Knife attack in Nice

[sodthisforfun]

Nutters that kill, will kill. Sensible people avoid provoking them. This was the whole idea of using the military to draw them into battle - so civilians don't get killed. Now we have newspapers provoking them on city streets.

And of course, the teacher should not have been killed. But, we don't know the full picture. A good teacher should be able teach about freedom of speech without provoking people. If you need to ask some of your students to leave the room, you are probably crossing the line of good teaching practice. Doesn't show much empathy, and he clearly did not realise how angered these people were.

Again, people need to learn from history, reign in it a bit, and stop taking the moral high ground. We can't stop crazy killers being crazy killers, but we can avoid provoking them. Doesn't take any effort to not provoke people. This started because the press decided to mock Islam, knowing full well that there would be repercussions. Some people believe that they did this specifically to antagonise radicals - just like the way Otto von Bismarck deliberately provoked the French into a bloody war, which killed 250,000 civilians, plus almost as many soldiers.

Words are powerful, use them wisely, and use them for good, and definitely not to deliberately provoke killers.

Am sorry, but history shouldn't be airbrushed.
If a teacher wishes to discuss (this is a teacher in a non-muslim country btw, let's keep it in context), what happened at the charlie hebdo offices those years ago then they should without having to make it all fluffy and sweet. It's pure horror what happened then, people should know. And yes, we do seem to know the full picture about the teacher.

Don't give in to these people. As soon as we do that, we've lost freedom. It's not 'deliberately provoking killers', as you put it, to teach history and about Western freedoms. It shouldn't be apologised for, feared of upset, skirted around, it should be condemned, pure and simple by all Muslims, Muslim leaders and every other person with influence and power. Whatever happened to reason?

 

[Boogerman]

Words are powerful, use them wisely, and use them for good, and definitely not to deliberately provoke killers.

I kind of agree with you.
Killing in the name of ideology is wrong. No doubt about it.
But why provoke such emotion that potential killers /terrorists will bolster those killers'/terrorists' argument?

Surely a teacher can teach freedom of speech without resorting to provocative material.
How would he teach the risks of pornography, by creating some pornography?
How would he teach the danger of firearms, by creating a dangerous situation?

Terrorism is wrong, no question about it, but respect comes cheap, and disrespect can be very costly.

 

[Boogerman]

If a teacher wishes to discuss (this is a teacher in a non-muslim country btw, let's keep it in context), what happened at the charlie hebdo offices those years ago then they should without having to make it all fluffy and sweet.

Incidents can be discussed without the need to repeat them?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Incidents can be discussed without the need to repeat them?

Tell that to the 18 year old who cut off the teachers head.

Charlie Hebdo magazine has drawn all faiths. It's teased all faiths. It has no special dislike for Muslims.

Muslims are the only people who have reacted in this way, despite there being no law for anyone not to draw their god and no law written in the Koran. (Their god has been drawn in paintings throughout history...). Even if there was a law, it would only be law in Muslim countries. France isn't.

Why must a non-Muslim country fear retaliation? France is a free country. When I was a child living all over, I learned that a person should obeyed the rules in the country you lived in, to respected the customs. This worked when I lived in the Middle East. Why are those Muslims not respecting the law and the customs of France?

History shouldn't be airbrushed.

 

[mitch66]

We can't stop crazy killers being crazy killers, but we can avoid provoking them. Doesn't take any effort to not provoke people. This started because the press decided to mock Islam, knowing full well that there would be repercussions.

Yeh heaven forbid we upset Muslim nutters. After all if we draw a piccy of their pretend god we deserve to get blown up or beheaded. I wonder if you blame women in short skirts for getting raped? Best not provoke the rapists eh!
Using your logic best you don't ever provoke some steroid driven gym rat. After all, knowing there might be repercussions makes it your own fault if he gave you a fookinhiding.

 

[Ihavenojob]

There's no law against drawing Mohammed.

How do they know its mohamed they are drawing ?

 

[Boogerman]

Incidents can be discussed without the need to repeat them?

Tell that to the 18 year old who cut off the teachers head.

My comment was about teaching about freedom of speech.
The act of terrorism is a different issue. Your erroneously associating my comment to terrorism. I' have explicitly said the I think terrorism is wrong.

Why must a non-Muslim country fear retaliation? France is a free country.

It shouldn't. But by the same token, why intentionally provoke such as backlash. The teacher knew the repercussions that occurred the last time the cartoons were aired. Why air them again? To intentionally provoke a reaction? To test the water? To prove a point?
How would he teach about pornography, or war, or acts of violence, etc?
I've yet to see a swimming teacher in the water teaching swimming. They all stand on the side. How does that work?

History shouldn't be airbrushed.

No-one is suggesting it should or it has been or it will be.

 

[JP_]

Using your logic best you don't ever provoke some steroid driven gym rat. After all, knowing there might be repercussions makes it your own fault if he gave you a fookinhiding.

Um yes, exactly. Would you walk into the Krays pub, when they were at their height, and mock them for being silly dumb gansters and suggest they get a real job like a real man? What do you think would happen? And more importantly, why would you want to say something that you know will upset somebody?

Charlie Hebdo magazine has drawn all faiths. It's teased all faiths. It has no special dislike for Muslims.

That might be true. But we all know that most faiths see it for what it is - a joke. But some, one in particular today (used to be more!) don't see it that way. So again, why include them in the joke, if you know they don't like it. That is bullying, not joking.

 

[Boogerman]

I wonder if you blame women in short skirts for getting raped? Best not provoke the rapists eh!
Using your logic best you don't ever provoke some steroid driven gym rat. After all, knowing there might be repercussions makes it your own fault if he gave you a fookinhiding.

No-one is excusing the act of terrorism.
No-one would excuse an act of rape.
No-one would excuse physical assault.

But you would and do advise people not to make themselves a target by their actions.
Your short skirt- rape association is absurd. Best not to resort to absurdity.

 

[sodthisforfun]

But you would and do advise people not to make themselves a target by their actions.
.

Victim blaming.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Um yes, exactly. Would you walk into the Krays pub, when they were at their height, and mock them for being silly dumb gansters and suggest they get a real job like a real man? What do you think would happen? And more importantly, why would you want to say something that you know will upset somebody?



That might be true. But we all know that most faiths see it for what it is - a joke. But some, one in particular today (used to be more!) don't see it that way. So again, why include them in the joke, if you know they don't like it. That is bullying, not joking.

What good does going up to the Krays do? Does it teach children about history and how it brought upon France talking about freedom of speech? I don't think the comparison is fair.

It may be bullying to all faiths, but in France it is free to do exactly that. Why should one faith be singled out and left alone in a country not of that faith? If you wish to live in a country, people should obey the rules and customs of that land. That includes not cutting people's heads off.

 

[Boogerman]

Victim blaming.

Not at all.
Advising someone to take care is entirely different to blaming them for consequences after the event.

 

[sodthisforfun]

My comment was about teaching about freedom of speech.
The act of terrorism is a different issue. Your erroneously associating my comment to terrorism. I' have explicitly said the I think terrorism is wrong.

You are the one who put them together.

Charie Hebdo is part of France's history. At the time of the original murders and those storming the offices of the magazine, freedom of speech was talked about then.

If a FRENCH teacher wishes to teach in FRANCE about what happened in FRANCE's history then that should be able to happen without having your head hacked off in the street. This is what freedom of speech is in France - or do you not realise what it means?

 

[Boogerman]

What good does going up to the Krays do? Does it teach children about history and how it brought upon France talking about freedom of speech? I don't think the comparison is fair.

It may be bullying to all faiths, but in France it is free to do exactly that. Why should one faith be singled out and left alone in a country not of that faith? If you wish to live in a country, people should obey the rules and customs of that land. That includes not cutting people's heads off.

History is taught, it isn't re-enacted.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Not at all.
Advising someone to take care is entirely different to blaming them for consequences after the event.

France is a free country. You're telling people in France not to rile Muslims. It's victim blaming.

History is taught, it isn't re-enacted.

It was only re-enacted by the 18 year old Muslim. France is free.