French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Michael Hardner]

"The Al Akhbar newspaper, which some view as pro-Hezbollah, printed the following with the Arabic reading "freedom up in the air.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Akhbar_%28Lebanon%29

[Derek 2.0]

There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows

Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd

They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way

And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;

For 'tis the sport to have the engineer

Hoist with his own Petard...........

In other words, Arab media feel this attack was a tremendous own goal in the end?

[drummindiver]

I am fascinated by the logic exemplified by some on this board. After 9/11, the Americans followed Al Qaeda into the Middle East, changed the power structure and created the chaos that now reigns there and has drawn the terrorists into Europe and North America. This "expedition" which some call the latest Crusade, cost us $trillions and thousands of North American deaths, tens of thousands of civilian deaths and millions of displaced people. Now the political geniuses want to react the same way to this and future terrorist action in Europe and North America. Just what do you folks propose?

Invade Yemen?

Send ground troops into ISIS territory?

Put all the Muslims in jail?

Expel all Muslims from North America?

Declare Islam illegal and jail those practicing it?

Just what action is "standing up against these ideologies"?

I suggest that we still do not understand the motivation behind these terrorist acts. I see where some feel that it is a genetic failure in Arabs or a cultural trait or they are just plain evil or teaching of the Koran or some other silly racist excuse. Others say that they hate democracy. What the Heck does that mean? Do you mean they are jealous of democracy? So you distribute a questionnaire and kill the ones who say that they hate democracy?

What makes a hockey playing boy scout Canadian join a terrorist organization and be prepared to die for their cause?

Until you understand the motivation or cause of these terrorist actions you will never find a solution.

What is the motivation or cause for their actions?

The motivation is the implementation of worldwide Sharia law. Plain and simple.

[Michael Hardner]

There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows

Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd

They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way

And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;

For 'tis the sport to have the engineer

Hoist with his own Petard...........

In other words, Arab media feel this attack was a tremendous own goal in the end?

How does it follow? Also what is this poem?

[Derek 2.0]

How does it follow? Also what is this poem?

Hamlet by Bill Shakespeare.........My interpretation of the cartoon, is that any gains brought to the Arab world through the Arab Spring, could be undone by attacks committed against a free press......my link to Shakespeare is both visual and drawing upon (pun intended) a self defeating action coming from the Arab world.

[WIP]

What a fun game....it only took six people to start World War I. Can anybody top that ?

Actually, the chess pieces in Europe were already being moved into place for a war between rival colonial empires by the turn of the 20th century! All that was needed, was for someone to light the match, and voila! A throwing down of rival mutual defense treaties, and next thing you know it's "the war to end all wars.....at least in theory.

Some historians have noted that the political classes and leading voices in the media of the time: books and newspapers, were writing many pieces along the theme of....the youth are getting "soft" and warfare is necessary to truly settle boundary, territory and trade disputes between nations. Imperialists were getting anxious about growing populist movements of utopian socialists and Marxists, attacking the new economic order of industrial capitalism, so there were some people who had gained a lot of wealth who were getting worried about losing all or some of their loot.

What they didn't figure on, was that the war between English-French vs. German alliances would be an endless bloodbath that would ruin the old aristocracies and even bankrupt many of the nouveau riche in Europe! But, for the common people in England, France, Italy, Austria, Germany and Russia, the "Great War" was a slaughter that killed millions and made it much harder for the same backroom demagogues to engineer another war for a generation!

But, the takeaway for me, is that something like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would have in no way precipitated WWI IF NOT for the fact that the leading demagogues were already planning for war and waiting for the match to strike!

This time is slightly different in that the 'war' has already been ongoing, and began in third world Muslim-majority countries, and was only noticed in America and western nations after 9/11, is out of sight and out of mind to the vast majority of Americans, Canadians, Europeans etc., because there is only the other one percent of the population that is actually involved in fighting the wars! Just sayin....to everyone here, if you're going to bitch about the occasional Muslim terrorist attack in the west, you should be paying attention to what our governments are doing over there!

[bush_cheney2004]

....This time is slightly different in that the 'war' has already been ongoing, and began in third world Muslim-majority countries, and was only noticed in America and western nations after 9/11, is out of sight and out of mind to the vast majority of Americans, Canadians, Europeans etc., because there is only the other one percent of the population that is actually involved in fighting the wars!

No, as Islamic attacks against American and other western interests reached high visibility long before 9/11 (e.g. 1993 - WTC bombing, 1996 - Kobar Towers, 1998 - Tanzania, 2000 - Yemen USS Cole).

Edited January 10, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

No, as Islamic attacks against American and other western interests reached high visibility long before 9/11 (e.g. 1993 - WTC bombing, 1996 - Kobar Towers, 1998 - Tanzania, 2000 - Yemen USS Cole).

Exactly. And that doesn't even touch on the longer history of Muslim aggression against the rest of the world.

[Shady]

Just sayin....to everyone here, if you're going to bitch about the occasional Muslim terrorist attack in the west, you should be paying attention to what our governments are doing over there!

If only it were just occasional. Regardless, your blame the west, makes excuses for the rest has little merit.

[Shady]

The "but...brigade" is exactly right!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6iVFKz-FKs

[GostHacked]

Exactly. And that doesn't even touch on the longer history of Muslim aggression against the rest of the world.

Damn right, we should just nuke the whole Middle East.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. And that doesn't even touch on the longer history of Muslim aggression against the rest of the world.

Did you see my question about the limits of attributing historical events to today?

[-TSS-]

But is Hollande a muslim? To my knowledge he isn't. So why does he think he qualified to assess what belongs to Islam and what doesn't?

[Guest]

He's a politician. He's used to saying stuff he knows is BS.

[Rue]

Hudson Jones you came back to your attempt to claim there is a double standard in treatment when someone draws an anti Muslim cartoon as when one draws an anti Jewish one but you have not provided on shred or iota of proof of that. In fact on your second time round you now pose not allege it and interestingly asked with the words ..".DO YOU FEEL" to whoever your audience asking the question whether a double standard exists.

That DO YOU FEEL question for me indicates 2 things:

1-you have zero proof the Western press as you continue to allege censors anti Jewish cartoons differently than they do anti Muslim ones;

2-you call on your audience to engage in subjective perception to perpetuate that bias, i.e. you ask them how they feel, lol.

This precisely Hudson Jones is why I have challenged you yet again. You engage in allegations with no proof, then call on people to engage in subjective perception bias-you necessarily ask for people to be bias, not objective or logical.

Interesting you even need ask it. If it was true, all you had to do is provide objective proof. Instead you ask for feelings.

The attacks were not caused by discrimination against Muslims-they were caused by anger from Muslim extremists as to what they perceived were insulting cartoons.

The second attacks on Jews and the traffic police woman and what now appears an innocent jogger were RANDOM attacks not associated at all with the cartoons, and of course have nothing at all to do with double standards of the press.

Anyone can go on the internet and find no shortage of cartoons, articles, pictures that any one of us could find insulting. We live in a time of technology where one's views in cartoons, articles, blogs, photos, texts, tweets, whatever can be broadcast instantaneously.

It's precisely why the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi , Erdogan, Iran, Assad, Al Quaeda, ISIL, Hamas, have violently put down their own people and are engaging in violence. They are trying to put down an uprising not of colonialists, not of Zionists, but their own people who have learned to use the internet and cell phones to engage in free speech, and now that they have, will not go back to the stone age of simply doing with the Imam says.

Bottom line is-Muslim extremists are trying to shut own free speech and these attacks are part of that exercise which is spreading out.

Interestingly for a man concerned with double standards has anyone red Mr. Jones calling this Muslim extremism cancerous like he does Zionism? Now in fairness he did once criticize Wahabiism. Indeed.

Muslim extremists are a symbol of the diminishing power of it to control minds and so it has had to switch to brutal physical force.

This brutal physical force has come in peaks and vallies throughout Muslim history and when it arises, Islam usually implodes with civil wars.

So I would totally disagree with those on this board who have suggested we should not look at the totality of Muslim history to analyze the present violence.

I totally disagree with the attempt to snap shot or freeze frame, or limit the analysis of Muslim society to only certain time periods.

What proper and full analysis of Muslim history shows is this latest round of terrorism is only that-it simply continues a legacy of violence since Islam started. To those who say well you can't compare Muslim society from a thousand years ago to today when examining violence, I say of course you do. It shows the violence has never changed and the reasons for that violence is no different than it was 2,00 to 3,000 years ago.

In fact the only thing that has changed is that because of the advent of technology, certain Muslims have chosen to remove themselves from the old lifestyle and that scares Muslim extremists feeling their grip of control slip.

Our society has taken on ultra fundamentalist religious beliefs of all religions not just Islam.

This is not about victimizing innocent Muslims. It is about challenging violent, intolerant, extremists of any religion who want to cling to antiquated, barbaric belief systems to hold their people and others captive.

France was dead wrong in allowing its 5 million Muslims autonomy, i.e., the right to opt out of French law and follow their own sharia laws.

In so doing they created cells of Islamic belief that have multiplied and have opted out of France but operate from within France.

The French political elite who put these autonomous opt out zones in place are still trying to placate the French Muslim people by having their President say, oh well these were not Muslim extremists just extremists. Of course they were Muslim extremists. They were expressing a version of Islam well known inside France as it is across the world and is prevalent in the French criminal system where 60% of the convicts are Muslim and recruited to extreme Muslim terror cells that operate in direct contact with Al Quaeda and other cells in Iraq and Syria.

France can no longer have a country where its people opt out of French laws. It will not work. Each time it acts politically correct to its moderate Muslims, the extremist Muslims will see this as a sign of weakness and ironically to attack even more.

This is not about being politically correct. This is about hunting terrorists down and killing them and placing in jail anyone who assists them.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Rue

[jacee]

Rue, if you quote relevant parts of the post you are replying to then your post might make some sense to others too.

I'm not quoting your lengthy diatribe here as it is too long and uninteresting out of context.

.

Edited January 10, 2015 by jacee

[Bob Macadoo]

Rue, if you quote relevant parts of the post you are replying to then your post might make some sense to others too.

I'm not quoting your lengthy diatribe here as it is too long and uninteresting out of context.

.

The context isn't the problem.

[drummindiver]

I believe that the major differences in opinion and interpretation of incidents here and in the Middle East comes down to two basic views or beliefs.

One group believes that there is something in the nature and teaching of Islam and the Koran that is causing Muslims to turn to violence to fulfil and follow their religious teaching.

The other group believe that Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism et al are peaceful religions. There are individuals of all religions with political and personal agendas who use their religions to excuse their actions.

Both positions have very different views of the basic nature of man and to try to "convert" someone from the other group just will not happen.

A person with a personal agenda can interpret a quote of any passage from any holy book from any religion to rationalize their view and explain their agenda.

"Act like you are a friend, then kill him. Just like in the book."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjML6FN8yjo

[Michael Hardner]

"Act like you are a friend, then kill him. Just like in the book."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjML6FN8yjo

I'm religiously offended by those production values...

[Argus]

Offensiveness itself is indeed prohibited and always will be, if you take "free expression" out of the equation.

Offensiveness has never been prohibited, not by law, nor can it be contained legally. I can say or write offensive things about any religion, any race, any group, any profession, etc., as long as it doesn't devolve into hate speech.

Even violent retribution by outlaws can't be prevented in all cases.

We can't prevent anything in all cases.

What about my question about how we would need to change ? We have already taken the usual steps: security enhancements, and elevated levels of discussion in "the" public - both of which I agree with.

The only thing which comes to mind is closer monitoring of mosques and Canadians who connect to known jihadist internet sites, and a much closer screening of the Muslims we bring into Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

"Act like you are a friend, then kill him. Just like in the book."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjML6FN8yjo

It seems that this video came from noted fringe king Martin Mawyer:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32799_Hannitys_Scaremonger_of_the_Day

Scarey stuff, world government, Hillary Clinton is a lesbian etc...

[Michael Hardner]

Offensiveness has never been prohibited, not by law, nor can it be contained legally.

Yes, in the form of offensive behavior, for example, it is indeed prohibited by law.

The only thing which comes to mind is closer monitoring of mosques and Canadians who connect to known jihadist internet sites, and a much closer screening of the Muslims we bring into Canada.

What else ? Anything on the positive side perhaps ?

[Argus]

Yes, in the form of offensive behavior, for example, it is indeed prohibited by law.

Only certain types, most having to do with getting in people's faces.

What else ? Anything on the positive side perhaps ?

I'm positive our society does not need to change to accommodate the notions of a bunch of sixteenth century religious primitives.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

The context isn't the problem.

Well it's a start.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Only certain types, most having to do with getting in people's faces.

You: "The question of “offensiveness” is easy to decide."

Me: "I don't think that's true. "Offensiveness" always stirs up questions of values, groups and so on. Community standards in some aspects are just accepted, and in other aspects are challenged. There's nothing easy about that."

You: "Sure it's easy. You simply say that being offensive in your beliefs, your speech or anything else, might be rude or insulting but will never be prohibited nor subject to legal sanction"

See ? It's not easy after all.

I'm positive our society does not need to change to accommodate the notions of a bunch of sixteenth century religious primitives.

How about not name-calling people who perhaps haven't done anything wrong ? You're not really taking personal responsibility for helping the solution here.