Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
15 Jan 15
22:55
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Aug 02
French Muslim journalist saying the cartoons "caused" the murders and that it's not the place of the terrorists to stop the carnage but of the French to stop offending Muslims.
Neil, Abbot and Portillo not having it.
Neil, Abbot and Portillo not having it.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 9
|
By:
She wouldn't answer the question of whether Mohammed would have approved. Several times she was asked and she was implacable. Very worrying.
|
|
By:
Frightening. This is someone who is a journalist, not an extremist and she felt they got what they deserved.
|
|
By:
Indeed. Admittedly stereotypical but she dressed perfectly normally. No headscarf, no burkha and no obvious outward sign that she held such radical views.
|
|
By:
And she simply didn't seem to understand or perhaps care that a central aspect of French law is that unlike here there is an absolute separation of state from religion and therefore no religion has protection under the law.
|
|
By:
Frightning the key word. "Respected!!French journalist"
|
|
By:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabila_Ramdani
In Aug 2013, an opinion piece in The Observer penned by Ramdani incorrectly asserted that Israel had used chemical weapons against Gaza, in the form of white phosphorosus shells. In response to ensuing criticism, The Observer issued a formal correction.[31] On 10 January 2015, following the Charlie Hebdo killing in France, Ramdani declared on the BBC's Dateline London "You can’t print hateful vindictive cartoons and think they will have no consequence."[32] |
|
By:
To be fair to her it seemed to me that she said something along the lines of, that it could be seen in those terms. I don't think she was quite so obvious and I think she was seeking to draw a parallel to the many hundreds of thousands of muslims who died as a result of what was referred to as collateral damage by us. Which of course does ignore the key aspect which is intent. No solace to those who have lost loved ones but crucial in apportioning blame legally and morally.
|
|
By:
One question I would have liked to have seen put to her to illustrate the gap between how muslims see Mohammed and how we see Jesus for example is the issue of depiction of the prophet in any form at all. I'm quite sure that if she did answer it would have been that it is forbidden. This opens up a clear method of rebuttal of her argument. What Charlie Hebdo printed was irrelevant using that logic. It is the fact of the illustration at all which was "offensive" rather than the offfesive cartoon. This is something Portillo didn't get when he said that the following weeks edition was magnanimous. Not to muslims it wouldn't have been because it depicted Mohammed at all.
|
|
By:
She's not the first person to do so. One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo wrote something similar in another magazine this week.
|