11 people killed at a French satirical Newspaper

[Valsuelm]

 

3. This is not about freedom of speech - this about war. It's about dead children (of whatever country or faith), in which we are all complicit. Take responsibility - it'll help.

 

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists.

 

You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy.

 

 

Charlie Hebdo's second incarnation came about in large part because of the first Gulf War. From day one it was an anti Muslim pro war in the Middle East propaganda magazine. There is no way that France's foreign policy did not serve as a motivation for the attackers on some level, albeit perhaps an indirect one.

 

These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

Food for thought:

[Namutree]

 

 

3. This is not about freedom of speech - this about war. It's about dead children (of whatever country or faith), in which we are all complicit. Take responsibility - it'll help.

 

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists.

 

You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy.

 

 

These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

 

I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective.

[Valsuelm]

Please tell me you think it's JFK. I don't believe in any of those conspiracy theories, but that one is the most reasonable.

 

While I'm not going to say what I think, you'd have better said:

 

'Please tell me you think it's JFK. I fully believe what my government and the mainstream media told me in regards to all of the mentioned incidents and I've not looked into any of them much because to do so would possibly challenge those beliefs. There might be something to the idea they lied about what happened with J.F.K though, but I've not looked into it yet.'

[Namutree]

 

Please tell me you think it's JFK. I don't believe in any of those conspiracy theories, but that one is the most reasonable.

 

While I'm not going to say what I think, you'd have better said:

 

'Please tell me you think it's JFK. I fully believe what my government and the mainstream media told me in regards to all of the mentioned incidents and I've not looked into any of them much because to do so would possibly challenge those beliefs. There might be something to the idea they lied about what happened with J.F.K though, but I've not looked into it yet.'

 

I have looked into the JFK issue quite a bit actually. I'll admit I've not looked to deeply at the 9/11 truthers theories, but that one seems really unreasonable to me.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

3. This is not about freedom of speech - this about war. It's about dead children (of whatever country or faith), in which we are all complicit. Take responsibility - it'll help.

 

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists.

 

You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy.

 

 

These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

 

I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective.

 

 

The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind. Words are often more than wind, and they often have consequences, be they good, neutral, bad, or some combination thereof, for either he/she who utters them, those who hear/read them, or both.

 

You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

3. This is not about freedom of speech - this about war. It's about dead children (of whatever country or faith), in which we are all complicit. Take responsibility - it'll help.

 

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists.

 

You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy.

 

 

These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

 

I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective.

 

The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind.

 

You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion.

 

The attackers were not directly insulted nor were they confronted by the paper. They decided that no one is allowed to draw their prophet or insult their ideology. When some one did; they meant to silence them with violence. A more accurate analogy would be if Joe decided to hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob wrote in a paper that FDR was a jerk. Then Joe declared that if anyone publishes anything that insults FDR he will hit them with a shovel.

[Hurlshort]

 

Please tell me you think it's JFK. I don't believe in any of those conspiracy theories, but that one is the most reasonable.

 

While I'm not going to say what I think, you'd have better said:

 

'Please tell me you think it's JFK. I fully believe what my government and the mainstream media told me in regards to all of the mentioned incidents and I've not looked into any of them much because to do so would possibly challenge those beliefs. There might be something to the idea they lied about what happened with J.F.K though, but I've not looked into it yet.'

 

 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

3. This is not about freedom of speech - this about war. It's about dead children (of whatever country or faith), in which we are all complicit. Take responsibility - it'll help.

 

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists.

 

You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy.

 

 

These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

 

I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective.

 

The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind.

 

You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion.

 

The attackers were not directly insulted nor were they confronted by the paper. They decided that no one is allowed to draw their prophet or insult their ideology. When some one did; they meant to silence them with violence. A more accurate analogy would be if Joe decided to hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob wrote in a paper that FDR was a jerk. Then Joe declared that if anyone publishes anything that insults FDR he will hit them with a shovel.

 

 

What matters in a court of law? That Bob wrote the paper? That Bob told Joe to go F himself? Or that Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel?

 

We'd be in the court of law because Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel, whatever his reasons were. Be they because Bob said or wrote something, or because Bob happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because Joe just didn't like the way Bob looked, or because Bob snookered Joe's wife. Whatever Bob did, of paramount import is that Joe hit him in the head with a shovel. And Joe would be charged with hitting Bob in the head with a shovel, not with abridging Bob's right to write, say, look however he pleases, or screw whoever.

 

To use the latter as an example, if Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob had been screwing Joe's wife, is that an assault of Bob's basic right to screw anyone he wanted that was willing? Yea.. philosophically you could argue that, but it's not something you'd hear in a court of law.

 

Motives matter of course. In a trial with any of the examples above Joe's motives (theorized or admitted) would be presented to a jury. They might even influence a jury's decision, or a judge's sentence. But they are generally not (with a few horrific recent exceptions in U.S. law such as the laws against 'hate speech'), nor should they ever be illegal themselves. To make them so is to start thought policing, and I hope you can appreciate the insane slippery subjective slope that is.

 

And for the record, I agree with Bob. FDR was a jerk!

Edited January 17, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

People are still defending murderers? WOW.

[213374U]

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists.

Apparently, the guy in the Jewish deli disagreed with that assessment.

 

"Every time, they try to make you think Muslims are terrorists. I was born in France. If they hadn't been attacked elsewhere I wouldn't be here."

 

At this point, I don't expect anyone to take anything at face value, but there's that.

[Volourn]

The terrorist is a liar. How do I know? He gives it away in his statement when he talks about veils and other ****.  He did it because he is an extremists who wants his religion to be dominate everywhere. But, that's why he targeted a 'Jewish' deli and not the French army... He enjoys murdering innocent people over  silly pictures and sandwiches.

[Zoraptor]

And please don't say that the USA is behind the rise of Islamic extremism so they can money from it

 

 

Nah, it's your good buds in Saudi Arabia who are behind it.

 

The US is just Not A Learning Animal. Few days after CH/ Belgium and everyone complaining about returning Syrian rebels causing crap in Europe... hey guys, we're training 'moderate' rebels. Don't worry though this time we'll be training actual moderates unlike a few months ago when our 'moderates' all went Al-Nus or ISIS, we're going to check their backgrounds and all sorts. In cooperation with our good buds in Qatar, Saudi and Turkey, who are totally moderate. So it won't be another bunch of moderates like we trained and helped in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya etc these ones will really be moderates, so don't fear, we've learnt from our mistakes etc.

 

Stupidity, wanton stupidity. The difference between merely making mistakes and being an outright moron is that the moron repeats the same mistakes time and again, expecting a different outcome. Hint: when Saudi is intricately involved you aren't going to be dealing with moderates, you'll be dealing with loony tunes Salafi stone agers. The enemy of your enemy is only your friend if he's not actively your enemy, and Salafis are the enemy of, well, everyone who isn't Salafi.

 

Please Yoda, after firing our politicians into the sun could you throw in the Salafis and any military commanders who think this crap is a good idea too? I'll name my first born after you.

 

Do tell me about what terrorist attacks by "Jesus Ahkbar!" Christians or "Die Religious People!" atheists I've completely missed hearing about...

 

There are still plenty of communist rebels and 'terror' groups around to fill in the 'die religious people' atheist quota. But as JadedWolf says, it's all about giving yourself a justification for your violence, there are plenty of peaceful muslims, christians and atheists as well as those who will kill you for believing different.

[Walsingham]

Is anyone else sick of the narrative the media are pushing about 'moderate muslims' sympathising with the attackers because Mohammed is their role model, like a parent?

 

I grew up with role models. I still have role models.

 

If your role model thinks you should kill innocent people in response to an insult ...then your role model is a ****ing idiot. God, guru, or prairie gopher, they're a ****ing idiot.

[Hurlshort]

I heard of a few moderate Muslim organizations condemning the attackers.  Here is a list of 45 of them.  CAIR is at the top of them, even though WoD says they are a front for terrorism.

 

1. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations

2. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA Spokesperson Qasim

3. Muslim Council of Britain

4. French Muslim Council (CFCM)

5. Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF):

6. Arab League [a regional organization representing 22 Arab countries, all of which have a majority Muslim population]

 

Uh, you get the idea.

 

I tried to link to this article, but it isn't working.

 

http://www.alternet.org/media/45-examples-muslim-outrage-about-charlie-hebdo-attack-fox-news-missed

Edited January 18, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Meshugger]

What is a moderate in muslim terms btw? Voting in Sharia-laws through democratic processes? Completely secular? Practicing civil disobenience?

 

Because back in the 70's everyone was talking about Foucaultian structures of capitalist oppression that had to be torn down either violently or peacefully and utilizing counter-revolutionary people's tribunals or what not. I am using the same parallell since it seems like the Islamic world is going through the same phase.

[Valsuelm]

Out of the 45 it missed some Muslims that condemned the attacks, such as the leader of Hezbollah.

Media Matters though..... the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, and even Hustler is generally more tasteful and less full of bitterness and division than they. Hell, they might even be worse than Sean Hannity. And the site quoting them seems to be nothing more than an 'I hate Republicans' website. You regularly read tripe such as that article or was it linked from a more reputable source? The list of 45 was useful but it's found in a pile of dung.

[Valsuelm]

What is a moderate in muslim terms btw? Voting in Sharia-laws through democratic processes? Completely secular? Practicing civil disobenience?

 

Because back in the 70's everyone was talking about Foucaultian structures of capitalist oppression that had to be torn down either violently or peacefully and utilizing counter-revolutionary people's tribunals or what not. I am using the same parallell since it seems like the Islamic world is going through the same phase.

 

'Moderate', 'Radical', 'Extremist', 'Centrist', "Leftist', etc are subjective terms that usually don't mean too much save to those that use them. And those that use them usually have an agenda against whomever they are labeling and/or a very polarized view of the world largely dictated by someone else's agenda (who started the labeling). Also, people who use them often have different ideas as to what they are. A 'moderate' or 'centrist' is usually someone the author/speaker wants you to like or at least think isn't that bad, whereas 'Extremists', 'Radicals', 'Far-Right', or 'Far-Left' are generally someone the author/speaker doesn't want you to like, heck they often don't even want you to consider what those people they are labeling even has to say (they'd usually prefer you just think they are unreasonable people or even nuts so you just dismiss everything they say before giving whatever is said consideration).

 

For the most part whenever I see 'moderate' attached to the word 'Muslim' in the media it generally just means someone that has no connection to an official 'terrorist group' or doesn't support anything that official 'terrorists' have done. Those people would be called 'Radicals' or 'Extremists'. Basically don't be on the 'Terrorists' team or cheer for them and you'll be considered a moderate. Oh, and don't throw rocks at people for committing crime X that isn't perceived to be a crime in some places. Throwing rocks at people makes you a 'radical' too it seems in the eyes of those who like to label a lot. But again, it's subjective, and usually just amounts to name calling rather than actually being informative in any way.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

I do get that it would be nice to see more of a pushback from a united Muslim community against terrorism.  But the problem is there is no unity within Islam, it is tremendously fractured.  Christianity suffers from splintering as well, but it is easy to point at a few central leaders that hold the reigns of power, and they all tend to be conservative rather than radical.  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's an article about the campaign to shut up critics of Islam : http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

[Hurlshort]

Here's an article about the campaign to shut up critics of Islam : http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

 

There is a lot more to the article than that, it is an excellent example of a Muslim woman working for change within her faith.

[Volourn]

Yup. Too bad she's seems to be the minority.

[Orogun01]

Here's an article about the campaign to shut up critics of Islam : http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Whenever people try to shame others into laying off Islam is going to backfire, because Islam isn't unified because they haven't decide on main body or interpretation that will be the accepted religion of Islam. Even on the wake of these attacks and previous ones, so while they sit on complacency the radical view of Islam is as valid as the moderate one and silent consent does affect public opinion. On the wake of the horror of these attacks the worst thing you can do is excuse yourself, it's a moment of absolutist drive towards a singular goal of exterminating the cause. Which considering the years that have gone by and the situation hasn't changed, are completely justified.

 

BTW, I'm drunk plz feel free to disregard this post.

[Walsingham]

I do get that it would be nice to see more of a pushback from a united Muslim community against terrorism.  But the problem is there is no unity within Islam, it is tremendously fractured.  Christianity suffers from splintering as well, but it is easy to point at a few central leaders that hold the reigns of power, and they all tend to be conservative rather than radical.  

 

Yeah, I have to unerline this in massive black marker. There's no Sunni Muslim orthodoxy. It's one more reason why the jihadis are so wrong to assert their authority, and also why they are so fired up about trying to establish one.

 

As an aside, this is why having an orthodoxy is useful.

[BruceVC]

I see Charlie Hebdo is now printing 7 million copies of their magazine. So clearly the objective of the terrorists to silence the publisher has succeeded...business is really suffering 

 

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/17/charlie-hebdo-now-printing-7-million-copies/

 

 

Hey maybe thats the conspiracy theory, maybe Charlie Hedbo attacked themselves to increase business and readership numbers