72 virgins in paradise

[QweenCnut]

Do they really believe this?

Do they think that by murdering innocents they will get their reward? They took my cousin 12 years ago, I will never forget the screams of my aunt.

I hope that the French jihadists rot for eternity.

Mistress Mia I am agog that someone posted that. It was only a matter of time though wasn't it?

Meant the cartoonists minority thing

I have noticed several people saying it's not all Muslims it's just those Sunni Muslims. Are they are the same then? not proper Muslims?

The threat by Anonymous to take on extremists.

MistressMia, do you really think that, in a country with as many racial tensions as France has, a cartoon mocking a minority group, a group that has been the subject of draconian legislation by the executive (head coverings etc), of escalating street attacks and violence is the same as taking the piss out of powerful politicians who are not on the back foot to start with? Because I don't. It's all very well to say that Charlie Hebdo mocked all people equally, but the people that they mocked are not all equal.

the people that they mocked are not all equal.

They are not?

1.6 billion isn't a minority group. Also it mocks Allah who is the creator of the universe and can take care of himself.

escalating street attacks and violence was this before or after and how many Muslims died?

Oh and cruikshank in case you missed it.

I'm not a supporter of drone attacks, but do you think they are the same thing?

One of Africa's most senior church leaders has accused the West of ignoring the threat of the militant Islamist group Boko Haram, days after the reported slaughter of up to 2,000 people by the group.

They want the west to use drones, guns and bombs to kill Boko Haram, They are saying we are evil because we don't.

So do you think we should?

Cruik- i would argue that headscarves are somewhat draconian!

I posted on another thread that a friend of mine has argued that the cartoons were an example of Western cultural imperialism at work. Not so much malice but complacency: they could very easily be interpreted as racist and bigoted (especially the mothers of the Boko Haram victims one) and, given France and much of Northern Europe's fairly recent history, publishing them was very crass and thoughtless. The Muslims that those cartoons were mocking, in the ME and N Africa, are often poorer and more at risk of violence than we are, and perhaps we take that for granted. Most people would rather believe that colonialism is a thing of the past, but the Algerian war of independence only ended in the 1960s. The Ivory Coast, Cameroon and many other countries are still feeling horrendous effects from first being taken over, then being left with piecemeal infrastructures which allow corrupt figures to step into the mess left by the colonial administrations.

My friend's view was that, for these reasons, she could not say Je suis Charlie. I spent many years studying the legacy of colonialism for my doctorate and I'm inclined to agree with much of what she says. Lampooning the minted Pope in the Vatican or Sarko in the Élysée Palace is not equal to mocking poor people in the ME.

Equally, while I don't find the cartoons appropriate, I completely respect their creators' rights to publish them. I know that this was not all they did and that, by and large, they wanted their readership to question and engage with subjects like terrorism and Islamophobia. I know people who knew them and they have spoken of them as good, socially conscious people. They can't be venerated as saints (which I very much doubt they would want) and we need to ask ourselves, seriously, about how we feel about the content of some of those cartoons, but if they're guilty of any 'crime,' the punishment is ill fitting in the most brutal and disgusting way.

There isn't a headscarf ban in France as far as I know - is this new?

There's a religious symbols in schools ban which includes all symbols and a face covering ban in public.

On R4 this morning there was mention of a possible extension of "ban" to include pre-school settings ie staff there couldn't theoretically wear scarves.

If so, what they're actually getting is 72 sugared almonds.

Quite an important translation blip there.

I've not seen it yet, but will look now. Wouldn't that be already banned under the 'religious symbols in schools' law? Are they simply clarifying that pre-school is school for the purposes of the law?

but the people that they mocked are not all equal.

Oh yes they bloody well ARE equal!

People may consider themselves different because of their money, beliefs, dress, or anything else. But in a free country they can expect no different treatment or consideration than anyone else.

Peronally I think Charlie Hebdo is a rather nasty sort of rag with its cheap caricatures. But that is what we must allow in free countries, and no-one has the right to attack them physically for what they say.

Can't find it, but I don't doubt that you heard it. In any case as you say a speculation that they might make it apply to pre-school. Which they should of course to be consistent.

Apparently the symbols ban only applies to publicly funded schools which are by law secular. I hadn't realised that and it makes it even less restrictive.

Think it must have been on "Sunday" as before 8am news.

So an unemployed Algerian painter-decorator living in the banlieues who has just been beaten up by NF thugs has the same influence, power and reach as the head of the Catholic church?

The ban is not on 'head scarves' it is on the full face/body cover is that a burka or niqab? Remember the male terrorists who escaped wearing burkas?

I always get my numbers muddled up. Will try harder.

72 virgins.
76 trombones.

Someone mentioned the fact that Henry VII mother was 12 when she had him, but that was NOT normal. It was disapproved of at the time because they were aware that below a certain age girls could become pregnant but pregnancy and birth were too dangerous for their small bodies. A fact which is evidenced by the fact that the birth damaged her so much she never had another child despite marrying 4 times.

And as far as I'm aware Margaret Beaufort's parents didn't start their own religion or hold themselves up as a moral example.

Charlie Hebdo is essential to France. Not because people generally agree with the different messages it puts out. It's because it puts out different messages and people don't agree. It's also because they are allowed to provoke disagreements. They are free because they are journalists and if they want to mock anyone , then they can and will . That includes non-extremists and extremists. That is Charlie Hebdo.
For France it is the essence of democracy.

And women deciding what clothes they want to wear isn't, I guess.

And what's in it for the virgins?