I was thinking about the discussions I had on this thread last night and some of the replies I got when I criticised the magazine - not just from Musivore, but a few others too. I tried to work out what was it that got me so irritated and emotional?
I think I felt a bit angry that some people seemed to be placing my comments into the same category as those apologists who try to ameliorate the blame on the terrorists by using criticism of the magazine as justification.
So I just went over all my posts up to the point I criticised the magazine to see if my words gave that impression without me realising it.
Having read all my posts I honestly don't think I gave that impression and I think I made my position very clear.
In fact I only criticised the magazine after a direct question from Amoku.
I've copied my posts here up to the point I criticised the magazine - which is when I got some replies that irritated me a bit.
I would be interested in views - did I really give the impression I was being an apologist? Should I have not replied to the direct question by Amoku?
_______________________________
RIP to those killed.
Sky News is reporting the names of the three are:
Said Kouachi, Cherif Kouachi & Hamyd Mourad.
Someone tweeted this
Dyab Abou Jahjah @Aboujahjah 2h2 hours ago
I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmedI thought it was worth translating and retweeting:
Abu Ali
@abdulazizbulbul
@Aboujahjah انا لست شارلي ، انا أحمد الشرطي الميت . شارلي احتقر ديني وثقافتي وانا مت دفاعا عن حقه في القيام بذلك #JesuisAhmed
If you want to share, this is my twitter account:
https://twitter.com/abdulazizbulbulFor me the important point I think needs underlining is that there are a hell of a lot of secular, liberal and non-religious people who nevertheless still identify as Muslims, yet still defend free-speech and secular values as this policeman clearly did by the mere fact of being a policeman. (And by all accounts he did identify as a Muslim, and his family say they are going to bury him in the Muslim cemetery of Bobigny).
The Islamists insist that secular, liberal and non--practising Muslims are not "real" Muslims.
I say fuck them!! I am not going to accept these murderous psychopaths defining what a Muslim can or cannot believe.
Strangely these extremists psychopaths are at one with far-right bigots on this. They also refuse to accept that a "real" Muslim can be a liberal secularist.
So fuck them both!!
Yes. I agree with that.
Previous reports show that many of the top-ranking ISIS leaders are ex-Ba'thists who have decided that hardcore Islamism is the best way to swell their ranks has previously been reported on. They view Islam as a tool.
Sounds cynical - but these guys are cynical bastards.
True!!
Idiots will always be idiots, but what makes these idiots so much more dangerous is they believe they are on a divine mission.
There is nothing worse than a fool driven by a fanatical religious ideology.
Then in reply to a poster called BOSNIAN - who said the following:
I said:
You should get your facts straight before posting. He wasn't "jailed" and in fact "won a 40,000-euro court judgment against his former publisher for wrongful termination."
Plus as others have mentioned the magazine has often been sued by many different religious groups.
And are you seriously equating suing in court to murder?
In reply to a video:
I think it's spot on!!
As some recent articles have highlighted, I think it is a mistake to think that it is actually about cartoons - but rather about increasing tension between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I know many people who are saying; "Why are these people doing this it will only help the far-right and anti-Islam brigade and harm Muslims living in the West in the long-term"
Well that's exactly what they want to do.
The specific target is not the real issue - except in as far as it helps turn up the heat for Muslims here and pushes more into the arms of extremists.
It's about recruiting - not cartoons.
Sadly some Muslims would regard the magazine as a fair target. Much more so that random passengers on a train or bus.
They want to attract the foolish young disaffected Muslims towards them by showing they are the defenders of true Islam - while at the same time turn Westerners against Muslims, by attacking the thing Westerners cherish deeply - free speech.
These guys (behind the rank and file cannon-fodder) are really that cynical. They are cold, calculated and know exactly what they are doing.
In reply to a comment by Billy:
This^
And in this they are at one with far-right bigots and xenophobes.
"He who knows best how to employ the fox has succeeded best, but it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler. Men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived… Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite."
Nicolo Machiavelli
I had the same thought.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Yep.
Yes. Some.
Then Amoku posted this:
I replied:
I like it!!
Amoku replied:
Do you agree with it? If so, why?
I don't.
So I gave my answer:
I also think the sort of satire published by hebdo is a vapid crass and vulgar way to use the pen.
Although I defend their right to do it, doesn't mean I have to approve of it.
Anyone who knows me will know I criticise Islam a great deal but I always avoid attacking or demeaning Muslims and avoid gratuitious insults. I have never, for example participated in draw muhammad day.
I defend others right to do so, but I certainly don't have to approve of it and while I defend their freedom to draw cartoons, I am a little concerned that the freedom to criticise them seems to be disapproved of by some and wrongly equated with making excuses for the terrorists, which of course it's not.
________________
I have a feeling that some of those who replied to that post, misunderstood me or did not see the whole picture of what I said on this thread.
Topic: Deadly attack on office of French magazine Charlie Hebdo