Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[drummer4now]

Yes the saviour has arrived.. Exactly what I am trying to explain in all my mumbo jumbo.

Double standards people wake up. This can be extended to other groups as well.

All those groups have race cards and various historical events to back up their curbing of free speech.

What do brown people and Muslims have? Nothing.

[thepouet]

It's a two sided struggle, and the hostility that Germans are openly showing now to Muslims and Muslim immigration has existed in France for a long time.

I just don't know what more ground there is left to cover when the discussion stays within the vacuum of picture ---> reaction. He is right, it's far more complicated and it's more fruitful to look at the reasons behind the tension that led to something like this than to talk about the importance about freedom of speech for the umpteenth time

Also I don't understand why satire published about individuals belonging to other groups bears any relevance here. Making fun of the Pope is not the same as attacking the core beliefs of many in a religion that currently intersects with a huge number of ethnic and socioeconomic issues. One is clearly more explosive than the other given the current landscape.

Ignoring the historical and sociopolitical context is just as dumb as focusing exclusively on it. You just can't ignore the issue of free press by pretending the attack is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You don't know that. We barely know the names of these extremists and yet we're all acting like we know why they decided one day to kill 12 people.

The fact we have right now is that they targeted specific people (they even called them by their names before killing them) just because they made fun of their religion. I don't want to live in a country where we can't criticize a religion just because it's might hurt someone's convictions. The Sharia for instance needs to be made fun of as it a stupid and immoral law that goes against a lot of our society core values. Some parts of Islam certainly deserve to be criticized. So want it or not it is about free speech and I certainly hope everyone realize how having this freedom is important.

[FramingDragon]

Let's not forget the depths of depravity and vitriol groups like the Westboro Baptist Church incite from the average person here. In every case concerning anti-Islam cartoons, the discussion of tact and ethics is automatically shut down by the almighty "freedom of speech" argument and anything else is pandering to barbarism supposedly. You'd think they'd take their own advice in the case of WBC and just shut up to bear others exercise the same right for freedom of speech instead of cheering on their deaths and having revenge fantasies about them. After all, it doesn't seem to matter if something is tasteful at all as long as it's legal in the tenet of freedums.

Ignoring the historical and sociopolitical context is just as dumb as focusing exclusively on it. You just can't ignore the issue of free press by pretending the attack is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You don't know that. We barely know the names of these extremists and yet we're all acting like we know why they decided one day to kill 12 people.

I agree. I just don't think anyone here has anything but tunnel vision every time something like this happens, and there's a complete ignorance of context. There's no use for me to talk about the importance of free press because it's redundant at this point. Just trying to fill in the gaps in perspective in the thread so far.

[drummer4now]

Ignoring the historical and sociopolitical context is just as dumb as focusing exclusively on it. You just can't ignore the issue of free press by pretending the attack is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You don't know that. We barely know the names of these victims and yet we're all acting like we know why they decided one day to kill 12 people.

The fact we have right now is that they targeted specific people (they even called them by their names before killing them) just because they made fun of their religion. I don't want to live in a country where we can't criticize a religion just because it's might hurt someone's convictions. The Sharia for instance needs to be made fun of as it a stupid and immoral law that goes against a lot of our society core values. Some parts of Islam certainly deserve to be criticized. So want it or not it is about free speech and I certainly hope everyone realize how having this freedom is important.

This is a classic example of fearmongering... Oh they're taking our freedom of speech

Do you really think a bunch of rag tag terrorists can silence everyone?

Like some have mentioned this only intensifies more obscene material like this.

Ask yourself one question.. Is your freedom of speech being harmed more by the government or by terrorists?

Blame the elected officials for their lax immigration policies, etc.. and not the people.

[Special Ed]

More likely related to interference in the Middle East, drone wars, Iraq/Afghanistan, support of Israel, etc.

Yeah because muslims were so peaceful before any of that.

[GLASSJAW]

More likely related to interference in the Middle East, drone wars, Iraq/Afghanistan, support of Israel, etc.

more likely based on what?

you think these muslim monkeys seriously attacked an ultra left wing satire magazine as a statement against france's support of israel, or their gloooorious involvement in the war on terror? are you KIDDING ME? of all targets, they choose a leftist magazine that would not support any of these things?

do you feel comfortable even making such speculations?

I just don't know what more ground there is left to cover when the discussion stays within the vacuum of picture ---> reaction. He is right, it's far more complicated and it's more fruitful to look at the reasons behind the tension that led to something like this than to talk about the importance about freedom of speech for the umpteenth time

Also I don't understand why satire published about individuals belonging to other groups bears any relevance here. Making fun of the Pope is not the same as attacking the core beliefs of many in a religion that currently intersects with a huge number of ethnic and socioeconomic issues. One is clearly more explosive than the other given the current landscape.

i'm sorry, but i really don't get the first/bold part here. what exactly are you saying is the complicated and fruitful issue for us to discuss? the tension in france is neither complicated nor is it ignored. in fact, i think it's sorta black and white. lots and lots of ink and bandwith spill over with this issue: france is a secular nation that is almost exclusively defined by its separation of church and welfare state. france's views on religion are supported by the vast majority of its citizens. however, a lot of these laws and philosophical beliefs are direct contrasts to the tenets of islam and other religions. so... the muslim immigrants feel alienated by the culture they move into and... then what?

the complication, i guess, sets in when people try to figure out how to make everyone happy. but i, for one, don't have any time to sit here and read a bunch of CDC'ers try to discuss french culture and politics when i can't even tolerate the discussions about canadian politics. besides, i have no reason to believe the acts done today were anything more than just a long-standing conflict between the magazine and some extremists.

as for the non-bold part, this just sounds like censorship to me. who cares if something is the core belief of a religion? what responsibility does a french satire magazine have to muslims? i've never read the magazine before, but i don't think its exactly soft on the pope, or anyone else, since it also has covers of jews kissing nazis, and black people looking like monkeys.

[Special Ed]

Yawn. Who is 'the west'? It's a term that conspiracy nuts throw around but they have no clue. Seriously who is 'the west' that calls Jewish cartoons anti Semite? I'm from the west and have never done that. Or seen or heard of it. Looks made up to fit an agenda. Regardless Jewish ppl aren't murdering over cartoons.

[GLASSJAW]

Ignoring the historical and sociopolitical context is just as dumb as focusing exclusively on it. You just can't ignore the issue of free press by pretending the attack is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You don't know that. We barely know the names of these extremists and yet we're all acting like we know why they decided one day to kill 12 people.

The fact we have right now is that they targeted specific people (they even called them by their names before killing them) just because they made fun of their religion. I don't want to live in a country where we can't criticize a religion just because it's might hurt someone's convictions. The Sharia for instance needs to be made fun of as it a stupid and immoral law that goes against a lot of our society core values. Some parts of Islam certainly deserve to be criticized. So want it or not it is about free speech and I certainly hope everyone realize how having this freedom is important.

this is a good post, and probably what i meant to say above

[drummer4now]

Yawn. Who is 'the west'? It's a term that conspiracy nuts throw around but they have no clue. Seriously who is 'the west' that calls Jewish cartoons anti Semite? I'm from the west and have never done that. Or seen or heard of it. Looks made up to fit an agenda. Regardless Jewish ppl aren't murdering over cartoons.

They may not murder, but there is evidence of censorship...like when the Israeli government hires tech students to monitor anti-semitic activity on social media sites so they can basically ostracize the original poster by using fake aliases/accounts.

http://www.cnet.com/news/israel-to-hire-pro-government-tweeters-and-facebookers/

The Israeli government puts out a national call for university students to come work for its new social media project, which aims to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment.

Then you have the Mossad apparently targeting people, but that's another story for another time.

[FramingDragon]

i'm sorry, but i really don't get the first/bold part here. what exactly are you saying is the complicated and fruitful issue for us to discuss? the tension in france is neither complicated nor is it ignored. in fact, i think it's sorta black and white. lots and lots of ink and bandwith spill over with this issue: france is a secular nation that is almost exclusively defined by its separation of church and welfare state. france's views on religion are supported by the vast majority of its citizens. however, a lot of these laws and philosophical beliefs are direct contrasts to the tenets of islam and other religions. so... the muslim immigrants feel alienated by the culture they move into and... then what?

the complication, i guess, sets in when people try to figure out how to make everyone happy. but i, for one, don't have any time to sit here and read a bunch of CDC'ers try to discuss french culture and politics when i can't even tolerate the discussions about canadian politics. besides, i have no reason to believe the acts done today were anything more than just a long-standing conflict between the magazine and some extremists.

as for the non-bold part, this just sounds like censorship to me. who cares if something is the core belief of a religion? what responsibility does a french satire magazine have to muslims? i've never read the magazine before, but i don't think its exactly soft on the pope, or anyone else, since it also has covers of jews kissing nazis, and black people looking like monkeys.

A separation of Church and state does not really extend to limiting religious expression through attire of Muslim women, and France has long been cracking down on what I would consider to be an important freedom. The class of immigrants that make up the current demographic of Muslims in France are among the poorest and least educated, they are closed off from the outside and they are willingly isolated adding to the hostility. When these slum like conditions produce idiots trigger happy to revolt against anything of the "other" side showing dissent, it is pretty important to look at the environment that allowed this stuff to fester in the first place.

The same way events following Ferguson required a broader understanding of the situation and institutional bindings to fully appreciate the gravity, a similar scope is required here. After all, would you say that the killing of cops stems from nothing but a long standing conflict between troubled black men and the police force? The eventual discussion should lead to examining what made these men troubled, no? It does not mean that the actions today were not done by extremists or that they are rid of responsibility because you made an effort to understand what allowed these actions to be considered and executed by born French nationals.

Frankly, if you don't have time to discuss the intricacy and intersection of politics and social classes (I usually don't), then you definitely shouldn't have time to rabidly insist the sanctity of free press as if it's never been said before because it's been echoed in almost every other post.

I am not talking about censorship, I am referring to consciousness regarding the offensive nature of any topic and how some things have the potential to offend more than others simply by being more of a hot and current topic than another.

[drummer4now]

Ignoring the historical and sociopolitical context is just as dumb as focusing exclusively on it. You just can't ignore the issue of free press by pretending the attack is only a symptom of a deeper problem. You don't know that. We barely know the names of these extremists and yet we're all acting like we know why they decided one day to kill 12 people.

The fact we have right now is that they targeted specific people (they even called them by their names before killing them) just because they made fun of their religion. I don't want to live in a country where we can't criticize a religion just because it's might hurt someone's convictions. The Sharia for instance needs to be made fun of as it a stupid and immoral law that goes against a lot of our society core values. Some parts of Islam certainly deserve to be criticized. So want it or not it is about free speech and I certainly hope everyone realize how having this freedom is important.

False we do know the names of a couple of the extremists and one police officer who is supposedly Muslim.

An 18-year old man sought by police over Wednesday's shooting attack at satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo handed himself voluntarily to police in northeastern France, an official at the Paris prosecutor's office said.

Police are hunting three French nationals, including brothers Said Kouachi, born in 1980; Cherif Kouachi, born in 1982; and Hamyd Mourad born in 1996, after suspected Islamist gunmen killed 12 people.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting-man-linked-to-attacks-turns-himself-in-1.2892151

http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/01/07/police-officer-executed-by-paris-terrorists-was-a-muslim-with-arab-roots/

Police authorities have named 42-year-old Ahmed Merabet as one of two policemen killed in attack by three gunmen on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s office.

[Special Ed]

They may not murder, but there is evidence of censorship...like when the Israeli government hires tech students to monitor anti-semitic activity on social media sites so they can basically ostracize the original poster by using fake aliases/accounts.

http://www.cnet.com/news/israel-to-hire-pro-government-tweeters-and-facebookers/

Then you have the Mossad apparently targeting people, but that's another story for another time.

Lol I just KNEW the Mossad were going to jump in here. Stop deflecting. I'm not getting into Mossad conspiracies or censorship conspiracies or ANY freaking conspiracies. Jews don't murder over cartoons. The end.

[drummer4now]

Lol I just KNEW the Mossad were going to jump in here. Stop deflecting. I'm not getting into Mossad conspiracies or censorship conspiracies or ANY freaking conspiracies. Jews don't murder over cartoons. The end.

Like I said it's another story for another time.. I'll admit shady at best.

[taxi]

No, F-tard. Don't insult people and their religions because common sense tells you not to. Treat others as you would like to be treated. You have nothing to gain.

Here's the issue.

This magazine was not singling out muslims. They regularly made cartoons that were extremely offensive to catholics and Jews, and probably would have attacked other religions if there were more of their members in France. They were challenging the idea that one specific religion should be out of bounds.

Definitely would not call this picture of a Jew with an exaggerated nose kissing a nazi, anything but "insulting":

We either have to live in a society where no one can say anything that's offensive to everyone else or everything is fair game. And just because you're allowed to say something, does not mean you are free from consequences. When I say consequences, I don't mean murder. If you offend people, you cannot expect those same people to want to support you or your business.

Publishing contrary opinions, calling people out for being offensive, economic boycotts, etc.. That's how you deal with offensive ideas in a free society. We don't say "well what did you expect?" after someone gets murdered for publishing a cartoon.

[drummer4now]

Here's the issue.

This magazine was not singling out muslims. They regularly made cartoons that were extremely offensive to catholics and Jews, and probably would have attacked other religions if there were more of their members in France. They were challenging the idea that one specific religion should be out of bounds.

Definitely would not call this picture of a Jew with an exaggerated nose kissing a nazi, anything but "insulting":

We either have to live in a society where no one can say anything that's offensive to everyone else or everything is fair game. And just because you're allowed to say something, does not mean you are free from consequences. When I say consequences, I don't mean murder. If you offend people, you cannot expect those same people to want to support you or your business.

Publishing contrary opinions, calling people out for being offensive, economic boycotts, etc.. That's how you deal with offensive ideas in a free society. We don't say "well what did you expect?" after someone gets murdered for publishing a cartoon.

+1 Fair enough.

I wonder if this sort of crime was an isolated incident?

Usually terrorists groups or masses of people are up in arms when material like this is regularly published especially in the ME. Yet most have heard about now.

[Guest]

It's a two sided struggle, and the hostility that Germans are openly showing now to Muslims and Muslim immigration has existed in France for a long time.

I just don't know what more ground there is left to cover when the discussion stays within the vacuum of picture ---> reaction. He is right, it's far more complicated and it's more fruitful to look at the reasons behind the tension that led to something like this than to talk about the importance about freedom of speech for the umpteenth time

Also I don't understand why satire published about individuals belonging to other groups bears any relevance here. Making fun of the Pope is not the same as attacking the core beliefs of many in a religion that currently intersects with a huge number of ethnic and socioeconomic issues. One is clearly more explosive than the other given the current landscape.

I usually enjoy your posts, but I have a lot of problems with your narrative in this thread. It's as if you're constructing an argument that allows you to be dismissive of today's events.

[Special Ed]

+1 Fair enough.

I wonder if this sort of crime was an isolated incident?

Usually terrorists groups or masses of people are up in arms when material like this is regularly published especially in the ME. Yet most have heard about now.

http://www.rense.com/general59/shot.htm

[FramingDragon]

I usually enjoy your posts, but I have a lot of problems with your narrative in this thread. It's as if you're constructing an argument that allows you to be dismissive of today's events.

I appreciate it but I am trying to add a little more dimension and perspective to a reaction that has been lacking any nuance or depth. I don't disagree with much of the comments here, and at the same I find them to be incomplete and immature if not combined with a larger perspective. Apparently though, some people think an attempt of trying to understand something from all sides is a way of justifying it. I don't recall excusing anyone's actions as much as trying to examine causal influences. Am I going to make the dead out to be heroes and doing the lame #JeSuisCharlie stuff? No

[Hugor Hill]

Here's the issue.

This magazine was not singling out muslims. They regularly made cartoons that were extremely offensive to catholics and Jews, and probably would have attacked other religions if there were more of their members in France. They were challenging the idea that one specific religion should be out of bounds.

Definitely would not call this picture of a Jew with an exaggerated nose kissing a nazi, anything but "insulting":

We either have to live in a society where no one can say anything that's offensive to everyone else or everything is fair game. And just because you're allowed to say something, does not mean you are free from consequences. When I say consequences, I don't mean murder. If you offend people, you cannot expect those same people to want to support you or your business.

Publishing contrary opinions, calling people out for being offensive, economic boycotts, etc.. That's how you deal with offensive ideas in a free society. We don't say "well what did you expect?" after someone gets murdered for publishing a cartoon.

You have a good point of course. One counter point though, is that the cartoonists themselves are not religious of any denomination. They are insulting everyone but themselves. Sure I give credit to the lack of negative reactions from devotees of other religions, and political affiliations. But for practical purposes, what did the cartoonists expect to accomplish with insults?

[Hugor Hill]