I'll never understand that logic, how does coming to the aide and support of a group that was brutally attacked mean that they are in turn attacking the group that did the attacking? The attack on Charlie was not defensive, defacing the Notepad++ site is not defensive. Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking, and certainly not harming, other people. You only draw more hostility and attacks.
Edit: I am also curious, the language indicates that the hackers feel it is countries versus religion. The actions of someone who believes in a religion do not define the religion. If I do a terrorist act and say it was for my religion, that does not make my religion a terrorist, but it does make me a terrorist. Do the perpetrators of these attacks feel it is countries against religion, or is that just the shield they want to use.
To be very clear I'm am not defending the attack on Notepad ++!
> Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking ...
Here in the U.S. there's a common sports phrase, "The best defense is a good offense." This carries over into our military policies. For example, while other countries may benefit from our military presence, the reason we send our military into a situation is to protect the U.S.. There may be an immediate benefit of protection or it may be a long-play protection (e.g. "placate the nationals so we aren't contributing to the future pool of terrorists"), but ultimately we send our military in to protect ourselves and this is frequently a preemptive defense that can be seen as offensively attacking.
Again, I'm not condoning any terrorist attack, I'm just not buying your statement that "Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking..." I'm also not saying that preemptive offense is a moral correct policy; just that it is a common policy.
What the United States are doing in the Middle East is not morally okay. Not even close. At best it kind of works.
EDIT: If you have 45 minutes, here [1] is a show by German political cabaret artist Volker Pispers rushing through half a century of history with heavy focus on the USA in the Middle East. With English subtitles. It's a disturbing mix between fun and contempt for mankind.
Islamic extremism is a relatively new phenomenon, early 20th century. And it has pretty little to do with religion, it's more some kind of revenge for what we, the western world, did to them. Indonesia is the country with the largest Islamic population in the world yet there is little extremism and - it may of course be coincidence - the western world did never much care about them although they have a lot of oil, too. Religion is just the means to an end. All my personal opinion of course, I am by no means an expert on history or religion.
New phenomenon? Have you had your head in the sand?
Classical civilization was destroyed by Islam!
Headlines from a few Centuries ...
5th Century
- Spain: knights defeated and heads cut off, placed into a pile so high a man on horseback could not see over it.
7th Century
- Muhammad sends Khalid out, destroys Jazima tribe.
- Khalid at the Battle of Olayis spend 2 days rounding up the loses and cutting off their heads in a dry stream bed until it ran red with their blood.
- Khalid takes the Captain of the Zoroastrian tribe, cuts his head off and lets the blood drain into the soil then rapes the wife of the Captain on the bloody soil! This is the nature of Jihad!
- Umar's conquest of Jerusalem; makes all Christians and Jews dhimmis (3rd class semi-slave).
8th Century
- Attack on Sind: 26,000 Hindus slaughtered.
- Armenian Nobles and their families (children too) herded into a church and burned alive in it.
- Euphesus: 7,000 Greeks enslaved.
9th Century
- All new churches destroyed.
- Amorium: massive enslavement of ALL Christians.
- Egyptian Christians revolt over the jizyah (the dhimmis tax under Shariah).
10th Century
- Thessalonica: 22,000 Christians enslaved.
- Seville: All Christians massacred.
- 30,000 Churches destroyed in Egypt and Syria.
11th Century
- 6,000 Jews in Morocco murdered.
- Hundreds of Jews in Cordoba murdered.
- 4,000 Jews in Granada murdered.
- Georgia and Armenia invaded.
- Hindustan: 15,000 murdered; 500,000 enslaved.
12th Century
- Yemen: Jews forced to convert or die.
- Christians of Granada deported to Morocco.
- India: many cities wiped out, convert of die: 20,000 enslaved in a single town, the rest beheaded.
13th Century
- India: 50,000 Hindu slaves freed by conversion.
- 20 year campaign created 400,000 new Muslims out of Hindus.
- Buddhist monks butchered, nuns raped.
- Damascas and Safed: Christians mass murdered.
- Jews of Marrakeesh massacred
- Tabriz - forced conversion of Jews under threat of death.
Are you getting the TRUE PICTURE yet??
14th Century
- Cairo riots; churches burned.
- Jews of Tabriz forced to convert (see above)
- Tamerlane (makes Hitler look like a saint!) in India kills 90,000 in a single day.
- India: another 30,000 slain.
- Tughlaq took 180,000 slaves.
15th Century
- Tamerlane devastates 700 villages.
- Iraq: Tamerlane annihilated Nestorian and Jacobite Christians.
- Constantinople falls to Islam after 700 years of relentless wars.
16th Century
- India: son of Tamerlane destroyed temples, forced conversions.
- General build two towers of human heads following victories so high you could not see over them.
- Nobel women commit mass suicide to avoid sexual slavery and rape.
17th Century
- Jews of Yemen and Persia forced to convert or die.
- Greek Christians forced to convert or die.
- Persia: Zoroastrians persecution taken to new heights.
- India: 600,000 Hindus murdered by Akbar.
18th Century
- Zoroastrians nearly wiped out world wide as persecution increases.
- Jews of Jedda expelled.
- Jews of Morocco wiped out.
- Hindu persecution continues in increasing levels.
19th Century
- Iran: forced conversion of Jews (do I need to say it?) under pain of death.
- Jews of Baghdad wiped out.
- 250,000 Armenian Christians slaughtered in Turkey.
- Remaining Zoroastrians in Iran wiped out.
20th Century
- over 1,000,000 Turkish Armenians massacred in jihad.
Are you getting the drift on how BAD ISLAM is?
Let me say it again: Classical Civilization was DESTROYED by Islam!!
I'll play 'devil's advocate' here for a moment. I'll be sacrificing a lot of internet points, but I'm not in a great position to begin with. :)
Do let me pre-emptively say: I unequivocally condemn the recent killings of the cartoonists. I unequivocally support the right of anyone to say anything.
Okay, so there is something to consider here: indeed there are now more than a billion Muslims in the world who would not have killed these cartoonists, or even approve of the act of killing these cartoonists (I understand some will take issue with the latter part of my statement, this is just my current reading). Insofar as the 'I am Charlie' statement can be interpreted as approval of the supposedly offending cartoons, the statement could be said to be needlessly confrontational. It's turning things into a combative us (non-Muslims) vs them (Muslims) orientation. Look no further than this very cartoon for proof of this -- this is how these Muslim hacktivists interpreted Notepad++'s 'I am Charlie' stance.
I don't think this is strictly a freedom of speech issue. I saw a good example of this in a Reddit comment: when you enrage someone by calling them racist epithets, and they strike you back ... are the rest of you going to take the racist's side by repeating the racist epithet that invoked the retaliation? Mohammad is a very sacred symbol to Muslims, re-publishing offending material (and similarly approving of the cartoons by saying "I am Charlie") is just needlessly insulting and distressing the plenty of other moderate Muslims. The more this is done, the more those moderate Muslims will feel pressured and start to feel the need to also take a position... and guess whose side they will incline towards? They're surely not going to just throw away their religion, they'll probably verge toward an extremist position.
I'm only suggesting that the 'I am Charlie' sloganeering is a little too hastily thunk, a little too unthought. Of course absolutely everyone should have the right to say such a thing, but a mature and reasonable person would practice caution before saying it. I do admit though, that it's a bit of a challenge packing a sentiment like "I don't think Charlie cartoonists should have been killed, they should have the right to say or mock anyone, but I do generally disapprove of content that's racist, antisemitic, holocaust-denying, sexist, etc." into a nice 3-5 word long slogan.
Actually a slogan I saw a lot in the Marche republicaine here in France is:
I'm Muslim,
I'm Jewish,
I'm Christian,
I'm Atheist,
I'm a Policeman,
I'm Charlie
Which I think is much better and is a much more inclusive symbol.
The thing though is that Charlie Hebdo is not a publication that only published offensive cartoons about Mohammad, they published offensive cartoons about everybody and were quite equal handed in the offensiveness... It's very far from being a racist publication, on the contrary.
It struck me as a resonant response to the proclamation of empathy made by France's newspaper (Le Monde) after the 9/11 attacks: "Today we are all American" [http://www.history.com/topics/reaction-to-9-11].
I don't think the sloganeering is hastily thought, I don't think it is thought at all. It doesn't need to be. Freedom of expression ingrained in Western culture and you would find it very difficult to believe someone should be executed for expressing an opinion. Fined, jailed, maybe, but never executed.
To think of 'I am Charlie' as supporting the cartoons themselves would require you divorce the victims from their fate. Essentially, you'd have to make a leap of logic, and focus on the selfish part (i.e. they offended Muslims) and at this point you no longer deal with rational argument.
Essentially the devil's advocate argument is 'a mature and reasonable person should practice caution before saying anything that may be taken out of context by any party that is sufficiently upset', which is nigh impossible.
There are not a billion Muslims who would not have killed! Sure there are a few "radicals" that want all infidels beheaded but the remaining Muslims want the radicals to do the beheading.
For it says in the Qur'an Surat At-Tawbah 9:5 - And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
A lot of people seem to feel that way. I don't get it though. Given the circumstances, you'd think everybody understands that the "je suis charlie" thing is just a gesture. And even if people intent insult when they use the phrase (to make a point, I guess) I still think that would be okay (given the circumstances).
// Funny how both you and the notepad++ people felt the need to add a disclaimer btw.
Why is it so many bleeding heart liberals (coming from a fairly liberal person) defend a religion that treats women as second-class citizens so much? What's in it for them besides the right to be preachy?
>how does coming to the aide and support of a group that was brutally attacked mean that they are in turn attacking the group that did the attacking?
It's in the same way an abusive parent will see a child defending the abused parent as attacking the abusive parent --when what the child is doing is defending the other parent.
> Because the last notepad++ version (6.7.4) named "JE SUIS CHARLIE" !
> So you think that Islam is terrorist !
I don’t understand the transition between these two lines.
You’ll also note the space before punctuation marks, which is typical of French speakers writing in English (e.g. “something !” instead of “something!”). This is not a surprise, since those who defaced the site claim to be from Tunisia, a country where most of the population speak French.
> I don’t understand the transition between these two lines.
To the rational mind, there isn't one.
To the paranoid, conspiracist, conspiracy-theory-believing mind which sees plots behind every bush and believes whole groups of people can be defined the way you define individuals, it's obvious: You're against an action done by members of a group (as they define it), so you must hate that group the way you hate the people who did the action, so you must be a member of a group which conspires to hurt their group. Note how they immediately drug Israel into the discussion; to some conspiracy theorists, Israel is Pure Evil manifest on Earth, causing endless trouble for all good and righteous human beings, so everyone who is against them must have been duped by Israel and Jews in general.
This is by no means limited to Muslim nutballs, BTW. Alex Jones frequently goes on anti-Zionist tirades, where "Zionist" is his code for "Jew" in markets where blatant antisemitism doesn't sell very well. A lot of 9/11 "truthers" also believe Israel is involved as well, because anything which makes any group of Muslims look bad must have been done by the enemies of Muslims, the Jews. Yes, that's pretty much the depth of their analysis.
I'm French, I think I can speak/write English reasonably well, but I still have to correct myself sometimes over punctuations rules, yes. The rule I was taught is "every punctuation character that has a part over the writing line has a space before it".
I hope they deface http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ next, possibly improving the current design and pissing of the STALLMAN, drawing the first blood. I'll tell ya folks, when #JeSuisGnu is trending, full wrath of Stallman will be unleashed, then and only then the world will know real religious fanaticism. ISIS aint got shit on alt.religion.emacs
From the archive of the hacked site: "So you think that Islam is terrorist !"
From the explanation of the "Je suis Charlie" release note: "For this reason, Je suis Charlie, not because I endorse everything they published, but because I cherish the right to speak out freely without risk even when it offends others."
Clearly the Notepad++ team is blanket targeting Islam. /sarcasm
Samuel Huntington's thesis about the Clash of Civilisations has been thoroughly criticised since he originally proposed it, and yet in some ways the world is increasingly taking the shape he imagined. It would have been wise to treat it as a warning and take precautionary measurers instead; perhaps it is not too late.
It was criticized on academic and theoretical grounds. In his field (International Relations) there are hundreds if not thousands of people all producing a lot of dialogue and research relating to overarching models for how states interact. They've been at this for a very long time.
If you want a book deal, though, you ditch all of this work and just paint broad, easily-digestible strokes over everything. In this case, he's throwing social constructivist research into norms and sub/super-state influencers out the window and claiming the world runs on civilizations. You can probably think through how this might not be the case by considering the role of economics, individuals, and strategic alliances in international politics.
After reading comments about this topic, I see a pattern, people blaming religion or/and country for atrocities on human beings. We are human beings first, so trying to justify killing your fellow human being because of religion/country or for wealth suggests we have lost our way and soon we will have another world war and many more after that. Let’s learn to forgive and instead of killing lets have dialogue
JE SUIS CHARLIE is a movement that condemns killing. It is a movement for freedom and freedom of expression. Some people seem to be pissed off because the killings that started the movement were not the ones that happened before or will happen later. That's plain stupid.
Little children, watching their heroes murder people and then playing at being big men by writing on the internet. Defacing something so amateurishly that if I stuck it on my fridge people would ask if my five year old child did it. To be taken about as seriously.
Careful. These "Little Children" are showing us more and more how violent and ruthless they can be. And the arrogance of your end statement reinforces their point. Clearly English isn't their first language yet you belittle them and call them children. You said it best, big man, writing on the internet.
Careful. These "Little Children" are showing us more and more how violent and ruthless they can be.
They defaced a webpage. I don't consider that to be very violent. In a fistfight, I'll take a club with a nail in it over the awesome power of defacing a webpage every time.
I do not belittle them for a poor grasp of English (which, actually, is not very poor). I belittle them because they defaced a webpage, and with a very childish message. It says little more than "I was here".
Everyone seems to be missing the point. They list terrible atrocities that don't get even close to the same outcry from the world as the attacks in Paris.
The hackers should have also listed the Battle of Tours (732) and the Battle of Vienna (1683) where many Muslims were killed by insensitive Europeans. Where's the outcry about that?
tl;dr - You're confused about the definition of terrorism.
Seems like the best way to root out terrorists is to post Mohammad everywhere and go after the people who have a problem with it. It's an easy way to root out extremists.
These people don't even understand why Mohammad didn't want his picture public..it is so people wouldn't 'WORSHIP' him.. making fun of him as "just a man" is not worshiping him.. It is in bounds.. The nut balls should attack people who make comic illustrations WORSHIPING and RESPECTING Mohammad.. Because that is what he (Mohammad) didn't want people to do.
Its just whack a doodle stuff.. Actually I think these nut balls (Violent Muslims) are disenfranchised people and really are just using the "Mohammad" thing as an excuse to go nuts.
Seems like the best way to root out terrorists is to post Mohammad everywhere and go after the people who have a problem with it. It's an easy way to root out extremists.
These people don't even understand why Mohammad didn't want his picture public..it is so people wouldn't 'WORSHIP' him.. making fun of him as "just a man" is not worshiping him.. It is in bounds.. The nut balls should attack people who make comic illustrations WORSHIPING and RESPECTING Mohammad.. Because that is what he (Mohammad) didn't want people to do.
Its just whack a doodle stuff.. Actually I think these nut balls (Violent Muslims) are disenfranchised people and really are just using the "Mohammad" thing as an excuse to go nuts.
I'll never understand that logic, how does coming to the aide and support of a group that was brutally attacked mean that they are in turn attacking the group that did the attacking? The attack on Charlie was not defensive, defacing the Notepad++ site is not defensive. Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking, and certainly not harming, other people. You only draw more hostility and attacks.
Edit: I am also curious, the language indicates that the hackers feel it is countries versus religion. The actions of someone who believes in a religion do not define the religion. If I do a terrorist act and say it was for my religion, that does not make my religion a terrorist, but it does make me a terrorist. Do the perpetrators of these attacks feel it is countries against religion, or is that just the shield they want to use.
To be very clear I'm am not defending the attack on Notepad ++!
> Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking ...
Here in the U.S. there's a common sports phrase, "The best defense is a good offense." This carries over into our military policies. For example, while other countries may benefit from our military presence, the reason we send our military into a situation is to protect the U.S.. There may be an immediate benefit of protection or it may be a long-play protection (e.g. "placate the nationals so we aren't contributing to the future pool of terrorists"), but ultimately we send our military in to protect ourselves and this is frequently a preemptive defense that can be seen as offensively attacking.
Again, I'm not condoning any terrorist attack, I'm just not buying your statement that "Defending yourself doesn't mean attacking..." I'm also not saying that preemptive offense is a moral correct policy; just that it is a common policy.
What the United States are doing in the Middle East is not morally okay. Not even close. At best it kind of works.
EDIT: If you have 45 minutes, here [1] is a show by German political cabaret artist Volker Pispers rushing through half a century of history with heavy focus on the USA in the Middle East. With English subtitles. It's a disturbing mix between fun and contempt for mankind.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg
2 replies →
Islamic extremism is a relatively new phenomenon, early 20th century. And it has pretty little to do with religion, it's more some kind of revenge for what we, the western world, did to them. Indonesia is the country with the largest Islamic population in the world yet there is little extremism and - it may of course be coincidence - the western world did never much care about them although they have a lot of oil, too. Religion is just the means to an end. All my personal opinion of course, I am by no means an expert on history or religion.
Peaceful folks in Indonesia only killed thousands of Chinese descents and rapped hundreds, in 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1998_riots_of_Indonesia
2 replies →
New phenomenon? Have you had your head in the sand?
Classical civilization was destroyed by Islam!
Headlines from a few Centuries ...
5th Century - Spain: knights defeated and heads cut off, placed into a pile so high a man on horseback could not see over it.
7th Century - Muhammad sends Khalid out, destroys Jazima tribe. - Khalid at the Battle of Olayis spend 2 days rounding up the loses and cutting off their heads in a dry stream bed until it ran red with their blood. - Khalid takes the Captain of the Zoroastrian tribe, cuts his head off and lets the blood drain into the soil then rapes the wife of the Captain on the bloody soil! This is the nature of Jihad! - Umar's conquest of Jerusalem; makes all Christians and Jews dhimmis (3rd class semi-slave).
8th Century - Attack on Sind: 26,000 Hindus slaughtered. - Armenian Nobles and their families (children too) herded into a church and burned alive in it. - Euphesus: 7,000 Greeks enslaved.
9th Century - All new churches destroyed. - Amorium: massive enslavement of ALL Christians. - Egyptian Christians revolt over the jizyah (the dhimmis tax under Shariah).
10th Century - Thessalonica: 22,000 Christians enslaved. - Seville: All Christians massacred. - 30,000 Churches destroyed in Egypt and Syria.
11th Century - 6,000 Jews in Morocco murdered. - Hundreds of Jews in Cordoba murdered. - 4,000 Jews in Granada murdered. - Georgia and Armenia invaded. - Hindustan: 15,000 murdered; 500,000 enslaved.
12th Century - Yemen: Jews forced to convert or die. - Christians of Granada deported to Morocco. - India: many cities wiped out, convert of die: 20,000 enslaved in a single town, the rest beheaded.
13th Century - India: 50,000 Hindu slaves freed by conversion. - 20 year campaign created 400,000 new Muslims out of Hindus. - Buddhist monks butchered, nuns raped. - Damascas and Safed: Christians mass murdered. - Jews of Marrakeesh massacred - Tabriz - forced conversion of Jews under threat of death.
Are you getting the TRUE PICTURE yet??
14th Century - Cairo riots; churches burned. - Jews of Tabriz forced to convert (see above) - Tamerlane (makes Hitler look like a saint!) in India kills 90,000 in a single day. - India: another 30,000 slain. - Tughlaq took 180,000 slaves.
15th Century - Tamerlane devastates 700 villages. - Iraq: Tamerlane annihilated Nestorian and Jacobite Christians. - Constantinople falls to Islam after 700 years of relentless wars.
16th Century - India: son of Tamerlane destroyed temples, forced conversions. - General build two towers of human heads following victories so high you could not see over them. - Nobel women commit mass suicide to avoid sexual slavery and rape.
17th Century - Jews of Yemen and Persia forced to convert or die. - Greek Christians forced to convert or die. - Persia: Zoroastrians persecution taken to new heights. - India: 600,000 Hindus murdered by Akbar.
18th Century - Zoroastrians nearly wiped out world wide as persecution increases. - Jews of Jedda expelled. - Jews of Morocco wiped out. - Hindu persecution continues in increasing levels.
19th Century - Iran: forced conversion of Jews (do I need to say it?) under pain of death. - Jews of Baghdad wiped out. - 250,000 Armenian Christians slaughtered in Turkey. - Remaining Zoroastrians in Iran wiped out.
20th Century - over 1,000,000 Turkish Armenians massacred in jihad.
Are you getting the drift on how BAD ISLAM is?
Let me say it again: Classical Civilization was DESTROYED by Islam!!
Of course, but you are not entitled to personal facts. Islamic extremism is a 7th century phenomenon and it never went away.
8 replies →
I'll play 'devil's advocate' here for a moment. I'll be sacrificing a lot of internet points, but I'm not in a great position to begin with. :)
Do let me pre-emptively say: I unequivocally condemn the recent killings of the cartoonists. I unequivocally support the right of anyone to say anything.
Okay, so there is something to consider here: indeed there are now more than a billion Muslims in the world who would not have killed these cartoonists, or even approve of the act of killing these cartoonists (I understand some will take issue with the latter part of my statement, this is just my current reading). Insofar as the 'I am Charlie' statement can be interpreted as approval of the supposedly offending cartoons, the statement could be said to be needlessly confrontational. It's turning things into a combative us (non-Muslims) vs them (Muslims) orientation. Look no further than this very cartoon for proof of this -- this is how these Muslim hacktivists interpreted Notepad++'s 'I am Charlie' stance.
I don't think this is strictly a freedom of speech issue. I saw a good example of this in a Reddit comment: when you enrage someone by calling them racist epithets, and they strike you back ... are the rest of you going to take the racist's side by repeating the racist epithet that invoked the retaliation? Mohammad is a very sacred symbol to Muslims, re-publishing offending material (and similarly approving of the cartoons by saying "I am Charlie") is just needlessly insulting and distressing the plenty of other moderate Muslims. The more this is done, the more those moderate Muslims will feel pressured and start to feel the need to also take a position... and guess whose side they will incline towards? They're surely not going to just throw away their religion, they'll probably verge toward an extremist position.
I'm only suggesting that the 'I am Charlie' sloganeering is a little too hastily thunk, a little too unthought. Of course absolutely everyone should have the right to say such a thing, but a mature and reasonable person would practice caution before saying it. I do admit though, that it's a bit of a challenge packing a sentiment like "I don't think Charlie cartoonists should have been killed, they should have the right to say or mock anyone, but I do generally disapprove of content that's racist, antisemitic, holocaust-denying, sexist, etc." into a nice 3-5 word long slogan.
Actually a slogan I saw a lot in the Marche republicaine here in France is:
I'm Muslim, I'm Jewish, I'm Christian, I'm Atheist, I'm a Policeman, I'm Charlie
Which I think is much better and is a much more inclusive symbol.
The thing though is that Charlie Hebdo is not a publication that only published offensive cartoons about Mohammad, they published offensive cartoons about everybody and were quite equal handed in the offensiveness... It's very far from being a racist publication, on the contrary.
4 replies →
It struck me as a resonant response to the proclamation of empathy made by France's newspaper (Le Monde) after the 9/11 attacks: "Today we are all American" [http://www.history.com/topics/reaction-to-9-11].
1 reply →
I don't think the sloganeering is hastily thought, I don't think it is thought at all. It doesn't need to be. Freedom of expression ingrained in Western culture and you would find it very difficult to believe someone should be executed for expressing an opinion. Fined, jailed, maybe, but never executed.
To think of 'I am Charlie' as supporting the cartoons themselves would require you divorce the victims from their fate. Essentially, you'd have to make a leap of logic, and focus on the selfish part (i.e. they offended Muslims) and at this point you no longer deal with rational argument.
Essentially the devil's advocate argument is 'a mature and reasonable person should practice caution before saying anything that may be taken out of context by any party that is sufficiently upset', which is nigh impossible.
3 replies →
You are wrong beyond belief!
There are not a billion Muslims who would not have killed! Sure there are a few "radicals" that want all infidels beheaded but the remaining Muslims want the radicals to do the beheading.
For it says in the Qur'an Surat At-Tawbah 9:5 - And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Let me rephrase for you: convert or die.
1 reply →
A lot of people seem to feel that way. I don't get it though. Given the circumstances, you'd think everybody understands that the "je suis charlie" thing is just a gesture. And even if people intent insult when they use the phrase (to make a point, I guess) I still think that would be okay (given the circumstances).
// Funny how both you and the notepad++ people felt the need to add a disclaimer btw.
4 replies →
Why is it so many bleeding heart liberals (coming from a fairly liberal person) defend a religion that treats women as second-class citizens so much? What's in it for them besides the right to be preachy?
>how does coming to the aide and support of a group that was brutally attacked mean that they are in turn attacking the group that did the attacking?
It's in the same way an abusive parent will see a child defending the abused parent as attacking the abusive parent --when what the child is doing is defending the other parent.
I don’t understand the transition between these two lines.
You’ll also note the space before punctuation marks, which is typical of French speakers writing in English (e.g. “something !” instead of “something!”). This is not a surprise, since those who defaced the site claim to be from Tunisia, a country where most of the population speak French.
> I don’t understand the transition between these two lines.
To the rational mind, there isn't one.
To the paranoid, conspiracist, conspiracy-theory-believing mind which sees plots behind every bush and believes whole groups of people can be defined the way you define individuals, it's obvious: You're against an action done by members of a group (as they define it), so you must hate that group the way you hate the people who did the action, so you must be a member of a group which conspires to hurt their group. Note how they immediately drug Israel into the discussion; to some conspiracy theorists, Israel is Pure Evil manifest on Earth, causing endless trouble for all good and righteous human beings, so everyone who is against them must have been duped by Israel and Jews in general.
This is by no means limited to Muslim nutballs, BTW. Alex Jones frequently goes on anti-Zionist tirades, where "Zionist" is his code for "Jew" in markets where blatant antisemitism doesn't sell very well. A lot of 9/11 "truthers" also believe Israel is involved as well, because anything which makes any group of Muslims look bad must have been done by the enemies of Muslims, the Jews. Yes, that's pretty much the depth of their analysis.
Are you sure about the punctuation argument ?
I'm French, I think I can speak/write English reasonably well, but I still have to correct myself sometimes over punctuations rules, yes. The rule I was taught is "every punctuation character that has a part over the writing line has a space before it".
I've never seen that, and I have a bunch of French friends I communicate with in writing in a regular basis.
2 replies →
Slight OT but I think relevant. The latest cover of the Charlie Hebdo magazine has been published [1].
[1] http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-d...
Article translated to English : https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev...
I hope they deface http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ next, possibly improving the current design and pissing of the STALLMAN, drawing the first blood. I'll tell ya folks, when #JeSuisGnu is trending, full wrath of Stallman will be unleashed, then and only then the world will know real religious fanaticism. ISIS aint got shit on alt.religion.emacs
From the archive of the hacked site: "So you think that Islam is terrorist !"
From the explanation of the "Je suis Charlie" release note: "For this reason, Je suis Charlie, not because I endorse everything they published, but because I cherish the right to speak out freely without risk even when it offends others."
Clearly the Notepad++ team is blanket targeting Islam. /sarcasm
When will hackers learn web design beyond geocities?
I know right, we have bootstrap for a reason!
Samuel Huntington's thesis about the Clash of Civilisations has been thoroughly criticised since he originally proposed it, and yet in some ways the world is increasingly taking the shape he imagined. It would have been wise to treat it as a warning and take precautionary measurers instead; perhaps it is not too late.
It was criticized on academic and theoretical grounds. In his field (International Relations) there are hundreds if not thousands of people all producing a lot of dialogue and research relating to overarching models for how states interact. They've been at this for a very long time.
If you want a book deal, though, you ditch all of this work and just paint broad, easily-digestible strokes over everything. In this case, he's throwing social constructivist research into norms and sub/super-state influencers out the window and claiming the world runs on civilizations. You can probably think through how this might not be the case by considering the role of economics, individuals, and strategic alliances in international politics.
Some people are hard at work making it reality. Conflict is profitable in so many ways.
After reading comments about this topic, I see a pattern, people blaming religion or/and country for atrocities on human beings. We are human beings first, so trying to justify killing your fellow human being because of religion/country or for wealth suggests we have lost our way and soon we will have another world war and many more after that. Let’s learn to forgive and instead of killing lets have dialogue
JE SUIS CHARLIE is a movement that condemns killing. It is a movement for freedom and freedom of expression. Some people seem to be pissed off because the killings that started the movement were not the ones that happened before or will happen later. That's plain stupid.
Little children, watching their heroes murder people and then playing at being big men by writing on the internet. Defacing something so amateurishly that if I stuck it on my fridge people would ask if my five year old child did it. To be taken about as seriously.
Careful. These "Little Children" are showing us more and more how violent and ruthless they can be. And the arrogance of your end statement reinforces their point. Clearly English isn't their first language yet you belittle them and call them children. You said it best, big man, writing on the internet.
Careful. These "Little Children" are showing us more and more how violent and ruthless they can be.
They defaced a webpage. I don't consider that to be very violent. In a fistfight, I'll take a club with a nail in it over the awesome power of defacing a webpage every time.
I do not belittle them for a poor grasp of English (which, actually, is not very poor). I belittle them because they defaced a webpage, and with a very childish message. It says little more than "I was here".
They are childish. A child can be very violent, it's still a child. I don't think EliRivers was talking about their english, but mostly their actions.
Everyone seems to be missing the point. They list terrible atrocities that don't get even close to the same outcry from the world as the attacks in Paris.
The hackers should have also listed the Battle of Tours (732) and the Battle of Vienna (1683) where many Muslims were killed by insensitive Europeans. Where's the outcry about that?
tl;dr - You're confused about the definition of terrorism.
State terrorism, anyone?
Sure not, it is not terrorism if you get the right do define it!
1 reply →
So idiotic. Why do you need to go about defacing the site of a random text editor. I'd be pissed, but not as pissed if it were vim.org ;0
This post reminds me of the good old days of the attrition.org mirror, not sure how it's relevant for HN though.
Seems like the best way to root out terrorists is to post Mohammad everywhere and go after the people who have a problem with it. It's an easy way to root out extremists.
These people don't even understand why Mohammad didn't want his picture public..it is so people wouldn't 'WORSHIP' him.. making fun of him as "just a man" is not worshiping him.. It is in bounds.. The nut balls should attack people who make comic illustrations WORSHIPING and RESPECTING Mohammad.. Because that is what he (Mohammad) didn't want people to do.
Its just whack a doodle stuff.. Actually I think these nut balls (Violent Muslims) are disenfranchised people and really are just using the "Mohammad" thing as an excuse to go nuts.
Seems like the best way to root out terrorists is to post Mohammad everywhere and go after the people who have a problem with it. It's an easy way to root out extremists.
These people don't even understand why Mohammad didn't want his picture public..it is so people wouldn't 'WORSHIP' him.. making fun of him as "just a man" is not worshiping him.. It is in bounds.. The nut balls should attack people who make comic illustrations WORSHIPING and RESPECTING Mohammad.. Because that is what he (Mohammad) didn't want people to do.
Its just whack a doodle stuff.. Actually I think these nut balls (Violent Muslims) are disenfranchised people and really are just using the "Mohammad" thing as an excuse to go nuts.
True, France killed 10x times more ppl in Libya than those terrorists in Paris.
Religion of 'cyber'peace