Jump to content

Je suis charlie


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

For starters, why should Charlie Hebdo not publish these cartoons? That would be a violation of someone's right to freely criticize as they say fit. This is a civilized society with its own laws, thus any outside forces such as Al Qaeda in Yemen have no right to come in kill these journalists and cartoonists.because they feel violated.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said they have a right to kill and I definitely do not think they have a right to kill because of cartoons. However, nut job terrorists will always attack and publishing hate speech towards an entire religion isn't ok. I'm not saying they should be prepared for backlash if they continue publishing hateful comics, but if I worked for a newspaper firm who published such things then I definitely wouldn't feel safe.

Actually, I think it a wonderful world we live in. For the most part we are seeing people all over the world bonding together to morn and support people they never knew. Don't let the small factions of evil overshadow all the good. Or the internet trolls for that matter.

Yeah I don't. 12 innocent people got killed. On top of 2 members of the public in Sydney who were simply going by their daily routine in a cafe. Sure the response may have been heartwarming but it does not stop the fact that there are terrorists out there ready to kill at any moment. We don't need to live in constant fear but we shouldn't be posting Islamophobic and other religious hate speech just for so called 'humour'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, because there's never mass shootings in nations with lax gun laws. Ever. Nutters never go on the rampage there.

No, he doesn't, at all, actually, not even a little bit.

Most of our mass shootings are carried out by nutters with too easy access to guns, but that doesn't mean we should ban them as some want to do here in the states.

And I would like to add that guns do not kill people, we kill each other. Guns just make the job easier. Guns also make defending ourselves easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of our mass shootings are carried out by nutters with too easy access to guns, but that doesn't mean we should ban them as some want to do here in the states.

And I would like to add that guns do not kill people, we kill each other. Guns just make the job easier. Guns also make defending ourselves easier.

Ok, no Bernham, no, no, no. This is the exact reason why your country is so f*cked up in the first place. It's this sort of rediculous thinking driving the wonderful nation of the United States of America into the ground. In theory, what your saying makes sense. But explain to me why countries with strict gun laws like Canada, Australia, Britain and many other European nations have next to no gun massacres? If guns make it so easy to kill people, then why don't we take them away and make it harder? Sure guns can defend you. But the more available they are the easier they can get into the hands of a lunatic or even a young child. Guns can cause a lot of damage when put in the hands of the untrained. It doesn't matter if your a soccer mom with a concealed carry, or a raging lunatic with a semi-automatic, the presence of a gun alone is a danger to everyone. And your okay with making them easy to get at?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, no Bernham, no, no, no. This is the exact reason why your country is so f*cked up in the first place. It's this sort of rediculous thinking driving the wonderful nation of the United States of America into the ground. In theory, what your saying makes sense. But explain to me why countries with strict gun laws like Canada, Australia, Britain and many other European nations have next to no gun massacres? If guns make it so easy to kill people, then why don't we take them away and make it harder? Sure guns can defend you. But the more available they are the easier they can get into the hands of a lunatic or even a young child. Guns can cause a lot of damage

Korek!! Those kids and schoolteachers in Sandy Hook, the univ. in Virginia, in the movie house in Aurora, Color, even those poor kids in that Oslo island...did NOT have guns to protect themselves. Those guns in the US are in the hands of farmers in rural areas and in ghettos of Oakland, Detroit and Chicago. If most of the firearms were in the hands of the right people in the right situations, then that 2nd Amendment holds water but the reality is, they;re NOT there where they're needed. They're in the hands of wrong people in the WRONG situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korek!! Those kids and schoolteachers in Sandy Hook, the univ. in Virginia, in the movie house in Aurora, Color, even those poor kids in that Oslo island...did NOT have guns to protect themselves. Those guns in the US are in the hands of farmers in rural areas and in ghettos of Oakland, Detroit and Chicago. If most of the firearms were in the hands of the right people in the right situations, then that 2nd Amendment holds water but the reality is, they;re NOT there where they're needed. They're in the hands of wrong people in the WRONG situations.

Your missing the point completely. People shouldn't have guns PERIOD. You shouldn't have to go to a movie theatre or school carrying a gun with the thought of "I might die here today, so I'll bring a gun just in case" at the back of your mind. What kind of a place is that to live in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your missing the point completely. People shouldn't have guns PERIOD. You shouldn't have to go to a movie theatre or school carrying a gun with the thought of "I might die here today, so I'll bring a gun just in case" at the back of your mind. What kind of a place is that to live in?

Well, that horse has left the barn a LONG TIME ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, no Bernham, no, no, no. This is the exact reason why your country is so f*cked up in the first place. It's this sort of rediculous thinking driving the wonderful nation of the United States of America into the ground. In theory, what your saying makes sense. But explain to me why countries with strict gun laws like Canada, Australia, Britain and many other European nations have next to no gun massacres? If guns make it so easy to kill people, then why don't we take them away and make it harder? Sure guns can defend you. But the more available they are the easier they can get into the hands of a lunatic or even a young child. Guns can cause a lot of damage when put in the hands of the untrained. It doesn't matter if your a soccer mom with a concealed carry, or a raging lunatic with a semi-automatic, the presence of a gun alone is a danger to everyone. And your okay with making them easy to get at?

I think the fact that even if gun laws were more loose, some people (like kids) may not even bother to equip themselves with it thus they would be very vulnerable if some wacko got a hold of one. If laws loosen, then gun ownership would have to become something obligatory defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, no Bernham, no, no, no. This is the exact reason why your country is so f*cked up in the first place. It's this sort of rediculous thinking driving the wonderful nation of the United States of America into the ground. In theory, what your saying makes sense. But explain to me why countries with strict gun laws like Canada, Australia, Britain and many other European nations have next to no gun massacres? If guns make it so easy to kill people, then why don't we take them away and make it harder? Sure guns can defend you. But the more available they are the easier they can get into the hands of a lunatic or even a young child. Guns can cause a lot of damage when put in the hands of the untrained. It doesn't matter if your a soccer mom with a concealed carry, or a raging lunatic with a semi-automatic, the presence of a gun alone is a danger to everyone. And your okay with making them easy to get at?

It's obvious disagree and my response is not going to add anything positive to this thread or change your opinion. If you would like to discuss this with me in a PM then I'm okay with that, but this is not the proper place for this type of conversation.

Korek!! Those kids and schoolteachers in Sandy Hook, the univ. in Virginia, in the movie house in Aurora, Color, even those poor kids in that Oslo island...did NOT have guns to protect themselves. Those guns in the US are in the hands of farmers in rural areas and in ghettos of Oakland, Detroit and Chicago. If most of the firearms were in the hands of the right people in the right situations, then that 2nd Amendment holds water but the reality is, they;re NOT there where they're needed. They're in the hands of wrong people in the WRONG situations.

And banning guns is just going to create an even bigger problem. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the war on drugs and prohibition. A massive underground gun market would be created and not subject to laws, regulations, etc. so how would that fix any problem? And even further cops would have more power over innocent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korek!! Those kids and schoolteachers in Sandy Hook, the univ. in Virginia, in the movie house in Aurora, Color, even those poor kids in that Oslo island...did NOT have guns to protect themselves. Those guns in the US are in the hands of farmers in rural areas and in ghettos of Oakland, Detroit and Chicago. If most of the firearms were in the hands of the right people in the right situations, then that 2nd Amendment holds water but the reality is, they;re NOT there where they're needed. They're in the hands of wrong people in the WRONG situations.

Perhaps attempt what we did in Australia and buy back the guns. It would be costly and I'm sure shootings would still occur but we rarely have any mass shootings let alone massacres killing over 10 people whereas it seems to be a monthly occurrence in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps attempt what we did in Australia and buy back the guns. It would be costly and I'm sure shootings would still occur but we rarely have any mass shootings let alone massacres killing over 10 people whereas it seems to be a monthly occurrence in America.

Buy back what guns? After the Port Arthur massacre, then Prime Minister John Howard brought forward new laws regarding gun possession. He made the gun laws more stricter and tighter. The buy-back-scheme for firearms was simply required by law because our constitution prevents the government to take our property (in this case firearms of gun owners) without compensation.

It has been attempted in several American states with varying degrees of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous idea that with laxer gun laws, this could have been prevented. With such gun laws, recently a two year old managed to shoot his mother in a supermarket. How is that better than being killed by terrorists while shopping?

And that mother was a nuclear scientist too. The stupid Founding fathers of the US just did NOT the foresight on everything. It's Britain's fault for NOT releasing the colonies when they wanted to!! I think all the victims of gun violence in the US should sue Great Britain!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nice article....

For the first time in 13 years I felt like a true Parisian

By Simon Kuper

Financial Times

January 9, 2015

London has done well since its Islamist attack. So should my adopted city

How do you tell your kids that their football practice is cancelled because jihadis have shot dead 12 people in an attack on a newspaper office 10 minutes’ walk from home? I tried to break it gently to my eight-year-old daughter. She burst into tears. I suggested she cheer herself up by watching High School Musical on the iPad.

I used to be a Londoner but I have spent the past 13 years trying to become a Parisian. Watching the capital cope with Wednesday’s attack on Charlie Hebdo and then Friday’s hostage-taking in a kosher supermarket has helped me understand the place better. Like any big city, Paris is made up of millions of ordinary daily interactions between people of different ethnicities. Most of those interactions work. Paris can handle this week’s atrocities as impressively as London did its attacks of nearly a decade ago.

Like many immigrants in Paris, I began integrating only after I had children here. Mine were born while we were living in the 11th arrondissement — the dense, ugly, ethnically mixed and rapidly gentrifying neighbourhood where Charlie Hebdo has its little office.

Greater Paris has about 1.5m nominal Muslims, more than any other EU city. Over the years we have come into contact with a lot of them. Fatima from the Comoros Islands, a tiny headscarfed childminder at our local crèche, became the personal protector of our most anxious child. Nowadays, most Wednesdays I watch our kids’ football practice with a west African Muslim dad. He and the coach, Mehdi — presumably a nominal Muslim — are helping my daughter in her (often literal) battle for acceptance in a boys’ team. I tell these stories to American friends and relatives when they forward me emails about fundamentalist Islam’s supposed conquest of France.

Of course Paris has ethnic tensions. It always will. Very occaionally, these tensions turn violent. Jews, Italians and Poles once struggled to be accepted just as Muslims do now. But mostly Parisians successfully live together. In the diverse Belleville neighbourhood close to Charlie Hebdo I once saw a class pouring out of a nursery school: toddlers of several shades, holding hands, while their teachers issued commands in French.

Two jihadis attacked Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday. Some 1,000 French Muslims have been involved in jihad in Iraq and Syria. That leaves perhaps 5m nominal French Muslims with more banal ambitions: a decent job, a nice apartment and something good on TV after dinner. Two people killed on Wednesday were nominal Muslims who had been helping keep Paris ticking over: Mustapha Ourrad, subeditor at Charlie Hebdo, and Ahmed Merabet, the policeman gunned down on the street while begging for mercy.

One measure of a society’s dysfunction is murder. Greater Paris, with 12m inhabitants, averages about 135 homicides a year. That’s about 1.1 murders per 100,000 people — less than a third the rate of unprecedentedly safe New York. The far-right cliché of a Disneytown centre surrounded by burning suburbs simply is not true.

A Muslim in the poor suburban town of Dreux once told me what distinguished her family from non-Muslim friends: “We have a barbecue, some people don’t eat pork.” In fact, many Muslims in infectiously secular France do eat pork. Fewer than one in 20 probably attend mosque every Friday, according to some academics. But almost every French Muslim — nominal, pious or toddler — will find life harder after Wednesday.

An hour after Wednesday’s murders, I walked to Charlie Hebdo’s street. Neighbourhood life went on as usual: people lunching in cafés or queueing in bakeries to buy galettes des rois — cakes eaten at Epiphany in a Christian tradition adopted by many Jews and Muslims.

This corner of Paris has experience of violence. In 1789 our local furniture makers stormed the Bastille to start the French Revolution. Schools have black plaques on their façades, commemorating local Jewish children deported under Nazism. Postwar, the 11th was quite criminal: Inspector Maigret, Georges Simenon’s fictional detective, lived on Boulevard Richard-Lenoir, where Merabet was murdered. Now the 11th harbours — besides various synagogues — the theatre of anti-Semitic “comedian” Dieudonné.

On Wednesday night, I joined the crowd in Place de la République where people chanted: “Nous sommes Charlie.” For the first time in 13 years, I loved Parisians, and I felt like one. Terrorist attacks can have unintended effects.

Paris will now choose its response. I have seen two possible ones. In 2004 the Netherlands lashed out after a Dutch-Moroccan jihadist killed film-maker Theo van Gogh. The loyalties of Muslims were questioned; there were tit-for-tat attacks on churches and mosques.

Paris will probably respond more like London did after four jihadis killed 52 people on July 7 2005. Most Londoners closed ranks around the city’s Muslims. A week after the bombings, people gathered to commemorate at Trafalgar Square. The moment Sir Iqbal Sacranie, then head of the Muslim Council of Britain, rose to speak the square gave him an ovation. Multicultural London has done pretty well since. So should Paris. If you live in one of these fascinating, rich and increasingly twinned cities, you have to accept an uncomfortable fact: jihadis are a tiny minority among western Muslims and yet we will never be entirely safe from them. That’s life. Next week football practice will be on again.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aacca4ea-9749-11e4-845a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Faacca4ea-9749-11e4-845a-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D1791268%26page%3D70#axzz3ONlVZEU0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that mother was a nuclear scientist too. The stupid Founding fathers of the US just did NOT the foresight on everything. It's Britain's fault for NOT releasing the colonies when they wanted to!! I think all the victims of gun violence in the US should sue Great Britain!!

How can You say that? It's not our fault that some people are victims of guns. It is not our fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great demonstrations of solidarity all over the country and from all over the world. Today the words of D. Cameron (aint he Europe's best PM), Mrs Merkel, B.Netanyahu particularly touched people more than you could imagine. I personally know people who were close friends to one of the guys in the kosher supermarket.

But really, with his citizens dancing in the streets and the support he brought to terror, M. Abbas should have f*** off home (and I don't usually have a foul language). His presence is a shame and a serious insult to the 4 Jewish victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the awe inspiring display of National and International unity in Paris on the news channels....They are now saying it's the largest mass gathering of humanity on Parisian streets since the liberation in 1944!

Yesterday in New Zealand we had our moments of commemoration with large gatherings and multi religious services in solidarity with the people of France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...