French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[WIP]

A couple of days ago, I heard part of an interview that featured Tariq Rammadan and some big time American cartoonist...for the New Yorker I think....anyway, Tariq made a comment about Charlie Hebdo's financial problems and claimed that it was near bankruptcy in 2011, and how that might have meshed with the increasing right wing leaning of the paper over the last 10 years - especially its increasing focus on mocking Islam and Muslim immigrants. Also mentioned, was that a former editor of the Paper took a high profile appointment by the President. It had been noted from a few sources, that Charlie Hebdo was no friend of the immigrants in France, only treating them as a subject to be mocked if they were mentioned at all. Likely a typical pattern of thinking in France.

I can't find anything in English about Hebdo's financial issues, and in French, this source claims they were on the verge of bankruptcy when they created a special issue in 2011 titled "Sharia Hebdo," but I don't know the site or whether the story is authenticated. But, it would fit a pattern of going to extremes and sidling up to nationalist and extremists for financial gain. So much for free speech warriors!

[Big Guy]

A racist, by definition, cannot admit that he/she is a racist. They are just voicing "minority views". When asked for solutions to the problems they attribute to minority groups, they tap dance avoiding the "genocide", "ethnic cleansing" and other repugnant suggestions. The only place that they are allowed to rant is on anonymous public access bulletin boards. That is their only outlet since responsible publications would not print their crap and if found out, they would be shunned in their community.

I really do not understand why people bother to converse with them.

Admittedly, the more they are allowed into the spotlight then the easier they are to identify, abhor and ignore.

But it does make for a better understanding of the possible weakness of the human mind.

[WIP]

Indeed!

Before certain posters disparage the entire muslim population, consider that the Muslim population is the second largest population in the world with roughly 1.8 billion people, with 50 per cent below the age of 25.

A new generation of the muslim population include women who maintain Islamic traditions such as wearing headscarves but also have professional careers and hold leadership roles alongside men. Much of the younger generation of Muslim Americans, believes that Islam, properly interpreted, sanctions equality and pluralism.

Muslim women in their 20s and 30s are embracing stylish and colourful headscarfs, creating startup companies to address these fashion issues and even posting selfies on facebook, instagram, youtube etc. In the past, this would have been highly condemned as catering to their egos. In fact, these young women are grateful that the older muslim generation are not proficient with social media.

Yes, there are all sorts of Muslims, just like Christians or any other religion, and they have all sorts of different ways of connecting their faiths with modernity and living today. We can hear all about the terrorist-supporting-misogynist Muslims up the yin yang here, but there are Muslim pacifists and Muslim feminist scholars - one I heard interviewed of late is trying to revive a history of female scholarship that began early in the Islamic Caliphate but was suppressed by Abu Bakr. And revived somewhat late in the Ottoman Empire by Turkish nationalists called "The Young Turks." I'll have to look into it more later. But, what I am finding recently seems to indicate that there were reform movements on a whole host of issues until the 20th century, and the Anglo/American Empire went to the reactionaries for allies against reformers they invariably considered too close to the Soviet Union and communism.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I can't find anything in English about Hebdo's financial issues, and in French, this source claims they were on the verge of bankruptcy when they created a special issue in 2011 titled "Sharia Hebdo," but I don't know the site or whether the story is authenticated. But, it would fit a pattern of going to extremes and sidling up to nationalist and extremists for financial gain. So much for free speech warriors!

Not exactly breaking news that a published newspaper or magazine is teetering on bankruptcy in the digital age.

[On Guard for Thee]

A racist, by definition, cannot admit that he/she is a racist. They are just voicing "minority views". When asked for solutions to the problems they attribute to minority groups, they tap dance avoiding the "genocide", "ethnic cleansing" and other repugnant suggestions. The only place that they are allowed to rant is on anonymous public access bulletin boards. That is their only outlet since responsible publications would not print their crap and if found out, they would be shunned in their community.

I really do not understand why people bother to converse with them.

Admittedly, the more they are allowed into the spotlight then the easier they are to identify, abhor and ignore.

But it does make for a better understanding of the possible weakness of the human mind.

Hmm, don't know about that. Ever heard of the KKK? They certainly had no trouble identifying themselves as racists.

[Rue]

WIP seems this double standard definition changes on the fly and is now no longer Jewish cartoons are censored but Muslim ones are not censored and now has morphed into something entirely different at least in your field of perception.

With due respect WIP I think you decontextualizing the actual issue being discussed to the point of absurdity,.

Technically the description of the Norway attack and the Hebdo attacks don't show a double standard. To have done they would have had to be described in a manner that said one attack was acceptable and one was not. Both attacks were rejected equally. I am sure in hindsight the persons who engaged in the Hebdo description would agree they were caught up in emotion and be the first to agree the Norway attacks are equally as bad for different reasons. You have inferred the description necessarily means one event was being described as more acceptable. It was not.

In the second example you compare trying to contain Snowden leaks is somehow comparable to Muslims containing political editorial cartoons and deliberately killing Jews because they are Jews or a cop simply because she was a cop-ridiculous.

Beyond me how you turn that into a double standard.. you do realize that thanks to Snowden, his leaks compromised counter-intelligence operations across Europe and for all you know enabled this latest attack and more to come?

Whatever I am sure you will read whatever other disconnected events into the context you wish woven to avoid discussing the issue and creating a new one unrelated to it.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Rue

[Rue]

Big Guy you are quick to throw out labels and definitions. Its probably why you also won't read past anything more than a sentence. Things are a tad more complex than you define them as,. For God's sakes what do you think Nazi Germany was-a minority of racists trying to avoid expressing their views? When that Muslim extremist killed the Jews in the market the other day you think he was avoiding expressing his anti semitic views? You call the holocaust tap dancing or what that extremist did in shooting Jews dead tap dancing? You think when Stalin starved the millions of Ukrainian he was tap dancing or the Mulims in Sudan have been tap dancing when they engage in genocide of Christians? Was Morsi tap dancing when he called on Egyptians to attack and kill Coptics? Right Hussein tap danced when he gassed the Kurds. The people who died in Rwanda, Burundi, Mali, Malawi, Ivory Coast,Liberia, Niger, Chad, Libya, Iraq it was all tap dancing.

Whatever ridiculous stereotype you were trying to fabricate to label whoever you disagree with, is not making any sense.

Oh I know you don't read more than a sentence. It shows. Believe me it shows.

[Argus]

. Evidence would indeed move me on the subject, and that's why I have spent so much of my time to engage with you on the topic.

Riiiight, like how you sneeringly refer to the surveys I have posted earlier on this subject in other threads as "arguable unspecific polls about Muslims' attitudes"

Unspecific? They were quite specific, and from reputable organizations. You simply don't want to hear that half the world's Muslims support Sharia law and executing anyone who dares to commit heresy or apostasy.

And I agree, that the political aspect of the Muslim social character influences your life and mine. I still believe in freedom of religion and separation of church and state, understanding that limits need to be balanced against other rights and privileges.

If you believe it's wrong to voice my contempt for a religious ideology which comes out of the sixteenth century unchanged, and the attitude which embraces death for a whole range of actions from adultery to homosexuality, your balance is unbalanced.

If more than half the world's Muslims embrace the notion of death for apostasy than more than half the world's Muslims are ignorant, backward religious fanatics.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I laid out why the "logic" of doing so is flimsy at best, and by following that logic you would actually have to ban other groups too.

Your logic was incoherent, and I'm perfectly fine with restricting other groups, too, at the very least as immigrants.

I don't go shopping for my clothes at Wal-mart, don't buy food at the Dollar Store and I don't buy cheap economy cars. Why? Because I don't have to. They're cheaply made and not very reliable.

Canada should similarly go shopping for citizens in the top markets where they can get higher income earners who are good social and cultural fits.

[Argus]

A 2011 Pew Research Center study found that Muslims don't differ much from the general US population. (I couldn't find Canadian stats):

Really? You're saying the majority of Americans want to live under a brutal religious law which, among other things, decrees death for adulterers and homosexuals? Maybe you could find me the reference.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

[Michael Hardner]

As you are the "moderator", what passes as a "mainstream source" for you. Do we now have to have our sources vetted for your and Jacee's approval?

Of course not, but nothing stymies a discussion out of the gate like coming to it with a set of fringe/propaganda sources for your information. Thanks for posting more sources, some of these were better...

[Michael Hardner]

Michael H I think we all agree when using words to criticize religious doctrine or a religious ideology what one person may perceive as disparaging another may find to be fair and objective.

"backward and barbaric"

Not much grey area there. Sounds like a sweeping insult to me. If you disagree, then maybe talk about how such words could be fairly used by people to describe other religions ?

I mean that is precisely why we have this forum to debate that.

That said I believe many we like to call moderate simply ...

"many" .... You can't really hang anything on a word like that. Many people die from ant attacks every year too. What's the relative threat is my question...

[Michael Hardner]

Riiiight, like how you sneeringly refer to the surveys I have posted earlier on this subject in other threads as "arguable unspecific polls about Muslims' attitudes"

Well, would you change YOUR mind over any poll posted ? Is that the measure of open mindedness ? Jacee posted some poll numbers on this thread, what's your response then ?

Unspecific? They were quite specific, and from reputable organizations. You simply don't want to hear that half the world's Muslims support Sharia law and executing anyone who dares to commit heresy or apostasy.

What am I not hearing ? It's one thing to hear the results of a poll, and accept the observations included and quite another to translate the results into beliefs that the religion (and not cofactors) is the cause, and that basically these people are just "bad". Maybe you can explain your conclusions from such a poll and I will tell you how mine differ.

If you believe it's wrong to voice my contempt for a religious ideology which comes out of the sixteenth century unchanged, and the attitude which embraces death for a whole range of actions from adultery to homosexuality, your balance is unbalanced.

It seems to me that the existence of moderates indeed proves that the religion, like all others, has changed.

If more than half the world's Muslims embrace the notion of death for apostasy than more than half the world's Muslims are ignorant, backward religious fanatics.

Using such a fact as a basis to write off anybody who calls themselves Muslim is just a self-serving exercise, IMO.

[drummindiver]

The 1993 WTC bombing was most certainly on "U.S. soil". Attacks on US embassies and naval vessels got a lots of attention, including military responses. American realization of jihadist terrorism pre-dates 9/11 by many years, which was the main point.

US embassies are considered US soil.

[Michael Hardner]

Your logic was incoherent, and I'm perfectly fine with restricting other groups, too, at the very least as immigrants.

And how should we define such groups ? By religion, obviously, you have said that. Race is ok too, I think you've said. Age ? Income ? Gender ?

If somebody determines that middle-aged white males commit sex crimes at a disproportionate rate then you're ok with restricting their immigration right ?

Anyway. Yes, there are necessary assessments that are made of immigrants, and of course it's political too, ie. even if there IS a point to assessing things like religion, area of origin and so on you couldn't do it. But using statistics in the way you're using them is a backwards rationalization and a witch-hunt, IMO.

Canada should similarly go shopping for citizens in the top markets where they can get higher income earners who are good social and cultural fits.

Let's invent a handheld device that you can just hold up to somebody's forehead and assess their economic value, that will do it.

[Big Guy]

To On Guard or Thee - In reference to your last reply to my post you stated "Hmm, don't know about that. Ever heard of the KKK? They certainly had no trouble identifying themselves as racists".

I do not disagree - but remember that they wore hoods to conceal their identities. They were not prepared to answer for their views to their neighbors, family and friends. I guess anonymous public bulletin boards were not available at the time.

[Argus]

Let's invent a handheld device that you can just hold up to somebody's forehead and assess their economic value, that will do it.

Yes, it will, but until that device is invented we're left with statistics which suggest that, say, Group A has a generally three times higher income than Group B, a higher employment rate, and is less likely to go on public assistance. So economically speaking, I'm all for bringing in more of Group A and less of Group B.

There have been at least two items I've read, one at least I think I posted, which have said that the majority of prisoners in French prisons are Muslims. Do Muslims have a higher rate of crime in Canada? I don't know, since we don't get such stats, but if they do, well, another reason to prefer some other group.

I also don't care about the reasons. I don't care if there's a subtle cultural factor involved which is unrelated to religion. It's clear from the polls and surveys, to say nothing of the violence, that the majority of Muslim believers in the world have very violently backward social beliefs. Why risk importing that when we don't have to?

And I would say the same of any other source immigrant group around the world, be it divided along cultural, ethnic, religious, or national lines. Hell, if it emerges left handers make worse immigrants then I'd say we should do without them too.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Well, would you change YOUR mind over any poll posted ?

That would depend on the poll and how correlated it was with what was under discussion. Since the subject of the poll is Muslim attitudes, and the discussion is Muslim attitudes, I'd say the poll is reasonably definitive and difficult to contradict without another, contrary poll from a respectable organization.

What am I not hearing ? It's one thing to hear the results of a poll, and accept the observations included and quite another to translate the results into beliefs that the religion (and not cofactors) is the cause, and that basically these people are just "bad". Maybe you can explain your conclusions from such a poll and I will tell you how mine differ.

My conclusions are that a very substantial number of the world's Muslims, exceeding half in most cases, have what are, in terms of our social beliefs, violent and extreme religious beliefs. Such a wide number of people who support such brutality in the name of God is clearly the basis for why there are so many thousands of terrorist incidents committed all around the world in the name of Islam. This is the rich soil in which even more violent extremism grows.

It seems to me that the existence of moderates indeed proves that the religion, like all others, has changed.

Why? There will always be moderates. There have always been moderates. No doubt there were relatively moderate members of the National Socialist Workers Party too. That doesn't mean we want to import Nazis into Canada.

Using such a fact as a basis to write off anybody who calls themselves Muslim is just a self-serving exercise, IMO.

I don't see how its self-serving, though I would admit it would be illogical. But I haven't written off 'anybody' who calls themselves Muslim. I have always spoken in the general sense and with the obvious understanding that there are always variations from the norm in every population.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

That would depend on the poll and how correlated it was with my opinion.

That sounds like "I would believe a poll if it supported my opinion"

My conclusions are that a very substantial number of the world's Muslims, exceeding half in most cases, have what are, in terms of our social beliefs, violent and extreme religious beliefs. Such a wide number of people who support such brutality in the name of God is clearly the basis for why there are so many thousands of terrorist incidents committed all around the world in the name of Islam.

Ok.

That doesn't mean we want to import Nazis into Canada.

I'm pretty sure "we" did import party members into Canada and the U.S. How did that work out ?

But I haven't written off 'anybody' who calls themselves Muslim.

Well that's an agreement point, at least.

[drummindiver]

Well, would you change YOUR mind over any poll posted ? Is that the measure of open mindedness ? Jacee posted some poll numbers on this thread, what's your response then ?

What am I not hearing ? It's one thing to hear the results of a poll, and accept the observations included and quite another to translate the results into beliefs that the religion (and not cofactors) is the cause, and that basically these people are just "bad". Maybe you can explain your conclusions from such a poll and I will tell you how mine differ.

"There were also some oddities in Pew’s results, however. Its respondents are somewhat more likely to be smokers, more likely to be on food stamps, and—perhaps surprisingly—more likely to be Internet users." Slate online.

People-myself included-state poll numbers as if they were definitive. They are not.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/survey_bias_how_can_we_trust_opinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html

[-TSS-]

All talk about conspiracy-theories and false flag attacks are tin-foil hat rubbish but there are two things which puzzle me about this particular terrorist-act. Firstly, how did they know when to strike exactly so that everyone they wanted to kill were in the same room at the same time. Secondly, how is it possible in a huge city like Paris just drive away and disappear without a sight. There must be CCTV-cameras on every corner.

[jbg]

I'm not challenging the truth of this statement, but rather I'd like to delve into it further by looking at these numbers, if possible. Do you have them ?

Google "Malmo, Sweden" or "Paris banlieus" (sp).

[GostHacked]

All talk about conspiracy-theories and false flag attacks are tin-foil hat rubbish but there are two things which puzzle me about this particular terrorist-act. Firstly, how did they know when to strike exactly so that everyone they wanted to kill were in the same room at the same time. Secondly, how is it possible in a huge city like Paris just drive away and disappear without a sight. There must be CCTV-cameras on every corner.

Also ask why there was no blood on the ground when they shot that police officer in the head.

[Bonam]

All talk about conspiracy-theories and false flag attacks are tin-foil hat rubbish but there are two things which puzzle me about this particular terrorist-act. Firstly, how did they know when to strike exactly so that everyone they wanted to kill were in the same room at the same time.

You mean how did they know to attack an office during work hours? And no, not everyone was there.

[Guest]

Also ask why there was no blood on the ground when they shot that police officer in the head.

There wasn't? Why do you think there wasn't? Genuine question, I didn't know there was no blood. I don't watch disturbing video, if I can avoid it.