Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Luminis]

There's something very ironic about this statement.

I should have worded that differently, I guess...

 

[doblocruiser]

There's a difference between taking unnecessary risks and not giving in to these idiots, we'll agree on that I assume.

We agree!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The Kouachi brothers have been spotted in northern France, firing shots as they robbed a petrol station:

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30721677

 

[Dennisch]

Charlie Hebdo will publish their magazine next Wednesday.

In Le Mans, practice grenades were thrown at a mosque. Several other places have seen similar events occurring.

 

[eran0004]

And @prisonermonkeys

You are wrong if you think in anyway that the magazine brought this onto itself.

The caricatures made them a target, but the caricatures didn't make the terrorists. That's an important distinction to make.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That's exactly what exemption from mockery is. You're limiting what can be mocked.You need to define what "deliberately provocative" consists of, because you're lumping in all satire with it if you use such broad terms.

You'll also need to define exactly what beliefs we can't be "deliberately provocative" towards. I mean, I'll assume we can make fun of beliefs like "I believe I should be allowed to have sex with children", but not beliefs like "I believe that any picture that purports to be a of Mohamed is offensive", so perhaps you can draw a line where actively poking fun and mocking is allowed and where it isn't.

I'm not trying to draw lines between what is and isn't allowed, all I am saying is that it's not difficult to not be deliberately offensive, all it requires is for you do do nothing.

Satire is always at someones expense. If you know enough about something to make a joke about it, you probably know enough about it to know that some will find it offensive. The right to choose to say it or not should exist, but that doesn't automatically make it right to do so. 12 people weren't executed because of something that was said accidentally or through cultural misunderstanding.

And let's be honest several thousand years of human conflict should be a bit of a giveaway that when it comes to religious beliefs people can be a bit touchy.

edit: Just to be clear, I am not saying the actions here were justified. But a reaction was obvious.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

@prisonermonkeys

You are wrong if you think in anyway that the magazine brought this onto itself.

I am bothered by how often I have had to post this message: did I say that? No. Then why do you think that I said it?

At this point, you're either deliberately putting words in my mouth, or you're being intentionally stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - why, I don't know; it's more than you have shown me - and assume you're in the latter category for the time being.

 

[Dennisch]

I am bothered by how often I have had to post this message: did I say that? No. Then why do you think that I said it?

At this point, you're either deliberately putting words in my mouth, or you're being intentionally stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - why, I don't know; it's more than you have shown me - and assume you're in the latter category for the time being.

By questioning freedom of speech.

And I'll ignore the second part of your post.

Edit.

No I won't ignore it.

You have shown time and time again that you are so far gone from reality with your so called open minded behavior that it becomes less and less possible to even take you serious when it comes to discussions like this. People like you want to please everyone and just give in whenever things get rough. That's stupid behavior. As I said yesterday, get of your goddamn high horse and take a sniff of the real world.

 

[Spagetti69]

edit: Just to be clear, I am not saying the actions here were justified. But a reaction was obvious.

When Life of Brian was aired in the cinema Christians stood outside and picketed.

How times have changed.

 

[mister dog]

An hour ago this was posted:

Selon BFMTV, la Clio arrive à grande vitesse sur l'A1 en direction de l'est de Paris. Un effectif de police inédit les attend.

Which means they were heading direction Paris on the A1 at fast speed and fully armed. But seeing that's been an hour ago they should have arrived already i guess? In any case it will probably unfold very soon.

 

[Famine]

I'm not trying to draw lines between what is and isn't allowed, all I am saying is that it's not difficult to not be deliberately offensive, all it requires is for you do do nothing.

Sometimes that's offensive too - try ignoring your girlfriend/wife/mum/teacher/cop that pulled you over and see how mad it makes them.

Satire is always at someones expense.

As is just about all comedy - it's very difficult to conjure up even an innocent a joke that doesn't require some stupidity on behalf of someone or some group contained within it.

If you know enough about something to make a joke about it, you probably know enough about it to know that some will find it offensive.

As mentioned before, it doesn't have to be a joke. It could be a phrase, a word or even silence. Anyone has the right to be offended at any time by anything for any reason.

The right to choose to say it or not should exist, but that doesn't automatically make it right to do so. 12 people weren't executed because of something that was said accidentally or through cultural misunderstanding.

No, they were murdered by people who think that no-one should be allowed to make fun of their beliefs. That says far more about their beliefs than anything else in this whole, sorry saga.

And let's be honest several thousand years of human conflict should be a bit of a giveaway that when it comes to religious beliefs people can be a bit touchy.

Even more of a reason not to afford them the "respect" they're demanding by violence. They're using terror to try to limit freedoms - again. Though since we're now in the business of locking up our citizens for making jokes about plane crashes and paedophilia on Twitter (the sort we used to tell each other in the school playground), I don't know how much more of a limitation we can really put in place.

edit: Just to be clear, I am not saying the actions here were justified. But a reaction was obvious.

The perpetrators want to be able to say and do what they please and eliminate all who don't agree with them. There's nothing we can do not to offend them - we offend them by existing - so what their reaction would be to anything I do is of absolutely no consequence. They'd kill me for being alive and not being them.

Hell, they executed a Muslim begging them not to kill him, so even the last part wouldn't save you.


Incidentally, while 12 people died in Paris yesterday for the belief that you shouldn't draw pictures of Mohamed, 200 women died across the globe for the belief that abortion is illegal - and more than twice as many children are at risk from the belief that vaccines against childhood illnesses are evil... Are these beliefs we shouldn't make fun of?

 

[tarnheld]

Horrible attack, don't know what to say...

12 people weren't executed because of something that was said accidentally or through cultural misunderstanding.

And let's be honest several thousand years of human conflict should be a bit of a giveaway that when it comes to religious beliefs people can be a bit touchy.

The attackers are no muslims offended by something, this was not done because of religious beliefs.
They are extremists trying to establish a totalitarian state where all people should obey rules set by them. If the rules are made by God or Hitler or Stalin does not make any difference.

One more thing, people offended by satire or whatever can call upon justice in free society. So did the pope when he was offended by the german satire magazine Titanic.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not trying to draw lines between what is and isn't allowed, all I am saying is that it's not difficult to not be deliberately offensive, all it requires is for you do do nothing.

Satire is always at someones expense. If you know enough about something to make a joke about it, you probably know enough about it to know that some will find it offensive. The right to choose to say it or not should exist, but that doesn't automatically make it right to do so. 12 people weren't executed because of something that was said accidentally or through cultural misunderstanding.

It is also not hard to cause offense unintentionally. The only way to avoid that is to say, write or draw absolutely nothing. That, of course, is completely unreasonable. Offense is offense, whether intended or not - but it is not possible to protect our right to free speech without also allowing people to be deliberately offensive.

 

[Dotini]

Ahoy Dotini, thanks for the input. Let me flip it around : When you are a refugee and/or immigrant in a new country it's only rational and prudent (and civilized) to curtail the urge to premeditate and carry out murder (assassination) in cold blood as a result of your religious sensibilities being offended. I'm not trying to discount what you said, it is relevent .. to a point.

I agree that religious immigrants and refugees ideally should put aside their feelings and religious laws to accept that some free-speaking people will routinely mock their God or prophet. By and large, the Muslim community in Europe appears to do that.

However, the killers appear to have been French nationals trained in Syria and ordered by their Caliph to kill certain French citizens. They can be seen as professional soldiers or commandos on a mission, though it's likely they were or even still are supported by a vast Salafi network embedded amongst the immigrants and refugees.

That said, I affirm the primacy of free speech. It's certainly worth the blood of a few that a continent enjoy free speech. So yes, the violence will go on. Should it ever be deemed by the citizens of Europe that the blowback from the Middle East has become intolerable, there are some stern things that can be enacted to end it. You cannot undo history and rollback Sykes-Picot and all the invasions and interventions. But as the demography and politics of Europe evolve, I can imagine continental blasphemy laws being enacted to roll back the bloody edge of free speech.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[numbnuts70]

..

 

[Mark T]

There has been a lot of talk on Twitter and other sites about not intentionally provoking outrage. With certain subjects provoking outrage and offence is the only way you're going to make a subject open for discussion and ridicule. In this instance it's about insulting a figure which we don't even know exists.

Yes, as a society we could continue to place Mohammed on this pedestal, we could say be nice and don't hurt people's feelings, essentially limiting our freedom of speech and expression so as not to offend a group of people. I'm sorry, that's not going to work.

Religion is something that openly deserves ridicule, it makes very big claims for itself, it has a history of violence and oppression. Religion is just an ideology and every ideology needs to be tested to see what it's made of. How do we test ideologies? By criticism, satire and asking questions about the claims it makes.

The violence we have seen will ultimately result in progress. Muslims need to accept that Mohammed in the eyes of billions of people is nothing special. He is open to any insult. Just because you value something above all else, doesn't mean that we have to.

If you say that something is not allowed to be depicted in a certain way or even drawn, expect the exact opposite to happen consistently until you change your stance.

Let's not forget, Islam itself makes some detrimental remarks and threats to certain members of society, particularly non-believers and women. These are real insults directed at real people.

 

[Spagetti69]

Someone will read white supremacy into that, please change colour too ermmm........

 

[kennylmao]

That's offensive towards blind people!

 

[MatskiMonk]

When Life of Brian was aired in the cinema Christians stood outside and picketed.

How times have changed.

Indeed, although action was taken at the time in avoid to not offend people, a ban on the film has only recently been lifted in some parts of the UK.

Sometimes that's offensive too - try ignoring your girlfriend/wife/mum/teacher/cop that pulled you over and see how mad it makes them.

But those people are prompting you for a reaction.

As is just about all comedy - it's very difficult to conjure up even an innocent a joke that doesn't require some stupidity on behalf of someone or some group contained within it.As mentioned before, it doesn't have to be a joke. It could be a phrase, a word or even silence. Anyone has the right to be offended at any time by anything for any reason.

Offending someone is not an entirely unpredictable science, especially not for those that make a living pushing the boundaries of how much you can.

No, they were murdered by people who think that no-one should be allowed to make fun of their beliefs. That says far more about their beliefs than anything else in this whole, sorry saga.Even more of a reason not to afford them the "respect" they're demanding by violence. They're using terror to try to limit freedoms - again. Though since we're now in the business of locking up our citizens for making jokes about plane crashes and paedophilia on Twitter (the sort we used to tell each other in the school playground), I don't know how much more of a limitation we can really put in place.The perpetrators want to be able to say and do what they please and eliminate all who don't agree with them. There's nothing we can do not to offend them - we offend them by existing - so what their reaction would be to anything I do is of absolutely no consequence. They'd kill me for being alive and not being them.

I won't really argue with any of that. As I said, I'm not looking to justify or make excuses for what the reaction was. In PM's original post he used the word "respect", I took it to mean don't provoke them, you seemed to take it to mean that you should adapt an aspect of you/your families personal life in order to conform to their belief system... sorry, but I don't see those two things as being the same.

It is also not hard to cause offense unintentionally. The only way to avoid that is to say, write or draw absolutely nothing. That, of course, is completely unreasonable. Offense is offense, whether intended or not - but it is not possible to protect our right to free speech without also allowing people to be deliberately offensive.

That's fair enough, but it is possible to avoid being intentionally offensive.

 

[numbnuts70]

Staged event to incite hatred.

 

[mister dog]

2 suspects apparently hold up in a house in Crépy-en-Valois, police on the spot.

 

[tarnheld]

That's fair enough, but it is possible to avoid being intentionally offensive.

How is it possible for a satirist to avoid being intentionally offensive?

 

[Famine]

But those people are prompting you for a reaction.

So you see how not saying anything can be offensive?

People get very upset by being "blanked". I'm sure it'd take a jiffy to dig out a story where some urban gang member has murdered another for blanking them.

Offending someone is not an entirely unpredictable science, especially not for those that make a living pushing the boundaries of how much you can.

As said before, our mere existence is enough to offend these people.

Were all 10 cartoonists killed yesterday responsible for an offensive picture of Mohamed (that being offensive by way of being a picture of Mohamed)? What about the policemen? What about the Muslim policeman, executed where he lay - what did he do to provoke "the reaction" that we say was to be expected?

How about the commuters in 7/7, or the people doing their day jobs on 9/11?


They don't need provocation to kill us - they want us dead anyway. With that in mind, it almost seems like an irrelevance that someone labelled a crude scrawl as "Mohamed".

I won't really argue with any of that. As I said, I'm not looking to justify or make excuses for what the reaction was. In PM's original post he used the word "respect", I took it to mean don't provoke them, you seemed to take it to mean that you should adapt an aspect of you/your families personal life in order to conform to their belief system... sorry, but I don't see those two things as being the same.

You don't respect something by hating it in private and faking it in public. Respect is when you hold something - a person, a value, an idea - in esteem for its value.

I don't give any value to the idea that no-one can draw a picture and label it Mohamed - I do not respect it. I don't give any value to the idea that no-one can utter "Jesus Christ!" as an exclamation - I do not respect it. I don't give any value to the idea that no-one may eat bacon - I do not respect it. I don't give any value to Piers Morgan - I do not respect him.

I DO give value to the idea that people who believe in these things (and Piers Morgan) should be permitted to believe whatever they wish and peaceably live their lives without bringing any harm to others - I respect it.

Staged event to incite hatred.

It doesn't seem to have worked very well - unless it was designed to incite hatred for the concept of free expression, which seems to be the bogeyman here.

 

[Denur]

 

[Liquid]

I did read this on the Beeb vidiprinter.

Moussa Bourekba, French Muslim researcher on Arab Mediterranean Youth tells BBC World Service that the far right will try to exploit the attack for its political gains: "This morning Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Front National, was asking for re-establishing or at least opening up a debate on the death penalty."

The same vidiprinter also says that French prosecutors and authorities are officially treating this as a terrorist attack.

 

[doblocruiser]

I did read this on the Beeb vidiprinter.



The same vidiprinter also says that French prosecutors and authorities are officially treating this as a terrorist attack.

About Le Pen, yes she wants to open up a debate on the death penalty but only if she wins the elections in 2017. If so she or Le FN will ask by referendum if such a punishment should be introduced or not. The choice will be left to the people. Also there will be a referendum if France should stay part of the EU or not.

Next to that the president/politicians called for a day of solidarity this comming sunday. However a member of the political party PS (Left) said the FN was not welcome. Strange when you think that there are quite a few Muslims and Jews who are part of the FN and the FN warned quite some time for this to happen.

If some of you have heard the statement of Le Pen she made very clear that the Muslims (or people fror other origins) who value French society and their values should be protected and the ones who don't, do not have a place in France.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

Now, there are a few members out there who I suspect will read the above question and accuse me of victim blaming and giving into terrorists. I am doing no such thing, and in the aftermath of this atrocity, I feel that it is a question that demands a response.

Allow me to give you an example: in indigenous cultures, depictions or representations of the deceased are considered distressing to the point of being taboo. As such, if a television programme contains images or voices of the dead - like, for example, a documentary on indigenous soldiers at Gallipoli - then they are at least prefaced with a warning as to its contents. It's showing respect to those cultures, even if we do not fully understand the reasons behind it.

Now, in the same way, representations of the Prophet Mohammed are considered to be blasphemous. It's a concept that may seem alien to us, but the angry response from the Muslim community is well documented. For every one Muslim who publicly vents that anger, how many are keeping their outrage private?

The reason I ask these questions is because our politicians keep framing the massacre as an attack on our values and our way of life. But isn't one of our values being inclusive, or multiculturalism? And if that is the case, then why are we calling an act that is considered taboo by one culture the freedom of expression, but we respect the practices of another culture? I find that to be hypocritical.

Representing or poking fun at a religious figure might seem relatively benign, but surely we have a responsibility to recognise that it is offensive to others. If there is a debate to be had, then by all means, have it - just about every Muslim I know is very open about their faith - but how can we call ourselves multicultural and then show a lack of respect to another culture by doing something they consider taboo and then call it freedom of speech? To turn that around, how would it be received if someone posted a cartoon of Angela Merkel being sodomised by Adolf Hitler? It would be extremely offensive, and I very much doubt that the German public would respond with "oh, well, freedom of speech!" and let it go.

@ECGadget enlightened us with some of the precepts of Islam yesterday. The full text is below but I'll just pull out a few random lines to illustrate the point:

First thing is first: Islam IS a religion of peace.
As well as this the prophet gathered all the Muslims and said to them that they must never harm anyone of those people under the treaty.
Fighting? No needed unless necessary.
You will only fight the armed men.
You will not harm a woman, or a child, or an elderly person.
You will not fight in anger

We believe in a free society. Apparently true Muslims are a tolerant and accepting bunch and wouldn't require us to change our ways, but would accept our behaviours as they are and attempt to convert us through the teachings of Islam. If it doesn't work, nowhere does it say to kill us that I can see.

So what you're really asking is, "should we appease terrorists who have twisted the peaceful teachings of Islam into something violent and perverted?".

The answer is no.

Okay, so I am just going to post in here because I think it is time I did so, especially in light of what has just happened in France. My thoughts are with the families and friends of those who were murdered, regardless of motive.

First thing is first: Islam IS a religion of peace. Allow me to give a few examples before moving on to the likes of IS and any other "islamic" terrorist groups. All these examples refer to the Prophet or his companions, which means that they should be the basis for actions in Islam and for any Muslim.

Example One is of respect:
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was once sitting in the company of his companions. Whilst he was talking he saw a funeral procession approach. He stopped, and stood up quietly as it passed. When the companions saw a tear fall they asked him why. The Prophet replied, "Was he not a human being? Does he not deserve the same respect?"
Respect. Something that should be engrained in every Muslim.

Example Two is of tolerance, respect and conduct:
When the prophet went to the city now known as Madinah there were three major religions there other than the Muslims. They were the Jews, The Christians and the Fire Worshippers. From what we assume today about Islam, we would have thought that the Prophet would have gone in and told them all to become muslim or leave, right? But that was not what happened. Instead the Prophet invited all the people over to first sleep in his company, so that he could talk to people and get to know the community. Thereafter he wrote three treaties, one for each of the religions. Nowhere on those treaties did it say "you must become muslim". As a matter of fact, the first thing on each treaty was, "I will protect you, your families and your property". As well as this the prophet gathered all the Muslims and said to them that they must never harm anyone of those people under the treaty. Never to damage their property or steal from them. If they did, they would never smell the fragrance of paradise. That is how high in regard these people were held. On top of that, the Prophet met with the Monks, Rabbis and Priests and told them categorically that whilst he does not believe what they believe, he recognises them as the religious leaders and will respect them in that capacity.
Tolerance and good conduct at it's best.

Example Three: dislike of fighting.
There was an incident in which the Muslims were called to arms. When they reached the battlefield there was nobody to fight. They waited but nobody showed up. During this waiting some of the fighters began to get restless, ready to fight. Did the Prophet urge them to prepare more? No. Instead he chided them and asked them why they were eager to spill the blood of another human. If the enemy failed to show, then nobody would need to be killed.
Fighting? No needed unless necessary.

Example four: ettiqutte of war.
What were the rules that the Prophet said?
You will only fight the armed men.
You will not harm a woman, or a child, or an elderly person.
You will not fight in anger.
Amongst many others.
Even when fighting there we rules. Religious buildings were not to be harmed either.
Ettiquette.

Example five: mercy.
When the Prophet returned to the city of Makkah, did he come in weapons aloft? No. He walked in and retook the city without bloodshed. And he showed mercy on those who mocked him, spat on him, tried at assassinate him etc. Why? Because that was what Islam was. Peace.

Example 6: Sharing and Tolerance
A group of Christians were travelling and they came to Madinah. It was the time for their prayers yet they had nowhere to pray. The Prophet opened up one of the most sacred mosques in Islam and told the Christians that they could pray in peace in the mosque.
Sharing.

Example 7: Compassion
There was a woman who hated the Prophet, and every day she would throw her rubbish at him from a window. This happened a long time but one day this stopped. The Prophet enquired what happened to this lady and found out the she had fallen ill. Did he rejoice? No. Instead he went to visit her and wish her well.

Example 8: stoned.
The prophet heard of some people in a place called Taif. He thought he would go see who they were and if they would like to hear about Islam. These people stoned him until he was bleeding and he had to flee for his life. The angel Gabriel came to the Prophet and told him that if he so wished, he would drop an entire mountain over the town and kill everyone. What did the prophet say? Yes? Of course not. He said no. What does this show us? Even if we have the power to crush an enemy, it should not be used.


So what has happened? Have these stories all just disappeared from all Muslims? Have they forgotten what it means to be a Muslim? I do not see mosques opening thier doors when a church closes. But I do hear of churches doing that for Muslims. What is IS? They claim to be trying to implement shariah law on the world. Yet all they do is kill and terrorise. Everything they do is against the very nature of Islam. And then we have the media. Why is it when Israel attack Palestine it is barely shown. But when it is the other way around (which is just as wrong in many ways) it is all over the news? Some centuries ago, the Cherokee, Apache, Commanche, Iroquis etc were labelled as the bad people. Then it was the Black community who were substandard and treated like slaves. The media never defended them even though they were in the right. It took good men like Nelson Mandela their whole life. And slowly the world realised that Black people were not bad at all. We were the bad guys. We had Hitler, a rare time when the majority agreed that he was a bad man. There was a time when all Germans were called Nazis. Why? Why is everyone painted with the same brush. We had the IRA. Were all prodestants bad? No. Then why were they hated? We have the IDF. Are all jews bad? No, of course not. We have IS. Are all Muslims bad? No. They are not.

IRA, KKK, IDF, IS, Nazis etc etc. They all have one thing in common: they all take things to an extreme where it is religiously, morally and outright wrong. And in the minds of those who oppose them, they twist us into thinking that everyone from that area or religion is wrong. Worse: the media never helps.

Let's be humans guys, let's really follow the messages of the prophets we follow, or for those who are athiests, let's follow the moral centre within us all. Islam is peaceful. Christianity is peaceful. Judaism is peaceful. Athiesm is peaceful. Humans... Now we are the evil ones. Let's not be anymore.

 

[crue426]

Yeah, those PEGIDA right wingers are really using the whole ordeal to further their agenda as well

Ahoy Luminis, thanks for the link. Seems legit, where do I sign up ? After what happened, can you blame them for furthering their agenda ? The people of Europe are getting sick of pandering to Islamic immigrants perhaps.

I don't consider myself a racist. But I'm getting there.

Ahoy Spagetti69 : Having prejudice or dislike against something does not mean you are a racist.

 

[ECGadget]

Thank you @Johnnypenso for quoting me here. Muslims are truely very peaceful, but ideals have been twisted and cultures have twisted religion. Whatever religion I am, I do not find anywhere that killing another human being is right in anything other than full defense. When people say Islamic Fundementalists, I say they are not. Because if they were, they would not have harmed even an animal. They are just terrorists, under a different banner.

It really is time for us to end terrorism in every way, shape and form. But we have to do it by taking down the individuals responsible, and stop disgracing religion they way the terrorists throughout the centuries have done so. And to do that, we as humans have to respect differences and not give into the phobias that constantly are thrown in our faces. Once it was: White man = bad. Then it was: Native american = bad. so on and so on. Black man = bad. German = bad. Chinese = bad. Christian = bad. Muslim = bad.
Can we all now say:
Individual people = bad. Not a whole sect, race or religion.


In addition to this, yes I think that what that magazine did was over the line. But the response of going in and killing not only the one who drew it but ELEVEN others is even further over the line. The correct response would have been to peacefully go up to them and explain why it is offensive. OR understand that this magazine is known for insulting everyone and everything and thus ignoring it. Two solutions that would not have resulted in this situation.