French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[WIP]

Anyway, very telling that a thread about a terrorist incident in France has been converted by the usual suspects into yet another Israel-bashing thread. Apparently the other 4302423850293850235849023859045629672867906873 threads on the subject were insufficient.

Back to France then! What the French and the international collection of claimed secular allies have done is make the already sharp divide between nativist French and North African Muslim immigrants even sharper!

I don't think I have even commented on whether or not Hebdo's cartoons should have been legal, but whether we should be supporting them. Worth noting that France is not free speech paradise as claimed by some observers. Their standards on free speech are not as free as ours by a long shot! There are a whole list of topics you can't discuss openly and honestly in French media, and since the Charlie Hebdo shootings, there have been more than 54 arrests for violating France's civil speech laws, some of the charges, like the one against a West African comedian seem totally bogus looking in from the outside, considering what Hebdo was allowed to publish in its pages!

But, my objection is not whether they it should be legal to publish pictures and articles with degrading images to insult the members of certain religions...the excuse that they do it to the Pope too...is bogus, because the only devoutly Catholic adherents in the whole Country are likely in the isolated rural populations...certainly not in the major cities. So, most French could care less what is and what isn't said about the Pope or Catholicism.

But, that is not the case with Islam in France. The Hebdo clique were well aware that...unlike here...France's Muslim population is almost entirely immigrant and almost as entirely Algerian in ancestry, and almost entirely a marginalized low income demographic in the French population. So, their disregard of racial and cultural underpinnings with the declaration that it's all about the religion are fraudulent! I don't know whether it's true or not, but I came across a few sources a couple of weeks ago who noted Hebdo's financial problems prior to the departure of former editor Philippe Val, and speculated that their supposed left-liberal political orientation had really shifted to join the anti-immigrant fascists...at least on race and immigration issues. And, it seems they were being financially rewarded enough to carry on with their magazine. This makes attacking their religious symbols - like the Prophet Muhammed a loaded issue, considering the genocide that de Gaulle carried out late in the Algerian Civil War in his desperate effort to cling to holding on to that colony! The sordid history of France in Africa, is one of those subjects that is not allowed to be openly discussed in public there! The Algerian civil war is not taught in French history classes....it's sort of like Germany's collective amnesia about the Holocaust, which they still deal with as little as possible.

So, my big objection to all this Je Suis Charlie BS is that all those in the west, following glorious examples like Bill Maher, once again seize upon an issue, without even bothering to take a look below the surface and at least try to gain a little understanding of what is going on there. Too many people have taken sides too quickly and easily, because they already decided at the outset that the Muslim side has to be the wrong side, and whoever is opposing them...even the French..have to be right!

Edited January 31, 2015 by WIP

[Rue]

WIP you have nothing to apologize for,.

While in post 10 and 92 you criticized Bill Maher, it was clear you were not Israel bashing.

However as is clear in post 144, H. Jones began bashing Israel and Zionism.

Post 144 is there for anyone to see.

H. Jones has tried to blame you and Argus in a clumsy attempt deflect attention away from his posts and accept responsibility for what he did.

Its a tactic those of us who have tried to debate him are well aware of, deflecting attention away from what he said to avoid having to be accountable for what he said.

The point is the existence of Israel and the ideology of Zionism had nothing to do with this thread. Throwing them out as a target to attack to avoid discussing Muslim extremism is what happened and its there for all to see.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Rue

[Bonam]

Back to France then! What the French and the international collection of claimed secular allies have done is make the already sharp divide between nativist French and North African Muslim immigrants even sharper!

As you say, the divide was already fairly sharp. The reality inside a country drives these things a lot more than comments from commentators elsewhere do, I don't think the impact there is worth noting. France has a real problem and is going to have to figure out how to deal with. The previous strategy has been to ignore it, but that didn't work very well. I for one don't think that trying to ban or officially discourage publications critical of religion in general or Islam in particular is the right way forward. If France already has some anti free-speech laws on the books as you say, it would likely benefit from removing some of these rather than implementing more.

[jbg]

Back to France then! What the French and the international collection of claimed secular allies have done is make the already sharp divide between nativist French and North African Muslim immigrants even sharper!

They are in France. Are they making any effort to integrate themselves? Martin Luther King wasn't invited by Eisenhower to push integration for his people; the black people did it themselves and did seek white allies, as I have pointed out.

I don't think I have even commented on whether or not Hebdo's cartoons should have been legal, but whether we should be supporting them. Worth noting that France is not free speech paradise as claimed by some observers. Their standards on free speech are not as free as ours by a long shot! There are a whole list of topics you can't discuss openly and honestly in French media, and since the Charlie Hebdo shootings, there have been more than 54 arrests for violating France's civil speech laws, some of the charges, like the one against a West African comedian seem totally bogus looking in from the outside, considering what Hebdo was allowed to publish in its pages!

Agreed. Only the U.S. has substantially absolute free speech, via a fortunate historical quirk.

But, my objection is not whether they it should be legal to publish pictures and articles with degrading images to insult the members of certain religions...the excuse that they do it to the Pope too...is bogus, because the only devoutly Catholic adherents in the whole Country are likely in the isolated rural populations...certainly not in the major cities. So, most French could care less what is and what isn't said about the Pope or Catholicism.

Would even the rural Catholics be likely to kill over insults to the Pope?

[Hudson Jones]

I doubt I was the first to bring up Israel here, because I comment on points I see made that I don't agree with.

What you have said so far has been quite valid and as topics usually go, they go off into tangents. Whether Bonam or any other Israeli apologists like it or not, Israel's occupation and actions in the Middle East and terrorism by extremists and by Israel itself are all intertwined.

I was only pointing out that Bonam was, again, trying to dismiss talk and criticism about Israel by labeling people and doing one of his eye rolls, "Leave Israel out of this!" responses.

[eyeball]

Would even the rural Catholics be likely to kill over insults to the Pope?

After oppressing, dispossessing, detaining, raping, pillaging, torturing and murdering them etc for a couple of generations?

There's no doubt in my mind they'd be likelier to.

[WIP]

You might be "sure" of that, but you'd be wrong. There isn't even a spot on any of the forms that asks you your religion.

Apparently, surnames provide a good indication of religious affiliation. I'm sure that the religion of any applicants who are interviewed as part of the screening process, can be easily discovered by the immigration officials, if they want to know.

[WIP]

As you say, the divide was already fairly sharp. The reality inside a country drives these things a lot more than comments from commentators elsewhere do, I don't think the impact there is worth noting. France has a real problem and is going to have to figure out how to deal with. The previous strategy has been to ignore it, but that didn't work very well. I for one don't think that trying to ban or officially discourage publications critical of religion in general or Islam in particular is the right way forward. If France already has some anti free-speech laws on the books as you say, it would likely benefit from removing some of these rather than implementing more.

I don't know how France resolves their immigration issues now, but a good start would have been to acknowledge that there was a problem in the first place. If the immigrants are living on the economic margins and mostly come from countries that were former French colonies, it may have been smart to recognize possible complications.

From what little I've followed of French politics over the years, it seems to me they have never found a way to resolve the basic conflicts between upholding complete racial equality while honouring their nation's imperial history. They have never managed to come clean about their past, and instead just try to ignore it and hope immigrants also ignore the past.

[WIP]

Would even the rural Catholics be likely to kill over insults to the Pope?

Some day, I would like to see you and others who claim that Muslims and/or Arabs are incorrigible and worse than other religions or ethnic groups put your cards on the table, instead of just leaving your trail of breadcrumbs to the conclusions you desire.

So; what's your solution: Should France expel or exterminate all Muslims and North African immigrants? Why/ or why not?

If they cannot be reasoned with, negotiated with, or trusted in any long term, then what do you propose as the final solution?

[Rue]

To respond to WIP, I personaly am loath to talk in generalized terms about any group. I can not stand it being done about Israelis, Jews, religious Christians on this forum, I don't lik it done with Muslims or anyone else either.

To assume ALL Muslims are anything is illogical. Its a subjective generalization.

If we get into discussions about traits, tendencies, characteristics, it can be intellectualization for stereotyping or discriminatory assumptions. However I am not sure how to discuss this issue without making some generalizations so all I can say is I am t rying to do it constructively and not to justify hating anyone simply because of their ethnicity or religion.

I put it this way. There are Muslim doctrines that mainstream Muslims not just extremist Muslims follow that are not compatible with Western values.

I will give specific examples. The notion of being able to marry more then one woman, the definition of the difference between women and men, the manner in which homosexuality is defined, the doctrine that states that the only true faith is Islam and if you are not a Muslim you are necessarily a dhimmi or kkhafir, or non believer who is not entitled to the same rights as a Muslim because in Islam, Sharia law does not keep religion separate from state and the state is supposed to enforce the Islamic religion and therefore the state must according to Islamic law define non Muslms with inferior terms.

Islam has doctrine that mainstream Muslims in Europe argue means they can only use public swimming pools segregated from non Muslims.

Mainstream Muslims in Europe have asked to opt out of certain laws and to live in their own neighbourhoods segregated from non Muslims so thy can enforce a uniform code of clothing and appearance.

The problem to put it as clear as possible is that its not just Muslim extremists but mainstream Muslims who are moving to Western societies but wanting to retain certain of their religious and cultural values that directly conflict with, contradict, undermine, clash with the pre-existing Western values.

The solution?

Well for me its a willingness BEFORE you come to France of Germany or Italy or whatever, to understand, when you come to these countries, if you are coming with an agenda to use freedom of speech, religious freedom, to impose a lack of freedom of speech of religious freedom and to argue that freedom gives you the right to restrict another's right to freedom in the name of your freedom-that will not suffice and it will not happen.

Bottom line its called assimilation. There has to be a level, a degree of assimilation by immigrants which is a willingness to subordinate and conform to certain laws and cultural values of the country you choose to move to.

You have to be willing to give up certain precepts to be a citizen.

Muslims refusing to assimilate in Europe to European values are not as some put victims of colonialism, they might very well be victims of their own decision to remain separate and apart from the society they are supposed to be embracing.

Now as a Jew its a nasty topic because Jews were blamed for failing to assimilate in Europe. When we did we were still slaughtered.

So I get that fear any minority as that no matter how hard they try assimilate some people will never accept them and that fuels anger in minorities or in the case of we Jews led us to say, no more minority we will create a state where we are a majority.

Its hard to know when something is a discrimination against all peoples equally based on those entrenched elitist class structures, or when the discrimination is against only one visible minority simply because of who they are perceived to be.

Its hard to know whendiscrimination is unfair because its against hard working assimilated immigrants or when it might be instead a resentment-reaction to someone refusing to assimilate which comes across as that minority thinking they are better than the majority.

Its hard to know. Its complex. Its not easy to explain. We all stereotype and make subjective stereotypes of others. We have to look at the entire range of facts and circumstances in any kind of conflict of course.

So all I would say as a minority is, I understand the majority in my country saying, look we can respect certain values you have, but if you want to retain others that ridicule or make fun or degrade or contradict or try destroy our own, we don't want you.

I would never expect anyone to accept my religion or culture if I did not show that same basic courtesy back to them,

If I am Canadian, Canada comes first. If I can not do that, then I should leave. I live by those rules. So I preach them.

If I can not put Canada first I have no business being here.

So I am loath just to criticize Muslims who refuse to assimilate. I criticize all minorities for the same reason.

I think the failure of certain Muslims to assimilate is not that different then any other minority except in the sense that because there are violent Muslim extremists they are dominating the news. Other minority groups do not have extremists in their groups engaging in violence that dominates the news.

I think Muslim extremism is a fact and yes it distorts the perspective of what we think of all Muslims but it does not mean we should not challenge Islam or Muslims or for that matter, Jews, Christians, anyone who claim they can use their religions to undermine our basic concepts of freedom of speech, thought.

There are limits to freedom of religion and one of them is, preach a religion that preaches other religions are inferior, you are breeding intolerance, and that will cause justifiable resistance to your beliefs.

Freedom of religion does not mean the right to use that religion as justification to engage in violence, murder.

I am trying to acknowledge what you said WIP but at the same time try offer a challenge to extremism including Muslim extremism.

Being Canadian means I embrace certain aboriginal values and British legal values and certain basic Judeo-Christian precepts that are also no different than Hindu or Islamic values.

None of our religions make killing, incest, acceptable.

The 10 commandments is not that much to expect from your citizens. Neither is the Charter of Rights values.

You can't live with the laws in your country then what? Do you try have your cake and eat it to?

Well in a democracy you can try use your freedom to pass laws restricting the freedom of others or seeking special status for your own, yes-but then the rest of us get to vote against such initiatives and no it does not make us evil colonialists.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Rue

[Hudson Jones]

To respond to WIP, I personaly am loath to talk in generalized terms about any group. I can not stand it being done about Israelis, Jews, religious Christians on this forum, I don't lik it done with Muslims or anyone else either.

Good. We agree.

I put it this way. There are Muslim doctrines that mainstream Muslims not just extremist Muslims follow that are not compatible with Western values.

Uh oh. Here we go. I have a feeling that you're going to contradict your first statement.

I will give specific examples. The notion of being able to marry more then one woman,

How many Muslims do you know who are married to more than one person? How wide spread is Polygamy in Islam? Have you looked at the facts? Apparently not. Apparently you have elected to grab that huge paint brush of yours and do one of your famous misinformed paintings of Islam and Muslims.

Fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_in_Islam#Countries_that_ban_polygyny

• Egypt (1920)^[30]
• Sudan (1929)^[30]
• India (1939)^[30]
• Algeria^[28]
• Jordan (1951)^[30]
• Syria (1953)^[30]
• Morocco (1958)^[30]
• Bangladesh^[28]
• Iraq (1959)^[30]
• Iran (1967, 1975)^[30]
• Malaysia^[28]
• Kuwait^[28]
• Lebanon^[28]
• Southern Yemen (1974)

There are, of course, some who practice it. Mostly in the rural areas but it's not as widespread as you like to tell people it is. I would compare it to the practice done by Mormons. But who cares any way? Polygamy is an excuse to have sex with more than one partner, which obviously happens in the West. People just don't ask for a religious contract to do it.

To follow the "who cares" comment, it should also be pointed out that it doesn't matter if some Muslim in a Western country wants to have more than one wife; He can't! It's against the law and no Western country has ever changed or will change its law to accommodate that.

the definition of the difference between women and men, the manner in which homosexuality is defined, the doctrine that states that the only true faith is Islam and if you are not a Muslim you are necessarily a dhimmi or kkhafir, or non believer who is not entitled to the same rights as a Muslim

Let me know how many Jews in Israel and some parts of New York feel about the above you have listed. Which newspaper took out pictures of women during the France march (you know, the one where Bibi wasn't invited to)? Which group from what religion continuously throws a fit if they are sat beside women?

Haredim refuse to sit next to women on El Al flight, causing '11-hour-nightmare'

Delta Airlines flight from New York's JFK Airport delayed after ultra-Orthodox Jewish passengers refuse to sit next to women

Before you dismiss the Haredi's, their population is over 1.1 million in Israel which continues to grow faster than any group. It is estimated that 1/3 of Jews in Israel will be Haredi in a couple of decades.

10% of Jews in the States are Haredi and most of them are in New York. Their population is also growing faster than any other group.

because in Islam, Sharia law does not keep religion separate from state and the state is supposed to enforce the Islamic religion and therefore the state must according to Islamic law define non Muslms with inferior terms.

One generalized comment after another. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims living in hundreds of countries. They are not all the same in the way they practice and Muslim countries do not all follow the same rules and regulations.

You have over and over generalized who Muslims are and want, as proved by your polygamy comment, you made a mistake about how 'mainstream' the practice is. Especially for Muslims who live in the West. Just because some Muslim group decides that they want something different in some country, like a separate swimming pool, it doesn't mean: A) This is what mainstream Muslims want and B ) It's a bad thing.

Mainstream Muslims in Europe have asked to opt out of certain laws and to live in their own neighbourhoods segregated from non Muslims so thy can enforce a uniform code of clothing and appearance.

Really? Prove that mainstream Muslims in Europe have asked to opt out certain laws. Are they kind of like the Jews who spit on "immodest" 8 year old girls? Or attack people they don't agree with in general?

With the way their population is growing, do we have to start alarming ourselves of how they're going to take over our cultures? Can we trust anyone who comes to Canada or any other Western country from Israel? Especially since a high percentage of them are Haredi and they continue to grow in population?

The solution?

So what's your solution for these fairly mainstream Jewish population?

Haredim Censor 'Immodest' Cereal Boxes In Lakewood, NJ Grocery Store

OMG OMG OMG! The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming! They want to change our way of life!

In One New York Town, Women Aren’t Allowed to Drive

OMG OMG OMG! The Saudis are here!

Have you heard of Kiryas Joel? The overwhelmingly Haredi town of 22,000 people, located about halfway between New York City and Poughkeepsie

Oh. Wait. They're Jews!

OMG OMG OMG! The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming! They want to change our way of life!

Edited February 6, 2015 by Hudson Jones

[Big Guy]

Wow!

[jbg]

After oppressing, dispossessing, detaining, raping, pillaging, torturing and murdering them etc for a couple of generations?

There's no doubt in my mind they'd be likelier to.

Is there any talk that the U.S. would set Gitmo on fire and burn the prisoners alive? You aver talking about inconceivable situations in modern times.

[dre]

Is there any talk that the U.S. would set Gitmo on fire and burn the prisoners alive? You aver talking about inconceivable situations in modern times.

No but they have no problem having a prison where they jam stuff up prisoners asses and threaten to sick dogs on their balls. Then theres the thousands of torture photos that were kept classified! Wonder what happened in those?

[bush_cheney2004]

No but they have no problem having a prison where they jam stuff up prisoners asses and threaten to sick dogs on their balls. Then theres the thousands of torture photos that were kept classified! Wonder what happened in those?

Who knows....can't be any worse than the photos from Canada's Airborne Regiment in Somalia.

[On Guard for Thee]

Who knows....can't be any worse than the photos from Canada's Airborne Regiment in Somalia.

Oh yeah, way worse.

[jbg]

No but they have no problem having a prison where they jam stuff up prisoners asses and threaten to sick dogs on their balls. Then theres the thousands of torture photos that were kept classified! Wonder what happened in those?

Let's see. Your buddies in ISIS and similar ilk make no pretensions of obeying any law at all. And you reserve your fire for imperfect Western countries?

[dre]

Your buddies in ISIS

ROFLMAO. Theyre your buddies not mine.

[GostHacked]

Is there any talk that the U.S. would set Gitmo on fire and burn the prisoners alive? You aver talking about inconceivable situations in modern times.

Why is GITMO in Cuba and not on US mainland soil? It's been a catch and release program. Some of those released have been causing problems again.

[Big Guy]

I find the outrage at the way that people kill each other to be interesting. A person in an airplane drops a bomb incinerating a number of people (possibly including civilians). That same person is shot down and is incinerated by the folks he was dropping bombs on. It is outrageous that anybody incinerates anybody else but why do people consider one method more outrageous than the other?

There are no rules in war. There is a reason that ISIL video tapes and distributes these videos around the world.

Anyone want to guess why they do this?

[Rue]

.There are of course rules in war. They are called the Geneva conventions. Terrorists do not follow them but hey in Big Guy's world because terrorists do not follow the Geneva conventions he's decided there are none.

Another day another pronouncement from someone who thinks he is in the position to dictate to all his selective world of whatever suits his fantasy at any given moment.

In Big Guy's world terrorists and soldiers engage in the exact same actions and are morally equivalent.

[marcus]

In Rue's world, Israel is above all laws, including the Geneva Conventions. This is why he keeps trying to justify Israel's actions, even though it has been proven that they have broke the law, over and over again.

[Argus]

Some day, I would like to see you and others who claim that Muslims and/or Arabs are incorrigible and worse than other religions or ethnic groups put your cards on the table, instead of just leaving your trail of breadcrumbs to the conclusions you desire.

And someday I'd like to see you and others who frantically defend the excesses of Islam find that their numbers have grown to the extent they have real political power and can start slashing away at your cherished beliefs, all of which they despise.

[Michael Hardner]

And someday I'd like to see you and others who frantically defend the excesses of Islam find that their numbers have grown to the extent they have real political power and can start slashing away at your cherished beliefs, all of which they despise.

It's never going to happen. Religion's influence diminishes in a modern open society, that's just how it goes. There's no reason to believe this religion will progress any differently than others - it just may be the last one to do so. It seems to me that because Christianity is the first religion to arrive at that point we assign a special virtue to it, I guess to make ourselves feel better.

[Rue]

First off Michael H the royal prerogative when used in sentences sounds pompous. You don't speak for anyone but you. Its a pet peeve of mine when people respond describing themselves as we.Just thought I would through that in, because you do not speak for 'ourselves'. I am not sure how many people share your feelings but they are yours. You in fact project them on "ourselves".

I also think you sound no different than many people in Europe did when they denied the extent and nature of the agndae of Hitler and Stalin and now with Putin.

I personally believe you are engaging in a classic example of denial when it comes to Muslim extremism and the amount of turmoil that may have to come before Islamic society can evolve pass its present tense and the destruction it has the potential to cause including chemical and nuclear attacks.

I think you are dangerously naïve and smug about Muslim extremism and the instability in the Muslim world and what it will take to evolve past it. I personally think distance aids that smugness/naivite. I think if you lived close by to this reality, you'd have a far different perspective.

I say all I do with respect not as an insult.

I do understand why someone living in Canada whose idea of a terrorist attack is a lone mad man killing a soldier or attacking the Parliament building would now think they understand Islamic extremism but I don't think you get it myself. I don't think you get it simply because you don't live with it. You don't live with it as a constant 24 hour reality and limitation on your freedom. You might get a 5 minute story on the National, but what else?

What do you know about the extent of Muslim extremism and the extent of turmoil in the Middle East or in certain parts of the Philippines, Pakistan,Afghanistan, Indonesia, Senegal,Mali, Nigeria, now in Yemen or the genocide that continues in Sudan unabated....I mean what do you know about that?

What do any of us Canadians know about that?

Its well and good to sit in Canada removed from direct exposure to it, and pronounce it some sort of temporary evolution and equate it like Obama did to the crusades and deny it as being rooted in Islam and something true Muslims would not do.

Yah I get the denial talk.

Me it doesn't work. I lived with it only for a limited period of time but sufficiently to witness the direct consequence of it. I have seen what it does to Muslims not just non Muslims.

Sorry but I think its real, will get worse before it can get better, and many more innocent people will die before this war is over.

This is not as John Kerry said a winnable war or as most recently said being won. John Kerry is the most stupid man ever to have been Secretary of State.

The turmoil in the Muslim world is a growing war of terrorist attrition that will never end.

Just as it appears to have died down, it will rear its head again.

Terrorism and extremism are like ashes in a forest fire. Just when you think they are out after a fire storm, they are not, and they don't need to much wind to blow them into starting a new fire.

So with due respect I side with Argus on this one. I think before this is over many soft and sheltered Canadians are going to be woken from their cozy sheltered sleep to a rude awakening where the things they take for granted will be challenged.

I think for the rising tide of terrorism to be defeated, it will require ordinary people waking up to a reality they are now in denial about.

No the reality doesn't go away because of some hocus pocus fantasy that the boogy man really isn't a boogy man, he's just an angry kid growing up.

Its no angry kid. Its a sociopathatic killer with delusional thoughts. You go try hug it and show it with liberal tolerance.

I learned long enough not to feed the bears.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Rue