French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[dre]

No... the Clerics are the arbitrators. Maybe you don't understand what the Sharia dustup came from ? It was about using clerics of popular faiths as arbitrators in certain types of non-criminal disputes.

Not only is such arbitration reasonable, but you would have to strip citizens of the freedom to associate and the freedom to enter into voluntary binding contracts to prevent it.

If you and I have a dispute about a private civil matter we can settle it however we choose. If we want a homeless crackhead to arbitrate our dispute thats totally fine provided we both agree. Do I think its smart to voluntarily submit yourself to the judgement of a cult that worships a non-existant, magic men in the sky? Hell no! But we are free to do stupid things.

The worry I have though is that submission wont be REALLY voluntary. There will be a lot of pressure to submit, and in the case of children it CANT really be voluntary. So if such systems should emerge they should be balanced by strong educational campaigns to make sure members of the various abrahamic cults know that its a choice.

[Hudson Jones]

The numbers have already been posted several times. Is reading difficult for you?

Go back to post 310 and click on the link, or get someone to show you how to click on the link.

Remind me where in the poll it says, as you put it: 80% or more Muslims support Sharia law. Apparently I have a difficult time reading and finding that poll.

[jbg]

Remind me where in the poll it says, as you put it:

80% or more Muslims support Sharia law. Apparently I have a difficult time reading and finding that poll.Assuming it exists I have a hard time thinking at least a significant portion of those people are answering of their free will.

[kimmy]

I just saw this, comparing an actual photo of the rally in Paris, to the way it was presented in a Jewish newspaper. They made several women, including Angela Merkel, vanish.

Apparently, for the orthodox Jews, not even Angela Merkel can be seen in the company of men.

What a bunch of jackholes.

-k

[jbg]

I just saw this, comparing an actual photo of the rally in Paris, to the way it was presented in a Jewish newspaper. They made several women, including Angela Merkel, vanish.

Apparently, for the orthodox Jews, not even Angela Merkel can be seen in the company of men.

What a bunch of jackholes.

-k

Many Jews reject those kind of "Jews." And far more openly than Muslims reject the radicals among them.

[Hudson Jones]

Many Jews reject those kind of "Jews." And far more openly than Muslims reject the radicals among them.

The Jews can learn from Muslims' response to the Paris attack which was done in the name of Islam.

the swift and powerful condemnation issued by Muslim groups all over the world will help to reduce anti-Muslim feeling and deter young Muslims from joining the jihadis.

This condemnation by Muslims contrasts strongly with the support given by most Jewish communal associations around the world to Israel’s massacre last summer of over 1,400 civilians, including over 500 children, in Gaza.

Guardian

[Topaz]

I would ask all Christians on this forum, what reaction would the world have if this Charlie did the same thing to Jesus or make fun our God? No good can come from this magazine if its allow to print anything and stirs up any group over religion.

[Rue]

Your attempt Hudson Jones to try twist this terrorist attack around to engage in a pissing contest between who reacts better to terrorist attacks, Muslims or Jews should be no surprise. You have aleady come on once on this thread trying to pit Muslims against Jews suggesting Jews get better treatment when people drew cartoons about them than Muslims.

This is your second attempt to try engage in a line of comment that necessarily criticizes Jews as a collective and now would suggest we did not react appropriately after this last terror attack let alone pose it in a way that compares our reactions to those in the Muslim community and can c ome upw ith an evaluation that the Muslim reaction could be quantified let alone be quantified to be "better" than the Jewish reaction.

Your comments are without any basis. They are purely subjective and they necessarily call on people to criticize Jews as a collective and suggest Jews are inferior to Muslims when we react to terror.

For all the above reasons I hope people see your comments as I do,hateful of Jews, exploitative of Muslims, baseless, and a failed attempt to incite resentment against Jews.

Your agenda Hudson Jones is not only transparent but it bitterly fails.

I for one am glad it is there for all to see so you can be called out on it,

It is without a doubt for me your most hateful post yet on this forum but I can't say I am surprised. After your Jews are treated better by the West (press) than Muslims went flat, it was only a matter of time until you would come back and try again to say something necessarily hateful about Jews on this thread.

Oh but please do explain how its not hateful.

[msj]

I would ask all Christians on this forum, what reaction would the world have if this Charlie did the same thing to Jesus or make fun our God? No good can come from this magazine if its allow to print anything and stirs up any group over religion.

Charlie Hebdo has printed covers and cartoons that Christians would find "offensive."

Google "Charlie Hebdo Catholic Cartoons" and take a look for yourself.

Given that many Christians live in free societies and are used to criticism I think those covers are just wallpaper.

To be offended by something, while I sympathize that one may not be able to help how one feels about it, there really is not one much ought to do about it if one truly believes in freedom to choose religion, or not, and if one chooses to allow all people to express themselves.

I see an Orthodox Jewish newspaper chose to print a picture of the world leaders who were in France sans women. That is, the newspaper photoshopped out Angela Merkel and other women from the picture.

I find that more offensive than any cartoon. It's a complete denial of reality being edited out.

But they have every right to deny reality all they want (as any religious person must do in order to maintain their faith).

Edited January 14, 2015 by msj

[Rue]

I would say Topaz you already have an answer. No Christians or Jews for that matter have gone on a killing rampage over Charlie Hebdo cartoons and there have been many not just satirizing Islam but Christianity and Judaism.

Charlie Hebdo is blatantly anti Zionist and in its criticism of Israel also engaged in comics that could be said to insult all Jews. It engaged in numerous cartoons insulting the Catholic church and anti abortion Christians.

The point is Charlie Hebdo had a version of politics that insulted all conventional religions.

The point is no Christian or Jew went on a rampage or interprets their religion to call for a one world state where our religion is the only one allowed and all other believers either convert or die.

More importantly when Christians do defend their religion from what they feel is unfair criticism many of them do get lambasted as extremists, while with Muslims, the press today has taken to defining many Muslims with extreme views moderates simply because they do not engage in violence.

You have a US President claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is reasonable and moderate and has placed 8 advisors in his inner circle who support its beliefs and he claims at the same time to be a Christian.

While Coptic Christians were being massacered by Morsi in Egypt, the so called champion of the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood, he remained silent. He has remained silent as Christians in South Sudan continue to die in a genocide. His half brother is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood collecting money for the Sudanese government. Both his fathers, his biological father and his step father, were Muslm Brogtherhood members. He has openly praised the Muslim Brotherhood. Its why he and Erdogan financed them into creating a loose knit group of these members to take down Ghaddafi before they turned on Obama and Erdogan and did not simply continue in Syria.

When Assyrian Christians were being wiped out by Assad in Syria, Obama said nothing, He would not assist the Assyrians at the time try fight back against Assad. The only people he supported were Sunni Muslim brotherhood extremists.

When Christians were being persecuted in Iraq and Iran, not a peep out of him.

You have your answer. Christians did not turn on Obama or attack the world.

When Christian Americans criticize Obama's alleged Christian clergy as a racist and in abandoning them, none of them went on terror rampages.

We have people on this forum who try to restate Hamas as being freedom fighters and reasonable.Abbas is described as a moderate when he stands up in his assembly and gives standing ovations to fellow Fatah members calling for a war to take back Israel.

You already have your answer.

More to the point, in a democracy, unpopular statements are part of freedom of speech. If you think simply criticizing your religion gives you a right to kill you know the answer to that.

Muslim extremism is not just a provoked anger reacting to comments or cartoons.

It is proactive. It does not just react to colonialists or Zionists. It is about people taking the existing passages of the Koran and continuing to interpret those passages in the same manner as they have been interpreted for over 3,000 years and long before colonialism or Zionism could be used as excuses for this behaviour.

It is about taking 1 of over 109 passages in the Koran and using them to justify engaging in war against Muslim non believers.

It is about setting up a one world Muslim state (caliphate).

The only way this kind of behaviour will stop is two ways; I-Muslims engage in open debate as to the interpretation of their religion and evolve past rigid extremist literal interpretations of the Koran, which is not likely since the majority of Muslims still cannot read and therefore engage in the basics needed to engage in critical thought and so remain dependent on their imams to interpret the Koran for them; II-Muslim extremists are killed.

In the first course of action, we enable more terrorism trying to portray terrorism as an understandable, justifiable reaction of a victim to oppression. It is not. Terrorists are not victims, they are pro active victimizers.

In the second alternative there is no room for negotiation or discussion. France just learned that yet again.

Bottom line-Christians already know, engage in the behaviour these Muslim extremists do, you die in a hail of bullets.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Rue

[Big Guy]

So it appears that it was Al-Qaeda (the Yemen branch) that financed and organized that massacre in Paris;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/al-qaeda-yemen-charlie-hebdo-paris-attacks-201511410323361511.html

It looks pretty certain that this attack was based in Yemen.

Now we know where it originated.

Will France now invade Yemen to revenge this atrocity. France has the military and Yemen has a smaller populations than Afghanistan. Will France now follow the American lead and invade Yemen - so they can free the country from terrorists and let the little girls go to school.

Or are the French smarter than the Americans?

Smart countries learn from their mistakes.

Very smart countries learn from other countries mistakes.

[Argus]

Many Jews reject those kind of "Jews." And far more openly than Muslims reject the radicals among them.

Maybe but the political system in Israel caters to them, and their numbers continue to grow. Not too distantly in the future Israel secular Jewish population will be in the minority, outnumbered by the combination of Muslims and Haradi. What kind of an Israel will that produce?

[Argus]

I would ask all Christians on this forum, what reaction would the world have if this Charlie did the same thing to Jesus or make fun our God? No good can come from this magazine if its allow to print anything and stirs up any group over religion.

People make fun of Jesus and mock him and Mary all the time. There was a play recently which portrayed him as a homosexual. Mary is often mocked. And then there's this http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2013/12/25/a-brief-history-of-piss-christ/

[bush_cheney2004]

....Will France now invade Yemen to revenge this atrocity.

France will do whatever it wishes/needs to do, regardless of what other countries have done. Just ask Mali :

[Michael Hardner]

Many Jews ...

"Many" ... how many...

[Michael Hardner]

People make fun of Jesus and mock him and Mary all the time.

I'm going to help you out with your argument here. CBC claims to have not shown the cartoons because they were 'offensive', which could be fair if it were consistent. Apparently they DID show 'Piss Christ' which is just as offensive isn't it ?

My source on this is the canadaland podcast for last week.

[Derek 2.0]

France will do whatever it wishes/needs to do, regardless of what other countries have done. Just ask Mali :

Indeed.........Meanwhile an extension of French policy left port yesterday….Southbound and down.

[Rue]

How much planning is involved by Al Quaeda remains in doubt. Some argue it was extensive and well trained-others will argue they did very little if anything just take credit and let these idiots act on their own.

Al Quaeda has general training areas in Yemen for terrorists but then whether they send them out with autonomy to plan their own attacks or stay in direct contact directing them is another. I tend to think the latter is not happening just the former so that its harder to stop them.

Centralized or directed attacks require a communication line that in this day and age can be monitored.

I personally think what we see is a new tactic, train them generally in hatred, Muslim extremism and how to use weapons, then send them out on their own to do what they want. This way if they are caught they have nothing really to reveal other than their immediate cell.

The formula I am suggesting is not different than the Algerian cells who fought France. Each was on a need to know basis and only carried out a narrow rigid set of commands not attached to anything else so that if terrorists were caught, no amount of torture would give way the network.

I think its a modification of that system using unstable people.

You don't see at this time highly educated people involved in the attacks, so far its marginalized people. There is a reason for that. The less formal education, the less sophisticated the planning and attack and that may be a far more potent tactic than overkill, overanalysis and trying to engage in elaborate attacks requiring academic skills and training.

That said I think two tactics will continue-one from marginalized people either "inspired by" or indirectly assisted by terrorists, and the other more elaborate. For all we know the series of sporadic attacks is to take attention away from a large ellaborate one coming.

Counter intelligence is like looking for a needle in a hay stack.

I think additional attacks in France, Britain, Germany, Belgium Holland perhaps, Denmark, Spain, are likely.

I also think China anticipates increased Muslim uprisings in some of its states and I think Russia is vulnerable to anther attack in Chechnya.

A war on the ground spreading past Syria and Iraq into Yemen and Jordan and/or Sudan, Libya, Chad, Niger, Nigeria, all are possibilities.

One thing is clear, Nigeria with a huge population has lost control of its state and its Christians are absolutely exposed to Muslim extremists to the point there is no state protection, none. This is the recipe for a civil war.

[Rue]

"Many" ... how many...

Oh about as many as Hudson Jones was referring to when he stated:

"The Jews can learn from Muslims'".

I think you get my point. Thanks. I am not trying to get in your face with that either. Said out of respect because

if your point is these generalizations are not helpful, I agree but it applies to many of us not just JBG.

Fine line between generalization and stereotype. For me I guess I ask is the generalization intended to say something positive or negative.

In this case the people accusing some on this board of being unfair to Muslims have no problem using the exact same tactic they think unfair to Muslims against Jews and Christians in their comments, in my subjective opinion.

Now to your other point about the CBC self regulating. Are you saying they engage in a double standard with Christians than they do Muslims or Jews?

You really wan to go there?

The CBC has pronounced biases against Israel, the Harper government.They have biases. However to suggest they don't treat Muslim criticism the way they do Christian criticism is a serious inference. You have any proof.

Puttling out one example of self regulation proves nothing. In fact I would argue you have removed it out of its context and are stretching it to try fit a theory of a double standard against Muslims in the press that I see zero proof of.

I say my comments to debate you on that. Unlike H Jones, I know you might take the time to clarify further rather than just raise it and leave it hang like a foul odour.

Thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

Now to your other point about the CBC self regulating. Are you saying they engage in a double standard with Christians than they do Muslims or Jews?

You really wan to go there?

I don't want to drift this thread but as much as we're on point about people being offended, then yes it's a double standard.

You have any proof.

I already said - Canadaland podcast examined this in their show last Thursday.

try fit a theory of a double standard against Muslims in the press that I see zero proof of.

Against Muslims ? It's CBC policy, so the comment would be "against" the CBC if you see it that way.

[Hudson Jones]

The attempt to make it look like that there is a consistency in how all religions and religious people are treated in the media and by Charlie Hebdo is a failure and is not based on reality.

I hate doing this, and I know even though I am going to give this disclaimer, it will not totally stop the brigades from accusing and asking the question I am going to give an answer to: I do not think the action and reaction of the killers is excusable or justified. I also don't think political or legal response, in order to censor expression is at the same level as the violence these people carried out or others have threatened to do. At the same time, I believe these terrorists and those who threaten violence, in no way represent Muslims around the world.

Charlie Hebdo was never consistent in their targeting with their low-browed humour. Of all the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I have seen, there may have been the occasional Christian cartoons and there was only one about Jews. The overwhelmingly majority of them have been about Muslims.

On top of that, Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for making a comment about Sarkozy's son and his conversion to Judaism. Not only was he fired, but he was also taken to French court for 'anti-semitism'! Yes, the great symbol of freedom of speech and expression and the media outlet who has been put on a pedestal, Charlie Hebdo, and many here in the West, are selective when it comes to freedom of expression.

#IamNotCharlie

Edited January 14, 2015 by Hudson Jones

[bush_cheney2004]

Freedom of expression is selective by definition. Nothing that Charlie did or didn't do in the way of cartoon(s) inconsistency changes the underlining premise of expression and speech rights.

[Shady]

The attempt to make it look like that there is a consistency in how all religions and religious people are treated in the media and by Charlie Hebdo is a failure and is not based on reality.

I hate doing this, and I know even though I am going to give this disclaimer, it will not totally stop the brigades from accusing and asking the question I am going to give an answer to: I do not think the action and reaction of the killers is excusable or justified. I also don't think political or legal response, in order to censor expression is at the same level as the violence these people carried out or others have threatened to do. At the same time, I believe these terrorists and those who threaten violence, in no way represent Muslims around the world.

Charlie Hebdo was never consistent in their targeting with their low-browed humour. Of all the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I have seen, there may have been the occasional Christian cartoons and there was only one about Jews. The overwhelmingly majority of them have been about Muslims.

On top of that, Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for making a comment about Sarkozy's son and his conversion to Judaism. Not only was he fired, but he was also taken to French court for 'anti-semitism'! Yes, the great symbol of freedom of speech and expression and the media outlet who has been put on a pedestal, Charlie Hebdo, and many here in the West, are selective when it comes to freedom of expression.

#IamNotCharlie

If you're trying to say that Jews would be comitting terrorist acts against cartoonists too, you're wrong. Very, very wrong. And an Islamic violence apologist.

[Hudson Jones]

If you're trying to say that Jews would be comitting terrorist acts against cartoonists too, you're wrong. Very, very wrong. And an Islamic violence apologist.

Good thing for my disclaimer. I'm not surprised that you're one of those who came here with that comment. I am a little surprised that it happened so quickly.

You are very very bad at reading and someone who I find a waste of time to respond to.

[Black Dog]

Free speech 4 eva!

Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism since terror attacks killed 20 people in Paris last week, including three gunmen.

...

Among those detained for a Facebook posting was Dieudonne, a popular and controversial comic who has repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism. He was later released and will be put on trial next month for justifying terrorism, a judicial official said on condition of anonymity in keeping with French custom.