I'm sorry, but I don't see how what they did defends their religion. Their religion was not under threat. If anything, they wanted to assert the supremacy of their religion, and perhaps reflect their own fragile belief in their own religion. What they did is denigrate their own religion.

It is interesting that French TV has for tonight cancelled the interview with the author of a book discussing precisely that.

Soumission (Submission) - Controversial new French novel

I can't find a way to be relieved. Al I ma thinking is about the next ones coming...

Absolutely. The crisis is only just over and politically correct apologists are already trying to reverse the roles of oppressors and victims.

Exactly I find the apologists lot more scary.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
-Salman Rushdie

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
- George Orwell

Let's say someone came up to you and confided in you that they were planning to go into a mosque and begin accusing everyone in it of being an idiot for following Islam, because that's how they personally felt and they thought they were entitled to do so, because of their freedom of speech.

Would you encourage them?

All I'm trying to say here is basically that... if we do want to avoid escalated tensions between the Muslim and the non-Muslim world, then perhaps the best way to do that is not with crude satire.

And to answer your question: If all women in France were suddenly required to wear headscarves, I would question why/how French politics allowed that to happen... (if by force from an outside entity, then I would of course support a joined effort in retaliation. If by force due to French government, I would of course support a revolt).

Yes.

Also, what do cartoons have to do with the attack at the Jewish supermarket (another 4 people murdered) and the murder of three police officers?

Tom

Why is it that the bigger picture cannot even be considered without someone accusing them of confusing the "oppressors" and the "victims?"

People have used this incident as an opportunity to discuss the freedom of speech... and the implications of it. I don't understand why some people are seemingly so eager to twist that into an accusation of the victims not being victims.

The way I see it... anyone who dies due to the violent behavior of someone else is a victim... regardless of what may or may not have led to that violent behavior in the first place. (Though of course, I realize that these "terrorists" are probably just violent in nature, anyways, so it was just a fuse waiting to be ignited... or perhaps even deliberately seeking an opportunity to ignite).

Please don't mistake me here... I do believe that violence and dogma are (more often than not) the antithesis of reason.

Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it was my assumption/understanding that this whole incident began because of the the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

Seriously... you would encourage someone to deliberately put their own lives at risk by verbally assaulting someone due to their religious beliefs?

Again... how can you place any value on the freedom of speech without also valuing the freedom of belief?

I think you are confusing things we should encourage with things we should allow.

And in fact, many reasonable muslims are open to debating Islam in civilised terms and even seek out that debate. So that basically means they are preapred to listen to you telling them they are idiots (in more perfumed words of course) and I'm sure they also have some counter-erguments to that.

Is an escalation of debate not a component of political discourse?

Who are These "politically correct apologists", amogles?

it's Houellebecq who decided to leave Paris wednesday after the attack and go back to Ireland where he lives. He clearly stated that it's not the right time to promote his novel. Clever guy.

So you agree Islam has severe insecurity issues?

Let me turn this around, send 5 people to 5 different religious places, one person to a Mosque another to Buddhist temple another to Jain temple another to Jewish temple.

Ask all 5 to shout to the respective followers that they are idiots for following their brand of religion and that their religious prophet, gods etc were idiots.

Which of the five is least likely to come out in one piece?

You've been told this before so i don't know why you keep on saying this.

Freedom of religion is rooted in freedom of thought. Not vice versa.

have you lost your last marble???

I agree that their religion was not under threat, but I can't even begin to really understand or comprehend how THEY perceived it (the cartoons, etc). They are obviously not rational people. I myself am not religious, so I have no way of knowing how it feels to have one's religion mocked, but it's obvious that there are some people out there who feel so strongly about their religion that they can misinterpret (what we think are) silly cartoons as being a direct threat to their ideology (which is, in many cases for these people, most of their identity).

Yes, of course I do. That's somewhat the basis of my whole argument here...

So how to prevent the next attack by crazy extremists?

you cannot de-escalate tensions with an irrational person. put another way, there is no tension between rational Muslims and rational non-Muslims.

The one who was not given a name/description of the religious place to visit?

Ha ha... probably.

Did you ask that because you think it's a lame analogy? Or because you think that 9/11 happened because the terrorists were simply bored that day? (I'm joking...)