Loki Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Interesting idea, and I'm sure it's true to some extent in terms of Al Qaeda leaders using it as a political tool. Â But the huge rallies that periodically happen in Islamic cities over cartoon depictions of the Prophet suggest that there's a lot of rank and file Muslims who DO find them offensive. Â Â It's the depiction of Mohammed as much as the satire that offends, as Islam is a fairly iconoclastic religion. Â Hence Muslim invaders over the years destroying works of art that depict human figures in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 8, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2015 Louch I think I kinda get what you're driving at but you've picked the wrong incident to use to make your point. Â This was definitely a clear cut act of terrorism. Â It was also terrorism the times white folk did it and the media didn't call it that, and other times it wasn't terrorism times when brown folk did it even though the media said it was. Â It's obviously become a really loaded word in the last ten or so years, but this time it definitely was terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted January 8, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'm sorry if it's self indulgent for me to post this without adding anything to the discussion but I need to say this whole incident has really hit me hard. I'm rarely very emotionally affected by news stories (unless they involve endangered animals or rainforests/natural beauty being destroyed) but I'm completely devastated by this. When it's totally random innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time being hurt by this kind of event it's sad and I feel sorry for them being caught up in it, but the fact that these people were targeted specifically for something as innocuous as being cartoonists is even more tragic to me. I can't believe it, people who's only crime was making people laugh being senselessly murdered for it. Absolutely gutted (and not just because I'm a cartoonist either) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron&Hermione Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yeah, this is terrorism, not sure why anyone would want to take the other side of the fence here? As it makes no sense to in the particular incident. If it looks like a duck... Â France seemed to be going more right recently, I get the sense this will open the floodgates for them to be even more so in the near future. Â Tina Fey had a good quote about not standing down from free speech. Which is true but at the same time, I completely understand why some subjects aren't made fun of as much. Who the fuck wants to get murdered over the prophet Muhammed not being given a table at a TGI Fridays sketch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Bifkin Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Interesting idea, and I'm sure it's true to some extent in terms of Al Qaeda leaders using it as a political tool. Â But the huge rallies that periodically happen in Islamic cities over cartoon depictions of the Prophet suggest that there's a lot of rank and file Muslims who DO find them offensive. Â Â It's the depiction of Mohammed as much as the satire that offends, as Islam is a fairly iconoclastic religion. Â Hence Muslim invaders over the years destroying works of art that depict human figures in general. Â Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with the author as this has been going on throughout the ages, long before the "war on terror" became so sophisticated and confusing. Â It made me think though. Your Britain Firsts or your UKIPees are much more effective foot soldiers for Islamic extremists than your average Muslim. Wouldn't it be mind blowing if a group like Britain First was actually being run by Islamic radicals? It's not beyond comprehension. Do we even know who is really behind them? It would be a hilarious irony if all those Facebook mongs were indirectly funding and spreading the agenda of the very people they claim to be against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just because it's your definition of terrorism, through what u read in the paper, and see on tv described as terrorism , doesn't make it terrorism. Dictionary definitions are there for a reason - because thats what the words really mean!! Â By killing those cartoonists who were responsible for the magazine they have basically sent out a message that this is what happens when you go down that road. Â Intimidation through the use of terror. Â Terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted January 8, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 8, 2015 Â Just because it's your definition of terrorism, through what u read in the paper, and see on tv described as terrorism , doesn't make it terrorism. Dictionary definitions are there for a reason - because thats what the words really mean!! Â Â Dictionary definitions are based on recorded usage, with newspapers among the major sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Â Â Just because it's your definition of terrorism, through what u read in the paper, and see on tv described as terrorism , doesn't make it terrorism. Dictionary definitions are there for a reason - because thats what the words really mean!! Â At one point according to the dictionary the word gay simply meant to be happy. and the word literally hadn't been bastardised by Jamie Twatting Redknapp. Times change, the usage of words change, the dictionary reflects usage rather than commands it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Does "literally" have an official definition of "not literally" now in any dictionaries? It probably should, given how many idiots use it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey_Piste Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Does "literally" have an official definition of "not literally" now in any dictionaries? It probably should, given how many idiots use it that way.Literally does now mean both literally and figuratively. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23729570 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted January 8, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted January 8, 2015  Is this not the biggest attack on our freedom that we've had in our lifetimes? It's a fucking madness.  Surely that's the GCHQ/Snowden revelations? Finding out everyone’s communications are intercepted & kept. That mobiles & laptops are used as open listening/snooping devices on a mass scale is a farbigger attack on our freedoms than 2 nutters killing a dozen people.    The scale isn't even comparable   I'm more surprised that anyone DIDN'T think mobile and internet communications data isn't intercepted and kept by the powers that be. How did people think the security services captured terrorists, criminals and spied on foreign governments? What exactly did people think GCHQ do all day? It's not even just security services, commercial companies intercept peoples data 24/7, keep it and then sell it on to the highest bidder and no one seems to kick off about that. I was more surprised by peoples ignorant reactions to the Snowden revelations than the revelations themselves. The security services in every developed country does the same and I guarantee you that right now the French security services are going through all kinds of intercepted emails and telephone data in an attempt to find the fucking nutcases who committed this awful crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, that was the point I was making Pity, because of the misuse becoming so widespread the dictionary has changed the definition to reflect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'd have gone to a vigil after that tragedy, if there'd been one. World's going to shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, sadly it literally has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I refuse to accept that change to the dictionary, sorry. Â Just because a lot of people get something wrong, doesn't make it right. Â We now have no word for what "literally" is meant to mean. Â In the same way, if we changed the word "unique" to mean "unusual" which is how a lot of people use it, we'd then have to word for "unique". Â A bad call by the OED, who are increasingly jumping on fads just to get press. Â They'll put it back in a couple of years. Â Off topic I know, but Christ this annoys me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.