Terrorist attack on french satirical magazine.

Seth wrote:

I am calling Kat and demo and you specifically, and everyone else generally. There is a DRASTIC lack of condemnation for violence commited by Muslims - Chechen, Arab, asian, what have you. There is a mountain of justification and a clear lack of condemnation. including this attack.

Wait, why are you specifically calling me out, exactly?

Seth wrote:

Demo, when was the last time a christian killed a bunch of people in the name of their religion? Abortion bombings count.

Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, and their affiliated groups.

Anders Breivik, who amusingly had his killings attributed to his WoW addiction rather than his religious beliefs by the press (after which, an analyst with Homeland Security, actually said the Huratee Christian militia was in possession of more weapons than all Muslim terrorist groups arrested in the US since 9/11 combined... funny how we don't hear about them).

The Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord.

The Centennial Olympic bomber, who then went on to bomb abortion clinics and a lesbian nightclub.

I dunno, clover. Things were said after midnight. I'll probably issue three or four apologies tomorrow.

Still really....? Mad? Stunned? Horrified? that a bunch of f*cking journalists had to die for drawing pictures of other peoples' deities. Not willing to hear excuses for it yet.

clover wrote:
Seth wrote:

I am calling Kat and demo and you specifically, and everyone else generally. There is a DRASTIC lack of condemnation for violence commited by Muslims - Chechen, Arab, asian, what have you. There is a mountain of justification and a clear lack of condemnation. including this attack.

Wait, why are you specifically calling me out, exactly?

Because you haven't done so and he wants to make sure we're all able to pass his purity test.

Numbers, demo! How many people have the kkk murdered in the last year?

Also you really need to accurately attribute those to the christian faith to maintain your hubris, demo.

You know, saying you're going to apologize in the morning doesn't make this any less ridiculous.

Larry you've been very consistent on this specific point.

Seth:

I complained about unreasonable criticism theists in general (not just Christians) take from atheists. I'd do it, too, the other way around, except I don't see a whole lot of the converse happening here.

Bush framed the entire Afghanistan and Iraq invasions as having religious overtones at some point. Most of the soldiers who carried it out were Christians. Does that count? That'd be hundreds of thousands of people dead.

When you're pre-screening anything that could be the cause of retributive attacks as "excuses," you're already closing your mind to discussion and will not see any reason as justified. What kind of discussion can be had under those circumstances? I'd say none.

clover wrote:

You know, saying you're going to apologize in the morning doesn't make this any less ridiculous.

Agree. A dozen Frenchmen shouldn't die for illustrating other peoples' deities.

Seth wrote:

This is my biggest f*cking problem with liberals and progressives. Every time a christian Female Doggoes about a cross being taken off taxpayer land, they are up in arms about what a terrible thing it is that a cross or nativity scene is on taxpayer land.

And they're right.

Every time a Muslim group kills a dozen people, they're whining about stuff like the nonstop false equivalence about how hard it is for the downtrodden muslim.

f*ck. That. They're wrong.

In a country which ostensibly has separation between Church and State, I try to be consistent in my opposition of actions which weaken the Establishment Clause (even when there might be an element of schadenfreude in play).

I oppose laws like the prohibition on hijab in France, because it clearly targets religious expression of a specific faith. I would similarly oppose a ban on wearing yarmulkes, or crucifixes.

It is possible to condemn the shootings in Paris (which I do, as I do nearly all violence), and to condemn bigotry and discrimination towards minorities who have religious and / or cultural commonalities with the shooters.

Seth wrote:

Also you really need to accurately attribute those to the christian faith to maintain your hubris, demo.

Well, the KKK is an offshoot of the Protestant church. A condemned one, but that puts them in the same sphere as most terrorist factions of Islam. (Thousands dead over its lifetime, it's current toll is harder to calculate as they seem to be moving more towards instigating conflicts and funneling drugs into areas with a higher concentration of minorities, with a more organized crime operation method of attack rather than just outright murder.)

Anders's manifesto was basically one big hunk of Islamophobia and anti-semitic crap and he was attributed to the Church of Norway. (77 dead)

The Olympic Park bomber was an anti-abortion bomber who also had a problem with homosexuality and the socialism of the Olympic games, worried it would turn the world to godless communism. (2 dead, 111 injured over between 2 to 3 years)

Seth wrote:
clover wrote:

You know, saying you're going to apologize in the morning doesn't make this any less ridiculous.

Agree. A dozen Frenchmen shouldn't die for illustrating other peoples' deities.

Yeah, that is not what clover was talking about there.

Seth wrote:

I dunno, clover. Things were said after midnight. I'll probably issue three or four apologies tomorrow.

Still really....? Mad? Stunned? Horrified? that a bunch of f*cking journalists had to die for drawing pictures of other peoples' deities. Not willing to hear excuses for it yet.

Sadly, this thread isn't about you. Banned from this conversation, next tantrum sends you out of P&C.

What would I think about somebody who puts the picture of Obama as a monkey on the cover of a humor magazine? If he gets shot for it by extremists, I think most of us wouldn't think he deserves it, not even for that act of bigotry and idiocy. At the same time, how many of us will feel genuine sympathy towards that guy?

That's where I am right now. I don't have many Muslim friends and I can't comprehend how important it is that Mohammed not be portrayed, but I can deduce this is a highly sensitive aspect of that faith. I think I can summarize this event as "some clowns got shot for putting insensitive pictures on the cover of their magazine, and now they're free speech martyrs."

I can also call the shooters out for being overly sensitive about a little joke. But again, no idea how serious the joke actually is. Objectively speaking, is this monkey-Obama bad, or is it Teddy-Roosevelt-wrestling-a-bear bad? I saw the picture. It seems benign, but I'm not Muslim so how can I know? Does any of us know?

By all means, catch the bad guys and give them the punishments they deserve. I'm just having a hard time working up any personal outrage over this. I don't think there are any good guys in this story. Just a-holes and bigger a-holes.

I have some Muslim colleagues and acquaintances. They won't shoot anyone over portrayals of Muhammad, but it's fairly taboo. I don't know of many things that would entice Christians to the same rage, but abortion bombings would probably be a small idea of what's going on here. I'm all for free speech and everything, but hate speech whose only real point is to show oppressed people how powerless and marginalized they really are really doesn't get sympathy from me.

I mean, the bully who's kicking you in the head and his buddy who's laughing at you because you're getting kicked in the head aren't equal assholes, but they're both still assholes.

Demo, when was the last time a christian killed a bunch of people in the name of their religion? Abortion bombings count.

GW Bush killed several hundred thousand people, trying to bring about a Biblical prophecy of the end of the world.

I think you could probably write an article similar to that about most countries in the west. Integration in the UK, and I'm sure in mainland Europe, is actually very good. When you only see reports on incidents like this relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities can appear to be going to hell, what you don't see on TV or in newspaper reports are the vast majority of ordinary Muslims who are going about their daily lives in the UK doing their own thing and just being ordinary members of a modern European society.

Two Brothers Suspected in Killings Were Known to French Intelligence Services[/url]]
Chérif’s interest in radical Islam, it was said at the 2008 trial, was rooted in his fury over the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, particularly the mistreatment of Muslims held at Abu Ghraib prison. Chérif was given a three-year sentence for involvement in a network that recruited young French Muslims to fight alongside Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in an American airstrike in 2006.

Ah, the Iraq War. The gift that just keeps giving.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because tempers are already running high, but I'd like to address a specific point:

Thirteenth wrote:

What would I think about somebody who puts the picture of Obama as a monkey on the cover of a humor magazine? If he gets shot for it by extremists, I think most of us wouldn't think he deserves it, not even for that act of bigotry and idiocy. At the same time, how many of us will feel genuine sympathy towards that guy?

That cartoon has a specific context and was mocking the far-right party, Front National, as can be seen via the representation of their stylized logo in the corner. The specific incident they're referencing to is when a far-right politician thought it was okay to compare our Minister of Justice and Keeper of the Seals to a "banana eating monkey". They were in no way supporting that statement but in fact denouncing it. Get your facts straight.
I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo myself, I think they sometimes go too far, but no one should have to die for cartoons. Not the cartoonists, not the journalists, and certainly not the cook who feeds them.

This whole discussion is clearly lacking context, and it find it extremely disrespectful. The reaction here in France is not that of islamophobia but rather an attitude which denounces fanaticism, no matter the religion it springs from. Higgedly speaks the truth, and hordes of Muslims French citizens are united in this stance.

OG, that particular tidbit of information just underlines how senseless this all is. As I recall, President Chirac refused to join the US in invading Irak. Something, I might add, which made living in the US when you're French particularly difficult...

For crying out loud, these men killed another cop this morning.

Eleima wrote:

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because tempers are already running high, but I'd like to address a specific point:

Thirteenth wrote:

What would I think about somebody who puts the picture of Obama as a monkey on the cover of a humor magazine? If he gets shot for it by extremists, I think most of us wouldn't think he deserves it, not even for that act of bigotry and idiocy. At the same time, how many of us will feel genuine sympathy towards that guy?

That cartoon has a specific context and was mocking the far-right party, Front National, as can be seen via the representation of their stylized logo in the corner. The specific incident they're referencing to is when a far-right politician thought it was okay to compare our Minister of Justice and Keeper of the Seals to a "banana eating monkey". They were in no way supporting that statement but in fact denouncing it. Get your facts straight.
I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo myself, I think they sometimes go too far, but no one should have to die for cartoons. Not the cartoonists, not the journalists, and certainly not the cook who feeds them.

This whole discussion is clearly lacking context, and it find it extremely disrespectful. The reaction here in France is not that of islamophobia but rather an attitude which denounces fanaticism, no matter the religion it springs from. Higgedly speaks the truth, and hordes of Muslims French citizens are united in this stance.

For what its worth, it sounded like Thirteenth was using a hypothetical 'if this happened in the US', and not referring to any actual monkey image on a cover.

absurddoctor wrote:

For what its worth, it sounded like Thirteenth was using a hypothetical 'if this happened in the US', and not referring to any actual monkey image on a cover.

But that's the thing. They did actually draw a monkey on the cover with Christine Tubira's head on top of it. To denounce just how ridiculous the far right sounded when they said that.
And I've seen that particular cartoon splashed all over Twitter, held up in example as how awful and racist the cartoonists were. And they just couldn't be further from the truth.

I ask this, what if Trey Parker and Matt Stone had been murdered for depicting Muhammad in South Park?

Eleima wrote:

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because tempers are already running high, but I'd like to address a specific point:

Thirteenth wrote:

What would I think about somebody who puts the picture of Obama as a monkey on the cover of a humor magazine? If he gets shot for it by extremists, I think most of us wouldn't think he deserves it, not even for that act of bigotry and idiocy. At the same time, how many of us will feel genuine sympathy towards that guy?

That cartoon has a specific context and was mocking the far-right party, Front National, as can be seen via the representation of their stylized logo in the corner. The specific incident they're referencing to is when a far-right politician thought it was okay to compare our Minister of Justice and Keeper of the Seals to a "banana eating monkey". They were in no way supporting that statement but in fact denouncing it. Get your facts straight.
I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo myself, I think they sometimes go too far, but no one should have to die for cartoons. Not the cartoonists, not the journalists, and certainly not the cook who feeds them.

This whole discussion is clearly lacking context, and it find it extremely disrespectful. The reaction here in France is not that of islamophobia but rather an attitude which denounces fanaticism, no matter the religion it springs from. Higgedly speaks the truth, and hordes of Muslims French citizens are united in this stance.

I don't think anybody here is arguing that these murders were at all justified, regardless of how offensive any of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were.

I agree that Higgledy's post was good.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je...

Excellent article about how Charlie may be the last of courageous journalism.

The very idea that "blasphemy" is a crime or insult worthy of anything other than a wry chuckle or dirty look is asinine. Anyone who buys into the idea that it is actually a thing needs to stop making thin skinned imaginary friends.

Interestingly enough, after looking at some of the archived covers, I am pretty sure *Christians* would have firebombed their offices if they published them in the US.

http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-h...

I suspect this says more about the relative lack of zeal in French Christianity than that of their American counterparts. Sadly, I also think it says some ugly things regarding the similarity between "our" extremists and theirs.

It may be true that French Christians are less zealous, but for my part, I don't correlate zeal with a propensity for violence. It should be noted that French Catholics sued Hebdo a lot. If you really believed in nonviolence, I imagine that would be how you fought that.

I understand that, Dimmer, but a few posts on the first page are reading as "sure, but look at all the bad stuff that's happened and kinda explains their reaction."

Thanks Paleocon, that blog was pretty good read, and accurately portrays who they are and what Charlie Hebdo stands for.

ETA: That's true, ChairmanMao, mosques have been the target of reprisals: graffiti, gunshots, and small fires in trashcans. Those acts are heinous and serve no purpose other than to propagate bigotry and closemindedness. What's your point?