What's new

Muslims attack French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo.

I suggest this issue should be broadcasted on CNN and BBC and NDTV along with a staged video like ghaddafi where one person will be shouting "Allah hu-akbar" for no reason while killing the leader just to let viewers know that the killers are muslim...

moral : it takes more than Allah hu akbar to become a muslim ..
 
.
Well next time, the fuckin' journalists will know. I am tired of journalist ****.
 
.
Good job Muslim guys, i cherish you have guts to teach these bastards a good lesson. I wish the guy beaten up would rub heated creams on the blows for many days with the help of his family. Well done.
what is your point here ? kindly explain because i did not get it what you want to say
 
.
what is your point here ? kindly explain because i did not get it what you want to say

''Medico- Legally doc'' ?

I am an autonomous person. No one has right to offend my religion. I have few time tested religious beliefs, empirical religious practices and emotional attachments to many living or non living religious personalities. If someone without provocation is going to offend my beliefs then there is a probability that i may suffer adverse mental effects, feel chocked, and it may also become an organic cause to a physical illness.

Unfortunately if i am living in a country were i am helpless to evoke my right to justice following such an assault or i doesn't have trust in the system (I observed during my span). Especially under such circumstance where a deliberate machinery is working overwhelming against my religion then i would have on other option like those guys did, to defend my psychological/mental, spiritual and ultimately physical well being.

Furthermore for a media fed Joe its very easy to see things black and white but such con artists who dare to offend other's religion most probably do not operate for light hearted comedy (satirical) as they pretend but are bigoted missionaries of their own beliefs pretending ultra liberal on streets but are drawing room hard core chauvinists amongst likewise.
 
.
''Medico- Legally doc'' ?

I am an autonomous person. No one has right to offend my religion. I have few time tested religious beliefs, empirical religious practices and emotional attachments to many living or non living religious personalities. If someone without provocation is going to offend my beliefs then there is a probability that i may suffer adverse mental effects, feel chocked, and it may also become an organic cause to a physical illness.

Unfortunately if i am living in a country were i am helpless to evoke my right to justice following such an assault or i doesn't have trust in the system (I observed during my span). Especially under such circumstance where a deliberate machinery is working overwhelming against my religion then i would have on other option like those guys did, to defend my psychological/mental, spiritual and ultimately physical well being.

Furthermore for a media fed Joe its very easy to see things black and white but such con artists who dare to offend other's religion most probably do not operate for light hearted comedy (satirical) as they pretend but are bigoted missionaries of their own beliefs pretending ultra liberal on streets but are drawing room hard core chauvinists amongst likewise.
The problem is, if you start defending your psychological and physical well-being by taking up arms, contrary to the laws of the land, then its a battle you will always lose. The drawing room personas are there for you to incite, but is it too worthy a cause to an individual to take up arms, as opposed to a society through a collective mechanism of protest to bring out the hidden subtleties of chauvinism out in the open ? Any armed revolt is always a recipe for disaster. As long as the nuances of free speech is justified by being equally spiteful of all communities, there is no chance that a matter so intense (for lack of a better word) to the identity of an individual can either be retracted by armed revolt or by any form of non-violent protest. It should involve the complete society as a whole that represents the ethos of that nation.
 
.
I ask the question AGAIN ; which Idiots in my community in a foreign land have driven planes into buildings or have kept bombs in cars to cause civilian destruction ? You will not find even a handful of examples of someone doing so. Why ? THAT is the question you need to answer yourself.

Silly analogy. Hindus are setting off bombs everywhere in India. The only reason it's not happening currently in the us for example is because India isn't invaded. The last time India was occupied by a western power was probably around 1946. Cases like Udham Singh who shot and killed O'Dwyer had occurred and there was no large scale immigration of Indians into the west at that point.

The IRA (or ETA) would be other example. Groups such as these form when they perceive injustices to be perpetrated against them (whether they really have been or not is irrelevant).
 
.
Silly analogy. Hindus are setting off bombs everywhere in India. The only reason it's not happening currently in the us for example is because India isn't invaded. The last time India was occupied by a western power was probably around 1946. Cases like Udham Singh who shot and killed O'Dwyer had occurred and there was no large scale immigration of Indians into the west at that point.
Faulty and incorrect reasoning. China invaded India in 1962 ; Do you see Hindus setting off bombs in China or exploding planes over China ? Similarly, Japan invaded parts of British India during WW2. Do Hindus go around bombing Japan ? Or for that matter, let's take the case of Japan invading China in WW2 ? Does China terrorize the Japanese mainland for doing so ? It does not. Let us get to the root of problem for all the examples. It is the inherent intolerance embedded into the religion which is causing such wanton "an eye for an eye" cycle of mayhem and destruction.
 
.
Is it also possible for a satirical newspaper in France to make fun of Jews of Holocaust too? What about denying it outright? Just for fun of it I mean.
 
.
roadrunner,

yaar yeh doosray mulk may ja ker kiya larain gay , while their history is to wellcome the invaders with open arms

GHAIRAT OR HAMMIAT SAY UN KO KIYA LAINA DAINA

TARIQ
 
.
There's actually no evidence these two individuals were Muslim. It could have been anyone.

If it was Muslims, then it's no different to what French Christian extremists do. When the Last Temptation of Christ was shown this occurred.

"On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned"
 
.
Silly analogy. Hindus are setting off bombs everywhere in India. The only reason it's not happening currently in the us for example is because India isn't invaded. The last time India was occupied by a western power was probably around 1946. Cases like Udham Singh who shot and killed O'Dwyer had occurred and there was no large scale immigration of Indians into the west at that point.

The IRA (or ETA) would be other example. Groups such as these form when they perceive injustices to be perpetrated against them (whether they really have been or not is irrelevant).

Udham singh killed the guy who was responsible for killing hundreds of people in Amritsar. The prime difference here is that Udham singh did not kill even a single innocent civilian present near by. ring any bells?
 
.
Faulty and incorrect reasoning. China invaded India in 1962 ; Do you see Hindus setting off bombs in China or exploding planes over China ? Similarly, Japan invaded parts of British India during WW2. Do Hindus go around bombing Japan ? Or for that matter, let's take the case of Japan invading China in WW2 ? Does China terrorize the Japanese mainland for doing so ? It does not. Let us get to the root of problem for all the examples. It is the inherent intolerance embedded into the religion which is causing such wanton "an eye for an eye" cycle of mayhem and destruction.

Those countries don't let Indians in. So it's not possible.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

Udham singh killed the guy who was responsible for killing hundreds of people in Amritsar. The prime difference here is that Udham singh did not kill even a single innocent civilian present near by. ring any bells?

So you're justifying terrorism. Are you a terrorist?
 
.
roadrunner,

yaar yeh doosray mulk may ja ker kiya larain gay , while their history is to wellcome the invaders with open arms

GHAIRAT OR HAMMIAT SAY UN KO KIYA LAINA DAINA

TARIQ

But you should respect the Sikhs,Rajputs n marathas.. among others....they werent submissive ...
 
.
Interestingly not a single newspaper says "Christians burn down Paris Cinema in protest of showing Last Temptation of Christ"

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

But you should respect the Sikhs,Rajputs n marathas.. among others....they werent submissive ...

The Sikhs surely were the most submissive.
 
.
Those countries don't let Indians in. So it's not possible.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------



So you're justifying terrorism. Are you a terrorist?

Terrorism is to kill innocent people. Killing hitler,laden,kasab etc is not terrorism. its called justice.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

Interestingly not a single newspaper says "Christians burn down Paris Cinema in protest of showing Last Temptation of Christ"

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------



The Sikhs surely were the most submissive.


Precisely why their capital was Lahore.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom