[anon9169769]

Tiny bit too much info there. Now that's how you do an "off topic" post lol

Lol woops... Just a bit :-p

[Nokia5110]

Free speech is an ideal thats wonderful on paper, just as Bill of rights, freedom charter ect. Religious groups, lawyers, politicians and sports fanatics have one doctrine, namely Bush doctrine!

Osama chasing Russians on behalf of America, Iran & Iraq pounding each other America in the mix. Black hawk, America did I mention Libya or the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania back then.

Money makes the world go round!

[PDCDUW]

Je suis Charlie

[a5cent]

Free speech is an ideal thats wonderful on paper

A bit defeatist, don't you think? It's also a wonderful idea in practice, not just on paper.
The fact that U.S. foreign policy is heavily influenced by the military industrial complex, doesn't diminish the value of ideals that have proven themselves essential to the progress of humanity many times over. But ultimately, ideals are just that. It's what you strive for, knowing full well we will never achieve a perfect implementation.
If you oppose any particular doctrine, free speech will be vital in changing it, and thankfully, in the west, nobody is going to think you're asking for trouble by disagreeing with authority figures or majority opinion.

[PDCDUW]

I am definitively
Je suis Charlie

[djeire84]

Lol woops... Just a bit :-p

Ha ha 😊

[djeire84]

I respectfully disagree. I think whomever the U.S. votes into office as their next president, is about as relevant to solving this particular issue as what type of bread I prefer for breakfast. This is not a political problem. It's a societal problem, rooted in counterproductive beliefs held by majorities of people in middle eastern cultures, not just the radical Islamist fringe. The only way to solve the problem is to painstakingly convince people, one by one, that some of the things they were taught in school, or picked up simply by living in their societies, may not be as wise as they initially thought. It's about hearts and minds and beliefs.

The U.S. has unfortunately squandered any capability they might have had to convince anybody in the middle east about anything. The only reason the U.S. remains at all relevant in the region is due to their influence over Israel. At this point, the only productive thing the U.S. can do is to remove themselves from the equation entirely. The people who will ultimately solve this issue are the intellectuals and spiritual leaders that live in middle eastern societies. Unfortunately, their voices are currently drowned out or censored, precisely because they live in societies that can't cope with dissenting opinions and free speech. This issue literally sits at the centre of what is holding their entire culture back.
You may be right that my attempts to get people to rethink their views are futile (although my personal experiences suggests otherwise), but you won't stop me from trying. If all reasonable people tried to extend a hand to someone who believes differently, and embraced any opportunity to discuss our differences, I'm sure that would ultimately represent our fastest route to success. It has to start somewhere, so why not at least try?

Sorry like I do disagree wholly with that. On 9/11 it was allegedly"Al Qaeda" who were responsible and they were based in Afghanistan. The US spent 6 months bombing and shelling looking for Osama bin Laden the alleged ring leader, then for no apparent reason invaded Iraq a country that wasn't involved in the New York attacks and captured Sadam Hussein a man who kept so called Islamic extremists in their place and (yes it was unorthodox) ruled with an Iron fist. Then occupied that for almost a decade **** Chaney's Haliburton setting up shop there and draining Iraq of its oil. Then the US executed Sadam on war crimes (yes he did it to his own people but never posed a threat to USA or her territories) and then the very breed of extremists he had kept under iron rule were free to roam and do as they saw fit.

[djeire84]

So in short yes voting in fair and just leaders makes a world of difference.
Voting in people who want to invade and destroy nations (on the fake promise of "change") makes the difference.
The very minute corner if a very peaceful and just religion of Islam are just fighting back in the same way a minute corner of the west did for oil and prosperity. That's what happens when one country invades another and that another country fights back.

[redcoffe]

that provocative satire is deserving of punishment of any kind.

[PDCDUW]

After the above I am even more
Je suis Charlie

[planetkhd]

Je suis Charlie Je suis Charlie

[planetkhd]

I do not hear the voice of Windows central????
The world is coming together tomorrow in Paris to unanimously stand against those atrocities, where is windows central?
Je suis Charlie

[a5cent]

So in short yes voting in fair and just leaders makes a world of difference.

I don't want to get into U.S. politics here, as that's a whole other can of worms. I understand your point, and agree with you in general. I really do. It's just that as far as this particular issue is concerned, I don't think any U.S. president is in a position to offer anything that could possibly contribute to an actual solution. The very best a U.S. president can do is to get out of the way and not make things even worse. I guess that was my point, which I could have stated better. But you are right, even that is apparently asking too much of some presidents.

[djeire84]

I don't want to get into U.S. politics here, as that's a whole other can of worms. I understand your point, and agree with you in general. I really do. It's just that as far as this particular issue is concerned, I don't think any U.S. president is in a position to offer anything that could possibly contribute to an actual solution. The very best a U.S. president can do is to get out of the way and not make things even worse. I guess that was my point, which I could have stated better. But you are right, even that is apparently asking too much of some presidents.

Sure Barack Obama was walking into a huge messy situation. Bush created the mess and Obama bless him he tried to untangle the huge clusterfcuk that was in front of him. But is failing. Reminds me of matters here at home in Ireland, the last government got us into bad austerity and made our recession worse and the current government tried to undo the damage and is failing and making things a whole lot worse. Ha ha that's why a few posts back I said religion and politics shouldn't be discussed here. Makes me angry and sad. I come on here for the light banter and tech support and help out fellow Lumians with their devices. 😊

[Jas00555]

Sure Barack Obama was walking into a huge messy situation. Bush created the mess and Obama bless him he tried to untangle the huge clusterfcuk that was in front of him. But is failing.

Lol liberals will stretch as far as they can to blame everything on Bush. There are some things *gasp* are even outside the US's influence.

Then the US executed Sadam on war crimes (yes he did it to his own people but never posed a threat to USA or her territories) and then the very breed of extremists he had kept under iron rule were free to roam and do as they saw fit.

That's a straw man argument if I've ever seen one. The problem isn't that the "breed of extremists... Were free to roam", the problem is that the breed of extremists even existed in the first place.

[djeire84]

Lol liberals will stretch as far as they can to blame everything on Bush. There are some things *gasp* are even outside the US's influence.



That's a straw man argument if I've ever seen one. The problem isn't that the "breed of extremists... Were free to roam", the problem is that the breed of extremists even existed in the first place.

Isis weren't even heard of when Sadam was alive. Sorry like but bush executed him for oil and put the Iraqi people in more danger and therefore put the world in danger. Sorry like but the US are to blame for this new brand of modern warfare!! False flags, inside jobs etc even Jessie Ventura thinks 9/11 was an insurance scam and a way to invade Iraq and overthrow Sadam. I'm a libral and proud.

[a5cent]

I'd appreciate us sticking to the topic. Thank you. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

[Nahuel 1988]

J'ai lu "je suis charlie", je me suis dit bon, une raison pour tester mon Franais, then the whole conversation was in English haha. But these terrorists aren't really Muslims, they just use it and making everyone else look as bad. Even Obama said so at some point. But it still sucks such things happen.

[djeire84]

J'ai lu "je suis charlie", je me suis dit bon, une raison pour tester mon Franais, then the whole conversation was in English haha. But these terrorists aren't really Muslims, they just use it and making everyone else look as bad. Even Obama said so at some point. But it still sucks such things happen.

Here here. So true 😊

[KarmaEcrivain94]

If you want to help, Anonymous published this: http://pastebin.com/pfffWm3u
It's a list of dodgy Twitter accounts that have to be reported.

[palandri]

Je suis charlie

[tiziano27]

@bijak_riyandi
I realize that I'm being really forceful here, and that I'm being hard on you. I don't know you, but I think chances are high that if we met at a party I'd take you to be an absolutely decent and good person. That doesn't mean that good people cant simultaneously harbour dangerous views, and I think what you are describing here is such a view. I don't think this is in any way particular to Islam or any other religion, so I hope you don't take it as an attack on your religious beliefs. We can find flaws in any society, completely independent of religions. It is an attack on your view of tolerance however. I don't expect to convince you of anything, but I do feel very strongly about this, and hope that I can at least get you and/or others to think about this in ways you maybe previously haven't.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck.

I think your view is really dangerous, a5cent, because without understanding what you're doing, you're imposing your culture in an authoritarian way.

I suppose nobody is supporting the idea of freedom of speech without any limits. Because that would validate behaviors like 20 people insulting and making fun of a black child because of her skin. Or a pervert molesting a child with obscene speech, or someone refunding the Nazi party and talking of the necessity of killing all the Jews.
So, free speech and free action is limited in legislation for many cases, and not only in the legislation, we do it in our daily life too, because legislation is not the only mechanism of social control, public censure is even more effective in many cases.

So, the real question isn't if free speech should be limited, the question is what should be allowed and what should be censored. The thing is those are arbitrary decisions taken based on convenience, motivated by culture, by local conditions, not universal values, at the end motivated by how people FEEL about the situation.

For example, the body is just a lot of disgusting biological material that is deteriorating fast and will be dead in a few years. Somebody could say, well nobody should feel insulted because her body is being criticized, that level of identification with the body is unhealthy. If someone is disgusted by my body and doesn't want me near, I should understand that and not feel ofended. Any use of the body or part of the body in speech should be allowed, so racism should be allowed.

Other could say, nobody should identify so much with religion, you shouldn't feel bad if someone insult your prophet in a magazine that is published and visible on the streets in every kiosk.

Are those ideas correct? Correct is not a good term, because freedom of speech is not limited by theorems deduced of the axioms of the universal values. Free speech is limited by how people feel about things, and people feel very different about things in different cultures.

France is now a multi-cultural country, there is a big population of Muslims that have a very different view of life. So, they should adapt their legislation to that reality. The reaction of France and the west in general to this incident has been, screw them, we impose our culture, we decide what should be censored and what should be allowed, you just adapt. Maybe they could succeed with that, but the cost could be huge, because minorities could fight to defend their culture and views.

So, probably a better solution is to negotiate, and arrive to a consensus.

[PDCDUW]

Je suis Charlie

[palandri]

@tiziano27 is satire not allowed where you live? Satire simply uses humour, sarcasm, irony, and exaggeration to make a point, normally a political point. If I wanted to use satire to make a point about the flaws in democracy, I would say something like "If people rather than money actually voted, they would make it illegal".

I am in France once or twice every year and I have seen the Charlie Hebdo magizine, it reminded me of a magazine from the states called Mad Magazine: Mad Magazine | Welcome to Mad Magazine You can see the next ediition of Mad has Alfred Neuman dress like Che Guevara with the headline of Viva La Stupid, which I am sure will use satire in reviewing the new U.S. policy on Cuba. The last cover I remember seeing on Charlie Hebdo was right before their last election and it had a picture of Nicolas Sarkozy, saying something stupid.

I am not into satire, so I don't buy Charlie Hebdo or Mad magazine, but I don't think people should be banned or censored from using satire.

[audi360]

On one side, freedom is a sorry excuse when you ignore your boundaries, which is another people or another group's freedom.
Seeing what the mag's has done, I'd say that this incident happened because of their own mistake of igniting the flame.

On the other side, Islam doesn't promote violence or revenge. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the very man that was caricatured by Charlie Hebdo, never took revenge on the person who threw garbage at him when he's on his way for prayer. Instead, he paid the person a visit when she was ill and didn't throw something at him.
Sadly, some Muslims doesn't have this kind of manner taught by the Prophet.

I'm an Iranian Muslim and I support Charlie hebdo Just as much as I support south park series for showing Muhammad on TV. It's not that Charlie hebdo just made fun of Muslims. It makes jokes about Christians, about Jews, and ... So it isn't an anti Islamic magazine. Comedy is something without any limit or boundaries, and if comic and comedy had a redline, then it won't be comedy. It would be like the movie "The Interview" where a journalist can only ask scripted questions. And that is completely against freedom of speech.