Charlie Hebdo, the aftermath

[Tale]

End of old thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69951-11-people-killed-at-a-french-satirical-newspaper/page-27

 

 

 

Doesn't look like 1 millio though.

 

 

 

And for the other side of things..

 

Saudi Muslim Leader Organising Legal Action Against Charlie Hebdo over Mohamed Cartoons

 

 

 

The Saudi Arabia-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is planning to sue the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo following its publication of a front cover depicting the Prophet Mohamed.

 

It comes as demonstrations against the controversial image on last week’s “survivor” issue turned violent in Niger, Pakistan and Algeria, while the Iranian authorities banned a daily newspaper for a front-page headline allegedly offering Charlie Hebdo its support.

 

In Saudi Arabia, the former culture minister and now head of the Jeddah-based OIC condemned the new edition of Charlie Hebdo as “an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures”.

 

Iyad Madani told a Saudi newspaper: “OIC is studying Europe and French laws and other available procedures to be able to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo.

“If French laws allow us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine.”

On his personal Twitter feed, Madani added: “These cartoons have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world.

 

“Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others. No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed,” he said.

 

The OIC has member states across North Africa and the Middle East, among others, as well as permanent delegations to the UN and EU. Madani was nominated to be its secretary general by Saudi Arabia, and elected at the end of 2013.

 

Madani’s comments came as the Iranian newspaper Mardom-e-Emrooz – or Today’s People – was ordered to close after publishing a front page quoting George Clooney saying: “Je suis Charlie”.

 

The newspaper pictured Clooney wearing a “Je suis Charlie” – or “I am Charlie [Hebdo]” – pin at the Golden Globes, but expressed neither support for the statement or the magazine in general from Mardom-e-Emrooz itself.

 

In Niger, police fired tear gas on an opposition protest held in defiance of a ban declared by the government in the aftermath of anti-Charlie Hebdo protests.

Though Sunday’s demonstration was planned well in advance of the shootings in Paris that saw 17 people killed in three days, it was banned by officials following violent riots at the end of last week.

 

Protesters against the Charlie Hebdo cartoons have set churches on fire, attacked bars and police stations and killed 10 people across the capital Niamey.

Elsewhere in the Muslim world, Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani condemned Charlie Hebdo, calling the newest cover image of Mohamed a blasphemous and irresponsible act.

“Freedom of expression should be used in a way to boost understanding between the religions,” he said in a statement issued by the presidential palace.

Iraq's prime minister Haider Abadi also issued a statement of condemnation, warning that “offensive words might lead to further bloodshed”.

He also reiterated his condemnation of the attacks on innocent victims in Paris, saying that terrorism, “has nothing to do with Islam in any way”.

 

In Algiers, the Pakistani city of Karachi and the Yemeni capital Sanaa, protesters and police clashed outside their respective French embassies.

In Egypt, the Islamist Noor Party denounced the latest Charlie Hebdo cover on its French-language Facebook page.

 

“Just as the Noor Party rejects the assault on civilians and the negative effects it has for all Muslims of Europe, it also rejects this barbaric, irresponsible act under the name of freedom of expression,” the statement declared.

 

In Gaza, vandals scrawled graffiti on the walls of the French Cultural Centre. In addition to statements praising Mohamed and declaring him off-limits for ridicule or satire, the vandals also wrote: “To hell, to a miserable destiny, French journalists.”

 

 

 

Let's try not to have this be yet another of the countless "the forum argues about glorious Russia" threads. I won't stop you, I just find it dull and repetitive.

[Valsuelm]

Doesn't look like 1 millio though.

 

It just about never is even close to half that number.  A million sounds like a nice big number though, and most people rarely fact check.

 

The mainstream media and many that get their news from it are so petty though that if numbers were more accurately recorded we'd have idiotic talking heads downplaying one march that only had, say ~120,000 people vs another march that had, say ~230,000 people. Many idiots would somehow see the second march's issue(s) as more legit, or use the first march's smaller numbers to discount the legitimacy (if there is any) of their issue(s).

 

 

[Sarex]

Let's try not to have this be yet another of the countless "the forum argues about glorious Russia" threads. I won't stop you, I just find it dull and repetitive.

 

Careful Tale, your prejudice is showing.

[Tale]

 

Let's try not to have this be yet another of the countless "the forum argues about glorious Russia" threads. I won't stop you, I just find it dull and repetitive.

 

Careful Tale, your prejudice is showing.

 

*zip*

 

Oh man, that would have been embarrassing.

[Zoraptor]

He's right though, constant Russification of threads is boring- though I'd say that anti-CH protests there at least are as relevant as the pro ones elsewhere or the antis in Pakistan or Niger.

 

On crowd size, I'd very happily accept a scale of very big rather than a number*. I would not personally be surprised by 1 million as Kadyrov has a lot of clout and the patron system where you turn out to show solidarity with your leader is very big in the Caucasus, but 500k or whatever are all plausible as well. Estimating crowd size is certainly inaccurate and prone to over/ under exaggeration both genuinely and or broadly PR/ narrative fulfilment reasons.

 

*My favourite crowd estimate 'yeah right' moment was for a 'Christmas in the Park' concert they have here annually. We'd get ridiculous estimates in the mid hundred thousands. Right up until someone pointed out that it was meant to be a charitable event, and if 500,000 people really turned up the average donation was 30c per person making us rather extreme skinflints. Next day the number was revised down to a far more realistic 70k.

[Sarex]

Wonder why no one mention this before.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wonder why no one mention this before.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/

Good read.

[Valsuelm]

Noam is usually a good read.

 

Along the lines of that article, I highly recommend this:

 

http://youtu.be/bjMRU75M_AI

 

http://youtu.be/27sN6IhIMxo

[Malcador]

CNN publishing something by Chomsky, that is a surprise. He does make a good point though.

[Meshugger]

Wonder why no one mention this before.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/

 

Good read indeed. 

 

Chomsky is pretty much the only intellectual on the "left" that i highly respect.

[Valsuelm]

Chomsky is as much on the 'left' as he is on the 'right'.

 

Like pretty much everyone that mostly thinks outside of boxes, he doesn't fit into any of the cookie cutter manufactured paradigms of thinking that make up the imagined left/right paradigm. Hence, you'll find people who identify themselves as being on the 'left' call Chomsky 'right wing' just as you'll have people such as yourself call Chomsky 'left wing'. The reason being is Chomsky tears apart many ideas held dear by people who identify themselves as being on both sides of that false paradigm, so he must be the other side of that spectrum in their eyes.

 

In many ways Chomsky is essentially an anarchist, and that's something that generally does not fit into that two dimensional left/right spectrum.

[Meshugger]

^Exactly, that's why i said the "left" as his kind of left wing has no authoritarian element. From what i gather about his political expressions is that you have to have free society where people can form their own cooperative syndicates. So maybe Anarcho-syndicalist or Social Libertanian is the closest label that you can give him. But it's a moot point, he is a heavy-weight intellectual that manages piss off all these other "political commentaries", and i love it.

[Tigranes]

Did... Chomsky basically say "Westerners condemn Charlie Hebdo, apparently don't realise all the terroristy things the West has done"? 

 

I... I mean, I can get that from this thread, or something. Saying that the West is just as guilty - and saying only that - is never, ever, going to do more than preach to the choir. For people like me, yeah, I know the West does bad things, I'm in the humanities and I drink lattes. So what exactly should we be doing differently? And if I don't believe the West does any terroristy things... well, you won't persuade me like this, will you?

[Malcador]

Well, it is written for people that don't know that the West is "bad" (the way things are now in the game, though, I suppose it is too late to change that).

[BruceVC]

Did... Chomsky basically say "Westerners condemn Charlie Hebdo, apparently don't realise all the terroristy things the West has done"? 

 

I... I mean, I can get that from this thread, or something. Saying that the West is just as guilty - and saying only that - is never, ever, going to do more than preach to the choir. For people like me, yeah, I know the West does bad things, I'm in the humanities and I drink lattes. So what exactly should we be doing differently? And if I don't believe the West does any terroristy things... well, you won't persuade me like this, will you?

 

I actually don't get  the point of that Chomsky article, what is he trying to say? Are we now going to look at the last 15 years and analyze every instance of collateral damage or mistake made by the West during its various military campaigns and say " the West is like these terrorists ....why are we not protesting against the West because of what happened 15 years ago in Serbia" or other example?

 

And if we are talking about that specific example that Chomsky mentioned, yes  journalists were indeed killed when that broadcasting agency was bombed. NATO didn't know that they were in the building but the broadcaster was a legitimate target of the NATO airstrike campaign. This is absolutely not the same thing as the Charlie Hebdo  intentional slaughter of people who worked at the magazine

 

Not sure why people think " this is such an insightful article "    

Edited January 21, 2015 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

How is the intentional bombing of the Serbian state television station a 'legitimate target', but Charlie Hebdo isn't?

 

Please explain the difference, and try to not use the subjective words like 'terrorist'.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Meshugger]

 

Did... Chomsky basically say "Westerners condemn Charlie Hebdo, apparently don't realise all the terroristy things the West has done"? 

 

I... I mean, I can get that from this thread, or something. Saying that the West is just as guilty - and saying only that - is never, ever, going to do more than preach to the choir. For people like me, yeah, I know the West does bad things, I'm in the humanities and I drink lattes. So what exactly should we be doing differently? And if I don't believe the West does any terroristy things... well, you won't persuade me like this, will you?

 

I actually don't get  the point of that Chomsky article, what is he trying to say? Are we now going to look at the last 15 years and analyze every instance of collateral damage or mistake made by the West during its various military campaigns and say " the West is like these terrorists ....why are we not protesting against the West because of what happened 15 years ago in Serbia" or other example?

 

And if we are talking about that specific example that Chomsky mentioned, yes  journalists were indeed killed when that broadcasting agency was bombed. NATO didn't know that they were in the building but the broadcaster was a legitimate target of the NATO airstrike campaign. This is absolutely not the same thing as the Charlie Hebdo  intentional slaughter of people who worked at the magazine

 

Not sure why people think " this is such an insightful article "    

 

 

He is taking a jab on the moralization states use for "neutralizing targets" on the other side and how the media reports it, in a quite eloquent way. You should read his book "Manufacturing consent".

[BruceVC]

How is the intentional bombing of the Serbian state television station a 'legitimate target', but Charlie Hebdo isn't?

 

Please explain the difference, and try to not use the subjective words like 'terrorist'.

 

NATO was involved in an official military campaign against Serbia due to there military campaign in Kosovo

 

https://cpj.org/2002/06/former-rts-director-convicted-for-failing-to-prote.php

 

The TV station was a source of Serb propaganda and used by Milosevic to justify there actions in Kosovo and therefore a legitimate target. NATO intention was to get Serbia to pull out of Kosovo

 

The only people who have justified the attack on Charlie Hebdo are the Islamic extremists themselves ....huge difference. They have NO international credibility. 

[Valsuelm]

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

[Orogun01]

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

I'm pretty sure that legitimacy comes from governments, it is immoral as **** but legitimate. Should tell you all you need to know about how moral governments are.

[BruceVC]

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

 

 

 

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

I'm pretty sure that legitimacy comes from governments, it is immoral as **** but legitimate. Should tell you all you need to know about how moral governments are.

 

Yes that may seem unfair but legitimacy does come from governments and organisations like official military missions from the likes of NATO

 

I mean we know NATO isn't perfect but its not like they are an unrecognised and brutal group like ISIS?

Edited January 21, 2015 by BruceVC

[obyknven]

 

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

 

 

 

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

I'm pretty sure that legitimacy comes from governments, it is immoral as **** but legitimate. Should tell you all you need to know about how moral governments are.

 

Yes that may seem unfair but legitimacy does come from governments and organisations like official military missions from the likes of NATO

 

Submissive slave so submissive.

[Gorth]

Yes that may seem unfair but legitimacy does come from governments and organisations like official military missions from the likes of NATO

 

I mean we know NATO isn't perfect but its not like they are an unrecognised and brutal group like ISIS?

We might just have to disagree on that one. Governments don't provide "legitimacy". Or would you classify Pieter Bothas apartheid regime as "legitimate", or the Chinese governments crackdown on Tiananmen Square? The Iraqi governments use of poison gas against Kurd villages?

 

"Legitimacy" is just a buzz word, used by the spin doctors to justify actions. Same thing with "Democracy". Want to start a new crusade for land, resources or market shares, sell the idea that you are bombing the enemy into proper compliance with "Democratic" ideals.

 

For better or for worse, the western world is a collection of plutocracies and the world is governed by "Realpolitik".

[Malcador]

Heh, once heard a statesman say that states should not operate on the same morality as everyday people. I suppose at a certain power level, they have to in some cases -press their advantage above all else.

 

Granted, this was said by Kissinger...

[Meshugger]

Say what you want about Kissinger, but he could play the game of RealPolitik very well.