French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Argus]

This is just a bunch of ignorant extremist rhetoric.

No, it's a description of how you think.

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

These weren't Iraqi citizens who had suffered in an invasion. They were FRENCH citizens. At least one was born there, the other two growing up there and originating in Algeria.

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

Really? What I say is just as bad as them demanding death for all non-believers? I think that is an indication, not of how extreme my words are, but of how little theirs bothers you.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

Total politically correct drivel. You are again desperately trying to excuse their actions and ideology by simply shrugging and saying "Hey, it's really no worse than all the rest of you".

Some people would lick the boot that comes down on their heads.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I pointed out an example of that phenomenon above already, but it's interesting and exploratory to examine the interest in such things from various points of view. What makes people (news organizations really) care about disasters that occur far away from them ?

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami got LOTS of attention, which would seem to dispel the idea that people here don't care about "others" who are so different and so far. But there were hundreds of thousands killed. And the 9/11 attacks got break-away coverage in Chile for a few minutes, then back to regular programming.

A sociologist and a mathematician could get together to determine a formula that describes popular interest - something like numbers of dead, geographic and demographic proximity and so on - or they could just ask a news editor.

[Michael Hardner]

Really? What I say is just as bad as them demanding death for all non-believers? I think that is an indication, not of how extreme my words are, but of how little theirs bothers you.

He didn't say "bad", he said "ignorant". Maybe instead of tagging dialogue with either one of those very charged words, we can instead determine what kinds of dialogue on both sides can lead to a resolution - however long in the future that may be.

[Argus]

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.

The difference you deliberately ignore is people are angry at Islam because of all these bombings and killings and murders all around the world and in our own cities. They are contemptuous of a death cult, a misogynistic religion which says women are worth one quarter that of men, must be kept to rigid standards of morality (punishable by death) including covering their unclean bodies with shrouds, and can be beaten with impunity. The anti-semites are just moronic assholes who don't like Jews for a bunch of nonsensical reasons often related to wild-eyed conspiracy theories.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I pointed out an example of that phenomenon above already, but it's interesting and exploratory to examine the interest in such things from various points of view. What makes people (news organizations really) care about disasters that occur far away from them ?

Ratings.

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami got LOTS of attention, which would seem to dispel the idea that people here don't care about "others" who are so different and so far. But there were hundreds of thousands killed. And the 9/11 attacks got break-away coverage in Chile for a few minutes, then back to regular programming.

There are always exceptions, especially where there are good visuals. I've said before that a major reason Israel gets so much coverage is it has five star hotels and all the amenities so that journalists can hang around and get good pictures. There are no five star hotels in crapholes, nor do crapholes have the security provided by the IDF. They don't, for the most part, even have safe drinking water. So our international journalistic stars rarely go there. If there's a big shooting incident in Israel, chances are it will be on video. Not so much in northern Nigeria or other such places. And by the time journalists usually get there, assuming they make the effort, all the dead have already been buried.

[Michael Hardner]

There are always exceptions, especially where there are good visuals. I've said before that a major reason Israel gets so much coverage is it has five star hotels and all the amenities so that journalists can hang around and get good pictures. There are no five star hotels in crapholes, nor do crapholes have the security provided by the IDF. They don't, for the most part, even have safe drinking water. So our international journalistic stars rarely go there.

Interesting conjecture, but it speaks, sort of, to motivations. Not that I don't believe it, but keep in mind it's journalism bosses sending employees to various places.

I don't think the "stars" would want to go to the worst places you describe, but the up-and-comers would probably love the exposure. Anyway, I wonder what an insider would say to your suggestion here. Still very interesting.

[poochy]

There is a difference i think, between a natural disaster and people who look at killing like it's a way of life, Ebola has gotten it's share of attention, though perhaps it should have gotten more, tyranny and murder is every day life in much of Africa, i think most people shrug and move on from the stories.

[poochy]

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.

You can't dig yourself out of that hole, no amount of silly comparisons will do it, we have the right to free speech, or should, and people have the right to take offence, that is all. There is nothing more, purposefully not displaying the cartoons is giving murderers what they want. Maybe you just can't grasp it, if they can't live among western society because they cannot suffer this indignity and must kill people to avenge those indignities, those are people that we should not allow to live here. I will not trade my freedom for your broken ideology, that you seem to be so entrenched in that you are blind to what is right and wrong, no the world isnt always grey.

Edited January 10, 2015 by poochy

[Shady]

Blaming "the media" is just another way of blaming the west, while making excuses for the rest. It's the fallback position of the usual suspects. "The media is irrelevant to centuries old Islamic radical ideology, and the scourge of it over the last few decades. Those who lump a person with a pencil and paper with murderous totalitarians killing in the name if their religion are intellectually bankrupt, and have lost all moral compass. It's truely sickening and disturbing.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a difference i think, between a natural disaster and people who look at killing like it's a way of life, Ebola has gotten it's share of attention, though perhaps it should have gotten more, tyranny and murder is every day life in much of Africa, i think most people shrug and move on from the stories.

Yes, that's a consideration too. Google helped me out here:

Which Deaths Matter?

How the media covers the people behind today's grim statistics

...

“Guatemala experienced one of the worst earthquakes in this century in the Western hemisphere,” with the official death toll later put at 4,000. “Yet, proportionate to the number of victims, it received one-third of the coverage given the Italian earthquake” that killed nearly 1,000 people that year.

Adams found that other than the death toll, two factors mattered most in predicting how much coverage an international disaster received on U.S. television: the event’s geographic proximity to the U.S., and the number of U.S. tourists who visited the country in which the disaster took place. This latter factor, explains Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, is a measure of a country’s “cultural proximity” or interest for American news consumers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/which-deaths-matter-media-statistics/380898/

[Michael Hardner]

"The media is irrelevant to centuries old Islamic radical ideology, and the scourge of it over the last few decades. Those who lump a person with a pencil and paper with murderous totalitarians killing in the name if their religion are intellectually bankrupt, and have lost all moral compass. It's truely sickening and disturbing.

The linking of Islamist terrorism to a "long history" is problematic for a few reasons. If we're going to go back that far, then we're looking at an era where all peoples had a very different standard of behavior towards other people, war and so on, including Christians too.

So we could conceivably go back to fairly recent history, and ascribe atrocities in Christian countries the same way if we wanted to. If democracy and pluralism have indeed helped engender tolerance and peace in Europe and North America, to a degree, then going back that far can't really find causes to credit or blame our current world can it ? The principle of going back far in history has its uses, and it's fair game for discussion but some here have discredited the very idea of tying slavery, for example, to problems of ethnic minorities in America. It seems like going back that far has its difficulties, anyway.

Also - it just helps in categorizing other peoples so as to frame the conflicts discussed here as unsolvable.

[Guest]

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.

Completely agree.

[Guest]

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.

It was the Danish cartoons that were the subject there.

[Argus]

You can't dig yourself out of that hole, no amount of silly comparisons will do it, we have the right to free speech, or should, and people have the right to take offence, that is all. There is nothing more, purposefully not displaying the cartoons is giving murderers what they want. Maybe you just can't grasp it,

The NP had a timely reprinting of Christopher Hitchens rant the last time the Muslim world was rioting and killing over cartoons offensive to he prophet.

“Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.”

Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean “unacceptable”? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a “spokesman” cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/08/christopher-hitchens-the-case-for-mocking-religion/

[Argus]

He didn't say "bad", he said "ignorant". Maybe instead of tagging dialogue with either one of those very charged words, we can instead determine what kinds of dialogue on both sides can lead to a resolution - however long in the future that may be.

You are acting as an apologist for him. He termed my words just as 'extremist' as people who slaughter other humans because they don't like their cartoons. His desperately frightened need to appease terrorists and religious fanatics cause him to lash out at anyone who expresses a sentiment which might offend them instead.

And there is no dialogue which will lead to a resolution of any kind. Period. End of story. There is no point in even suggesting it. They have to change their belief system. They have to learn that there are no sacred cows, that people can be disrespectful towards their beliefs, often insulting and offensive, too. They have to learn to deal with it in a non-violent way in the same manner all civilized people have learned to deal with offensive words or images.

To quote Hitchens, whose post I cited up above:

The question of “offensiveness” is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it “pixilated” the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be “offended” will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

del

Edited January 10, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

You are acting as an apologist for him.

Not at all. I think we are discussing some very sensitive and new issues here, so precision in language helps us move towards a resolution. I wouldn't apologize for him trying to identify ignorance on all sides, I would think doing that is a good idea.

And there is no dialogue which will lead to a resolution of any kind. Period. End of story.

That's a very strange point of view. There will NEVER be a resolution ? So this one conflict will be with us until the earth is consumed by the sun then ? Odd.

They have to change their belief system. They have to learn that there are no sacred cows, that people can be disrespectful towards their beliefs, often insulting and offensive, too.

Any resolution of human affairs requires changes on both sides - what do you think that existing institutions will do to change in response to the change you're describing ?

They have to learn to deal with it in a non-violent way in the same manner all civilized people have learned to deal with offensive words or images.

I don't doubt that at all.

The question of “offensiveness” is easy to decide.

I don't think that's true. "Offensiveness" always stirs up questions of values, groups and so on. Community standards in some aspects are just accepted, and in other aspects are challenged. There's nothing easy about that.

[Argus]

Not at all. I think we are discussing some very sensitive and new issues here, so precision in language helps us move towards a resolution. I wouldn't apologize for him trying to identify ignorance on all sides,

And for the second time you blithely delete and leave unreferenced his 'extremism' label.

That's a very strange point of view. There will NEVER be a resolution ?

I didn't say that. I said dialogue would not bring one. The only resolution will be when they grow up, or we kill all the fanatics.

I don't think that's true. "Offensiveness" always stirs up questions of values, groups and so on. Community standards in some aspects are just accepted, and in other aspects are challenged. There's nothing easy about that.

Sure it's easy. You simply say that being offensive in your beliefs, your speech or anything else, might be rude or insulting but will never be prohibited nor subject to legal sanction, much less the violent retribution of criminally crazy religious fanatics.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

You can't dig yourself out of that hole, no amount of silly comparisons will do it, we have the right to free speech, or should, and people have the right to take offence, that is all. There is nothing more, purposefully not displaying the cartoons is giving murderers what they want. Maybe you just can't grasp it, if they can't live among western society because they cannot suffer this indignity and must kill people to avenge those indignities, those are people that we should not allow to live here.

You can't prevent that, because you can't determine reliably who the people are who may resort to violence. You can't even predict whether someone born and raised here will resort to violence.

Criminal behaviour is criminal behaviour, no matter who's doing it or why.

.

[Michael Hardner]

And for the second time you blithely delete and leave unreferenced his 'extremism' label.

I commented on this statement: "Yes their extremist rhetoric is no less ignorant"

He's commenting on the ignorance of Islamist rhetoric juxtaposed to rhetoric on our side. I think his comment is fair game.

I didn't say that. I said dialogue would not bring one. The only resolution will be when they grow up, or we kill all the fanatics.

Ok, fair enough. My comment about precision in language applies to my words too.

Sure it's easy. You simply say that being offensive in your beliefs, your speech or anything else, might be rude or insulting but will never be prohibited nor subject to legal sanction, much less the violent retribution of criminally crazy religious fanatics.

Offensiveness itself is indeed prohibited and always will be, if you take "free expression" out of the equation. Even violent retribution by outlaws can't be prevented in all cases.

What about my question about how we would need to change ? We have already taken the usual steps: security enhancements, and elevated levels of discussion in "the" public - both of which I agree with.

[-TSS-]

It is just intolerable after events like this one how politicians rush to claim that "this has nothing to do with Islam" as if they were qualified theologists being able to tell what belongs to any religion. Similarly whinging and whining by muslims about islamophobia as I don't think any sane person believes that all muslims are terrorists.

[Big Guy]

I believe that the major differences in opinion and interpretation of incidents here and in the Middle East comes down to two basic views or beliefs.

One group believes that there is something in the nature and teaching of Islam and the Koran that is causing Muslims to turn to violence to fulfil and follow their religious teaching.

The other group believe that Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism et al are peaceful religions. There are individuals of all religions with political and personal agendas who use their religions to excuse their actions.

Both positions have very different views of the basic nature of man and to try to "convert" someone from the other group just will not happen.

A person with a personal agenda can interpret a quote of any passage from any holy book from any religion to rationalize their view and explain their agenda.

[Michael Hardner]

It is just intolerable after events like this one how politicians rush to claim that "this has nothing to do with Islam" as if they were qualified theologists being able to tell what belongs to any religion. Similarly whinging and whining by muslims about islamophobia as I don't think any sane person believes that all muslims are terrorists.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/09/french_president_hollande_these_fanatics_have_nothing_to_do_with_islam.html

Let's be clear on who is saying these things - French President Hollande. Politicians have their own goals, not all of which are cynical. George W. Bush, after 9/11, famously declared that Islam is about peace.

[Michael Hardner]

One group believes that there is something in the nature and teaching of Islam and the Koran that is causing Muslims to turn to violence to fulfil and follow their religious teaching.

The other group believe that Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism et al are peaceful religions. There are individuals of all religions with political and personal agendas who use their religions to excuse their actions.

To be clear, the 'groups' you describe are non-Muslims which themselves are a 'group'.