Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[Buddhas Hand]

Before terrorism became big in the West it was India where it started..

I have researched this subject quite a bit over the years , our species has used violence to affect politics since time immemorial.

One of the first terror groups that was documented were the sicarii, a 1st century jewish terrorist group who murdered enemies and collaborators in their effort rid judea of Romans.

[drummer4now]

You missed my point. I was talking about Sikhs. No sikhs are not taught how "bad" islam is. I was taught of the wars/issues/history between sikhs and muslims and even hindus, but not to hate them.

I was taught to treat to people equally and never look down upon anyone. Regardless of what background they come from.

Ok maybe not hate, but not think of them so highly..

After All it's one reason why Pakistan and Bangladesh exist because of the deep tensions between the three groups mainly Hindus and Muslims though.

[Hugor Hill]

http://mercadonews.com/v5/index.php/World/i-can-t-be-charlie-jesuischarlie.html

I can't be Charlie. I can't blatantly disrespect and mock any religious or ethnic group even for satire.

I can't find humour in depictions of religious figures of any stripe as animals or any other degrading manner when I know that those figures mean something to others even if they don't to me.

I find it offensive to continually attack another's beliefs and faith for entertainment. As Benito Juarez, who was a lawyer and former President of Mexico famously said: "Respect for the rights others means Peace."

[La Mauviette75]

http://mercadonews.com/v5/index.php/World/i-can-t-be-charlie-jesuischarlie.html

"Respect for the rights [of?] others means Peace."

Um, yeah, like the right to exercise your freedom of speech and freedom of the press. depicting the prophet muhammad in no way impinges on others' rights. which right does drawing mohammad inhibit? there is no right not to be offended.

the offended people have the right to be religious, the right to be offended by cartoons and the right to complain about them.

[GLASSJAW]

I would say this is more of a discussion than an argument.

The members involved are showing more respect for each other than used to be the case in religious arguments/discussions on this board.

disagree, this thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with this community. we all have our take on this issue, and that's cool, but it seems like some of the most active posters in this thread legitimately don't even bother to read anything, or try to understand anything before posting

when people started presenting their art criticisms and interpretations and using those interpretations to fund their understanding of the debate is when most people should have just checked out of the conversation. people were talking about this stuff with authority when a simple google search shoulds just how factually incorrect those understandings are. no more has this been clear with the constant repeating and sloppy interpretations of "Shoah Hebdo" stuff.

the more bizarre element to the thread, to me, is how people are discussing what is or isn't anti-semtic, what is or isn't free speech, etc. in a French legal/cultural context--yet there has been no indication at all that any of these people have even bothered to look up what the complicated web of French laws say is or isn't anti-semitic, or what free speech enables or prevents in France, or the cultural history of these issues and their outcome (minus vague discussion about this "Sine" guy). people are talking about stuff like 'incitement' and terrorism, again, without really discussing what or who defines these things. it just seems like the definition of an illogical conversation, since people are relying on language, art, laws (symbols) to discuss things, when there is no shared understanding of what those symbols actually mean

on a personal level, i find it funny how many members of the 'be free, live and don't judge islam, let them practice how they want!' crowd is singing a very different tune than they regularly sing in other threads about rights and freedoms, especially when it comes to western women and homosexuals. in topics like that, the buttons get done up to the chin, and eyes get crooked. but here it's all about tolerance and acceptance. curious, isn't it?

[Neversummer]

Um, yeah, like the right to exercise your freedom of speech and freedom of the press. depicting the prophet muhammad in no way impinges on others' rights. which right does drawing mohammad inhibit? there is no right not to be offended.

the offended people have the right to be religious, the right to be offended by cartoons and the right to complain about them.

You still don't get it, do you? Why does the French government draw the line of free speech arbitrarily at 'defending terrorism and glorifying violence'? Why is someone arrested for satirizing the killings and saying, ‘I feel like Charlie Coulibaly’? Isn't "what is good for the goose, good for the gander"?

Really simple to me. Do onto others what you want them to do to you and vice versa, don't do onto others what you don't want them to do to you. Don't insult, make fun of, satirize other people's religion or their religious leaders, don't incite violence, don't defend terrorism, don't glorify violence.

If you think that you can make fun of people's religious convictions, then don't arrest those who side with terrorists. To be honest, who you call 'terrorist' is a matter of perspective.

[Hugor Hill]

Um, yeah, like the right to exercise your freedom of speech and freedom of the press. depicting the prophet muhammad in no way impinges on others' rights. which right does drawing mohammad inhibit? there is no right not to be offended.

the offended people have the right to be religious, the right to be offended by cartoons and the right to complain about them.

If the article offends you, you have the right to not read it.

[taxi]

You still don't get it, do you? Why does the French government draw the line of free speech arbitrarily at 'defending terrorism and glorifying violence'? Why is someone arrested for satirizing the killings and saying, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly? Isn't "what is good for the goose, good for the gander"?

Really simple to me. Do onto others what you want them to do to you and vice versa, don't do onto others what you don't want them to do to you. Don't insult, make fun of, satirize other people's religion or their religious leaders, don't incite violence, don't defend terrorism, don't glorify violence.

If you think that you can make fun of people's religious convictions, then don't arrest those who side with terrorists. To be honest, who you call 'terrorist' is a matter of perspective.

The line is supposed to be between directly contributing to violence and speech.

You absolutely have a point about the guy getting arrested for tweeting that he felt like a terrorist. The purpose of that law was to stop religious leaders and terrorist groups from recruiting people to commit terrorist acts.

Keep in mind there is a huge difference between being charged and convicted of a crime. If this guy is convicted, I'd agree France had a serious problem. The arrest is clearly a knee jerk reaction to the violence.

That being said, satire is still and should remain totally legal.

[taxi]

disagree, this thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with this community. we all have our take on this issue, and that's cool, but it seems like some of the most active posters in this thread legitimately don't even bother to read anything, or try to understand anything before posting

when people started presenting their art criticisms and interpretations and using those interpretations to fund their understanding of the debate is when most people should have just checked out of the conversation. people were talking about this stuff with authority when a simple google search shoulds just how factually incorrect those understandings are. no more has this been clear with the constant repeating and sloppy interpretations of "Shoah Hebdo" stuff.

the more bizarre element to the thread, to me, is how people are discussing what is or isn't anti-semtic, what is or isn't free speech, etc. in a French legal/cultural context--yet there has been no indication at all that any of these people have even bothered to look up what the complicated web of French laws say is or isn't anti-semitic, or what free speech enables or prevents in France, or the cultural history of these issues and their outcome (minus vague discussion about this "Sine" guy). people are talking about stuff like 'incitement' and terrorism, again, without really discussing what or who defines these things. it just seems like the definition of an illogical conversation, since people are relying on language, art, laws (symbols) to discuss things, when there is no shared understanding of what those symbols actually mean

on a personal level, i find it funny how many members of the 'be free, live and don't judge islam, let them practice how they want!' crowd is singing a very different tune than they regularly sing in other threads about rights and freedoms, especially when it comes to western women and homosexuals. in topics like that, the buttons get done up to the chin, and eyes get crooked. but here it's all about tolerance and acceptance. curious, isn't it?

So..uhhh which side are you on?

Good point about the Shoah Hebdo stuff. Although that was not easy to find via Google. Most articles about it were in French and several major news sources reported the false information.

Charlie Hebdo did still make many anti-Judaism cartoons. Even is the Hebdo ones are not attributable to them.

[Dral]

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jerusalem-cleric-Muslim-world-slam-publishing-of-new-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-387729

Muslim leaders call new cartoons an unnecessary provocation and sign of disrespect.

Muslim clerics in the Middle East who have denounced last week's attack on Charlie Hebdo criticized the French satirical weekly on Wednesday for publishing new cartoons depicting Islam's Prophet Mohammad in its first issue after the killings.

On the front of its "survivor's edition," which swiftly sold out its multi-million copy print run in France, the newspaper printed a cartoon of a tearful Mohammad carrying a sign reading "I am Charlie," under the headline "All is forgiven."

While mainstream Muslim leaders around the world have strongly condemned the attack on the newspaper, many said its decision to print more cartoons of Mohammad was an unnecessary provocation and sign of disrespect that would create a new backlash.

Such cartoons "fuel feelings of hatred and resentment among people" and publishing them "shows contempt" for Muslim feelings, said the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestinian lands, Mohammed Hussein, in a statement.

Algeria's independent Arab language daily Echorouk responded with a front page cartoon of its own, showing a man carrying a "Je suis Charlie" placard next to a military tank crushing placards from Palestine, Mali, Gaza, Iraq and Syria.

Above, the headline reads: "We are all Mohammad."

In Turkey, a secular opposition newspaper printed excerpts from the Charlie Hebdo edition but balked at including the cover image depicting Mohammad. Police cordoned off its headquarters over security concerns.

In Iran, a leading conservative cleric, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, said the publication of new satirical images of Mohammad "amounts to declaring war on all Muslims."

Egypt's Al-Azhar, a thousand-year-old seat of Islamic learning that has referred to the Paris attack as a criminal act, called on Muslims on Wednesday to ignore the magazine's cartoons, labeling them "hateful frivolity."

Many people on the streets in the Middle East said it was time to move on.

"The cartoons have no meaning, they should not affect us. We as Muslims are bigger and stronger than some cartoon. We should not pay attention, and if we react we should react with word for word and cartoon for cartoon," said Samir Mahmoud, a retired engineer in Cairo.

Emad Awad, a Christian in Cairo, said he understood the anger of his Muslim neighbors but hoped there would be no more unrest.

"I reject completely that pictures of the prophet be published anywhere, but they've made their decision to do it yet again, to show their freedoms aren't changed," he said.

"Now that they've made their point, I really hope this is the last time they do this. I don't think it will lead to more violence, but they missed an opportunity to leave the subject in the past and move forward."

The newspaper's defenders said the cover balanced a determination to demonstrate that it remains committed to its satirical mission and free speech, with an appropriately mournful tone and a peaceful message.

"I wrote 'all is forgiven' and I cried," Renald "Luz" Luzier, who created the image, told a news conference on Tuesday at the weekly's temporary office at left-wing daily Liberation.

"This is our front page ... it's not the one the terrorists wanted us to draw," he said. "I'm not worried at all ... I trust people's intelligence, the intelligence of humor."

TURKISH PAPER REPRINTS

In Turkey, Cumhuriyet, a staunchly secular opposition newspaper, printed excerpts of Charlie Hebdo, one of five international editions of the satirical newspaper.

Cumhuriyet dedicated four of its pages to Charlie Hebdo articles and cartoons. It printed a small, black-and-white version of the cover in one of its columns, but did not use the image in the special section itself, after "many consultations," its editor in chief Utku Cakirozer said on Twitter.

Police had cordoned off the street where Cumhuriyet is located in Istanbul due to security concerns. At its Ankara offices, protesters hung banners on a nearby wall that read: "The Charlie provocation continues."

Police had stopped trucks carrying the newspaper from the printing press to ensure it did not contain the image of Mohammad, Milliyet newspaper reported. Insulting the prophet is punishable with a prison term under a clause in the Turkish penal code that bars disrespect of religious values.

Saudi cleric Iyad Ameen Madani, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, denounced the new cartoon as "insolence, ignorance and foolishness."

"Freedom of speech must not become a hate-speech and it is not an offense to the others. No sane person, regardless of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed," he said on a visit to Iraq.

[Hugor Hill]

Jesus is a prophet of Islam he stated "but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"

He also said " But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you"

and 'Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you"

If I went out into the wilderness then came back and told every one that {a} god spoke to me ,gave me a set of rules that seem to attribute that god with human failing's , i would be expect to be mocked , ridiculed and taken the piss out of.

Tell me what would your re-action to me be ?

I would probably call you a nut head, and so will a lot of people.

But a few people out there might just think you have something. I wouldn't agree with them. I wouldn't understand them or you. I will likely openly voice my opinion about my position. But ultimately I would respect their right to follow you, especially if there are like 1.5 billion of them. I would also expect them to let me believe in what I believe in. It's the only way to get along and live in harmony.

[drummer4now]

Many people on the streets in the Middle East said it was time to move on.

I think this is best approach.. just ignore it and not give those fools anymore attention.

Should of done it earlier, but now is the time do so.

[Tortorella's Rant]

[drummer4now]

+1

[La Mauviette75]

If the article offends you, you have the right to not read it.

I'm not offended by the article, though I would never be against anyone writing it. but this is actually exactly my point! if muslims are going to be offended by a cartoon, just don't look at it. Out of the past 52 covers of the Charlie Hebdo Magazine, only one had anything to do with Islam.

[ice orca]

Hmm lets see...

1) Getting the frack out of all MENA countries

2) Stop being hypocritical and supporting evil tyrannical regimes like the Saudi Royals and Gulf Monarchs while at the same time condemning others like Iran and Syria for being barbaric and evil.

3)Actually caring about the whole Israeli and Palestinian conflict instead of choosing one side out of guilt for previous war crimes and sometimes appealing to the Palestinians when under pressure from the media and it's citizens.

4)Admitting that mistakes were made. For example, there is fighting terrorism and then there's complete overkill (Iraq and Afghanistan)

5)Bring war criminals like Bush and others to justice

6)Stop trying to arm rebel groups in the name of freedom.. even though it's for national interest and proxy wars.

There's probably more, but that's a start.

Are you kidding me?

India is constantly under threat from terrorism from Pakistan and Islamic radicals.

Before terrorism became big in the West it was India where it started..

If some Hindu Nationalists did the same thing there would be similar actions taken by the Muslim community there's no doubt about that..

If you think anti-muslim hate is bad here wait until you go there..

That's is why I mentioned the Sikh part because almost every Sikh is taught how Islam is bad and Muslims are evil etc...

This has to do with our previous past. There is a sense of distrust among Sikhs. Hindus, and Muslims.

I could go on but I will leave it at that.

By your post you mean the US not the west. You really don't understand the United States do you? They are takers in this world not givers, pure dawinism at it's finest. They will turn the middle east into glass if pushed too far, not to be a prick but there will be no reparations from the US ever. Just talk to people in the US, the next attack on them it's a 80/20 split to push that effing button...just saying.

[Guest]

I'm not offended by the article, though I would never be against anyone writing it. but this is actually exactly my point! if muslims are going to be offended by a cartoon, just don't look at it. Out of the past 52 covers of the Charlie Hebdo Magazine, only one had anything to do with Islam.

You clearly don't understand. This thread spent all of above 10 minutes mourning those murdered. Soon thereafter discussions were held about how the magazine had no credibility, or by how the West is to blame.

The level of discourse on this forum, by those educated or not, is akin to a news anchor from Fox News. The irony writes itself.

[Guest]

First comment I said I would bring down the rhetoric which I failed to do, but now have.

Second comment:

TBH I could care less of Muslims or Islam in general as I don't fit in any similar demographic (Born a Sikh and Islam is regarded as enemy of ours because of previous history), but the only reason I defend is because of the grave injustices that have been committed over the last decade or so.

This kind of injustice is haunting the West now and will for years to come unless some sort of reparation is made.

What sort of injustice do you have in mind? I am no apologist for the "West's" past, but I am confused by this statement. If 20 Japanese were murdered by Chinese nationals are we to toe the same line of thought? How about Scotland, Spain, Germany, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal and so on.

[La Mauviette75]

You still don't get it, do you? Why does the French government draw the line of free speech arbitrarily at 'defending terrorism and glorifying violence'? Why is someone arrested for satirizing the killings and saying, ‘I feel like Charlie Coulibaly’? Isn't "what is good for the goose, good for the gander"?

Really simple to me. Do onto others what you want them to do to you and vice versa, don't do onto others what you don't want them to do to you. Don't insult, make fun of, satirize other people's religion or their religious leaders, don't incite violence, don't defend terrorism, don't glorify violence.

If you think that you can make fun of people's religious convictions, then don't arrest those who side with terrorists. To be honest, who you call 'terrorist' is a matter of perspective.

What is the "it" I don't get? I think you've explained your opinion quite well, and I'm pretty confident I understand it, though I still disagree with it.

The French government doesn't arbitrarily decide things, it makes laws through a democratic legislative process. this process has enacted rules that protect free speech to an extent, but forbid things like holocaust denial, promotion of terrorism, inciting hatred etc....

It's a technicality I guess, but Dieudonné wasn't arrested for what he said, he received a summons for what he said, and he failed to appear at the time he was supposed to, which led to his arrest warrant. Either way, the prosecutor believes that given Dieudonné's anti-Semitic history, his statement that he "feels like [the terrorist who murdered 4 jewish people because they were jewish]" is promoting or celebrating, or justifying what Coulibaly did. I guess you're free to disagree.

You say "If you think that you can make fun of people's religious convictions, then don't arrest those who side with terrorists. " . But that's just not what the law says. You don't see the difference between satire, which at worst offends people, and inciting terrorism, which literally aims to incite people to kill others?

Obviously there are going to be difficult questions about what kind of speech actually qualifies as inciting or promoting, where is the line etc....

but that's true for most crimes. what is premeditation? what constitutes possession? what's a deadly weapon? these questions are all over the legal system, it's nothing new.

[Dral]

You clearly don't understand. This thread spent all of above 10 minutes mourning those murdered. Soon thereafter discussions were held about how the magazine had no credibility, or by how the West is to blame.

The level of discourse on this forum, by those educated or not, is akin to a news anchor from Fox News. The irony writes itself.

weren't you leaving this thread?