16 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseyou seem to think that i have some partisan bias to the British government because I am British. Let me assure you i don't. If Germany had won I am quite sure that those responsible for the bombing Dresden would have been convicted of a war crime.
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-dresden
It says here 800 RAF bombers hit Dresdin. They certainly did that out of spite but it was BRITAIN that did that bombing not the US.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHad Germany been in any position to win the Second World War the Bombing of Dresden wouldn't have happened. It was part of the invasion push, it wasn't part of the strategic bombing campaign.
you seem to think that i have some partisan bias to the British government because I am British. Let me assure you i don't. If Germany had won I am quite sure that those responsible for the bombing Dresden would have been convicted of a war crime.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatLike I said, I accept that you do not think the magazine was aiming to insult Muslims. Perhaps you are saying it tongue in cheek, but you've stated it a couple of times, and you've not explained it, so let's leave it at that.
For clarification: I don't think CH is insulting Muslims. I think Muslims feel they are being insulted. It is a case of victim playing, which is what a lot of theists do, luckily most of whom do not do much more than b*tch and moan about it in forums.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatSo, while you think CH didn't and doesn't want to insult Muslims, if you yourself would try to be as insulting as possible, something like 'Mohammed being depicted as a gay man watching porn while smoking weed'. In what way would that be "satire"?
Yes, I think the satire should continue and harsher if possible. I am not a satirist, so I cannot answer your question. I could say something about Mohammed being depicted as a gay man watching porn while smoking weed - that would probably be quite insulting - but if you really want to know the answer you'd have to ask many Muslims about their idea of the harshest possible satire.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatI have said several times that I support the right of CH to do what it does. Despite the fact that they were gunned down in cold blood and the story has spread around the globe, I don't think they are impressive or effective partners to people trying to secure freedom of speech in parts of the world where it is not yet recognized or respected. I think they have set the cause back by years. If the insults are now harsher and harsher, and if this makes France a better and better place in your view, then that's OK. I understand.
Do you think magazines like CH have the right to do this, but ideally shouldn't?
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatUnlike the cartoons that European magazines publish on occasion, Life of Brian was extremely clever and funny and was embraced by every Christian I have met and still is. I walked past 3 or 4 demonstrators outside a cinema in Rickmansworth went I saw it in 1979; I was a Christian at the time. I was not insulted. I think Life of Brian was made to satirize the cult of personality. It was thought provoking. It changed what could be said, in its own way. If it caused any rather agnostic Christians to take a look at themselves, that's good. I support Monty Python's right to make it.
Do you think that Life of Brian was made to insult?
Maybe you see some satire in CH's cartoons. I don't really see what it is. Personally, I think some cleverness is required to further the cause of freedom of speech. Much more effective. But this is irrelevant to the question of Europeans' rights. I support CH's right to publish the cartoons ~ but like Suzianne suggested, it's a pity I have to rally behind purveyors of such abject trash in order to demonstrate my firm support for freedom of speech.
People here in Indonesia couldn't publish those cartoons. It's against the law. I don't think it's a good law. But repealing this law will probably be harder now and take longer.