then carry out attacks on their home country when they got back. At what point do such ideas get planted into their heads?

So I agree with Nep, religions are a cancer. The faster they're completely wiped out the better off the world will be. And given the last 15 years of terrorism, I would have no problem if Islam was the first to go.

And what's your idea of "whiping it out"?

I’ve seen Bergen-Belsen and Sachsenhausen with my own eyes, so yes.


Please explain why you come to that conclusion.


I think the point of the article is to say that the attack on Charlie Hebdo didn’t happen because it offended some extremists, but rather because the extremists saw an opportunity to use something they considered offensive as an excuse to further their agenda. By killing the magazine’s staff they want to make their enemies stand up for media like Charlie Hebdo, which has the effect of alienating more moderate Muslims and increasing tensions between them and the communities they live in.

Ultimately, these terrorists want as many people on their side as possible, so what they’re trying to do is provoke an aggressive response from their enemies in order to get Muslims to be more sympathetic to their cause.

EDIT: @Manco Is this conjecture or are there any more sources on the motives of these extremists that you know of?

Furthering my point: attacks on French Muslims since the Charlie Hebdo shooting

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7524731...-charlie-hebdo

More video!

It's highly subjective, but I, after hearing about the murders, didn't go get a gun and seek revenge or do anything radical specifically aimed at Muslim people, the thought didn't really occur to me. I consider myself a normal, sane person, I don't believe violence is a good way of doing things no matter how many cartoonists are killed. I don't think any of you really though about that (even Havoc). Sounds like a stupid plan then, doesn't it?

Does it really further your point? These 'attacks' are pitiful. Like, really pitiful. Somebody sprayed a graffiti... boo fucking hoo. It's not even an attack. It's basically the same 'attack' as the comic strips. The only attack that actually caused harm to anyone is that kid assault, yet we don't know the full context, and therefore it's possible that it could be manipulated. The kid might have been looking for trouble.

My second argument would be that we're talking about kinds of people who blow themselves in terrorist attacks or shoot people who insulted their religion and go to jail for life (mostly). That sounds like idiots for me. I would not overestimate them by saying they're capable of thinking that far and coming up with such complex psychological plan.

I didn't present those arguments before, because I know they're not 100% conclusive and still leave a margin of error that some people might actually plan this like that. I just think it's improbable

Well all I have to say to that is:

1) you may not have pulled a gun out and attacked anyone, but plenty of people have gone out and attacked Muslims since – see the article I linked to above. There are also plenty of people who are using the attack on Charlie Hebdo to proclaim how important free speech is and how hateful and intolerant “those Muslims” are. Attacks like this will always be used by intolerant people to decry what they disagree with.

2) Why are you so sure that terrorists are idiots because of their methods? Just because they are violent and intolerant it doesn’t mean they can’t also be intelligent, cunning, and have long-term plans and goals.

Well as I'm thinking about it now, suicide bombers do have a long-term plan and goal, you know, heaven and a hundred virgins or whatever. The problem is this plan is stupid and nonsensical. And I do believe they do believe this crap.

Getting rid of religion wouldn't reduce the amount of war and violence in the world. People would just find something else to fight about.

Also, as I've said to you before, banning religion would be just as evil as insisting that the entire world practice any one religion.

I'd say the average suicide attacker is fairly unintelligent, or at best deluded. But they're part of a complex political machine, and at the top are very intelligent, very savvy people who stand to gain a lot of power if they can fracture the west along religious lines. The Charlie Hebdo attackers may well have not understood the impact of their actions, but there's no reason why they couldn't have been acting on the orders of someone who does, or fulfilling the obligations that person convinced them they have.

They're terrorists. They perpetrate acts of terror. "Freak people out and incite conflict" is pretty much their job description. Not explaining the Evil Master Plan to every goon working under you is just Villainy 101.

And minus the racial subtext, I'd say that's pretty much fine. I doubt anyone in Nigeria cares about a shooting in France, either.

Sorry, I'll start complaining about people being too unracist from now on.

Thank you

That wasn't racist enough, you useless Slav.

If you ever want to offend a Bulgarian, call him an Ottoman bastard. I'm learning a lot about racism from the building industry.

Also no one gives a shit about Boko Haram because they're a purely Nigerian based terror group. They will never amount any sort of competent attack on the West.

unless they capture school girls that you can use to make yourself look better with Twitter hastags because you're a scum of the earth cunt politician who cares about nothing except furthering your own career.

Are you kidding? Of course it would. Obviously it wouldn't get rid of violence all together but it would rid the world of a huge chunk of it, and stories like these are proof of that.
It's 2015, I think it's time people stopped killing over bronze-age fairytales.

People would find something else to fight about. Religion is only ever the excuse. The moment religion was wiped out, you'd see that nationalism starts becoming an issue again. Or resources. Or something else that we can't possibly predict. It's all just bullshit tribalism, when you come down to it.

You should have watched my video, Nep. Has South Park taught you nothing?

I too think that if religion was gone, there would be less violence. Of course there would be still violence, but I'm sure it would decrease. Though we can't really tell either way for sure, as there was no point in time, when there was no religion.

I have Four Lions on DVD.

Obviously it's because I'm so racist.

But there's no evidence to support this whatsoever. If we live in a violent society, it's going to continue feeding off of that violence however it can.
I certainly think religion should be taking a back seat and occupy less of people's focus and dedication, I think eventually we'll reach a point where we can look at religious texts as myopic fables from different times in history and give them a safe-for-work secular spin, but the short-term solution isn't the instant and total dissolution of religion as a whole. People don't work that way.

Jesus murphy I can actually hear your fedora tipping.
Here's a passage from the Qur'an. Since I sat through most of that fucking awful video, kindly read it.
"n 619 AC, 10 years into his prophet hood,
Muhammad (peace be upon him) travelled 70 miles south east of Mecca with
Zayd bin Haritha to the city of Ta'if. There, arrogant chiefs greeted
him with ridicule and mockery and ordered the slaves and children of the
town to chase the Prophet and his companion out of the city pelting
them with verbal insults, large rocks, dirt, spit and filth.

Covered in blood, Muhammad (peace be upon
him) and his companion staggered out of the town. Under the cover of a
tree and safely outside the city, bloodied, helpless and overwhelmed, he
put his hands up in prayer to Allah (God): "O Allah! To thee I complain
of my weakness, my lack of resources and my lowliness before men."

The Hadith ("traditions of the Prophet")
narrate it was then the Angel Gabriel appeared before him stating that
an angel had been ordered to stand by at the top of mountains that
surrounded the city of Ta'if. "Just give the order, and he will cause
the mountains to collide together and crush the city and everyone in
it," the Angel Gabriel boomed. The Prophet's response: "No — do not do
this. I pray that if these people do not accept my message today, God
willing, from their progeny there will be some that accept my message."
this got shared on my facebook by Jizzle

Yeah, that sure sounds like unreasonable, warmongering, violent religious fanaticism. All holy texts are filled with contradicting takes on things, but Mohammed's adventures are mostly pretty fucking awesome. Dude went on a globetrotting adventure with all of his best buddies, and they killed a lot of people and took the moral high-horse on a shitload of others.. I'm pretty sure you know jack shit about Islam and Abrahamic religions in general, particularly how they're practiced today.

Muhammad did also have a woman put to death because she (a poet) wrote a poem that was none-too-kind to Muhammad as a person.

I'm not saying you're wrong and Islam is evil, if anything I'm agreeing with you that Islam (and religion) is so fucking contrary that it's impossible to call Muslims evil and vicious based on their Qu'ran, which changes its mind on when to use leniency every six words.

That's why I mentioned the contradiction, I'm genuinely interested in reading that passage though. Mohammed always says some line before putting someone to death. Like, if he was going to strike down an infidel with a lamp he'd probably say 'Lights out!' or if he like, shoved a bunch of guys waving M16's at his stepdaughter into a vat of liquid nitrogen he'd say 'cool off.'

What puzzles me is that the Qur'an is full of weird shit that you can frame politically in a pretty unflattering way, but Charlie Hebdo went with Mohammed's dick and balls hanging out. Y'know, the classic. It just strikes me that this supposed comprehension of Islam by many of its non-academic critics is total bullshit.

It’s because it’s low-hanging fruit. People who know just enough about Islam to know that Mohammed is not supposed to be depicted so they go “hurr, let’s depict him in a really puerile way”. Its Family Guy-level humor.

And yes, I did make this post just to make the low-hanging fruit pun.