12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

TheChizler

Too early to call for definite yet but it sounds like this story could belong here unfortunately.

At least two gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing a number of people, French media report.

robindch

TheChizler wrote: »

Too early to call for definite yet but it sounds like this story could belong here unfortunately.

At least two gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing a number of people, French media report.

The BBC is reporting that twelve people have been murdered this morning. Here on the internet #jesuischarlie is trending. Other than that, I have no words than these.

robindch

Here's Maryam Namazie on Charlie Hebdo:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/09/20/bravo-charlie-hebdo/

Maryam Namazie wrote:

In a climate where Islamist murder, violence and intimidation is cowering many into silence and submission, Charlie Hebdo’s insistence on poking fun at Islam on par with all religions and its refusal to back down despite calls for censorship is one that will be remembered when Islamism is in the dustbins of history. French professor Marlière writes in the Guardian that the magazine’s aim to reassert its leftwing secular tradition in this climate is more anti-Islamic than anti-clerical. But anti-Islamism is this era’s anti-clericalism.

He adds that the cartoons are ‘unhelpful’ in a ‘climate of religious and racial prejudice’ but like the Guardian and many a liberal and post-modernist leftist, he misses the point. What is ‘unhelpful’ is Islamism’s murder and mayhem. Criticising Islam and Islamism is not about prejudice – that is Islamism’s narrative – which has been bought hook, line and sinker by those calling for censorship. In fact, in this day and age, criticism is a historical necessity and legitimate challenge to our era’s inquisition.

Also, what the professor and the Guardian seem to forget is that those most at threat of the Islamist herds are not satirical French publications or even US and French embassies worldwide but the many countless human beings living under Islamism and Sharia law – a lot of them Muslims – who daily face threats, imprisonment and death for their dissent from and criticism – like Saudi Hamza Kashgari, Indonesian Alex Aan, Egyptian Alber Saber and Pakistani Asia Bibi. When will the professor and the Guardian side with them? As the most wonderful Salman Rushdie says: we “need to be braver”. Yes, clearly we do if we are going to stop this barbarism once and for all…

As an aside, of course Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon is different from the despicable and racist Christian Right film, the Innocence of Muslims. But free expression is not just for those we agree with. And let’s not forget a bad film is just a bad film. The real problem that needs to be addressed head on is Islamism and censorship is the wrong response.

MrPudding

It is being widely report that the gunmen shouted 'we have avenged the prophet muhammad' as they left. I guess this attack has nothing to do with religion...?

MrP

Xenji

So are the gunmen on the run now?

Standman

This is what happens when you stand up for freedom of speech and refuse to cave in to Islamist threats. A very sad day for the families of the dead and for freedom of expression.

recedite

Anyone see the video footage of them killing the policeman?
The way they just drove in and took control of the street, casually killing anyone who was perceived to oppose them, was exactly the modus operandi of returned Islamic State veterans, and we know a large number of french nationals were/are recruited to IS. This is jihad.

lazygal

MrPudding wrote: »

It is being widely report that the gunmen shouted 'we have avenged the prophet muhammad' as they left. I guess this attack has nothing to do with religion...?

MrP

And of course Islam is the religion of peace, lets not forget.

MrPudding

My favourite response so far...



MrP

magicbastarder

http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/01/07/a-measured-media-response-to-the-charlie-hebdo-attrocity/

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/01/07/a-measured-media-response-to-the-charlie-hebdo-attrocity/

Calling a black person the 'N' word is in no way comparable to printing a cartoon.

MrP

keane2097

MrPudding wrote: »

Calling a black person the 'N' word is in no way comparable to printing a cartoon.

MrP

Nor is the response generated.

That article is garbage, essentially blaming the victims for having bad manners.

shruikan2553

Although, print a cartoon of Muhammad having sex with Jesus I doubt you'll have the likes of Fox News talking about how you are practicing your right to freedom of speech and there would plenty of comments about atheists acting like children thinking they are superior to theists and have no respect.

Of course any violent or threatening behavior is wrong and in no way can be justified for such a thing but you won't be making any friends.

Turtwig

I think today more than ever the notion of the world being just and logical is playing on many people's heads. Some actions don't need any justification or reasoning. Maybe these do? I don't know, the point is though that lots of people first make that assumption and fit the narrative to fill it: Something bad happens, there has to be a reason, a justification for why. It's far more comforting a thought to think these killers had legitimate grievances than to consider the possibility that there were no grievances or motives with substance.

Hence, why you're seeing a whole load of victim blaming with vague justifications. Whether there are actual justifications or not I don't know. My one belief which I've always been religious about is that criticism and satire are sacrosanct. Nothing should be considered immune to them. It's probably the main reason why I got involved in this forum in the first place. Nothing here is free from criticism and mockery - and that's the way it should always be.

magicbastarder

keane2097 wrote: »

Nor is the response generated.

That article is garbage, essentially blaming the victims for having bad manners.

I haven't decided if I like the argument, but I don't read it that way. Reprinting the cartoon - I.e. knowingly insulting hundreds of millions of people to make a point to a tiny fraction of their number - is not something which should be done lightly.

Cabaal

magicbastarder wrote: »

I haven't decided if I like the argument, but I don't read it that way. Reprinting the cartoon - I.e. knowingly insulting hundreds of millions of people to make a point to a tiny fraction of their number - is not something which should be done lightly.

Curious, So do you support blasphemy legislation?

The very existence of this forum is offensive to potentially millions of Christians, should we close it?

The funny ha ha side of religion thread is without any doubt offensive to millions more, do you think it should be closed or people should not post in it?

Saying scientology is a scam is offensive to its followers, so we shouldn't say its a scam now based on your logic.

AstraMonti

We really have to sit down and understand what happened here today. People like us got murdered because they had the ability to print their ideas. The same people can come to us and murder us in cold blood for what we post in the funny thread. Noone in the right mind should accuse these people that they had it coming because of what they did. It's a disgrace in so many different levels to even notion something like this. There is and there should never be anything sacred in proper political and religious satire.

Cabaal

AstraMonti wrote: »

We really have to sit down and understand what happened here today. People like us got murdered because they had the ability to print their ideas. The same people can come to us and murder us in cold blood for what we post in the funny thread. Noone in the right mind should accuse these people that they had it coming because of what they did. It's a disgrace in so many different levels to even notion something like this. There is and there should never be anything sacred in proper political and religious satire.

It's very easy for these people to justify what they are doing is right, its easy when you claim God is on your side and you decide what God thinks and decides. All religions do this to one degree or another.

AstraMonti

Oh no, I didn't mean the killers -those are brainless orcs with guns- I meant the "serious" press that in one hand condemn the killing but in other hand accuse the magazine for being dangerously provocative.

magicbastarder

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious, So do you support blasphemy legislation?

not in the slightest. and you've twisted what i said.

just because it should not be illegal for me to walk around with a deliberately inflammatory t-shirt does not mean i *should* walk around with a deliberately inflammatory t-shirt, just as most people who post in the 'funny ha ha' thread do not post there purely as a means of causing offence.

in no way did i say that reprinting the cartoons whould be banned, and i'm kinda bemused that's the message you took from my post.

Turtwig

Rape jokes, shouldn't be illegal, but you should never EVER say one in front of a rape victim. There's a time and place for everything.

That's Magic's point, no?

shruikan2553

Turtwig wrote: »

Rape jokes, shouldn't be illegal, but you should never EVER say one in front of a rape victim. There's a time and place for everything.

That's Magic's point, no?

Thats how I understood it too.

It is a time and a place type of thing. You should be able to put something up in the funny side of religion thread including a picture of Muhammad but I wouldnt start making jokes about a religion during mass. People will get pissed despite any freedom of speech you think your have.

robindch

Here's a list of links to condemnations of the Charlie attacks by islamic-controlled states + non-state actors. it will be interesting to see whether this list increases in size as time passes.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t9-R-BV_FuYGDOi0CHY4y12M9lI9Twd8CCySfsUZqgc/edit

shruikan2553

robindch wrote: »

Here's a list of links to condemnations of the Charlie attacks by islamic-controlled states + non-state actors. it will be interesting to see whether this list increases in size as time passes.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t9-R-BV_FuYGDOi0CHY4y12M9lI9Twd8CCySfsUZqgc/edit

heh, and there were people in another thread claiming that other Muslims would be celebrating such a thing.

Do we know what group these people were part of yet?

magicbastarder

Turtwig wrote: »

Rape jokes, shouldn't be illegal, but you should never EVER say one in front of a rape victim. There's a time and place for everything.

That's Magic's point, no?

yep, along those lines. pissing off hundreds of millions of moderate muslims to make a point to (insert figure here, i don't know how many would support death in response to printing cartoons) extremist muslims is not a response without collateral damage, if that's the right term to use.

actually, it reminds me of an argument which has played out once or twice in the photography forum - just because it should not be illegal to take photos in or near playgrounds doesn't mean you should enforce your rights by going to a playground and pointedly photographing the kids of complete strangers.

Standman

I would personally hope most Muslims will understand that reprinting the cartoons is not simply about the content of the pictures/ spreading some message about Islam, but the principle of the thing.

These moderate Muslims that some people are so desperate not to offend, are they not moderate enough to look beyond their own beliefs for just a second, and realise that there is more to this whole thing?

Cabaal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

heh, and there were people in another thread claiming that other Muslims would be celebrating such a thing.

Err, but some Muslims will be celebrating these deaths, so it's 100% correct to claim some will be celebrating

shruikan2553

Cabaal wrote: »

Err, but some Muslims will be celebrating these deaths, so it's 100% correct to claim some will be celebrating

Im sure there is probably at least 1 other happy about it but there was people claiming that it was something every Muslim approved of.

recedite

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It is a time and a place type of thing. You should be able to put something up in the funny side of religion thread including a picture of Muhammad but I wouldn't start making jokes about a religion during mass. People will get pissed despite any freedom of speech you think your have.

In your example it's OK to mock the religion, IMO, but not the people themselves for going to mass. That would be going towards incitement to hatred.
So that's not just "a time and place sort of thing" because that would imply that its OK to mock people behind their backs, but not to their face. Which would be a practical, but cowardly option. IMO time and place is a factor, but only for practical reasons. Being tactful is practical, but also slightly dishonest.

Whatever criticism or jokes you have of RCC or Islam, if it is valid, and someone asked you to repeat it, you should be able to say it in any company without being attacked.
A cartoon of Mo as a paedo with his child bride is valid satire, but a cartoon of Mo shagging a donkey is not; it crosses a line IMO.

Of course, even if Charlie Hebdo ever crossed the line, the proper response would be a complaint under whatever incitement laws they have in France.

AstraMonti

recedite wrote: »

A cartoon of Mo as a paedo with his child bride is valid satire, but a cartoon of Mo shagging a donkey is not; it crosses a line IMO.

Well that's the issue I guess. Who decides where the line is? Where you set your line I might not set mine and vice versa. There is no single line that caters for all, and what offends an amount of people doesn't make it immediately immune to any level of satire.

Shrap

Standman wrote: »

I would personally hope most Muslims will understand that reprinting the cartoons is not simply about the content of the pictures/ spreading some message about Islam, but the principle of the thing.

These moderate Muslims that some people are so desperate not to offend, are they not moderate enough to look beyond their own beliefs for just a second, and realise that there is more to this whole thing?

I was listening to Dr. Ali Selim on Newstalk earlier, and he certainly wouldn't accept that principal as it would seem to come above his own. He was basically saying that you can condemn religion all you like in books, but as soon as it's classed as mockery it's not all right any more and it is then provocation.

The difficulty is the principal of being able to poke fun at something that scares us/threatens us. We are not without fear, and poking fun is some measure of how civilised we are - how we are allowed in a democracy to speak our opinions and how the bullies respond. There is no need to poke fun at an element in society that we're not threatened by. If Dr. Ali Selim had his way seemingly we should consider the threat of death enough that it engenders respectful consideration of his religion at all times. I think that's the wrong way around though. Respect is earned by the renouncement of the threat of harm *.

He made one novel point though, and that was that he would like to be able to sue the cartoonists who disrespect his prophet. Sadly, that might work in this country

*Unfortunately and ironically, religions aren't great at preaching in a non-threatening, loving, harmless and shame free fashion.

The Black Oil

The attack is sickening. Satire and the mockery of ideas, political thought and religion is an essential part of free expression. Radicalised Islam's in-built intolerance is a threat to us all - the pic posted by MrPudding's sums up a lot.

Panrich

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Thats how I understood it too.

It is a time and a place type of thing. You should be able to put something up in the funny side of religion thread including a picture of Muhammad but I wouldnt start making jokes about a religion during mass. People will get pissed despite any freedom of speech you think your have.

h

If I was a muslim tonight though, I don't think I would be lookingfor an opportunity to take further offence. Instead I'd be hanging my head in shame at what was done in the name of my religion.

Cabaal

Shrap wrote: »

He made one novel point though, and that was that he would like to be able to sue the cartoonists who disrespect his prophet. Sadly, that might work in this country

If he gets his way on that in ireland then I want to be able to sue anyone that doesn't believe in fairies,

Fairies require that you believe in them, so if you don't then you disrespect them.

One thing I am curious about is I'm assuming is the chap on newstalk is likely in ireland right? And people in Ireland have no doubt said or made stuff that offends him (this forum for example), then why hasn't he tried to use the blasphemy legislation?

The Black Oil

I've not seen the video that's circulating - one of the frames from it is being used by the print media. Can't imagine being that policeman on the ground, knowing what was coming. On the more positive side, I do like the French spirit in response to this, 'Je suis Charlie'. It was the same following Sept 11th - 'today, we are all American'.

Valmont

Ok the world now badly needs another Muhammed cartooning spree to peacefully avenge these poor people. Such madness!

jank

Je Suis Charlie (Until Je Get Scared)
Why do self-declared liberals cower in front of Muslim fundamentalists?

The New York Times tweeted today that the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which found itself the victim of a gruesome massacre, “long tested the limits of satire.” I did not know that there were limits to satire or that the Gray Lady, which often unintentionally engages in the art form, had managed to uncover them. The implication here is one that will surely become as tediously explicit in the hours and days ahead as it is familiar: If you “provoke” Muslims by mocking their religion, then you’ve only yourself to blame for what happens next.

As the British left-wing columnist Nick Cohen points out in You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom, his brilliant book on free speech and the lengths to which liberal democracies will go to nullify or diminish this right, those who fancy themselves the most progressive when it comes to, say, mocking Jesus Christ or George W. Bush or Tony Blair will suffer no crisis of intellect or conscience in deferring to reactionary lunatics on what are the acceptable bounds of humor and good taste for dealing with the Prophet Mohammed.

Some in the media are admirably honest about why they go mum in this regard. Stephen Pollard, the editor of London’s Jewish Chronicle, today explained that his newspaper will not run any of Charlie Hebdo’s notorious cartoons in its coverage of the terrorist attack on the French weekly: “Get real, folks. A Jewish newspaper like mine that published such cartoons would be at the front of the queue for Islamists to murder,” Pollard wrote on Twitter. I don’t blame him and nor should you. As he further put it, he doesn’t feel entitled to take the lives of his staff into his own hands to “make a point.” Media organizations throughout the world are now dealing with much the same problem, albeit without like-minded candor. (Britain’s Daily Telegraph, for instance, which has no problem pursuing Islamist politicians at home or exhibiting the war crimes of jihadis in Syria and Iraq, today blurred one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.)

But now contrast Pollard’s justification with how Bruce Crumley, Time magazine’s then-Paris bureau chief, characterized the work of satirists after Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 for the ostensible “offense” of putting Mohammed in the editor’s chair for a single issue: “[N]ot only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?”

Openly beg. I wonder if Crumley will write that the 10 Charlie Hebdo employees gunned down today by men claiming (evidently in perfect French) to have “avenged the Prophet Muhammad” got what they deserved or were perhaps laïcité’s answer to suicide bombers. The Financial Times’ Tony Barber calls the satirical newspaper a “bastion of the French tradition of hard-hitting satire” in a sentence right before one in which he calls it a bastion of “baiting and needling Muslims.” Well, which is it? Hard-hitting satire or rank bigotry? This is by no means the only logical pretzel Barbers wanders into in essentially blaming the magazine for its own misfortune. He of course doesn’t “condone” murder or the curtailment of free speech, only “common sense” in editorial standards — because without curtailing free speech, one may invite murder. Got that?

All of Charlie Hebdo’s staff, I think it’s safe to assume, knew what they were doing in deriding fanaticism. And they were proud of it.All of Charlie Hebdo’s staff, I think it’s safe to assume, knew what they were doing in deriding fanaticism. And they were proud of it. This deserves our respect. Indeed, if the tragedy in Paris right now can be at all leavened by black comedy, then the privilege belongs to none other than the paper’s full-time editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or “Charb,” the cartoon signature by which he was more commonly known. His last graphic installment featured a moronic-looking muhajid saying, “No attacks in France yet; wait! There’s until the end of January to wish Happy New Year.”

I suppose commentators will blame Charb posthumously for predicting his own death. Though he does nicely sow “division” between secularism and the worldview espoused by al Qaeda or the Islamic State, an organization which has done its part for the common good by raping Yazidi women, executing Kurds, murdering Sunni tribesmen, and calling for the extermination of all Shiites. But at least the Islamic State’s victims never drew a naughty picture.

As it happens, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, was one of the latest foils of Charb’s “Islamophobic” weekly, which may have actually taken a page out of the playbook of many practicing and committed Muslims who have mercilessly mocked and lampooned the “caliph” and what he claims to be his own purified version of the Islamic faith. And here I note a strange phenomenon on Facebook and Twitter for which Crumley and his ilk will have trouble accounting: Why are so many Muslims posting the “Je Suis Charlie” image that has become a token of solidarity with the slain?

Some outlets are have suggested a link between Charlie Hebdo’s latest cover art and today’s events. The cover shows a wizened caricature of the French author Michel Houellebecq, predicting an Islamic future for France, with the caption, “In 2022, I will do Ramadan.” This happens to be the subject of Houellebecq’s just-released novel Submission. So even a derisory image of another French provocateur, one who has written and said unflattering things about Islam, might be enough to precipitate violence? No doubt critiques and furious denunciations of Houellebecq’s new book are forthcoming, too. But could it be that plenty of pious observers to today’s atrocity in Paris, on whose behalf Western commentators now claim to speak, have a sense of proportion and priority in what they choose to condemn on any given day? Are they somehow deficiently or inauthentically pious for not being “baited” into writing nonsense like Crumley or Barber?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/07/dont-blame-the-victims/

magicbastarder

The Black Oil wrote: »

It was the same following Sept 11th - 'today, we are all American'.

i hope the french will be more considered than the US in their long term response. there are several good articles doing the rounds this morning pointing out that the probable aim of this attack was to turn the french against the muslim population which will serve to radicalise them - because the french muslim population is actually quite secular on average.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Why do self-declared liberals cower in front of Muslim fundamentalists?

It come as a considerable shock to your monochromatic worldview that Charlie Hebdo leans a little to "the left" and some of its staff paid for their bravery with their lives.

St&#233 wrote: »

What I'm about to say is maybe a little pompous, but I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

magicbastarder

jank wrote: »

Why do self-declared liberals cower in front of Muslim fundamentalists?

i dunno, i reckon i'd be willing to cower in front of a lunatic pointing a kalashnikov at me.

please note this is a comment made in jest and in no way is intended as a comment intended to add any logical points to the discussion, lest someone take me seriously.

Shrap

jank wrote: »

Je Suis Charlie (Until Je Get Scared)
Why do self-declared liberals cower in front of Muslim fundamentalists?



https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/07/dont-blame-the-victims/

Just so you know, I was thanking you for the article, not for your comment.

magicbastarder

eh, what was his comment?
unless you're mistaking the subtitle of the article (which (s)he posted) as coming from jank?

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

eh, what was his comment?

Possibly the subtitle of the text which implied that all "self-declared liberals" are cowards.

Shrap

magicbastarder wrote: »

eh, what was his comment?
unless you're mistaking the subtitle of the article (which (s)he posted) as coming from jank?

Oops, yes I was. Sorry Jank. Humble apologies.

Dodgy title for the article then.

shruikan2553

A bit OT but someone decided to bring the liberals into it as usual.
Sometimes I wonder if there is a weekly meeting of people who decide how everything that has happened in the past week can be blamed on liberals.

Dominos got my order wrong? Damn you liberals!

robindch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if there is a weekly meeting of people who decide how everything that has happened in the past week can be blamed on liberals.

As somebody once said, if one's only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Dominos got my order wrong? Damn you liberals!

Off-topic, but Domino's was founded by Tom Monaghan whose liberal credentials are open to some debate.

magicbastarder

thankfully he is no longer involved with dominos so i can continue to order pizzas with a clean conscience.

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

And of course Islam is the religion of peace, lets not forget.

All religions are religions of peace. The religion is not responsible for those who abuse it.

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

It's very easy for these people to justify what they are doing is right, its easy when you claim God is on your side and you decide what God thinks and decides. All religions do this to one degree or another.

It doesn't have to be God. People have taken a similar stance using one "ism" or the other as justification.

Religion isn't the issue here, but the arrogance of people who think that any belief system or political ideology is more important than people's lives and human rights.

magicbastarder

that's quite a humanist stance for a defence of religion.

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

It doesn't have to be God. People have taken a similar stance using one "ism" or the other as justification.

Religion isn't the issue here, but the arrogance of people who think that any belief system or political ideology is more important than people's lives and human rights.

The problem here though is that quite a few religious "isms" encourage such an arrogant stance, in fact many of them insist on it.