Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[Guest]

weren't you leaving this thread?

I guess I can't help myself from commenting on idiotic comments. Maybe that's my cue to leave CDC.

Honestly, people in this thread demand an understanding of Islam and marginalization etc, yet neglect the other side of the coin completely. It's truly laughable.

The one french lad we have in this thread Is on the defensive as others, stationed in Vancouver, tell him the "way it is".

You don't see how this is funny at all?

[Dral]

I guess I can't help myself from commenting on idiotic comments. Maybe that's my cue to leave CDC.

Honestly, people in this thread demand an understanding of Islam and marginalization etc, yet neglect the other side of the coin completely. It's truly laughable.

The one french lad we have in this thread Is on the defensive as others, stationed in Vancouver, tell him the "way it is".

You don't see how this is funny at all?

There hasn't been anything funny at all in this thread tbh

[Guest]

There hasn't been anything funny at all in this thread tbh

Not from a topical standpoint...but that goes without saying.

Or are you trying to prove my point?

[drummer4now]

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.

I completely agree... and yes I mainly mean the US.

Also never say never there have been far worse regimes and empires that have eventually had to pay the price or give some sort of reparation,.

I doubt the US would ever drop the bomb again unless in dire straights. Doing so would completely turn everyone against them.

They would essentially be the biggest hypocrites in the world if they aren't already.

The middle east is not something the US would destroy..

I would worry more about Pakistan or India dropping the bomb or even Russia.

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.

Why are you being so apathetic? You keep blaming others for having a one sided approach aren't you doing the same when demanding us to look at your outlook?

Injustice as in the killing of innocent people.

For example, there's this new movie coming out "American Sniper" I believe and focuses the life and story of a Sniper in Iraq who is regarded as the best in American history... but anyway he has said some outlandish things like advocating the deaths of any Iraqi male from 16-65 years even if they're innocent. If that doesn't seem barbaric I don't know what is. The fact there's a movie about him is sickening.

[Hugor Hill]

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.

I was sarcastically mocking you, using your own argument against you. Don't worry I was just busting balls. I knew it was weak.

But seriously, the whole 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work because, as the CBC head of journalistic standards said, the only thing that matters is the cartoons are out there. They exist and people are looking at them. Think how Amanda Todd's pictures were being passed around on the internet. She didn't have to look at them, but they were out there ruining her life.

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.

Half the world has spent days mourning them. I can't speak for others but when I post I like to say beyond the obvious.

If it makes you feel better, next time there is a tragedy I'll mourn for 10 consecutive posts before posting anything worthy of actual analysis.

[Guest]

I was sarcastically mocking you, using your own argument against you. Don't worry I was just busting balls. I knew it was weak.

But seriously, the whole 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work because, as the CBC head of journalistic standards said, the only thing that matters is the cartoons are out there. They exist and people are looking at them. Think how Amanda Todd's pictures were being passed around on the internet. She didn't have to look at them, but they were out there ruining her life.

Half the world has spent days mourning them. I can't speak for others but when I post I like to say beyond the obvious.

If it makes you feel better, next time there is a tragedy I'll mourn for 10 consecutive posts before posting anything worthy of actual analysis.

Is that what you think you're doing? Posting a "worthy...analysis".

Give me a break.

[Guest]

I completely agree... and yes I mainly mean the US.

Also never say never there have been far worse regimes and empires that have eventually had to pay the price or give some sort of reparation,.

I doubt the US would ever drop the bomb again unless in dire straights. Doing so would completely turn everyone against them.

They would essentially be the biggest hypocrites in the world if they aren't already.

The middle east is not something the US would destroy..

I would worry more about Pakistan or India dropping the bomb or even Russia.

Why are you being so apathetic? You keep blaming others for having a one sided approach aren't you doing the same when demanding us to look at your outlook?

Injustice as in the killing of innocent people.

For example, there's this new movie coming out "American Sniper" I believe and focuses the life and story of a Sniper in Iraq who is regarded as the best in American history... but anyway he has said some outlandish things like advocating the deaths of any Iraqi male from 16-65 years even if they're innocent. If that doesn't seem barbaric I don't know what is. The fact there's a movie about him is sickening.

I dare to ask what any if this has to do with what Ive ever posted.

Unfortunate for you that I'm not some poster boy for imperialism. Believe it or not, I come from a Marxist upbringing.

But please, cast more. I want to read what you assume.

[La Mauviette75]

I was sarcastically mocking you, using your own argument against you. Don't worry I was just busting balls. I knew it was weak.

But seriously, the whole 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work because, as the CBC head of journalistic standards said, the only thing that matters is the cartoons are out there. They exist and people are looking at them. Think how Amanda Todd's pictures were being passed around on the internet. She didn't have to look at them, but they were out there ruining her life.

That's fine though, I embrace your right to mock me, though i'm not sure i understand the humor, but that's totally fine.

right, the cartoons are out there, but they aren't illegal in the jurisdiction they were created in. One actually has to make an effort to see the comics.

Ironically, killing these people has propagated cartoons of the prophet more than anything ever before.

I do not know much about Ms. Todd's case, so I should not comment on it. The only thing i would say, is that disparaging pictures of a single person, which obviously affect that one person in a very serious way, are different from the image of a person who died more than a thousand years ago, no matter how revered this person might be among a group of people.

[taxi]

I was sarcastically mocking you, using your own argument against you. Don't worry I was just busting balls. I knew it was weak.

But seriously, the whole 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work because, as the CBC head of journalistic standards said, the only thing that matters is the cartoons are out there. They exist and people are looking at them. Think how Amanda Todd's pictures were being passed around on the internet. She didn't have to look at them, but they were out there ruining her life.

Half the world has spent days mourning them. I can't speak for others but when I post I like to say beyond the obvious.

If it makes you feel better, next time there is a tragedy I'll mourn for 10 consecutive posts before posting anything worthy of actual analysis.

You honestly don't see the difference between posting naked pictures of and bullying a minor until she commits suicide and offending someone's religious sensibilities?

Just ignore the magazines.

[Hugor Hill]

That's fine though, I embrace your right to mock me, though i'm not sure i understand the humor, but that's totally fine.

right, the cartoons are out there, but they aren't illegal in the jurisdiction they were created in. One actually has to make an effort to see the comics.

Ironically, killing these people has propagated cartoons of the prophet more than anything ever before.

I do not know much about Ms. Todd's case, so I should not comment on it. The only thing i would say, is that disparaging pictures of a single person, which obviously affect that one person in a very serious way, are different from the image of a person who died more than a thousand years ago, no matter how revered this person might be among a group of people.

I couldn't come up with a better analogy. The point is nothing more than to illustrate how the 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work as the damage is being done even if the victims don't experience the message first hand.

One thing I'll forever agree with you is how the tragedy has brought Charlie Hebdo to mainstream popularity. This is probably the last thing the terrorists wanted. LOL!

[Hugor Hill]

You honestly don't see the difference between posting naked pictures of and bullying a minor until she commits suicide and offending someone's religious sensibilities?

Just ignore the magazines.

It's an analogy. You know what an analogy is? Jesus Christ.

You can't just ignore the magazine if they are insulting your religion because other people are reading it. It's like kids in school saying you have a warm size penis. It will ruin your life even if you don't hear the insult first hand. Once again just incase you can't tell it's an analogy.

And again I'm not a Muslim. It's got nothing to do with me personally. I'm just being impartial.

[La Mauviette75]

I couldn't come up with a better analogy. The point is nothing more than to illustrate how the 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work as the damage is being done even if the victims don't experience the message first hand.

Well fine, but as long as it isn't illegal, it's not an issue. They can be offended. my opinion on being offended matches this comedian's fairly well:

http://youtu.be/fHMoDt3nSHs?t=3m40s

no one is a "victim" of a cartoon. comparing actual pictures of a young girl (as i understand it [i still don't know about and will not comment on the Ms. Todd case]), to a satire cartoon is kind of a stretch, no?

[Lockout Casualty]

I was sarcastically mocking you, using your own argument against you. Don't worry I was just busting balls. I knew it was weak.

But seriously, the whole 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work because, as the CBC head of journalistic standards said, the only thing that matters is the cartoons are out there. They exist and people are looking at them. Think how Amanda Todd's pictures were being passed around on the internet. She didn't have to look at them, but they were out there ruining her life.

Half the world has spent days mourning them. I can't speak for others but when I post I like to say beyond the obvious.

If it makes you feel better, next time there is a tragedy I'll mourn for 10 consecutive posts before posting anything worthy of actual analysis.

I couldn't come up with a better analogy. The point is nothing more than to illustrate how the 'if you are offended, don't look' argument doesn't work as the damage is being done even if the victims don't experience the message first hand.

One thing I'll forever agree with you is how the tragedy has brought Charlie Hebdo to mainstream popularity. This is probably the last thing the terrorists wanted. LOL!

It's an analogy. You know what an analogy is? Jesus Christ.

You can't just ignore the magazine if they are insulting your religion because other people are reading it. It's like kids in school saying you have a warm size penis. It will ruin your life even if you don't hear the insult first hand. Once again just incase you can't tell it's an analogy.

And again I'm not a Muslim. It's got nothing to do with me personally. I'm just being impartial.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason you can't come up with a better analogy is because there isn't an analogy out there that can present this situation in the light you prefer to see it in?

Something being out there, in this case an image, can have a different effect depending on context. Todd is a real person, a teenager, whose life was directly affected by these pictures (and not by them solely existing). Mohammed is a 1400 year old pedophile religious figure. Do you see a difference?

Yes, if you're offended look away. Why is that such a difficult concept? As I said, Islam offends me. Are you about to champion prohibition of Islam? Of course you're not. And so what that other people are reading the magazine making fun of your (not your your) prophet? Are they being incited to firebomb your house? Are they not serving you at the local market? Are your kids unable to attend school without being harassed because people are reading the magazine? Where's the bloody harm in it? Show me what is damaged by such satire, aside from delicate sensibilities of the religious folk?

Kids saying I have a "warm size penis", whatever that means, wouldn't ruin my life. It wouldn't make it true, nor would it break any bones in my body. There's probably a difference between gossiping and bullying teenagers and mocking religious figures, but I'll let you dwell on that on your own time.

Maybe when Mohammad is physically assaulted you can draw a comparison to Todd's situation. Otherwise, WTF.

[Buddhas Hand]

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 it is the parameters of this conversation/discussion/argument that determine wether we are in a conversation/discussion/argument ?

I believe it is the way that people contribute to the conversation/discussion that determines wether it is an argument or not.

My point was and is that most threads with religion at their core end up in a slanging match , insults from both sides and no respect shown at all. This has not been the case in this thread , sure there is a couple of $&!# stirrers but there is a lot less insults than there usually are.

Me I believe it is all about taking the piss , I think it is a very human thing to take the piss/mock something that has had such a negative impact on so many peoples lives, for so freaking long.

I think nothing is that sacred that people should be killed for mocking/taking the piss out of it.

Your comments on religious tolerance are spot on , both of the abrahamic religions have displayed their intolerance time and time again and continue to do so to this day.

[Buddhas Hand]

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.

So you will call me a nuthead if i told you that a god spoke to me but if there was 1.5 billion people following me you would refrain from doing so ?

I respect people and I will fight for their right to act in any manner until their actions have a negative impact on others and thats the problem with the abrahamic religions , they have not allowed others who did/do not believe as they do to live in peace and harmony , the have tried to ram their beliefs down others throats for centuries , they have and still do persecute others because of their beliefs , lifestyle choices and in some cases for simply interpreting the same religion in a different manner.

Their followers acting on their religious beliefs have brought pain and suffering into millions of peoples lives

Taking is the piss/mocking is a very human response to all of the above and as i have already stated , i think they , the religious people are getting off lightly.

I wish religious people took the piss out of me rather than taking me from my biological mother.

[taxi]

It's an analogy. You know what an analogy is? Jesus Christ.

You can't just ignore the magazine if they are insulting your religion because other people are reading it. It's like kids in school saying you have a warm size penis. It will ruin your life even if you don't hear the insult first hand. Once again just incase you can't tell it's an analogy.

And again I'm not a Muslim. It's got nothing to do with me personally. I'm just being impartial.

Here's the thing... All the religions are an insult to all the other religions, because they have different laws.

Many of the insulting images of Mohammed are just pictures of him, like the most recent cover. If you don't believe in drawing someone, then don't draw him. You have no right to enforce your religion on others because it offends you.

The only reason a simple image of Mohammad drawn by non-muslims is now considered offensive is because radicals declared it an issue and decided to start threatening people.

South park made a cartoon about Mohammad (and other religious figures) about twelve years ago. Nobody said anything. About seven it eight years ago the exact same concept was censored....

[Neversummer]

Here is another opinion piece, not just from anyone but by the cofounder of Charlie Hebdo:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-founder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack-185458716.html

Charlie Hebdo cofounder blames slain editor for provoking attack

Less than a week after the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo left 12 people dead, one of the satirical French newspaper's founding members is blaming the publication’s slain editor for provoking the attacks, the Telegraph reports.

Henri Roussel, an 80-year-old who contributed to its first issue, in 1970 (when it was known as Hara-Kiri Hebdo), penned a column this week criticizing editor Stéphane Charbonnier, one of five staff members killed in last week’s shootings, for his stubbornness after publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, which was followed by the 2011 firebombing of the newspaper’s offices.

“What made him feel the need to drag the team into overdoing it?” Roussel writes in Nouvel Observateur, according to a translation by the Telegraph. “He shouldn’t have done it, but Charb did it again a year later, in September 2012.”

“I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Roussel, who writes under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, continued. “That’s it. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation, and then one day the provocation turns against us.

[Lockout Casualty]

Here is another opinion piece, not just from anyone but by the cofounder of Charlie Hebdo:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-founder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack-185458716.html

Charlie Hebdo cofounder blames slain editor for provoking attack

Less than a week after the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo left 12 people dead, one of the satirical French newspaper's founding members is blaming the publication’s slain editor for provoking the attacks, the Telegraph reports.

Henri Roussel, an 80-year-old who contributed to its first issue, in 1970 (when it was known as Hara-Kiri Hebdo), penned a column this week criticizing editor Stéphane Charbonnier, one of five staff members killed in last week’s shootings, for his stubbornness after publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, which was followed by the 2011 firebombing of the newspaper’s offices.

“What made him feel the need to drag the team into overdoing it?” Roussel writes in Nouvel Observateur, according to a translation by the Telegraph. “He shouldn’t have done it, but Charb did it again a year later, in September 2012.”

“I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Roussel, who writes under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, continued. “That’s it. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation, and then one day the provocation turns against us.

What's up with all this victim-blaming garbage? Seems to be a fair bit of it in this thread.

"Provoking attack" is nothing more than another lame attempt at justification for the violence. Why is it that I can't be provoked into murdering people, but Muslim extremists can be? Are they not human beings with critical thought, but mere animals who reacted to an external stimuli? I'd say dancing with your ass out in front of a lion is provoking an attack, because a lion will do what it does best. Posting a cartoon is not, and should not be expected to be met with such violence.

Get it through your thick heads folks, there is nothing that can be said to justify violence. One more time, there is nothing that can be said to justify violence. Are we getting it yet? There is nothing that can be said to justify violence.

[FramingDragon]

I love how repeating the same words apparently makes the subjective point of view stand stronger on its own. You're not talking about the Earth being flat. There's a special kind of fool that manages to confuse perspectives with facts.

267)-&)%hgdu.

Are we getting it yet? 267)-&)%hgdu. One more time, 267)-&)%hgdu.

I guess I can rest easy knowing he'll never have to defend thesis proposals or anything. Frankly, barraging Lockout Casualty's fragile skull with many well accepted cases for violence would be too easy. He first needs to understand that facts and opinions don't mix. Baby steps.

[Bocivus]

I love how a staged event can get people riled up.