French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Bonam]

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.

Another Islamist group slaughtering people? Hardly a counter point to anything here.

[Big Guy]

Not sure that a counter point was intended. The dead are mostly Muslims - does that make a difference?

About 2,000 innocent people are slaughtered in Nigeria and it does not make the front pages. Is that because they were Muslims?

Edited January 10, 2015 by Big Guy

[Guest]

There is a certain inevitability to Muslims killing Muslims. It happens so often, it's easy to see why it would be supplanted on the front pages by action that is closer to home, and more shocking. What do the newspapers in Nigeria cover?

Edit> Shocking isn't the right word. Having just read the WSJ article on the subject, I'm pretty shocked.

Edited January 10, 2015 by bcsapper

[Rue]

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.

He was referring to holocaust inversion which if we want to get technical is a type of holocaust denial by revising it to apply to other political situations.

As for you demanding I prove the cartoons you quoted were wide spread they can be found simply by typing anti semitic political cartoons on any search engine.

Your attempt to twist this into a discussion on double standards has failed to establish any standard applied to anyone different than Muslims when it comes to criticizing extremism or have you provided on shred of evidence Jews are treated more favourably by the press than Muslims.

Muslims, Jews, Christians, everyone in the West gets their share of derision.

For you to try address this thread by trying to pose a pissing contest that Muslims are more criticized than Jews by cartoonists speaks for itself as to how absurd you are willing to go in avoiding the actual topic and in your need to find some way to say something that can be interpreted to breed resentment against Jews.

The air waves are contaminated with as much anti semitic hatred as they are any other hatred and for you to suggest otherwise in this or any other thread speals for itself.

For someone to tell me to prove things, go on H Jones finish what you start, prove how Jews are more favourably treated than Muslims but do it in another thresd so your agenda is clear as to what your real issue you are presenting is.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Rue

[Bonam]

Not sure that a counter point was intended. The dead are mostly Muslims - does that make a difference?

About 2,000 innocent people are slaughtered in Nigeria and it does not make the front pages. Is that because they were Muslims?

You know about it, so clearly it reached you through some kind of media. If your point is that the western media focuses more on some things and less on others... I fully agree, but that's kind of obvious.

And no, I don't think the dead in Nigeria receive less coverage because they were Muslims. Western media seems to have no trouble covering dead Muslims in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict (on which it focuses very strongly while mostly ignoring many much higher death rate areas, like your example of Nigeria).

No... the media focuses on stories that stir sh*t up (because they sell). Muslims killing Muslims off in Africa is less likely to cause strong reactions among people living in Europe compared to Muslims killing Europeans (which Europeans can lament) or Jews killing Muslims (in which case Europeans can revel in their love of the idea of the evil murderous Jew).

Edited January 10, 2015 by Bonam

[-TSS-]

Not sure that a counter point was intended. The dead are mostly Muslims - does that make a difference?

About 2,000 innocent people are slaughtered in Nigeria and it does not make the front pages. Is that because they were Muslims?

There you go! An attack in the centre of an "important" capital is worth multiple amounts of attacks in somewhere else. That's the way the world works.

[dre]

Of course the media engage in self-censorship. That's why virtually none of them even ran the Danish cartoons

EVERYONE engages in self censorship. People often dont say and do things they think are useless and stupid. Its not like these cartoons contain a wealth of information... they are the equivalent of a grade 3 student sticking his toungue out at some other kids. You dont necessarily have to be frightened or threatened to not act like a retarded 8 year old.

[Guest]

They were valid, creative editorial cartoons. They spoke volumes, and they should be on billboards all over the world.

But then, lots more people would be killed.

[eyeball]

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.

This is just a bunch of ignorant extremist rhetoric.

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.

Which invasion? There's been more than a few.

Yes their extremist rhetoric is no less ignorant than the spew our extremists barf up in response.

[eyeball]

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.

Actually I'm reducing it to a pair of mutually radicalizing enemies that are behaving like complete sphincters towards each other and anyone who isn't with them and pretty much ruining the world in the process. It's a little more than black and white but not much.

[WestCoastRunner]

Not sure that a counter point was intended. The dead are mostly Muslims - does that make a difference?

About 2,000 innocent people are slaughtered in Nigeria and it does not make the front pages. Is that because they were Muslims?

No, it's because they weren't white.

The same goes for teachers and students who are massacred for simply choosing to attend school to learn and teach. They are not white. So, no coverage.

Edited January 10, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[Guest]

No, it's because they weren't white.

The same goes for teachers and students who are massacred for simply choosing to attend school to learn and teach. They are not white. So, no coverage.

You're kidding aren't you? That school attack in Pakistan was major news for a very long time.

[Hudson Jones]

Here is a wonderful article which dissects the "#JeSuisCharlie" tag, sweeping the internet world... at least for another a week or so, until another topic comes along, sweeping the attention of the mass on facebook and twitter.

We lose our ability to imagine political solutions when we stop thinking critically, when we let emotional identifications sweep us into factitious substitutes for solidarity and action. We lose our ability to respond to atrocity when we start seeing people not as individuals, but as symbols. Changing avatars on social media is a pathetic distraction from changing realities in society. To combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it. You won’t stop it with acts of self-styled courage on your computer screen that neither risk nor alter anything. To protect expression that’s endangered you have to engage with the substance of what was said, not deny it. That means attempting dialogue with those who peacefully condemn or disagree, not trying to shame them into silence. Nothing is quick, nothing is easy. No solidarity is secure. I support free speech. I oppose all censors. I abhor the killings. I mourn the dead. I am not Charlie.

[WestCoastRunner]

You're kidding aren't you? That school attack in Pakistan was major news for a very long time.

Yes, and that was an anomaly. Normally, the west doesn't cover this type of outrage. Maybe things are starting to change. Let's hope so.

Edited January 10, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[Guest]

Here is a wonderful article which dissects the "#JeSuisCharlie" tag, sweeping the internet world... at least for another a week or so, until another topic comes along, sweeping the attention of the mass on facebook and twitter.

We lose our ability to imagine political solutions when we stop thinking critically, when we let emotional identifications sweep us into factitious substitutes for solidarity and action. We lose our ability to respond to atrocity when we start seeing people not as individuals, but as symbols. Changing avatars on social media is a pathetic distraction from changing realities in society. To combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it. You won’t stop it with acts of self-styled courage on your computer screen that neither risk nor alter anything. To protect expression that’s endangered you have to engage with the substance of what was said, not deny it. That means attempting dialogue with those who peacefully condemn or disagree, not trying to shame them into silence. Nothing is quick, nothing is easy. No solidarity is secure. I support free speech. I oppose all censors. I abhor the killings. I mourn the dead. I am not Charlie.

I prefer what this writer said in the comments.

This article has quite the literal understanding of the “JesuisCharlie”. By saying “JesuisCharlie”, I don’t believe I am endorsing their drawings – especially since I have only ever seen two of them, nor do I take myself for one of the victims, or do I think Muslims should apologise. For me it’s a symbol, saying JesuisCharlie is saying I support the right to have an opinion without being killed for it. It is not just a show of easy solidarity, it’s also about joining people together, no matter who they are, what their religion is. It is a sort of symbol for everyone who lost their lives because someone could not accept they had a different view on things. Why this symbol now and not before, why this one and not another, is another matter. I don’t know why. I just know all lives are not equal in our society. 12 people (5 more with the other events) are murdered, and every new channel mentions them – especially the cartoonists, at the expense of the others. In the meantime, Baga (Nigeria) was burned down and thousands were killed, and people are barely aware of it. It’s not something I forget when I say “JesuisCharlie”, but something I include. They also died because they thought differently.

There. It’s likely that not everyone share my interpretation of “JesuisCharlie”, but that is why I will continue saying it.

Edited January 10, 2015 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Yes, and that was an anomaly. Normally, the west doesn't cover this type of outrage. Maybe things are starting to change. Let's hope so.

I think they do. I think the coverage of the Nigeria killings is an anomaly. A very unfortunate one. A major Islamist attack in one of the world's great capitals has taken all the newsfeed for a while. Sometimes that happens. Do you remember when Mother Theresa died?

I find coverage of Islamic excesses to be more than sufficient.

[eyeball]

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.

These cartoons only exist because a couple of billion human beings have been steered towards a collision course.

Radicals on both sides have been dressing up their justifications with one thing or another for decades now. Religion is just one more thing.

[Hudson Jones]

Do you feel there is a double standard?

"It is as if today, whatever you want to say about Muslims you can say," explains Oxford University professor Tariq Ramadan. "If you are targeted as anti-Semitic, it is over for you. But when you make Islamophobic statements, that’s fine.

"It is the normalization in the political discourse of Islamophobic statements."

Watch the interview here.

[Guest]

I'll not watch the interview, but just say that the statement in quotes is utter rubbish. The idea that we cannot criticize Islam after Paris (and Baga, Nigeria) without it being seen as Islamophobic is ludicrous.

Edited January 10, 2015 by bcsapper

[jacee]

I'll not watch the interview, but just say that the statement in quotes is utter rubbish. The idea that we cannot criticize Islam after Paris (and Baga, Nigeria) without it being seen as Islamophobic is ludicrous.

Anti-Islam lslamophobic statements are not illegal, whether you like that label or not.

Depending on jurisdiction, inciting hatred or violence against a group or religion may be illegal. Pornographic depictions may be illegal.

All else is free speech.

You are free to make anti-Islam remarks. Somebody else is free to call you Islamophobic.

Unlike the claim above, you are just as free to make anti-Jew statements.

Someone else is free to call you anti-semitic.

All free speech.

Edited January 10, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

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.

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

[Argus]

No... the media focuses on stories that stir sh*t up (because they sell). Muslims killing Muslims off in Africa is less likely to cause strong reactions among people living in Europe compared to Muslims killing Europeans (which Europeans can lament) or Jews killing Muslims (in which case Europeans can revel in their love of the idea of the evil murderous Jew).

Third worlders dying in job lots is just so utterly routine the western media pays it little attention. Be it floods, earthquakes, war, famine or pestilence, thousands of people dying in a far away third world craphole just doesn't draw much interest. People don't identify with them, and in part believe it's a hopeless situation since the incompetence, corrupt and self-serving local governments make such things inevitable. That's certainly the case in Nigeria.

[Argus]

They were valid, creative editorial cartoons. They spoke volumes, and they should be on billboards all over the world.

The ones I saw didn't look all that creative. That being said, they should have been run in solidarity. And the Danish cartoons, being the entire reason for all the violence, should have been shown as news.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, and that was an anomaly. Normally, the west doesn't cover this type of outrage. Maybe things are starting to change. Let's hope so.

Interesting points on this, but there are also white parts of the world that receive less coverage when violence happens there because (similar to Africa) the citizens are seen as "others" somehow. I expect that as you head east from London, Paris, Berlin... attacks receive less and less coverage. Government atrocities in former Soviet states are not well covered...

[Michael Hardner]

"If you are targeted as anti-Semitic, it is over for you. But when you make Islamophobic statements, that’s fine.

We had the Bridgette Bardot counter-example posted above.