French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Boges]

Yes TERRORISTS!!!!!

Not Criminals, Not mentally ill people that have been excluded from society.

This was an act of Islamic Terrorism. And against journalists to boot. I've heard reports that the men asked for the people they wanted to kill by name. This was a cold calculated act of horrific violence in the name of Fundamentalist Islam.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/deadly-shooting-at-french-satirical-newspaper-report/article22329480/

Black-hooded gunmen shot dead 12 people at the Paris offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, a satirical publication firebombed in the past after publishing cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed, police said.

A police source cited witnesses saying the attackers shouted "we have avenged the Prophet," Agence France-Presse reported.

How will the media respond? will they publish the cartoons that caused this or will they shrink away like with the Danish cartoon that got Ezra Levant sent to a Human Right Tribunal.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Insulting a religion isn't nice, but it can be very funny. I used to read Charlie Hebdo, and I'm hoping they respond with more hilarious insults against that religion. This kind of violence can't be allowed to destroy the freedom to express yourself.

[msj]

It's the " be nice to the religious freaks or you're gonna get it" mentality.

More proof that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Maher are right about Islam in particular and religion in general.

[The_Squid]

Every paper and news outlet should respond by reprinting the Mohammed cartoons.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it's easy for us to say it.

[Derek 2.0]

Every paper and news outlet should respond by reprinting the Mohammed cartoons.

I agree......watching CBC news coverage, they have refused, but I've heard the Sun Media chain has/is as a sign of support..

[The_Squid]

Of course it's easy for us to say it.

The media loves to put themselves on a pedestal as the protectors of democracy but rarely do bigger (mainstream) media ever do anything to show it.

Of course it's easy to say.... Everything is easy to say.... Does that mean we shouldn't discuss our opinions on the topic?

[Black Dog]

It's the " be nice to the religious freaks or you're gonna get it" mentality.

More proof that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Maher are right about Islam in particular and religion in general.

The belief that violent jihadism is most authentic expression of Islam is one that they and the Islamists share.

[Big Guy]

Looks like the fanatics are running short on recruits.

Blow a few journalists away and make sure there is a knee jerk reaction from the folks who look for reasons to go after all Muslims. Get them to target mosques, print materials that antagonize Muslims, encourage the whahoos to attack the majority moderate Muslims. That should get a few more young potential suicide bombers on to their side.

I seems to have worked in the past and will probably work again.

[WIP]

It's the " be nice to the religious freaks or you're gonna get it" mentality.

More proof that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Maher are right about Islam in particular and religion in general.

Listen to that dick - Bill Maher fawn over Israel's president Netanyahu a couple of years back on his HBO show, or watch just about everything he says on the issue! He is a Neocon apologist, regardless of how much distance he tries to put between himself and U.S. policies like the Iraq Invasion now.

He likely has never had an original thought in his head on any subject. He is a classic narcissist and has been one ever since the 90's when he had his ABC show. He likes to smoke pot...therefore marijuana should be legalized. He likes to screw around, so marriage is old fashioned and should be abolished. He doesn't believe in God, therefore ALL religion and religious beliefs are bad and should be eradicated. But he has a priority list....which he likely copied off of Sam Harris, who wants to end religion in order of priority from bad religions to less harmful religions.

So the list begins with: get rid of Islam the greatest threat to civilization; next comes Christianity..priority no.2; then maybe Judaism and Hinduism etc. I'm not sure if Maher puts in a good word for Buddhism, which Harris claims to be the only religious tradition that has positive benefits. Anyone who still follows Harris can check back with information on what he has to say about his "good religion" persecuting Muslim minorities in Myanmar!

Simple fact is that it is not just 'Islam and religion in general' that are the problem here. Any belief system, including secular humanism can become a tool of oppression. Atheists who are nationalists, Eurocentric believers in what they call "values of the enlightenment" (Hitchens) can just as easily create or uphold the ideological underpinnings of oppressive fascism as any religion can! The only reason why fascist leaders usually uphold whatever the popular religion of the majority is, is because they want to incorporate as many cultural touchstones as possible when they try to rule any mass of people. Hail Dawkins!

[WIP]

I can't claim to be fully informed about the situation in France, but I am aware that:

France has been a nation living in denial for at least half a century. Most French leaders claim that there are intrinsic French values that transcend race or religion...but in all the years since the end of WWII, they have never explained how this works, or how all of the French-speaking African immigrants to France could truly become integrated citizens of their nation.

The trend in recent decades was for African immigrants to be sent either overtly or covertly to suburbs outside the main cities, and not to become part of the urban population. Add to this all of the immigrants who are Muslim, and its hard to see how any party in France, either on the left or the right, had any sort of plan to deal with immigration. It seems that like so many other nations in Europe - national identity can't be separated from origins, and new immigrants cannot be regarded as truly French and more than German Immigrants, Dutch and Swedish immigrants etc.

It seems the French problem begins with their refusal to remove themselves from their last African colony in Algeria. There were many French living in Algeria (like the philosopher Albert Camus) and did not want to leave and return to France. And in the early 60's at least, Charles de Gaulle was claiming that Algerians and French were one and the same. I have to wonder how much of their current identity problems stem from never resolving what it means to be French.

The Charlie Hebdo killing has to be taken in context of all that is happening there now. If you deliberately throw gasoline on the fire, you have to accept that you are putting your life and the lives of others at risk. Before you take any action, there should be some useful purpose behind it. I don't see what the useful value was for his cartoons, but I could see that there would be a lot of negatives. If the cause is improving the conditions for free speech in Muslim societies or women's rights and quality of life in Muslim lands, I don't see how these sorts of actions have any plan to achieve those goals.

[On Guard for Thee]

Looks like the fanatics are running short on recruits.

Blow a few journalists away and make sure there is a knee jerk reaction from the folks who look for reasons to go after all Muslims. Get them to target mosques, print materials that antagonize Muslims, encourage the whahoos to attack the majority moderate Muslims. That should get a few more young potential suicide bombers on to their side.

I seems to have worked in the past and will probably work again.

Short on recruits? Have you been paying attention to what's going on in Kabul and Baghdad lately?

[bush_cheney2004]

Examples of Charlie Hebdo cartoons that are deemed to be blasphemous. Do not click on this link if you fear beheading by the faithful:

https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+hebdo+muhammad+cartoon&biw=1338&bih=691&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=p6etVPSQH4eVyQTKtYLIDg&ved=0CD4QsAQ

[Rue]

Listen to that dick - Bill Maher fawn over Israel's president Netanyahu a couple of years back on his HBO show, or watch just about everything he says on the issue! He is a Neocon apologist, regardless of how much distance he tries to put between himself and U.S. policies like the Iraq Invasion now.

He likely has never had an original thought in his head on any subject. He is a classic narcissist and has been one ever since the 90's when he had his ABC show. He likes to smoke pot...therefore marijuana should be legalized. He likes to screw around, so marriage is old fashioned and should be abolished. He doesn't believe in God, therefore ALL religion and religious beliefs are bad and should be eradicated. But he has a priority list....which he likely copied off of Sam Harris, who wants to end religion in order of priority from bad religions to less harmful religions.

So the list begins with: get rid of Islam the greatest threat to civilization; next comes Christianity..priority no.2; then maybe Judaism and Hinduism etc. I'm not sure if Maher puts in a good word for Buddhism, which Harris claims to be the only religious tradition that has positive benefits. Anyone who still follows Harris can check back with information on what he has to say about his "good religion" persecuting Muslim minorities in Myanmar!

Simple fact is that it is not just 'Islam and religion in general' that are the problem here. Any belief system, including secular humanism can become a tool of oppression. Atheists who are nationalists, Eurocentric believers in what they call "values of the enlightenment" (Hitchens) can just as easily create or uphold the ideological underpinnings of oppressive fascism as any religion can! The only reason why fascist leaders usually uphold whatever the popular religion of the majority is, is because they want to incorporate as many cultural touchstones as possible when they try to rule any mass of people. Hail Dawkins!

Bill Maher is not anti Muslim he is anti Muslim extremist.

You have falsely stereotyped what Maher's ideology is, i.e., neocon from inferring that since he was sympathetic to Netanyahu's approach to Hamas it makes him a neocon.

Your inference is illogical. To start with if you actually listened to his full discourse you would know he is in fact very supportive of moderate Muslims and is in fact a Liberal not a Conservative.

Then again I doubt you or the person who actually coined the buzz word neocon has a clue who Bentham, Burke, Hobbes were.

Next point, Buddism is not a religion, its a disciplined manner of thinking or perhaps a philosophy but its not a religion and never was. Also it denounces any form of violence.

Look I get it. You have am anti Israel bias so you slag Bill Maher but your tangent has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

You want to apologize and defend Muslim extremism and do that by criticizing supporters of Israel's right to fight terror? Is that how to do it-twist it to find a way to bring Israel into this and criticize Netantyahu and Israel for fighting Hamas?

Really?

This thread is about Muslim extremists attacking journalists because of their exercising their freedom of speech. Its got nothing to do with Bill Maher, Netanyahu or Israel.

More to the point people who criticize Muslim extremism are not necessarily anti moderate Muslim any more than moderate Muslims are necessarily extremist Muslims and most of us can appreciate the differences.

Can you?

Doesn't sound like it. Seems you need to label everything.

You even know what a neo con is?

Edited January 7, 2015 by Rue

[-TSS-]

I'm a pessimist in believing all this is just a beginning of what is going to follow.

[Guest]

The Charlie Hebdo killing has to be taken in context of all that is happening there now. If you deliberately throw gasoline on the fire, you have to accept that you are putting your life and the lives of others at risk. Before you take any action, there should be some useful purpose behind it. I don't see what the useful value was for his cartoons, but I could see that there would be a lot of negatives. If the cause is improving the conditions for free speech in Muslim societies or women's rights and quality of life in Muslim lands, I don't see how these sorts of actions have any plan to achieve those goals.

Maybe the cause wasn't to improve the conditions for free speech in Muslim countries, but rather, to maintain those conditions in our own countries.

That said, there doesn't have to be a useful purpose behind an editorial cartoon. And there should be no limits on how offensive it is, either. Except those imposed illegally today.

[Argus]

Looks like the fanatics are running short on recruits.

Blow a few journalists away and make sure there is a knee jerk reaction from the folks who look for reasons to go after all Muslims. Get them to target mosques, print materials that antagonize Muslims, encourage the whahoos to attack the majority moderate Muslims. That should get a few more young potential suicide bombers on to their side.

I seems to have worked in the past and will probably work again.

Sooo, rather than condemn the attack you're condemning what you anticipate will be an unfair response to it?

[Argus]

Listen to that dick - Bill Maher fawn over Israel's president Netanyahu a couple of years back on his HBO show, or watch just about everything he says on the issue! He is a Neocon apologist, regardless of how much distance he tries to put between himself and U.S. policies like the Iraq Invasion now.

This is just dumb. Maher a neocon? Your problem seems to be he doesn't hate Israel. That doesn't make him a neocon. It make him normal.

[Rue]

I think in Canada we are more politically correct and more likely to censor political cartoons than are allowed in France or say Holland. I say that because looking back some of the backlash against Aislin or Donato for their cartoons in the past were for things far less provocative than in Charlie Hebdo.

I actually think some days we are so politically correct with our cartoons as to be too limiting but I appreciate moral standards are subjective, flex, and depend on the audience.

Freedom of speech came about because soldiers fought for it so we could then take it for granted.

I think taking it for granted as a given is now being challenged and the question is, are we willing to fight for it, or do we cower and hide and let terrorists shut us up?

[Rue]

WIP stated: " The Charlie Hebdo killing has to be taken in context of all that is happening there now. If you deliberately throw gasoline on the fire, you have to accept that you are putting your life and the lives of others at risk. "

I completely disafree with the above comment and state it actually is an example of taking what happened out of its actual context by WIP.

I would argue the context was political satire and that the purpose of a political editorial cartoon is to challenge and provoke debate through pictorial symbols. I would argue the above reasoning blames the people murdered and abolves the murderers and says they deserve to die by knowing if you challenge the thought beliefs of an extremist they will kill you.

That reasoning is illogical. It would argue we can not challenge extremism with cartoons because it might get us killed.

Nonsense.

The issue here is that a normal, sane person when looking at a cartoon he does not like, does not kill.

I say bullshit to the above. I am a Jew. When I saw the Charlie Hebdo depictures of Jews I did not want to kill anyone nor do I have an excuse to. I doubt any Catholics felt that way either when they saw the Pope in a cartoon and I doubt moderate Muslims lost any sleep over the cartoons.

The above reasoning gives importance and legitimacy to the murderous actions of extremists blaming the victims.

Yah yah. Rape victims who wear provocative clothes showing their breasts deserve to be raped. Yah yah. Been there. Done that.

[Rue]

WIP stated: " The Charlie Hebdo killing has to be taken in context of all that is happening there now. If you deliberately throw gasoline on the fire, you have to accept that you are putting your life and the lives of others at risk. "

I completely disafree with the above comment and state it actually is an example of taking what happened out of its actual context by WIP.

I would argue the context was political satire and that the purpose of a political editorial cartoon is to challenge and provoke debate through pictorial symbols. I would argue the above reasoning blames the people murdered and abolves the murderers and says they deserve to die by knowing if you challenge the thought beliefs of an extremist they will kill you.

That reasoning is illogical. It would argue we can not challenge extremism with cartoons because it might get us killed.

Nonsense.

The issue here is that a normal, sane person when looking at a cartoon he does not like, does not kill.

I say bullshit to the above. I am a Jew. When I saw the Charlie Hebdo depictures of Jews I did not want to kill anyone nor do I have an excuse to. I doubt any Catholics felt that way either when they saw the Pope in a cartoon and I doubt moderate Muslims lost any sleep over the cartoons.

The above reasoning gives importance and legitimacy to the murderous actions of extremists blaming the victims.

Yah yah. Rape victims who wear provocative clothes showing their breasts deserve to be raped. Yah yah. Been there. Done that.

[Big Guy]

To On Guard For Thee - The good thing about suicide bombers is that that they are very effective, The bad thing about suicide bombers is that you can only use the good ones once. I do understand that many young fanatics are continuing to suicide bomb in Kabul and Baghdad while many others are streaming into Iraq and Syria to join ISIS.

These folks in the West and some on this board still underestimate the radicals and continue to play right into their hands. They think these fanatics are turban headed, dusty and bearded illiterates shooting their ancient rifles into the air. That is the kind of thinking that the religious fanatics and extremists bank on.

Bin Laden must be laughing and spinning in his casket somewhere in the Atlantic. Some people actually believe that 9/11 was an attempt to scare, intimidate or discourage the West. I believe that Al Qaeda knew that an attack on the USA site would send the Americans into a nationalistic tizzy and guarantee a response that would drive a barrier between the Muslim Middle East and the West. It worked, the American President invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, went after Libya and Syria and we have the current fiasco with terrorism spreading across Western nations. We walked right into that trap.

Now we have the knee jerk reactions of showing those "illiterate turban headed peasant killers " that we will not be intimidated on our right for freedom of speech so we want everybody now to publish anything that will upset those Muslims. That will show them!! That will probably pi$$ a few more Muslim moderates off and the stream of young militants to Kabul, Baghdad and ISIS forces will increase.

Yup, we really gonna show them!!!

I am afraid we are swallowing this one hook, line and sinker.

We seem to never learn.

[Big Guy]

I find the focus on free speech after this terrorist act to be interesting. It is OK to make fun and create demeaning cartoons about Mohammed. It is OK to make fun of and create demeaning cartoons about God and Jesus. But try to create a cartoon or a story or a joke about the Holocaust or imply that it did not happen and you find yourself going to jail.

Why is that?

Is that not free speech?

Edited January 8, 2015 by Big Guy

[dre]

These killings are disgusting. But hopefully cooler heads prevail. The mindless reactionaries calling for media outlets to respond by posting afflamatory material that will insult a billion people in response to the actions of 3 are simply that... Angry brain-dead idiots. There's nothing to be gained by it and quite a bit that could be lost.

[eyeball]

Insulting a religion isn't nice, but it can be very funny. I used to read Charlie Hebdo, and I'm hoping they respond with more hilarious insults against that religion. This kind of violence can't be allowed to destroy the freedom to express yourself.

I notice Buddhism being held high above religion today and one of their most important precepts comes to mind, do no harm. Never mind Jesus, what would the Dalai Lama do? I really doubt if he'd suggest that more insults are the answer. Sure religion plays a roie in all this but just a role, it is not the director - I think there is way more psychology at work here, that a lot of people are guilty of using, to divide and polarize and push every thing/one towards the same inevitable brink. It takes two to Tango as they say and never have there been two more enthusiastic partners than the West and Islam.

In any case, I think this attack is intended to anger as many people as opposed to just terrorize them - the timing in the wake of growing discontent with immigrants in France, mostly Muslim seems a little too co-incidental. I can't think of anything that would be of more strategic use to radical Islamists than more tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in places like Europe or Canada.

Is all this grief really worth feeling so smug about our tolerance and if we're so tolerant why can't we tolerate a little self-restraint? Like I said it takes two to Tango.

Edited January 8, 2015 by eyeball