French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[eyeball]

Look, when I say Clash of Radicals I mean the Islamic radicals that are inspired and provoked into retaliating against the western radicals who believe it is perfectly okay and righteous to invade Muslim lands and screw them over for, resources, to meet some geo-strategic goal, or because of their idelology etc etc.

You've been posting long enough around here that you should be able to figure out what I'm talking about. If you want to screw up your forehead and put on a big display of pretending you don't know what I mean when I say western radicals in the context of the times then you're probably sympathetic to their cause.

[Boges]

Look, when I say Clash of Radicals I mean the Islamic radicals that are inspired and provoked into retaliating against the western radicals who believe it is perfectly okay and righteous to invade Muslim lands and screw them over for, resources, to meet some geo-strategic goal, or because of their idelology etc etc.

You've been posting long enough around here that you should be able to figure out what I'm talking about. If you want to screw up your forehead and put on a big display of pretending you don't know what I mean when I say western radicals in the context of the times then you're probably sympathetic to their cause.

These "terrorists" are home grown. It's not a matter of foreign policy or poverty. It's completely a matter of ideology. Sure the war in Iraq was Geo political, but I venture to guess that wasn't the reason these dudes shot up Charlie Hebdo.

Why shouldn't people in the West stand up against these ideologies that we most certainly wouldn't be accepting of from any other identifiable group?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Boges

[Rue]

Eyeball you are being challenged because you are not differentiating in your responses. You are trying to take a complex issue and reduce it to black and white with two bad guys. its not working, and you are being challenged for it. This device of portraying the issue as one radical getting what he deserves from the other is what was challenged and I challenge it as well as an intellectually lazy and sloppy exercise.

This is not about provoking terrorists and getting what you deserve because you knew by being rude to terrorists you would die and you should not be rude to terrorists.

Its also not about you arbitrarily and subjectively deciding that anyone who questions terrorism or for that matter conservative religious dogma should be thrown into this simplistic category of being called a radical.

You clearly in your defective analysis are putting Charlie Hebdo and the idiots who killed their journalists at the same level of behaviour. They are not. Their mandates and methods of operation are not even remotely the same.

Don't back track and say, hey wait you know what I mean. No I do not and others do not because what we see is you simplifying and then when your simplistic stereotypes of the parties in conflict fall apart back-tracking saying its not what you meant.

The fact is when terrorists attack, they do so because they feel it is legitimate to express political will through violence and terror.

When political cartoonists "attack" they use a pen and a depiction of a concept.

Don't even attempt to put them at the same level. I mean we've seen on this thread alone comparisons to Ernzt Zundel, Jim Keegstra. Who next should we compare Charlie Hebdo to? Talk about trying to turn the murder victims into monsters deserving death..let us get real.

There is no justification for what happened none, zero.

Bill Donaghue the head of the largest Catholic lobby group in the US yesterday got into an argument in which he complained that Charlie Hebdo was engaging in pornographic editorials that were insulting and they knew or ought to have known would cause backlash. Well of course. They were designed to do just that.

To provoke, to cause people to talk back, to challenge. In a democracy we don't kill,we debate back with words, pictures, creative expression but we don't kill. You clearly don't get that and are trying to rationalize what happened and say it was coming because it was insulting. No. Insulting pictures don't give anyone the right to kill, anyone. Period.

Interestingly and I direct this at our resident Yank, Bush-Chaney, he is probably well aware of the Larry Flynt case that went to the Supreme Court of the US over Hustler magazine,

The US Supreme Court in that case, clearly enunciated that even offensive pornography is allowed in a democracy as a cornerstone to free speech. It stated right in the decision, yes the words or pictures can hurt some, be offensive, be disgusting but that in itself, those kinds of elements in themselves don't constitute immediate grounds for censorship.

In that case we were looking at censorship of course not a defence to murder.

However that case is the leading case today on the limits of free speech and I think its safe to say it would be followed in Canada if push came to shove.

That said, you never know with human rights commissions what they might come up with.

The point is there is one issue, when do we regulate offensive things. The other is can you justify homicide by saying you got upset because of a cartoon.

As for terrorists, the people who engaged in this crime have emerged as Al Quaeda trained and sympathetic to extremist Muslim beliefs that believe you think their way or you die.

Its time to wake up, these are not victims of imperialism. They are imperialists. They are engaging in classic imperialism. Its just in your case Eye, clearly only Westerners can act like imperialist oppressors, never Muslim extremists.

You save the blame it on Western imperialist colonialist behaviour for terrorist behaviour thesis for yourself. Don't buy it.

[Big Guy]

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?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Big Guy

[Wilber]

Do no harm, it's really that simple.

Speaking of atrocious perversion are you one of these guys who think a million cartoons of Muhammad porking a pig will help? I wonder how the family of the Muslim cop that was executed will feel about that. Just mentionin'.

I'm also saying that this War is a Clash of Radicals and both of you are doing your level best to silence every moderate on the planet that isn't with you.

Like I said you guys are perfect enemies, for each other.

Conveniently disregarding the fact the only reason these cartoons exist at all is because of people who clothe their actions in the cloak of a religion.

[Boges]

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?

Don't do any of these things. Ultimately these home grown terrorist acts are criminal and need to be treated as such.

What we should not do is sympathize with people who are offended by Western Freedom of Speech or anything that makes Western Civilization what it is. Charlie Hebdo's freedom to be provocative is exactly the type of Freedom we should fight to protect here in the West.

[Guest]

What is the motivation or cause for their actions?

The supremacy of their God. Bollocks to that.

[Big Guy]

And how do we "fight to protect here in the West"?

And how do we convince them that our God is better than their God?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Big Guy

[GostHacked]

Of course it is. This is not the public though.

Um, I thought those were forum rules? You get your undies bunched up when others call politicians names.

[Boges]

And how do we "fight to protect here in the West"?

Seems like these protests in France and Germany show that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. Here in North America it's not, YET, as bad as in Europe. But we shouldn't be trying to welcome people who feel way into the public discussion on how this country should be run. EI JT going to a Montreal Mosque that practices extremist forms of Islam.

And most certainly don't have any patience for ANYONE that wants this country to accept any form of Sharia Law.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Anti-terrorism officers hunting the terrorists issued photographs of the two. Witnesses said the gunmen shouted "We are from Al Qaeda in Yemen" and "Allahu akabar!"

All right USA, France and Canada - we have a new target! Time to create an "alliance of the outraged" and attack Yemen. It should be a short battle and the Yemen people will greet us with open arms. Perhaps some of the more irate members on this board will volunteer so we can "kill those scumbags and murderers" and let those little girls go to school. That will work. Won't it?

It's been working so far, Yemen has seen it's share of US military drones doing attacks within the country for 5+ years.

[Michael Hardner]

Um, I thought those were forum rules? You get your undies bunched up when others call politicians names.

Yes. That's why I said "of course it is..."

But we're not "the public", that seems to be the part you missed.

[Black Dog]

It appears the two remaining shooters have got the martyrdom they desired.

A third man who had been holding a hostages at a Paris kosher deli this morning has also been killed.

[GostHacked]

Yes. That's why I said "of course it is..."

But we're not "the public", that seems to be the part you missed.

So it is part of the rules. Just trying to get clarification here, that is all. Being public or not is irrelevant to the standing rule.

You've complained at others for name calling, just trying for some consistency here.

[Big Guy]

To Borges - Thank you for your responses. I am not baiting you or disagreeing with you but am trying to elicit intelligent solutions to these terrorist attack problems.

Do you suggest that protests like the ones in France and Germany to show that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated will help? I assume that you are referring to the peaceful protests. What about the ones which result in damage to mosques and violence towards Muslims?

I also read your post as a criticism of Justin Trudeau visiting a mosque which allegedly practices an extremist form of Islam. Do you feel that his visit encouraged violence from extremist terrorists? What approach do you think our politicians should take towards the Muslim community?

BTW - I understand that the 2011 visit was explained as Trudeau visiting before the extremist bent of that mosque was known. If I am wrong please correct me.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/07/tory-attack-on-trudeau-mosque-visit-backfires

Should politicians stay away from Muslim mosques and organizations in their constituencies?

Edited January 9, 2015 by Big Guy

[Boges]

To Borges - Thank you for your responses. I am not baiting you or disagreeing with you but am trying to elicit intelligent solutions to these terrorist attack problems.

Do you suggest that protests like the ones in France and Germany to show that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated will help? I assume that you are referring to the peaceful protests. What about the ones which result in damage to mosques and violence towards Muslims?

I also read your post as a criticism of Justin Trudeau visiting a mosque which allegedly practices an extremist form of Islam. Do you feel that his visit encouraged violence from extremist terrorists? What approach do you think our politicians should take towards the Muslim community?

BTW - I understand that the 2011 visit was explained as Trudeau visiting before the extremist bent of that mosque was known. If I am wrong please correct me.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/07/tory-attack-on-trudeau-mosque-visit-backfires

Should politicians stay away from Muslim mosques and organizations in their constituencies?

Peaceful Protests of course. If there is a move by a certain portion of the population to move towards an acceptance of Sharia, that should be resisted by people who appreciate Western Values.

The sect of Islam, Wahhabism, is the same form of Islam we see with ISIS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

So regardless of when JT knew about the allegations of this specific church, it's not the type of values and/or voters I'd want the potential future PM of Canada to try and court.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

So it is part of the rules. Just trying to get clarification here, that is all. Being public or not is irrelevant to the standing rule.

You've complained at others for name calling, just trying for some consistency here.

Right... MLW doesn't have the same rules for self-expression that, say, a street corner does.

[Rue]

The follow up attacks made one thing clear, crystal clear. When you attack innocent civilians in a Jewish market, simply because they are Jewish that is not provoked and it shows terrorists don't just react when provoked so the whole litany of justifications that say people bring on terrorism by saying certain things is a crock.

What I also wish to remind people is that Muslim terrorists are at war with Jews. It does not matter whether we are Zionist or not. They want us all dead. That is precisely what the constitution of Hamas says.

So when I hear people call such people simply reacting to colonialism I say loud and clear-bull. This is a religious war and the enemy among many is ANY Jew and all Jews realize that when we travel, if we are openly visible, etc.

I commend the French police in killing the two idiots and in preventing even more deaths in the market. They are doing a difficult job and it seems with as much professional excellence as possible.

[Hudson Jones]

This post has nothing to do with the reaction of the those who think killing people is the right response. Of course, it was wrong and there is no way anyone can justify their action. This post is to point out the double standard we have here in the West.

I'm all for free speech even if it's distasteful. I even disagree with Canada's free speech laws and believe anyone should be able to say whatever they want without being persecuted by law. Whether it's the rabid Ezra Levant, a backwards radical Muslim cleric, or the racist, reactionary-driven Ann Coulter. I think, shaming these people, especially now, on the internet is a better way to react to these people.

That said, there is a double standard here. When papers in Europe publish these cartoons; some funny, some not funny and some derogatory, most people in the West will come out in support of these cartoons in the name of free speech and against censorship. However, when there is any hint of criticism of Israel or Zionism, you will find major censorship and an automatic accusation of 'anti-semitism'. Many are suddenly offended and there is no room for it in the Western media. Case in point, is the International Holocaust Cartoon contest that happened a few years back in Iran, where thousands of cartoons were submitted from around the world. The purpose of this cartoon contest was not to "deny the holocaust" or "Jew hatred", but it was to denounce "Western hypocrisy on freedom of speech".

The cartoon contest was criticized by pretty much everyone in the West, including the U.S. State department, Israel, the UN head, Kofi Annan, ADL and others. Some of the media outlets in Europe, in order to show that they don't hold a double standard, announced that they would post some of the cartoons, but then backed out:

On February 8, Flemming Rose (the cultural editor for Jyllands-Posten), told CNN: "My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with that Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them". Later that day, the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten would under no circumstances publish the Holocaust cartoons.

Here are the top two winners of the contest and the cartoons which were mostly censored in the West:

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no double standard....such cartoons were published and distributed in the "West".....there were no executions by offended "Zionists".

[Guest]

You're missing the point by a mile, HJ. It's not that people shouldn't be offended by speech. It's not that they shouldn't express disgust. It's not that they shouldn't protest. It's that they shouldn't kill.

[Rue]

As Bush stated, both those cartoons were widely circulated in the West so for H Jones to claim they were not is FALSE.

In fact it was important those cartoons and all the others along with them were widely distributed in the Israeli and Western media so they could generate the discussionthey then did.

By not censoring them they could be used to illustrate how they engaged in the tactic invoked when questioning Israel's exstence called holocaust inversion,, i.e., the tactic of suggesting the statelessness of Palestinians is the equivalent of how Jews and others were treated in the holocaust and so Jews are Nazis and thus the depiction of the concentration camps and concentration camp uniform.

By not censoring them, the defficiencies of the tactic of holocaust inversion could then be challenged and they were not just by Jews, but moderate Muslims, Christians, etc.

Hudson Jones is well aware these cartoons were challenged for their comparison to the holocaust and that no Jew or Christian or anyone else when challenging them went on a killing spree against the persons who drew them.

For that matter Israel did not attack Iran when it held its holocaust denial symposium where those cartoons were showcased. It seems Mr. Jones is also selective on the categories of awards handed out in Iran when those cartoons were presented, including one category for the cartoon that was the most physically insulting depiction of a JEW not an Israeli or Zionist we might add.

Further, the latest deaths show clearly Muslim extremists targetted Jews not because they were Zionist or did anything provocative but simply because they were Jews.

So when Hudson Jones says to Jews we have a cancer called Zionism that needs to be wiped out he can claim it means whatever he wants but we know what it means. We live it each day and each death of our fellow Jews, tells us what the words "wiped out" mean when its made in reference to our Jewish identity.

Let's be clear the acts of these Muslim extremists are in full conformity to the words, mandates and missions set out in the constitutions fof Al Quaeda where these terrorists came from. as well as ISIL, Hezbolah, Hamas, etc. which all have the same words calling on Muslims worldwide to engage in a religious war to rid the world of Jews by killing them, regardless of whether they are Zionist or Israeli or not.

I state again the constitutions of Hamas, Al Quaeda, Al Asqa Martyr Brigades. Hezbollah all do not distinguish Jews from Zionist Jews when it says kill them all as a religious. Zionism is the excuse to couch and hide the true target, ANY Jew and for that matter any other non Muslim who will not convert to Islam.

These attacks are not in isolation. As we discuss this topic a huge slaughter yet again of Christians by Boca Raton is being discovered.

I state it again, these Muslim extremists attacked and killed Jews in Paris no differently than they do Christians in Nigeria or Sudan or Egypt or the Bahaiis in Iran or the Kurds of the Berbers, Hindus, Buddists, Sieks, and on and on because it is a central precept of their Muslim extremist religious beliefs that Jews and these other religious believers are not worthy of life and are valid kills in an on-going religious war against non Muslims across the world.

So this exercise of trying to restate what they did as a simple reaction to colonialism and/or Zionism has been proven by the terrorists' very actions not to be the case. The people who are dying are not colonialists.

Hudson Jones is dead wrong. There is no double standard by the West. We openly criticize our past history and current beliefs-each and every day through free speech. We criticize religious extremism in ANY form with the same standard of criticism.

Pulling the Muslim card to say the criticism against extremism is only because its Muslim is a crock.. It is because it is extremist not because it is simply Muslim. More Muslims have died at the hands of Muslims then any other people. Ismaili and Amidyha Muslims have had to flee persecution and death by their fellow Muslims no differently than Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Christians, Bahaiis, etc.

When all of us criticize extremism in religious belief including Muslim extremists its for the same reasons.

We are sick of people using the name of God to kill and equally as sick of people trying to portray Muslim extremists as reactors to their own victimization. They are not victims. They are victimizers.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Rue

[Hudson Jones]

Both those cartoons were widely circulated in the West so I do not know

Back this up with links to how widely it was circulated in the West. Because I had a hard time finding links to the images when I went to make this post.

Once again, just because you said so, it doesn't make it so. Post something to back up your claim.

[Argus]

"Nihilistic religion" is an oxymoron.

Nevertheless.

[-TSS-]

This is just the beginning. 2015 will go down as the year of relentless islamist-terrorism in Europe. Fools like Hollande will be making their sorry excuses but the line will be crossed this year. Perhaps this was not enough to cross that line but you can bet your bottom dollar that there's gonna be more to follow.