|
|
Doublemint and raynpelikoneet started a very important topic that I think needs some attention.
On January 10 2015 20:58 Doublemint wrote:
what I don't get is HOW those fundamentalist fucks could slip through all the cracks and never raise a big red flag. they were known, their environment and extremist "mentor" was known. it was known that they had travelled abroad and protentially trained to fight for their lost and dumb cause. they were on no-fly lists...
france also has the oh so important data retention to prevent terrorists from ever commiting such atrocious acts, how well that worked out -_-
I would really like to ask a few hard questions to the interior minister or officials from the intelligence community.
Judging from Doublemint's words, it seems that the french government had an opportunity to stop these fuckers. Here is the thing though, how do we know that this attempt hasn't happened before? Its just that they (french gov't) stopped it before there was any escalation.
Here is a quote from wiki about GIGN
Since its creation, the group has taken part in over 1000 operations, liberated over 500 hostages, arrested over 1000 suspects, and killed 15 terrorists. The unit has seen two members killed in action, and seven in training, since its foundation, and two of its dogs in action and one in training.
The GIGN stopped thousands of attempts and arrested nearly as many suspects. For 1/1000 attempts to actually be successful, I think maybe its just a matter of 'when will someone fall through the cracks' even though the signals are all there.
I think that there is only so much that the gov't can do with data retention. As raynpelikoneet said, there is a lot of communication going on in this world today. This entire conversation is being recorded on some servers in Europe, but do you think its being read by anyone? Perhaps its being scanned by computers to look for keywords, but even that isn't perfect.
As well, someone is needed to sift through all that data to truly find the bad apples. With all that data to wade through, its possible to have false positives from computer scanned documents.
I guess the problem is do we have enough intelligent individuals that can accomplish this task?
In light of this discussion, I highly suggest everyone watch "A Most Wanted Man". Its about Germany's intelligence agency tracking a possible terrorist. I don't want to spoil it, but Phillip Seymore Hoffman is great in it, and it directly relates to our discussion. Hoffman's character is tasked with the important job of utilizing a group of agents to find possible terrorists that enter Germany and stop them before they can escalate to violence.
|
Very well said silynxer and ZeromuS.
Although I don't have anything to add to your conversation, I must say both of you have shed more light on this issue for me.
edit: On a less serious note, I can't enjoy watching a game of SC2 without thinking about this horrible tragedy. Granted, there hasn't been anything big going on, other then WCS quals.
|
On January 10 2015 21:17 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 20:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 20:48 Ishentar wrote:
@ raynpelikoneet : Actually most of them were deployed because of the standard Vigipirate, even if thousands participated the actual hunt. The number announced, about 90k is mostly communication even though thousands were actively searching. Ahh okay then it makes more sense. I just wondered why 60k officers couldn't find the people they were looking for for like a day when they had their location already. But yes, what you said makes a lot more sense. There are ~10 000 muslims in France that would be considered integrists by some, amongst which some are trying to recruit jihadists. One brother that did the shooting had been part of such recruiters for a 2005 cell that had 12 "potentials". 3 of 12 died in Irak. Recently, 2 french have been identified on Isis footage, sent there through similar recruiting. There is a non-zero risk that french terrorist cells exist and military actions of France against Isis makes their activation possible. Worst case, they trigger coordinated attacks (multiple teams, multiple targets). As soon as the first shooting occured vigipirate plan was put in place, to be able to answer to this worst case scenario. Good thing is this time there were only 3 of them acting. Made the thousands of officers sent to block subway stations/touristic sites at each minor alert useless, but I can understand the precaution.
Source of the numbers ? Living there, and knowing a bit the muslim community, I can say there may be 10 000 of muslims integrist, but I think there is no more than a thousand of dangerous Islamist in France.
And you must separate Jihad in France and Jihad in middle east. Some of the young Jiahdist have been recrute to fight against dictators, because they were naive.
The terrorist cell of the Karachi brother, in france, was max 5 people, and it was Paris, the biggest city of france.
If there was a real danger there would be suicide bombing. But precaution is still good, i agree.
Its fun how we are talking of 10 when we are 60 millions of french.
The main fact for me is that the Kouachi brothers were born french and were orphans, raise in an Orphanage
Its a social failure of France.
|
@Jett.Jack.Alvir - because being a jihadist is not a crime, yet.
On January 10 2015 20:51 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 20:01 xM(Z wrote:On January 10 2015 19:28 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 10:01 Dazed_Spy wrote:I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously.
I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo. Some ideas (and some people) are worth provoking, as its a catalyst for change. Tip toeing around and respecting the unrespectable is nonsense. You should poke homophobes in the eye (rhetorically speaking), as well as muslims, hindus and Christians, in all but the most extreme 'live and let live, I dont actually believe in my religion, I adopt it for the sake of tradition' sort of cases. Are you seriously trying to say you think something like islamic/christian/[insert any religion here] are going to change because of enough people provoking them?!?!? If that's what you are trying to say i don't know what world you are living in. gays provoked christianity so it changed ... what world are you living in? well... not exactly. society/people changed and forced christianity to change. gays - rightfully - presented their case and with time the mainstream of people understood.
you can pick and chose the paths taken and semanticize the way it happened, but it will still fit one of the definitions of the word 'provoking' and the outcome or the goal of both will still be change (purposely or otherwise).
to achieve change, one has to work with what it has limited by the context of his own existence. that allows, gives the freedom, for people to pursue different paths.
|
French PM said that there were at least 1200-1400 terrorists that left France for ISIS. Only official figure available. More are followed for terrorism since there are thousands of people that are still followed on french territory.
|
On January 10 2015 22:14 xM(Z wrote:
@Jett.Jack.Alvir - because being a jihadist is not a crime, yet.
I never said that, and I don't think it should be.
I don't understand how you interpreted my words into 9 words, but I urge you to re-read my comments and watch "A Most Wanted Man".
If you have questions though, please ask and I would be happy to clarify my meaning.
|
On January 10 2015 21:10 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 20:04 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 19:14 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 05:35 Incognoto wrote:
I am French and I am damn proud to be French. I'm proud of the cultural heritage that we have and I'm proud of all the scientific and cultural things we've brought to the world. Some might see a country as being lines on the map; let them. I don't see a country as something as pitiful on lines on the map. Nor is a country the government in charge. A country is its people. I am very proud to be a French person. I am proud of the French and I'm proud of what France has accomplished in history.
That doesn't mean I look down on someone who isn't French. You can be proud of your country without being an idiot.
Culture is what defines human societies. Cultures aren't better or worse than one another, they're merely different. Different groups of human beings have agreed to different ways of living together, that is what a nation is. Being intolerant of other cultures is being idiotic; nothing is wrong with loving your own culture.
Slightly tangent but I feel it's something that needed to be said. I am glad these terrible events are over. This is probably one of the best posts i have ever read on any forum. Well yeah, the sad thing being that there are a lot of people (in France, but I'm sure in any country) who stop before the "Cultures aren't better or worse than one another" part. On January 10 2015 19:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 19:35 esdf wrote:On January 10 2015 18:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2015 18:26 esdf wrote:
It's a tragedy what happened, but it was obvious it's going to happen. This charlie hebdo must be a sad ass paper if they can only sell by making fun and insulting others. Still doesn't justfiy the killings tho. Nothing can. If you don't know anything about Charlie Hebdo, maybe you should keep your judgments for another day, just out of decency. If you want to understand what they were doing, you would have to go back to Voltaire and read, for example, Candide. There is a long tradition of satire in France, which has been one of the most important, efficient and intelligent engine for social changes. Sexual liberation, secularization, democratization, feminism, all those things have been partly the work of people who continued proudly this voltairian tradition of laughing at bigots, extremists, religious superstition, racists, fascists, and everything that goes under what Voltaire was calling "l'infâme". We owe those people an enormous amount. They were free thinkers, and free people. Just have some respect. From my point of view you can be a free thinker and a free person without trying your best to insult others. I've nothing against satire, but constantly doing same old shit just to provoke certain people is low and cheap. I agree with your line of thinking although i would change the "low and cheap" to "stupid in certain situations". Apparently a lot of people (based on this thread) do not agree though. Imo it kinda makes them -- funnily enough -- extremists in a way.. It does not make Charlie Hebdo extremists, for the simple reason that Charlie Hebdo never threatened to kill anyone, and would have never killed anyone. It has been said already, but there will always be people to be offended and to feel provoked, whatever the "offense" is. Now I'm not saying that everything can be said or done, that's why there are laws in France against openly racists behaviors and the likes. Charlie Hebdo got sued many times for what they did, but iirc (I may be wrong here) they never got sentenced to anything. All cultures have value, but they're not equally valuable. Do you honestly believe that the culture in Sudan is worth as much as the culture of France? I'm sure we can agree that freedom of speech is a significant part of the french culture. Can you please name me something that is worth as much as freedom of speech, which can be found in cultures that don't respect freedom of speech? I sure can't think of anything. The only thing that I would value equally are other freedoms, but when one freedom is not respected, most of the other freedoms tend to not be respected either.
Somehow Charlie Hebdo participate to spread this pretty western racist idea, that some "cultures" are just stupid because of the acts of some people, thinking that with our freedom of speech we have the right to tell them how to live, or just laugh at their problem while hundred die every day.
Do you really believe that the culture of Sudan is civil war?
|
On January 10 2015 21:36 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 21:10 L1ghtning wrote:On January 10 2015 20:04 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 19:14 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 05:35 Incognoto wrote:
I am French and I am damn proud to be French. I'm proud of the cultural heritage that we have and I'm proud of all the scientific and cultural things we've brought to the world. Some might see a country as being lines on the map; let them. I don't see a country as something as pitiful on lines on the map. Nor is a country the government in charge. A country is its people. I am very proud to be a French person. I am proud of the French and I'm proud of what France has accomplished in history.
That doesn't mean I look down on someone who isn't French. You can be proud of your country without being an idiot.
Culture is what defines human societies. Cultures aren't better or worse than one another, they're merely different. Different groups of human beings have agreed to different ways of living together, that is what a nation is. Being intolerant of other cultures is being idiotic; nothing is wrong with loving your own culture.
Slightly tangent but I feel it's something that needed to be said. I am glad these terrible events are over. This is probably one of the best posts i have ever read on any forum. Well yeah, the sad thing being that there are a lot of people (in France, but I'm sure in any country) who stop before the "Cultures aren't better or worse than one another" part. On January 10 2015 19:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 19:35 esdf wrote:On January 10 2015 18:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2015 18:26 esdf wrote:
It's a tragedy what happened, but it was obvious it's going to happen. This charlie hebdo must be a sad ass paper if they can only sell by making fun and insulting others. Still doesn't justfiy the killings tho. Nothing can. If you don't know anything about Charlie Hebdo, maybe you should keep your judgments for another day, just out of decency. If you want to understand what they were doing, you would have to go back to Voltaire and read, for example, Candide. There is a long tradition of satire in France, which has been one of the most important, efficient and intelligent engine for social changes. Sexual liberation, secularization, democratization, feminism, all those things have been partly the work of people who continued proudly this voltairian tradition of laughing at bigots, extremists, religious superstition, racists, fascists, and everything that goes under what Voltaire was calling "l'infâme". We owe those people an enormous amount. They were free thinkers, and free people. Just have some respect. From my point of view you can be a free thinker and a free person without trying your best to insult others. I've nothing against satire, but constantly doing same old shit just to provoke certain people is low and cheap. I agree with your line of thinking although i would change the "low and cheap" to "stupid in certain situations". Apparently a lot of people (based on this thread) do not agree though. Imo it kinda makes them -- funnily enough -- extremists in a way.. It does not make Charlie Hebdo extremists, for the simple reason that Charlie Hebdo never threatened to kill anyone, and would have never killed anyone. It has been said already, but there will always be people to be offended and to feel provoked, whatever the "offense" is. Now I'm not saying that everything can be said or done, that's why there are laws in France against openly racists behaviors and the likes. Charlie Hebdo got sued many times for what they did, but iirc (I may be wrong here) they never got sentenced to anything. All cultures have value, but they're not equally valuable. Do you honestly believe that the culture in Sudan is worth as much as the culture of France? I'm sure we can agree that freedom of speech is a significant part of the french culture. Can you please name me something that is worth as much as freedom of speech, which can be found in cultures that don't respect freedom of speech? I sure can't think of anything. The only thing that I would value equally are other freedoms, but when one freedom is not respected, most of the other freedoms tend to not be respected either. I do honestly believe that the culture in Sudan, even though I'm not an expert of Sudan, is worth as much as the culture of France. And I'd say freedom of speech is not something that is specific to the French culture or to Western cultures in general, contrarily to what many politicians (and the general, common way of thinking in Western countries) say. Freedom of speech, like all the others fundamental freedoms, is probably something every human aspires to : who is happy when he wants to say something, but can't in fear of being jailed/killed/deported/etc? It's governments who decide whether or not the freedom of speech is being respected, and government is not culture. There was not so long ago a government in France which was a dictatorship and thus did not respect freedoms like the freedom of speech. It even replaced our traditional "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" with "Work, Family, Homeland". Yet the French culture at that time was mostly identical to the French culture of today. So I would say that the government of Sudan (according it is a dictatorship) is not worth as much as the democracy we have in France. But cultures have nothing to do with it.
What you're saying makes no sense. You're saying "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" with "Work, Family, Homeland" is the french culture, but you're saying that the cultural differences doesn't exist, that they're just a result of the government.
If France under Napoleon was such a bad thing (which it was), then how come France was able to get back on track after that, and start valuing the liberties again? Because it was the french culture that enabled it. During the first few decades there were no significant difference between South Korea and North Korea, but because South Korea wasn't entirely shut off from outside influence, they gradually adopted influences from Japan and USA. The South Korean culture of today is a mix of old korean culture, with many japanese and american elements.
Saying that all cultures are worth the same is just politically correct nonsense.
If you asked the muslims in France about their values, and then compared it to the values of asians who live in France, do you think they would answer the same? They live under the same government, so according to you, they should have the same values and culture, and we know that this is not the case. There's major differences between the two, and these differences exists because they carry over a lot of the cultural heritage from their homeland. Even those who were born in France, were most likely raised by ppl who were not, and this has a significant effect on their culture.
I will be the first person to admit the power of the state. The state has the power to influence the culture of its citizens (to a varying extent). This is how Nazi Germany was created, with the help of the state-run propaganda machine (aka public school) that the Prussians put in place. But.. the culture doesn't automatically go back to the default human culture, just because a certain state loses its power.
All cultures are the result of their history. Do you actually believe that the mainstream culture of medieval France is as valuable as the mainstream culture of modern France? Because that's exactly what you're saying. If all cultures are worth the same, then it means that it's impossible for a culture to advance, and become more valuable.
|
The term culture is flawed to begin with. It doesn't mean much : if you think you can resume french culture with Liberty Fraternity and Equality then... France has had the chance to be a dominant power during the 19th and 20th century. Sudan has not, which makes your point of view biased : what do you know about Sudan before the colonisation ? What would have become Sudan if it was not for the dominance of some other country ? How its culture would have evolved ?
I don't even know why you absolutly want to give an objective value to a culture in itself anyway : it has value for the people that live in it, as it help structure their day to day experience, their interactions, give them meanings, identities and roles.
|
To appropriately qualify the "worth" of something as nebulous and complex as "culture" is to take on a problem that is far more difficult to solve than it appears.
|
On January 10 2015 22:50 WhiteDog wrote:
The term culture is flawed to begin with. It doesn't mean much : if you think you can resume french culture with Liberty Fraternity and Equality then... France has had the chance to be a dominant power during the 19th and 20th century. Sudan has not, which makes your point of view biased : what do you know about Sudan before the colonisation ? What would have become Sudan if it was not for the dominance of some other country ? How its culture would have evolved ?
I don't even know why you absolutly want to give an objective value to a culture in itself anyway : it has value for the people that live in it, as it help structure their day to day experience, their interactions, give them meanings, identities and roles.
The foundation of my argument is not that the french culture is superior to most of the other cultures, although I think this is the case, and is pretty obvious. I mainly pointed out the huge flaws in the idea that all cultures are equal. Cultures can evolve and stagnant, and probably more rarely, devolve.
It's very important to put a value on culture, because that's how you make a society progress. You keep the good and get rid of the bad. The french enlightenment was a crossroad for the french ppl, where they had to choose between old cultural norms and new cultural norms. It was triggered by the cultural growth of the french society. The french society had culturally advanced to such an extent that they no longer could accept the traditional monarchy. Then they were swept away by nationalism, just like Germany were later on, but both the french and the germans learned from their mistakes. As a whole, the french society have advanced since the medieval times.
And like I said, all cultures have value. I never said that inferior cultures have no meaning, and I'm sure that there are certain elements of the Sudan culture that is superior to the french culture. We can all learn something from other cultures, but all cultures are not as a whole, equally valuable.
|
On January 10 2015 21:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Doublemint and raynpelikoneet started a very important topic that I think needs some attention. Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 20:58 Doublemint wrote:
what I don't get is HOW those fundamentalist fucks could slip through all the cracks and never raise a big red flag. they were known, their environment and extremist "mentor" was known. it was known that they had travelled abroad and protentially trained to fight for their lost and dumb cause. they were on no-fly lists...
france also has the oh so important data retention to prevent terrorists from ever commiting such atrocious acts, how well that worked out -_-
I would really like to ask a few hard questions to the interior minister or officials from the intelligence community.
Judging from Doublemint's words, it seems that the french government had an opportunity to stop these fuckers. Here is the thing though, how do we know that this attempt hasn't happened before? Its just that they (french gov't) stopped it before there was any escalation.
Simply put, they [French Gov] messed up by allowing the terrorists to remain free. I don't have any solid sources but I'm pretty sure that there have been quite a few previous attempts which have been shorted by France's intelligence agencies. This one got through, not because intelligence wasn't aware of the threat, it's that they had no leverage / support from the government to act upon it. I think so anyway, again can't back this up with solid sources but that's my take on the situation. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that I am.
Trying to establish the value of a culture is like trying to establish whether you like your mother or father better. In some cases, when one of them is very bad (abusive father or something, I don't know), it's possible to say that one is better than another. If both your father and mother are valid individuals then it becomes stupid to attempt to compare them. Same thing with cultures. I don't think that French culture is superior to American culture for instance (having lived in both) or vice versa. I'm pretty sure that I would say that French culture is superior to any culture which places women on a lower social level than men, for example.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
reducing regional development difference to culture in this case seems like a simplistic engagement with racially tinged group identities that obscure the actual mechanism of development.
the narrative is, 'this group of people' is superior/bad because they are this and this culture. it's very crude.
institutions and governance, resources and lack of them, luck and tragedy in war and conquest etc are not adequately described by culture.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 10 2015 20:58 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 20:41 Ishentar wrote:
So proud of our special fources and police. Great work. Wish the injured the best and quick recovery.
@ Wohodix : Charlie Hebdo always add financial problems and was even stopped at some points but it started again, I'm not sure it would have died within one year, it had often difficulties but was resilient. Indeed, it had poor sales but nearly everyone knew it and the cartoonists were well-known too. what I don't get is HOW those fundamentalist fucks could slip through all the cracks and never raise a big red flag. they were known, their environment and extremist "mentor" was known. it was known that they had travelled abroad and protentially trained to fight for their lost and dumb cause. they were on no-fly lists... france also has the oh so important data retention to prevent terrorists from ever commiting such atrocious acts, how well that worked out -_- I would really like to ask a few hard questions to the interior minister or officials from the intelligence community.
actionable intelligence? that would be tyranny.
this is all very rich from you
|
On January 10 2015 17:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 12:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 10 2015 09:30 ZenithM wrote:On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:
[quote]
SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire.
Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended. My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech. There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. Just to clarify something: Charlie Hebdo did make fun of "quirks" in other religions as well, in more or less equal amount. Some examples, just for christianism: http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/5741352275515.jpghttp://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/51/80/47/38387010.jpghttp://www.ange-noir.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/une-charlie-hebdo-caricature-chrétiens-opus-dei.jpgNot gonna translate those (unless you really want me to, but most of the time the real meaning is tied to current events with I may not recall), but they're satirical alright, let me tell you this :D http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369139-ajust_610/le-pape-nabilla-ise.jpgEdit: Oh sorry you were actually saying you knew they also made fun of other religions, sorry, I thought I'd just provide examples. did they make any publication mocking the jewish faith ? Absolutely all the time
can you please give an example?
|
On January 11 2015 00:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 17:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2015 12:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 10 2015 09:30 ZenithM wrote:On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech. There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. Just to clarify something: Charlie Hebdo did make fun of "quirks" in other religions as well, in more or less equal amount. Some examples, just for christianism: http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/5741352275515.jpghttp://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/51/80/47/38387010.jpghttp://www.ange-noir.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/une-charlie-hebdo-caricature-chrétiens-opus-dei.jpgNot gonna translate those (unless you really want me to, but most of the time the real meaning is tied to current events with I may not recall), but they're satirical alright, let me tell you this :D http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369139-ajust_610/le-pape-nabilla-ise.jpgEdit: Oh sorry you were actually saying you knew they also made fun of other religions, sorry, I thought I'd just provide examples. did they make any publication mocking the jewish faith ? Absolutely all the time can you please give an example?
Literally took me 5 seconds.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 11 2015 00:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 00:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 10 2015 17:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2015 12:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 10 2015 09:30 ZenithM wrote:On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:
[quote]
There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. Just to clarify something: Charlie Hebdo did make fun of "quirks" in other religions as well, in more or less equal amount. Some examples, just for christianism: http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/5741352275515.jpghttp://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/51/80/47/38387010.jpghttp://www.ange-noir.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/une-charlie-hebdo-caricature-chrétiens-opus-dei.jpgNot gonna translate those (unless you really want me to, but most of the time the real meaning is tied to current events with I may not recall), but they're satirical alright, let me tell you this :D http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369139-ajust_610/le-pape-nabilla-ise.jpgEdit: Oh sorry you were actually saying you knew they also made fun of other religions, sorry, I thought I'd just provide examples. did they make any publication mocking the jewish faith ? Absolutely all the time can you please give an example? Literally took me 5 seconds. + Show Spoiler +
Says the "intouchable". Tho it's pretty light. Siné, who was a cartoonist at Charlie, was fired because he made a caricature related to some jewish cliché.
|
On January 10 2015 12:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 09:30 ZenithM wrote:On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
I know very well what satire is. I am not against it.
Sad thing here is not all the people know what satire is and some people ARE against it. SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire. Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended. My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech. There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. Just to clarify something: Charlie Hebdo did make fun of "quirks" in other religions as well, in more or less equal amount. Some examples, just for christianism: http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/5741352275515.jpghttp://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/51/80/47/38387010.jpghttp://www.ange-noir.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/une-charlie-hebdo-caricature-chrétiens-opus-dei.jpgNot gonna translate those (unless you really want me to, but most of the time the real meaning is tied to current events with I may not recall), but they're satirical alright, let me tell you this :D http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369139-ajust_610/le-pape-nabilla-ise.jpgEdit: Oh sorry you were actually saying you knew they also made fun of other religions, sorry, I thought I'd just provide examples. did they make any publication mocking the jewish faith ?
+ Show Spoiler +
and
+ Show Spoiler +"1 milion discount on the 6 in exchange of palestine"
|
On January 11 2015 00:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 00:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 10 2015 17:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2015 12:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 10 2015 09:30 ZenithM wrote:On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:
[quote]
There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. Just to clarify something: Charlie Hebdo did make fun of "quirks" in other religions as well, in more or less equal amount. Some examples, just for christianism: http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/5741352275515.jpghttp://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/51/80/47/38387010.jpghttp://www.ange-noir.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/une-charlie-hebdo-caricature-chrétiens-opus-dei.jpgNot gonna translate those (unless you really want me to, but most of the time the real meaning is tied to current events with I may not recall), but they're satirical alright, let me tell you this :D http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369139-ajust_610/le-pape-nabilla-ise.jpgEdit: Oh sorry you were actually saying you knew they also made fun of other religions, sorry, I thought I'd just provide examples. did they make any publication mocking the jewish faith ? Absolutely all the time can you please give an example? Literally took me 5 seconds. + Show Spoiler +
i bet the anti-semite card was used somewhere
|
On January 11 2015 00:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 20:58 Doublemint wrote:On January 10 2015 20:41 Ishentar wrote:
So proud of our special fources and police. Great work. Wish the injured the best and quick recovery.
@ Wohodix : Charlie Hebdo always add financial problems and was even stopped at some points but it started again, I'm not sure it would have died within one year, it had often difficulties but was resilient. Indeed, it had poor sales but nearly everyone knew it and the cartoonists were well-known too. what I don't get is HOW those fundamentalist fucks could slip through all the cracks and never raise a big red flag. they were known, their environment and extremist "mentor" was known. it was known that they had travelled abroad and protentially trained to fight for their lost and dumb cause. they were on no-fly lists... france also has the oh so important data retention to prevent terrorists from ever commiting such atrocious acts, how well that worked out -_- I would really like to ask a few hard questions to the interior minister or officials from the intelligence community. actionable intelligence? that would be tyranny. this is all very rich from you
nice of you to join this thread as well with your pro-NSA perspective 
I am mainly asking questions, are you able to give more than a snarky answer?
//edit:
Judging from Doublemint's words, it seems that the french government had an opportunity to stop these fuckers. Here is the thing though, how do we know that this attempt hasn't happened before? Its just that they (french gov't) stopped it before there was any escalation.
I would not go so far as to say "had opportunity to stop them", those are very strong words. I would go as far though that somewhere along the line someone did not react to a red flag or it got ignored/whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--o4L_giMf--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/yi2x7bussbnxfn3sx4ub.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdissidenceresistance.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fshoah-hebdo-sept2012.jpg&f=1)
![[image loading]](https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdissidenceresistance.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fshoah-hebdo.png&f=1)
