Terrorist attack on french satirical magazine.

Paleocon wrote:

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.

Something that has been lost on many of the American thinkpiece journalists and kneejerk Twitter people: Charlie Hebdo is a secular, French left-wing publication, generally anti-religion and to the left of the American left-wing. There's anti-immigration tension in France, but it's not necessarily the Tea Party equivalent driving it. It doesn't fit well into American categories.

Eleima wrote:

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?

No point, just sharing a news update. Wasn't in response to anything you said.

Thirteenth wrote:

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."

LarryC wrote:

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.

According to this CNN article, which quotes a couple of religious studies professors, the original point of the ban on images of Mohammed was to prevent idol worship. And then a different professor talks about many branches of Islam that don't take that as seriously, and do include art. And how they sometimes cover his face with a veil, as a compromise to the more orthodox branches.

And this tidbit:

Adbul-Malik said that in the Quran, there is "no statement from the prophet requesting his image not be recorded."

The passages relating to a ban on creating images of the prophets come from the hadith, a record of the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed and his closest companions. The hadith is considered secondary only to the Quran in terms of textual authority, but the sometimes contradictory accounts have led to centuries of debates within the umma, or global Muslim community.

Still not sure how "don't depict Mohammed because we might worship him instead of God" translates to "kill anyone who shows an image of Mohammed".

LarryC wrote:

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 think it speaks a lot more to the level of institutional power that people have in the same way we as individuals who have been wronged by the police react to them in the states. If Muslims do not believe they have the same power to seek damages in court as their Christian counterparts, then why even try going to court?

Yeah, going down the highway last night, I saw a few cruisers parked at the entrance to my local mosque. Not surprising, as that building almost always has something awful happening it after any event like this. There was a good bit of vandalism and some assaults after 9/11 there. :\

Gremlin wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

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.

Something that has been lost on many of the American thinkpiece journalists and kneejerk Twitter people: Charlie Hebdo is a secular, French left-wing publication, generally anti-religion and to the left of the American left-wing. There's anti-immigration tension in France, but it's not necessarily the Tea Party equivalent driving it. It doesn't fit well into American categories.

But this is also where you lose me on CH trying to put itself out there as a paragon of Free Speech in the aftermath of these attacks. A magazine that came out, if the translations I'm found last night are accurate, against religious personal expression, is standing on thin ice then. Basically what they're saying is they view their own free speech as sacred, but others' not so much.

Again, none of this justifies the attacks, but the reactions from some groups are starting to cross into some places I wish we were beyond as a global community. More so when I start hearing news organizations talk about how this is the biggest European terrorist event in decades, because apparently Anders Breivik's attacks on Muslims and Jews just doesn't count anymore.

Ugh, I wish we could be done with extremists of any sort.

Except extremist Dark Souls fans. Those are cool.

That's odd, Demosthenes, most articles I've read specifically point out that this is the largest attack since Anders Breivik's.
I'm mostly in agreement with Gremlin's post, but would like to point that Charlie Hebdo is anti-religion in the sense that laïcité or secularism is a cornerstone of the values of the French République (I was going to write of the French republican values, but that makes it sound like they're an adaptation of the US Republican party, or something, and as Gremlin says, CH is to the left of the US left). The mindset is so very different from that in the US in which you literally have "one Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Farscry.

Eleima wrote:

That's odd, Demosthenes, most articles I've read specifically point out that this is the largest attack since Anders Breivik's.

That, sadly, is probably the result of some good old American racism.

Farscry wrote:

Ugh, I wish we could be done with extremists of any sort.

Except extremist Dark Souls fans. Those are cool.

Pretty much this a million times over.

As a small offshoot of the conversation, I wish people would just stop saying that wearing burqas in public is somehow free expression of one's religious convictions.

Women who wear burqas do so not because they want to express their freedom, but because they lack it. They are forced and coerced to cover their faces in public -- by the pressure from their families (read: husbands and fathers within their families) and the expectations from their communities. These women are victims, not perpetrators.

Demosthenes:

I think it speaks a lot more to the level of institutional power that people have in the same way we as individuals who have been wronged by the police react to them in the states. If Muslims do not believe they have the same power to seek damages in court as their Christian counterparts, then why even try going to court?

I was going to point that out as well, but I didn't know how well that'd fly in here. Muslims appear to not sue - that could very well be an indication that they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they've been functionally disenfranchised. Given the context of the immigrations, that could be valid. The idea that you're normal and that you have ways to seek redress in less violent ways is a privilege of the people in power. We don't all benefit from being heard.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

As a small offshoot of the conversation, I wish people would just stop saying that wearing burqas in public is somehow free expression of one's religious convictions.

Women who wear burqas do so not because they want to express their freedom, but because they lack it. They are forced and coerced to cover their faces in public -- by the pressure from their families (read: husbands and fathers within their families) and the expectations from their communities. These women are victims, not perpetrators.

Cite your source? I was looking at a lot of women on twitter wearing burqas and headscarves this morning with Twitter selfies who are doing so specifically to fight against what they perceive as a societal and government pressure not to.

LarryC wrote:

Demosthenes:

I think it speaks a lot more to the level of institutional power that people have in the same way we as individuals who have been wronged by the police react to them in the states. If Muslims do not believe they have the same power to seek damages in court as their Christian counterparts, then why even try going to court?

I was going to point that out as well, but I didn't know how well that'd fly in here. Muslims appear to not sue - that could very well be an indication that they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they've been functionally disenfranchised. Given the context of the immigrations, that could be valid. The idea that you're normal and that you have ways to seek redress in less violent ways is a privilege of the people in power. We don't all benefit from being heard.

To me, it seemed like an obvious point after our discussion on basically the same topic (seeking redress within or outside of the system and what it says about that groups feelings of empowerment within the system) in other threads recently (police state, Ferguson, etc...).

Where on Twitter did you see women in a burqa, Demosthenes? I've seen hijabs and chadors in France, some niqabs, but never a burqa.
IMAGE(http://uglyduckblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/burqa-niqab-hijab-chador.jpg)
Disclaimer: I don't agree with all the descriptions, and am not sure how accurate they are, I just want to illustrate the different types so we all know which ones we're talking about.

Oh wait, I was seeing niqabs, my bad! I'd pull the link, but I can't access Twitter at work. It's entirely possible they were wearing them when they'd usually hijab or chador instead simply to make the point that it is their choice, though.

Given the graph, if this is accurate in terms of each's usage, then I respectfully withdraw my concern over Gorilla's statement on burqas. My mistake, I was lumping two different pieces of dress together.

Wait, is the area through which you view the world through a burqa really called a grill? Either way, this is an interesting graph, thank El!

Probably should be grille rather than grill. Not much cooking is happening there.

My understanding is that outside of sharia states a Muslim woman taking the niqab is a personal choice. Well it should be. We can get into other social pressures but that's projecting. The letter of the law is that the woman chooses.

Another horrible act of terrorism. My thoughts are with the victims and their families. Terrorist acts like this don't help race relations in any way. It wasn't a statement. It was revenge perpetrated by cowards against innocent unarmed civilians.

It doesn't matter whether it's towers in New York, a marathon in Boston, or a mall in Nairobi. It's a slaughter of innocents not warranted by any perceived religious slight or racist local policies.

Hopefully they'll be able to bring the perpetrators to justice quickly.

Higgledy wrote:

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.

You absolutely could write a similar article for most western countries. Indeed, many of the bits in that article regarding far-right groups disingenuously using left language to attack Islam ("women's rights" etc) are just as applicable to the Right here in the USA.

IMAGE(http://media.tumblr.com/65f53c43684cc015f0304ea0910848a1/tumblr_nhtj4e8ciR1qd6xcoo1_1280.jpg)

Interesting take on the situation and probably my favorite cartoon on the subject thus far.

Eleima wrote:

That's odd, Demosthenes, most articles I've read specifically point out that this is the largest attack since Anders Breivik's.
I'm mostly in agreement with Gremlin's post, but would like to point that Charlie Hebdo is anti-religion in the sense that laïcité or secularism is a cornerstone of the values of the French République (I was going to write of the French republican values, but that makes it sound like they're an adaptation of the US Republican party, or something, and as Gremlin says, CH is to the left of the US left). The mindset is so very different from that in the US in which you literally have "one Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.

Eleima wrote:

Where on Twitter did you see women in a burqa, Demosthenes? I've seen hijabs and chadors in France, some niqabs, but never a burqa.
IMAGE(http://uglyduckblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/burqa-niqab-hijab-chador.jpg)
Disclaimer: I don't agree with all the descriptions, and am not sure how accurate they are, I just want to illustrate the different types so we all know which ones we're talking about.

Occasionally I have seen some students in burqas on campus. In Brooklyn. New York.

Demosthenes wrote:

Oh wait, I was seeing niqabs, my bad! I'd pull the link, but I can't access Twitter at work. It's entirely possible they were wearing them when they'd usually hijab or chador instead simply to make the point that it is their choice, though.

Given the graph, if this is accurate in terms of each's usage, then I respectfully withdraw my concern over Gorilla's statement on burqas. My mistake, I was lumping two different pieces of dress together.

Wait, is the area through which you view the world through a burqa really called a grill? Either way, this is an interesting graph, thank El! :)

Grill had other meanings long before it meant diamond encrusted gold fronts for your teeth. :p

Many major newspapers are censoring the "controversial" cartoon. The Islamic terrorists can mark a small win.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/07/charlie_hebdo_cartoons_self_censorship_by_several_major_outlets.html

sonny615 wrote:

Many major newspapers are censoring the "controversial" cartoon. The Islamic terrorists can mark a small win.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/07/charlie_hebdo_cartoons_self_censorship_by_several_major_outlets.html

Some of the images could be censored for obscenity reasons in the US. The cover I linked earlier in thread for example... or abother that had Muhammed naked and bent over with everything on display... except the end of his digestive system which weirdly had a star on it.

Which does bring up the fact that I do find it interesting that for all the comics they've done, the editors and cartoonists and at least the US news outlets covering this all seem to be focusing on the two that only show the prophet and down have something completely ridiculous going on.

Paleocon wrote:

http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2015/01...

Subscribe

This.... seems like a weird post for an organization dedicated to government secrecy.

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.

http://youtu.be/nYlZiWK2Iy8?t=8s

realityhack wrote:
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.

http://youtu.be/nYlZiWK2Iy8?t=8s

Couldn't have said it better myself, Barney.

Demosthenes wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

As a small offshoot of the conversation, I wish people would just stop saying that wearing burqas in public is somehow free expression of one's religious convictions.

Women who wear burqas do so not because they want to express their freedom, but because they lack it. They are forced and coerced to cover their faces in public -- by the pressure from their families (read: husbands and fathers within their families) and the expectations from their communities. These women are victims, not perpetrators.

Cite your source? I was looking at a lot of women on twitter wearing burqas and headscarves this morning with Twitter selfies who are doing so specifically to fight against what they perceive as a societal and government pressure not to.

I think the ones who don't wish to don't have the same access to social media as the ones who do.
Certainly there are both. On the one hand I feel this way and on the other, I literally can't respect anyone who decides to wear not only a symbolic but literal, symbol of oppression on their heads.

Eleima wrote:

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?

I don't think you can actually attribute it to that. I'd say those with that mindset are by far the most likely to be called to such action, it seems more like the human retaliatory impulse getting worked out.

Demosthenes wrote:

But this is also where you lose me on CH trying to put itself out there as a paragon of Free Speech in the aftermath of these attacks. A magazine that came out, if the translations I'm found last night are accurate, against religious personal expression, is standing on thin ice then. Basically what they're saying is they view their own free speech as sacred, but others' not so much. :(

That would be because the speech/expression they're lambasting isn't speech, it is nega-speech, it's saying, "I give up whatever capability and autonomy I may have had, and I do so willingly and encourage others to do the same". So yeah, anyone who promotes that is an enemy of free speech. Birds of a feather flock together. Whatever is associated with my most hated thing, like say, ISIL, who reportedly killed a female dentist because she treated male patients, is stuff that I want no part of. It's why showing up to an American pro-Immigration rally with non-American flags is, well, not effective at convincing people you want to be an American. What flag do you fly?

Photos from the minutes silence held in wake of the attacks. I thought it was an incredible thing and exactly the right way to respond (in combination with tracking the perpetrators down.)

Looks like they've got these two assholes holed up in a hostage situation near Charles de Gaulle Airport.

I desperately hope they capture them alive, rather than allowing them to live out their fundamentalist fantasy to its endpoint.

Not that I'd be sad if they left in bodybags.