Manhunt after two Swedish people shot dead in Brussels

[pierrethesnack]

I understand that, I appreciate that you atleast acknowledge that there is an incosistency because of the history Jews have had in Europe and then also acknowledge we as Muslims are not wrong to call out that inconsistency and ask for better treatment in that sense. The rhetoric against us isn't getting any better, there is more and more negative sentiment against Muslims and it will bubble over to another Christchurch type event soon enough. How many events like that should take place before our arguments have a better footing?

The inconsistency is definitely there, there is no denying it. But I don't agree that that means we should extend that protection to Islam. I hear what you're saying about more and more negative sentiment, and I hope we never get to that point, but what you seem to be asking is that we give up the right to mock and satirize religion to prevent something like this from happening to Muslims, and that is a logic me and I assume many others just can't go along with. These rights were won bit by bit over centuries, and to give them up so we don't offend yet another major world religion (after being under the yoke of another one for so long) is just a too bitter pill to swallow. In my case that is not because I thrive on seeing Islam mocked any more than I do Christianity, but a trade off where we have to give up an essential part of what defines us as a civilization in response to Muslims warning about increased islamophobia just will not do.

I guess you might strongly disagree strongly with that reasoning, but I'll consider us managing a post and reply without attacking each other a great success in this thread

 

[M16Red]

"These people" - many western europeans
"Become just like them" - parrot their values and their interpretations of values

@hasanejaz88 made a really good point how Quran burning is an act of hate being carried out by right wing extremists, and people are jumping down his throat drawing links, assuming he's justifying some murderous cnut.

It's like we can't point out it's an act of hate, because some violent criminals will/have reacted in a violent criminal way. We're not allowed the opinion that it's an act of hate, without being tainted by someone elses crimes.

I'm done with that BS, been experiencing it since i was a teenager. No apologies to anyone for anyone elses actions.

Beautifully put double standard, you don't want to have western values. But later you want westerns to (like me) respect a religious book becuase burning a book in that country is not illegal (not that I'd burn any book)

Then you make swiping statement that all westerners have the same values, if your born in a western country - bad news your a westerner, so with that - we do not have the same values and that is fine.

 

[Tincanalley]

Savagery and lunacy. Obviously no justification for such an act.

 

[Sky1981]

No you would not, but i pretty sure you would get violated if you f.ex took a doll of virgin Mary outside the Vatican at mass and violated it.
And i am pretty sure i would also get beaten up, maybe even shot, if i burned the Bible at some churches i f.ex Texas.

And i agree with the bolded part. And we should fight it. My point is not all that we should not.

You would be escorted to the police station, for your own safety or at the very least for the greater peace, and rightly so.

 

[BootsyCollins]

You would be escorted to the police station, for your own safety or at the very least for the greater peace, and rightly so.

So i would not be allowed to do it?
Or do you mean after when people started getting violent against me?

 

[Godfather]

I understand that, I appreciate that you atleast acknowledge that there is an incosistency because of the history Jews have had in Europe and then also acknowledge we as Muslims are not wrong to call out that inconsistency and ask for better treatment in that sense. The rhetoric against us isn't getting any better, there is more and more negative sentiment against Muslims and it will bubble over to another Christchurch type event soon enough. How many events like that should take place before our arguments have a better footing?

So because an absolute lunatic went havoc in that Christchurch event, satire about Islam should be banned? That's the same argument as wanting Islam banned because some freaks blew themselves up in the name of Muhammad.

The day I see a ban on any form of criticism or satire towards any religion is the day I declare Europe's civilisation and what it has fought for the last hundred years dead. It would be a major set back to the days before the enlightenment and secularity. Something Europe had to fight long and hard for. So no thanks. And if some religious fundamentalists feel hurt or provoked by that so be it. A small and ignorable aftertaste.

 

[SilentWitness]

So because an absolute lunatic went havoc in that Christchurch event, satire about Islam should be banned? That's the same argument as wanting Islam banned because some freaks blew themselves up in the name of Muhammad.

Because of abuse and attacks against muslims in general. Off-hand comments about you blowing yourself up because you're a muslim aren't funny, they're offensive and we have seen people be held account to those comments that aren't 'satirists' so why should it be different?

I think as always in these arguments we perhaps take our own experiences into account. I've been in situations multiple times where my wife has been abused for being muslim after situations like these and it's not nice. It breaks people.

 

[Godfather]

"These people" - many western europeans
"Become just like them" - parrot their values and their interpretations of values

@hasanejaz88 made a really good point how Quran burning is an act of hate being carried out by right wing extremists, and people are jumping down his throat drawing links, assuming he's justifying some murderous cnut.

I'm done with that BS, been experiencing it since i was a teenager.

Bemoaning values you can't wrap your head around and then crying wolf if you get criticised for that.

 

[Godfather]

Because of abuse and attacks against muslims in general. Off-hand comments about you blowing yourself up because you're a muslim aren't funny, they're offensive and we have seen people be held account to those comments that aren't 'satirists' so why should it be different?

I think as always in these arguments we perhaps take our own experiences into account. I've been in situations multiple times where my wife has been abused for being muslim after situations like these and it's not nice. It breaks people.

There's a difference between pure racism and satire towards a religion. This has been done to death. We shouldn't let terrorists, racists and murderers set the tone to what is acceptable criticsm or not. Racism towards muslims is a huge issue I'm not denying that. But as are calls to ban satire towards religion. This should never ever happen and I dread the day something like that is seriously talked about as it won't stop there. Europe over many many years has worked it's way to a secular and enlightened civilisation. We better keep it that way.

 

[SilentWitness]

There's a difference between pure racism and satire towards a religion. This has been done to death. We shouldn't let terrorists, racists and murderers set the tone to what is acceptable criticsm or not. Racism towards muslims is a huge issue I'm not denying that. But as are calls to ban satire towards religion. This should never ever happen and I dread the day something like that is seriously talked about as it won't stop there.

I wouldn't ban satire towards religion but there are examples which cross the boundaries of satire into hate speech, just as I wouldn't ban someone who opposed Islam but there are boundaries such as burning the Qur'an.

 

[Godfather]

I wouldn't ban satire towards religion but there are examples which cross the boundaries of satire into hate speech, just as I wouldn't ban someone who opposed Islam but there are boundaries such as burning the Qur'an.

Satire should always be allowed. If it crosses a line it can be criticised but never banned. Simply for the fact that this line is drawn differently by each and everyone of us. As an example: I don't see anything wrong about what Charlie Hebdo did. Nothing at all. I'm sure many see that differently. That's fine. But it's satire and should be legal. If you don't like what they do, write them a letter or simply ignore their comics.

What is important though is that it still is satire. Drawing Jews with long noses and claws (as @hasanejaz88 mentioned) simply isn't satire. Where's the political or religious backround and criticism that satire always aspires? Drawing Muhammad with a bomb instead of a hat is fair enough considering the events happening "in the name of God". It's the same with some glorious comics from an Austrian and sadly already dead satirist that showed priests in questionable situations with children. That's clearly satire with what is actually happening.

 

[hasanejaz88]

So because an absolute lunatic went havoc in that Christchurch event, satire about Islam should be banned? That's the same argument as wanting Islam banned because some freaks blew themselves up in the name of Muhammad.

The day I see a ban on any form of criticism or satire towards any religion is the day I declare Europe's civilisation and what it has fought for the last hundred years dead. It would be a major set back to the days before the enlightenment and secularity. Something Europe had to fight long and hard for. So no thanks. And if some religious fundamentalists feel hurt or provoked by that so be it. A small and ignorable aftertaste.

Man... I don't even know where to start here... So stereotyping a whole group of people in a way used in the Second Reich now is the same as making fun of a fictive character? Jesus has been made fun thousands of times. I'm sure Moses too. So why not making fun of "Prophet Muhammad"? People getting offended by that are the real problem.

Given that your think making satire cartoons about hook nose Jews should not be allowed, I suppose you can declare European civilisation dead?

 

[Godfather]

Given that your think making satire cartoons about hook nose Jews should not be allowed, I suppose you can declare European civilisation dead?

That's not satire, see my post above. If you think it is than you don't understand the meaning of satire. By the way: I never said it shouldn't be allowed. I said it's not comparable to satire about a religion. It stereotypes the looks about a community in a way the Second Reich did. Very clever. This crying wolf bullshit everytime a certain religion is criticised or made fun of is so incredibly tiring.

 

[A-man]

Isn't organised crime a serious problem in Belgium and Netherlands? I'd say he probably got it through them.

Could be, but just thinking that you still need some connections to get a weapon like that.

 

[BootsyCollins]

That's not satire, see my post above. If you think it is than you don't understand the meaning of satire. By the way: I never said it shouldn't be allowed. I said it's not comparable to satire about a religion. It stereotypes the looks about a community in a way the Second Reich did. Very clever. This crying wolf bullshit everytime a certain religion is criticised or made fun of is so incredibly tiring.

Just out of curiosity, so dont take this the wrong way.
What do you think about this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67122609

 

[Godfather]

Just out of curiosity, so dont take this the wrong way.
What do you think about this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67122609

It's bullshit but it's the decision from the CEO of a paper company. It's a shame and obviously a shitty reason but he has every right to sack employees (although if I was the lawyer of that guy I'd have a look into that). So I don't know where you are going with that?

 

[BootsyCollins]

It's bullshit but it's the decision from the CEO of a paper company. It's a shame and obviously a shitty reason but he has every right to sack employees (although if I was the lawyer of that guy I'd have a look into that). So I don't know where you are going with that?

Nowhere, i was just wondering what you thought as it happened recently and is (loosely) related to what was being discussed in this thread.

 

[Maagge]

I heard an argument the other day from a colleague with Iranian-Danish friends. Her friends aren't happy about the impending limits to freedom of expression (triggered by Qur'an burning) here in Denmark. Basically they feel that a regime (or a regime like it) they protested by burning the Qur'an in Iran is now reaching into their new home country. Which I totally get. Imagine fleeing from a totalitarian regime and now they're still making the laws in your new country?

 

[GazTheLegend]

Nowhere, i was just wondering what you thought as it happened recently and is (loosely) related to what was being discussed in this thread.

Firing someone for something antisemitic seems to me a lot less final than -murdering them-.

 

[BootsyCollins]

Firing someone for something antisemitic seems to me a lot less final than -murdering them-.

Yes?

I was wondering what the poster thought about the firing because he was in a discussion about satire and hate-speech.
At no point at all did i compare fire someone and killing someone.

 

[GazTheLegend]

Yes?

I was wondering what the poster thought about the firing because he was in a discussion about satire and hate-speech.
At no point at all did i compare fire someone and killing someone.

You are, without a doubt in my mind, sealioning here. I'm no longer gonna engage, and it's far past time for me to evacuate this thread. Goodluck and godspeed to all that remain.

 

[BootsyCollins]

You are, without a doubt in my mind, sealioning here. I'm no longer gonna engage, and it's far past time for me to evacuate this thread. Goodluck and godspeed to all that remain.

I had to look up what that means as i have never heard it before, and that has not at all been my intention.

I asked one question what someone thought of someone and now i am, without any doubt in your mind, trolling or harassing them. And after claiming that saying you are not going to respond anymore.

But, have a nice day then i guess.

 

[Moby]

No i would not like that, i dont think they would like that either, ergo they would not do it.
They should choose other ways to show their dissatifaction with a religion instead of doing it the most dissrespectfull way they csn imagine that also angers the millions of people who only want to practice their religion in peace.

The problem is millions getting angered and turning it into violence over a book. That's unacceptable in a civilized society and it's those people who need to learn how to behave.

 

[BootsyCollins]

The problem is millions getting angered and turning it into violence over a book. That's unacceptable in a civilized society and it's those people who need to learn how to behave.

Yes i also think so.
And at the same time i think its wrong to burn a book just to anger/humiliate someone.

 

[Moby]

Yes i also think so.
And at the same time i think its wrong to burn a book just to anger/humiliate someone.

People burning the book aren't the ones showing anger.

 

[BootsyCollins]

People burning the book aren't the ones showing anger.

I did not say that, i said they did it just to anger someone else.

 

[Moby]

I did not say that, i said they did it just to anger someone else.

They burned a book. Any anger or related or reaction is solely done by others.

 

[NotThatSoph]

That's not satire, see my post above. If you think it is than you don't understand the meaning of satire. By the way: I never said it shouldn't be allowed. I said it's not comparable to satire about a religion. It stereotypes the looks about a community in a way the Second Reich did. Very clever. This crying wolf bullshit everytime a certain religion is criticised or made fun of is so incredibly tiring.

A cartoon of a Jewish person with a big nose alone wouldn't be satire, but originally the scenario you were presented with included money. This, for instance, is clear satire:

It'a a WW2 era charicature, the caption says "these poor Jews".

 

[BootsyCollins]

They burned a book. Any anger or related or reaction is solely done by others.

Ok, i have been accused of sealioning earlier so will try to avoid sounding like thats what i am doing.

They did not just burn a book, they burned a book that is holy to these people.
To get angry over it is fine imo, its when that anger turns into violence and similar the problem starts.

Many people on this forum would get angry if someone took a Manchester United shirt and put it on fire, but its just a shirt.
Also many people would not care, as its just a shirt. Still we love it when players says things like "this is more than just a shirt" or "Manchester United is more than just a football club"

To diminish something holy as "just a book" is not helping at all imo, so even if i think violence and terror of course is completely unacceptable as an reaction, i also think its stupid and wrong to burn a something holy to other people. Especially when its other and way better and more constructive ways to show you dissatisfaction with something

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Ok, i have been accused of sealioning earlier so will try to avoid sounding like thats what i am doing.

They did not just burn a book, they burned a book that is holy to these people.
To get angry over it is fine imo, its when that anger turns into violence and similar the problem starts.

Many people on this forum would get angry if someone took a Manchester United shirt and put it on fire, but its just a shirt.
Also many people would not care, as its just a shirt. Still we love it when players says things like "this is more than just a shirt" or "Manchester United is more than just a football club"

To diminish something holy as "just a book" is not helping at all imo, so even if i think violence and terror of course is completely unacceptable as an reaction, i also think its stupid and wrong to burn a something holy to other people. Especially when its other and way better and more constructive ways to show you dissatisfaction with something

Burning (or even letting touch the ground) a national flag is another example of people getting irrationally angry about the treatment of inanimate objects. They're still being irrational though. With a range of irrational responses from mild irritation, all the way through to killing someone. You can guess which end of that irrational spectrum is being discussed in this thread...

 

[BootsyCollins]

Burning (or even letting touch the ground) a national flag is another example of people getting irrationally angry about the treatment of inanimate objects. They're still being irrational though. With a range of irrational responses from mild irritation, all the way through to killing someone. You can guess which end of that irrational spectrum is being discussed in this thread...

Yes thats right, this thread is about two Swedes being horribly murdered by an extremist for the reason they was Swedish.
I should have more of an understanding thats that the starting point when people write in this thread, and maybe the discussion should be in another thread.

I just have this feeling that i am being misunderstood as someone who blames the people burning books for the murders, so i kept going trying to explain what i mean.

 

[Moby]

They did not just burn a book, they burned a book that is holy to these people.
To get angry over it is fine imo, its when that anger turns into violence and similar the problem starts.

That's my point as well, the anger is publicly displayed and turned into violent actions so it is 100% not fine or acceptable behavior by any means.

To diminish something holy as "just a book" is not helping at all imo, so even if i think violence and terror of course is completely unacceptable as an reaction, i also think its stupid and wrong to burn a something holy to other people

The only fact is that it is an inanimate object of insignificant value (physically speaking), a group of people attaching arbitrary meaning or imagination to it isn't gonna provide grounds to add anything more than it being a piece of paper and paper gets destroyed all the time.

It's the same for any other things, flag, clothes, whatever else. I cannot form a group that loves green color and start shouting on the streets if I see someone tear up a green color cloth and threaten people's lives over it because it is "holy to me" or whatever other form of lunacy that comes with this.

 

[BootsyCollins]

That's my point as well, the anger is publicly displayed and turned into violent actions so it is 100% not fine or acceptable behavior by any means.


The only fact is that it is an inanimate object of insignificant value (physically speaking), a group of people attaching arbitrary meaning or imagination to it isn't gonna provide grounds to add anything more than it being a piece of paper and paper gets destroyed all the time.

It's the same for any other things, flag, clothes, whatever else. I cannot form a group that loves green color and start shouting on the streets if I see someone tear up a green color cloth and threaten people's lives over it because it is "holy to me" or whatever other form of lunacy that comes with this.

You can form the club, but you should not threaten peoples lives over if of course. As i dont think religious people should threaten, and act, on peoples lives. I have been clear on that from the beginning.

What i am saying is if the person who teared up the cloth did so only to provoke and humiliate you because he did not agree with your colorloving, that would only be stupid and counterproductive in their mission of showing you green was wrong.

As i said in a post above, not directed to you, i should have considered the premise of this thread more before derailing it in to this discussion i think. Two people were horrible murdered by a religious extremist and i understand that thats the starting point when people discuss the reaction to f.ex burning books in this thread specifically.

 

[Moby]

What i am saying is if the person who teared up the cloth did so only to provoke and humiliate you because he did not agree with your colorloving, that would only be stupid and counterproductive in their mission of showing you green was wrong.

Or I can see that as them hurting a piece of cloth which means nothing more than what it is, and don't take it as personal humiliation or offense of any kind and keep my reaction rational to the action. It's not tough.

 

[Gehrman]

I am not familar with the swedish people burning Korans. The danish one, Rasmus Paludan, is a far right wing troll and prick. But lets say that an atheist, woman, gay or whatever who have experienced the worst of Islamic oppression to the extent that their lives were at risk and fled to liberal countries. We have one such artist in Denmark. Do you think it should be illegal in secular democracies to burn a piece of scipture that has caused so much hurt to them and so many other people around the world? Muslims like to boast that they are soon the biggest religion in the world. Its hardly an underdog religion. And the most oppresive and backwards in the world atm and one of the bloodiest in history.

take @calodo2003

He makes non stop posts about bat shit crazy malignant Christians in the US. Is he the vilest biggot or do we apply a different standard to Islam?

 

[BootsyCollins]

Or I can see that as them hurting a piece of cloth which means nothing more than what it is, and don't take it as personal humiliation or offense of any kind and keep my reaction rational to the action. It's not tough.

Yes you could. And you should.
In the same way as the other person could not burn the cloth, because why would he?

Also, its not just a piece of cloth/book to them. Many of them have been told all their life that this is one of the most important symbols to their beliefs and also have been treated differently/badly because of that belief. Its easy for us to say "you should not care" but that obviously dont work.

And i am not saying it should be illegal to burn a religious book, i am only asking why would anyone do it? Whats the point of it? what positive comes out of it? And all i get back is similar to "its just a book".

 

[Moby]

In the same way as the other person could not burn the cloth, because why would he?

Why would someone destroy a day to day insignificant object that holds little to no material value? What's the big deal in that? You don't react to someone folding any normal paper and putting in the bin right? So why do you need to react differently in this case?

 

[BootsyCollins]

I am not familar with the swedish people burning Korans. The danish one, Rasmus Paludan, is a far right wing troll and prick. But lets say that an atheist, woman, gay or whatever who have experienced the worst of Islamic oppression to the extent that their lives were at risk and fled to liberal countries. We have one such artist in Denmark. Do you think it should be illegal in secular democracies to burn a piece of scipture that has caused so much hurt to them and so many other people around the world?

No, it should be legal.

Paludan is as you say, an idiot.

The other guy burning it most of the times is an Iraqi(i think) Christian who cites some of the reason you say there.

Why would someone destroy a day to day insignificant object that holds little to no material value? What's the big deal in that? You don't react to someone folding any normal paper and putting in the bin right? So why do you need to react differently in this case?

I dont react to it, as it dont offend me. I just dont get why someone would do it?

Also, as i have said in my post, but you took away :
"Also, its not just a piece of cloth/book to them. Many of them have been told all their life that this is one of the most important symbols to their beliefs and also have been treated differently/badly because of that belief. Its easy for us to say "you should not care" but that obviously dont work. "

 

[Moby]

No, it should be legal.

Paludan is as you say, an idiot.

The other guy burning it most of the times is an Iraqi(i think) Christian who cites some of the reason you say there.


I dont react to it, as it dont offend me. I just dont get why someone would do it?

Also, as i have said in my post, but you took away :
"Also, its not just a piece of cloth/book to them. Many of them have been told all their life that this is one of the most important symbols to their beliefs and also have been treated differently/badly because of that belief. Its easy for us to say "you should not care" but that obviously dont work. "

My reply wasn't posted but it's easy to say because that's the rational line of thought. Irrational beliefs and brainwashing doesn't justify irrational behaviour let alone providing any grounds for accepting it and forcing those irrational beliefs down others throats. If you wanna believe in fairy tales fine, don't expect others to be similarly crazy about something that again, factually, is a piece of paper and nothing more.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

Yes thats right, this thread is about two Swedes being horribly murdered by an extremist for the reason they was Swedish.
I should have more of an understanding thats that the starting point when people write in this thread, and maybe the discussion should be in another thread.

I just have this feeling that i am being misunderstood as someone who blames the people burning books for the murders, so i kept going trying to explain what i mean.

Cruel thing that the most notorious book burners in Sweden, the only ones I know of anyways, aren’t even actually swedish.

Rasmus Paludan is half swedish/half dane but grew up in denmark and the other, Salwan Momika, is an iraqi ”refugee”.