French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Hudson Jones]

You're missing the point by a mile, HJ.

Actually, I haven't missed any points. This is why I commented what my post was about. Of course it's wrong to kill, because a person is offended by a cartoon. There is no justification whatsoever in regards to what these zealots did.

My post was about the hypocrisy and double standards we have in regards to free speech and censorship.

[Argus]

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.

Yeah, that's so much drivel. It's once again excusing the BROWN man, because whatever he does that's naughty, well, it's not like he's a civilized white man, now is it? No, it must be OUR fault, because as White people we always bear responsibility for whatever non-White people do.

These assholes didn't shoot up a magazine because the US invaded Iraq. They did it because they embraced a violent death cult which tells them they'll get free virgins in the afterlife if they die as martyrs.

[Argus]

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?

By killing them, of course.

[-TSS-]

Oh boys, all this is just prelude. Mark my words.

[Hudson Jones]

One of the best articles I've read on this topic is from Juan Cole. His perspective of the situation and his knowledge of the Middle East makes this a must read - Here are some highlights where he delves into the psyche of Al Qaeda and their recruitment efforts:

Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris

The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion.

Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination. This tactic is similar to the one used by Stalinists in the early 20th century.

This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes

Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, then led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deployed this sort of polarization strategy successfully in Iraq, constantly attacking Shiites and their holy symbols, and provoking the ethnic cleansing of a million Sunnis from Baghdad. The polarization proceeded, with the help of various incarnations of Daesh (Arabic for ISIL or ISIS, which descends from al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia). And in the end, the brutal and genocidal strategy worked, such that Daesh was able to encompass all of Sunni Arab Iraq, which had suffered so many Shiite reprisals that they sought the umbrella of the very group that had deliberately and systematically provoked the Shiites.

“Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.

The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.

[Argus]

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'.

No, when they're published people will come out in support of their right to publish. That doesn't mean they can't be criticized. There is no lack of critics of the value, taste and skillset of the writers of this magazine. And when similar material is published here it will also be criticized. As for 'criticism of Israel' there is a massive volume of it here, and none of it is censored. What is censored is when you start agitating for Jews to be killed and stuff like that.

As for anti-semitism, much of the criticism of Israel IS based on anti-semitism. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocked the prophet, but it didn't, so far as I know, call for some action against an identifiable group.

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".

No, it was to deny the Holocaust and engage in an orgy of Jew hatred. They were very clear on that. Hell, the 'contest' was in response to one little newspaper in Denmark which published a few cartoons, only one or two of which were slightly critical of Islam! And the Iranian government decides to hold a big international 'contest' for cartoons to mock and ridicule Jews? Huh!? If they had any interest in actually responding to the cartoons their so-called contest would have been to mock Denmark. But no, it was just another opportunity to express how disgusting and despicable they thought Jews were.

Not surprised you were a fan.

The cartoon contest was criticized by pretty much everyone in the West,

Naturally. I'm pretty sure the only people who defended it were the KKK, white supremacist groups, Nazis, and some Jew hating Muslims.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Argus

[Guest]

Actually, I haven't missed any points. This is why I commented what my post was about. Of course it's wrong to kill, because a person is offended by a cartoon. There is no justification whatsoever in regards to what these zealots did.

My post was about the hypocrisy and double standards we have in regards to free speech and censorship.

You are missing the point. The reaction to any expression, be it cartoons, placards, twitter posts, etc, is in itself a form of expression. If I see those two cartoons you posted, I think that they are making points I don't agree with, but I'm not offended by them. If I was, it would be my right to ignore them, protest against them, write a letter to the editor, etc. Just because I don't have the same feelings about those cartoons as I do about the ones showing Muhammad in a poor light does not make me a hypocrite, nor is it an indication of a double standard.

Any media outlet has the right to decide which, if any, images they show. Some outlets decided to repeat the offending cartoons in the coverage of the Paris shooting, some didn't. That's up to them. It's also up to them whether or not they publish the cartoons you posted. I don't like that they didn't post the relevant cartoons in regard to this latest news story, and you're upset that they didn't publish the cartoons in tyour post. That's free expression.

The only difference is that there is one group that thinks people should die for it.

Edited January 9, 2015 by bcsapper

[Guest]

One of the best articles I've read on this topic is from Juan Cole. His perspective of the situation and his knowledge of the Middle East makes this a must read - Here are some highlights where he delves into the psyche of Al Qaeda and their recruitment efforts:

The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.

Too late. It's been resisted for years.

[-TSS-]

It has always been a source of astonishment for me that are those people here in Europe who openly support immigration from countries as incompatible as possible with western values as possible simply naive and gullible or are most of them cultural-marxists who callously want to proceed the end of cohesion within the nation-states of Europe.

Doubtlessly both of them are there in large numbers. There are surely a lot of people in the first group who are waking up from their cinderella-dreams.

Unfortunately, for the second group things are going exactly by the script and too many of these people are in powerful positions.

[Bonam]

The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.

That's one response... but it fails in the long run because people will only tolerate violence for so long before their patience wears out and they demand something be done. As long as there is a group of extremists whose goal it is to stoke the violence and foment the conflict, simply "resisting impulses" is just not an effective response.

The reality is that a lot of the tension results from the political elite deciding to forcefully mix populations of very different cultures, who have a history of antagonism and violence. When one complains about colonial powers arbitrarily drawing lines on a map in the middle east, creating states that make no sense given the ethnic makeup of the region, that is what they are talking about. But the same is equally true of rapidly importing tens of millions of Muslims into Europe. Muslims can immigrate to Europe safely and peacefully... provided that the immigration rate is kept low enough that they can mix and become a part of the local culture. But the current rate of immigration from Muslim countries to Europe is far far above this rate, and it is causing rapid changes in demographics, formation of ethnic/religious enclaves, a failure of assimilation, etc.

So I would say that the real response is for Europe (and Canada and the USA) to start looking intelligently at their immigration policies, and decide whether importing tens of millions of Muslims really makes sense or not. There is no argument to support these high immigration rates from Muslim countries other than a toxic vision of political correctness promulgated by the far left extreme.

[Hudson Jones]

No, when they're published people will come out in support of their right to publish. That doesn't mean they can't be criticized.

I have already given you at least one example of how the media engages in self-censorship when it comes to criticism of Israel and Israel's treatment of Palestinians through cartoons, and you haven't given anything to back up your claim.

Here is another case of a cartoon criticizing Israel, which ended with this:

Australian newspaper apologizes for 'anti-Semitic’ cartoon The Sydney Morning Herald acknowledges image’s resemblance to cartoons of Nazi Germany, after Jewish groups threaten legal action.

This is the cartoon that the newspaper had to apologize for after receiving pressure and threat to be sued:

No, it was to deny the Holocaust and engage in an orgy of Jew hatred. They were very clear on that.

No Argus. The cartoons I have seen were not to deny the holocaust. I posted the top 2 winners of the contest and neither deny the holocaust. So, once again, your comment is wrong.

[jacee]

That's one response... but it fails in the long run because people will only tolerate violence for so long before their patience wears out and they demand something be done. As long as there is a group of extremists whose goal it is to stoke the violence and foment the conflict, simply "resisting impulses" is just not an effective response.

The reality is that a lot of the tension results from the political elite deciding to forcefully mix populations of very different cultures, who have a history of antagonism and violence. When one complains about colonial powers arbitrarily drawing lines on a map in the middle east, creating states that make no sense given the ethnic makeup of the region, that is what they are talking about. But the same is equally true of rapidly importing tens of millions of Muslims into Europe. Muslims can immigrate to Europe safely and peacefully... provided that the immigration rate is kept low enough that they can mix and become a part of the local culture. But the current rate of immigration from Muslim countries to Europe is far far above this rate, and it is causing rapid changes in demographics, formation of ethnic/religious enclaves, a failure of assimilation, etc.

So I would say that the real response is for Europe (and Canada and the USA) to start looking intelligently at their immigration policies, and decide whether importing tens of millions of Muslims really makes sense or not. There is no argument to support these high immigration rates from Muslim countries other than a toxic vision of political correctness promulgated by the far left extreme.

Canada's immigration has always been in waves of different ethnicities.

Each has come by choice to be Canadian.

Each has been vilified.

Ho hum.

.

Edited January 9, 2015 by jacee

[Hudson Jones]

How about an example of double standards when it comes to freedom of speech and Charlie Hebdo? How often are comments made about Muslims which could be deemed derogatory given the same treatment. How often are cartoonist or media personnel fired for making derogatory comments or cartoons against Muslims? Here lies the double standard.

French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe

A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons.

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Hudson Jones

[Guest]

I have already given you at least one example of how the media engages in self-censorship when it comes to criticism of Israel and Israel's treatment of Palestinians through cartoons, and you haven't given anything to back up your claim.

Here is another case of a cartoon criticizing Israel, which ended with this:

Australian newspaper apologizes for 'anti-Semitic’ cartoon The Sydney Morning Herald acknowledges image’s resemblance to cartoons of Nazi Germany, after Jewish groups threaten legal action.

This is the cartoon that the newspaper had to apologize for after receiving pressure and threat to be sued:

Still no idea what free expression is, eh?

In my view, they ought to have told the Jewish groups to bring it on, but they acted within their rights.

If only those who attacked the Hebdo office had threatened legal action instead.

[-TSS-]

That's one response... but it fails in the long run because people will only tolerate violence for so long before their patience wears out and they demand something be done. As long as there is a group of extremists whose goal it is to stoke the violence and foment the conflict, simply "resisting impulses" is just not an effective response.

The reality is that a lot of the tension results from the political elite deciding to forcefully mix populations of very different cultures, who have a history of antagonism and violence. When one complains about colonial powers arbitrarily drawing lines on a map in the middle east, creating states that make no sense given the ethnic makeup of the region, that is what they are talking about. But the same is equally true of rapidly importing tens of millions of Muslims into Europe. Muslims can immigrate to Europe safely and peacefully... provided that the immigration rate is kept low enough that they can mix and become a part of the local culture. But the current rate of immigration from Muslim countries to Europe is far far above this rate, and it is causing rapid changes in demographics, formation of ethnic/religious enclaves, a failure of assimilation, etc.

So I would say that the real response is for Europe (and Canada and the USA) to start looking intelligently at their immigration policies, and decide whether importing tens of millions of Muslims really makes sense or not. There is no argument to support these high immigration rates from Muslim countries other than a toxic vision of political correctness promulgated by the far left extreme.

Don't you see, there's a devious agenda behind all this. An agenda which seems to cross over the Atlantic.

Edited January 9, 2015 by -TSS-

[Guest]

How about an example of double standards when it comes to freedom of speech and Charlie Hebdo? How often are comments made about Muslims which could be deemed derogatory given the same treatment. How often are cartoonist or media personnel fired for making derogatory comments or cartoons against Muslims? Here lies the double standard.

French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe

A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons.

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.

Agree with you here. Disgusting misuse of the courts.

[Hudson Jones]

You are missing the point. The reaction to any expression, be it cartoons, placards, twitter posts, etc, is in itself a form of expression. If I see those two cartoons you posted, I think that they are making points I don't agree with, but I'm not offended by them. If I was, it would be my right to ignore them, protest against them, write a letter to the editor, etc. Just because I don't have the same feelings about those cartoons as I do about the ones showing Muhammad in a poor light does not make me a hypocrite, nor is it an indication of a double standard.

You are missing the point and are not paying attention to my argument, otherwise you wouldn't make the comment above.

Which Western newspaper has published these cartoons? One of them almost did, but then it got struck down by the hire powers.

I have given examples of backlash when the odd time something has been posted that is anti-Israel. So there is censorship (mostly self-censorship) sometimes due to the ideological stance of the outlet and sometimes as a result of the backlash they would receive for posting criticism of Israel as it has been clearly demonstrated by me.

[Hudson Jones]

If only those who attacked the Hebdo office had threatened legal action instead.

Please understand that I'm not trying to equate the response of killing people to being sued. I don't want to keep repeating that.

I am talking about the double standards when it comes to self-censorship and freedom of speech in the West when it comes to criticism of different sides. When you champion freedom of speech, it should not be selective.

[Guest]

You are missing the point and are not paying attention to my argument, otherwise you wouldn't make the comment above.

Which Western newspaper has published these cartoons? One of them almost did, but then it got struck down by the hire powers.

I have given examples of backlash when the odd time something has been posted that is anti-Israel. So there is censorship (mostly self-censorship) sometimes due to the ideological stance of the outlet and sometimes as a result of the backlash they would receive for posting criticism of Israel as it has been clearly demonstrated by me.

Different points then. Crossed wires.

My point is, that's free expression. They are acting within their rights. Just as the CBC was when it, rather cowardly, decided not to post the Muhammad cartoons recently. It doesn't matter if I don't like it. It doesn't matter if you don't like the CH editorial policy. There is no defense, justification or understanding of Islamist policy towards free expresiion in percieved double standards applied by the media.

[Guest]

Please understand that I'm not trying to equate the response of killing people to being sued. I don't want to keep repeating that.

I am talking about the double standards when it comes to self-censorship and freedom of speech in the West when it comes to criticism of different sides. When you champion freedom of speech, it should not be selective.

And there is the salient point: self censorship. It's up to the self.

Freedom of speech is granted when there is no official sanction on it. It is not furthered by forcing people to publish things they don't want to.

I know you aren't trying to equate the response of killing people to being sued. I'm not implying you are, even in my post before this. I'm saying the double standards you see, real or not, cannot be compared to the acts of the Jihadists. They are legal. They might be immoral, or cowardly, but those can be in the eye of the beholder

[Argus]

I have already given you at least one example of how the media engages in self-censorship

Of course the media engage in self-censorship. That's why virtually none of them even ran the Danish cartoons despite their absolutely central theme in explaining why crazy Muslims were running around screaming and killing and burning things. So if the media wouldn't show that, why do you think they would have shown cartoons explicitly created to express hatred of Jews and Israel?

Australian newspaper apologizes for 'anti-Semitic’ cartoon The Sydney Morning Herald acknowledges image’s resemblance to cartoons of Nazi Germany, after Jewish groups threaten legal action.

Gee, a big nosed guy with a skullcap sitting in a chair blowing up stuff in Palestine. Who could be offended by that?

[Argus]

Canada's immigration has always been in waves of different ethnicities.

Each has come by choice to be Canadian.

Each has been vilified.

Ho hum.

.

And none of them ever deserved it, ever?

[Argus]

How about an example of double standards when it comes to freedom of speech and Charlie Hebdo? How often are comments made about Muslims which could be deemed derogatory given the same treatment. How often are cartoonist or media personnel fired for making derogatory comments or cartoons against Muslims? Here lies the double standard.

In France? Often.

Hell, Brigit Bardot was convicted for writing a letter to the government to complain how Muslims and Homosexuals were ruining France. There are a myriad of laws in France banning insulting and hateful speech towards anyone and everyone alive. Muhammed, however, is not alive.

[Argus]

I have given examples of backlash when the odd time something has been posted that is anti-Israel.

There is tons of stuff published here that is anti-Israel and even more in Europe.

[Big Guy]

Twelve journalists killed in Paris. More hostages killed in France and the world is glued to their TV sets for 2 days while wringing their hands at the carnage, undeserved deaths and every political pundit trying to use the incident to promote their agenda. Looks like a total of about 18 innocent Parisians killed. The world is outraged demanding retribution!

BTW, last night Boko Haram just slaughtered about 2,000 innocent civilians, that is right, 2,000 civilians - men, women and children. They wiped out a whole village in Nigeria.

But hey, they are all black and peasants in a crazy country so who cares?

Do you care?