|
|
How is it that there are already mugshots of these 4? Were they in trouble previously?
|
On January 10 2015 05:55 rezoacken wrote:
Anyway it's stupid to imagine these acts would come from a purely religious perspective. They come from a political context in the middle east, it's a fight from some groups toward whoever they perceive as the aggressor (justified aggression or not is irrelevant to explain the context). The religion is only the catalyst, the thing that makes it easier to make people "fight". It also acts as a link: "me in Syria is a muslim, you over there is a muslim french, we're brothers help us".
Arguing over what the book say or doesn't say is totally irrelevant in this context.
The Kouachi brothers have multiple times said to civilians on their flee "we won't harm you, you're a civilian". These people think they are at war. Then we learn they're financed by Al Qaeda in Yemen.
The three terrorists were french, born in France, educated in french school, etc.
Sure, the relation between the occident and the middle east play a role, but there is also a specifically french problem in all that. It's true that the religion is a catalyst.
|
On January 10 2015 05:58 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 05:55 rezoacken wrote:
Anyway it's stupid to imagine these acts would come from a purely religious perspective. They come from a political context in the middle east, it's a fight from some groups toward whoever they perceive as the aggressor (justified aggression or not is irrelevant to explain the context). The religion is only the catalyst, the thing that makes it easier to make people "fight".
The Kouachi brothers have multiple times said to civilians on their flee "we won't harm you, you're a civilian". These people think they are at war. Then we learn they're financed by Al Qaeda in Yemen. Ok thanks, re: GIGN, I wasn't aware that the hostages were dead before they arrived on the scene. The thing that makes the least sense to me is that France has if not anything else been the strongest supporter of Palestine in the middle eastern conflict. They're probably the most important country to push for recognition based on how their global standing and how many Muslims live there. So if there's a political agenda behind this attack I don't know what it is.
But France also was one of the first to support bombing ISIS positions. And then there's the whole GIA thing from the 90s (a series of terrorist attacks in France by an Algerian terrorist group). The Kouachi brothers have links to old GIA members like Djamel Beghal (supposedly their mentor).
|
Also, GIGN was not involved at the supermarket. They were at the print shop. The group at the supermarket was RAID, France's version of the US SWAT. GIGN is similar to GSG9, SAS, and USN Seals in that they are a special operations unit that is part of the armed forces.
Just for clarification with my limited knowledge.
|
On January 10 2015 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 05:55 rezoacken wrote:
Anyway it's stupid to imagine these acts would come from a purely religious perspective. They come from a political context in the middle east, it's a fight from some groups toward whoever they perceive as the aggressor (justified aggression or not is irrelevant to explain the context). The religion is only the catalyst, the thing that makes it easier to make people "fight". It also acts as a link: "me in Syria is a muslim, you over there is a muslim french, we're brothers help us".
Arguing over what the book say or doesn't say is totally irrelevant in this context.
The Kouachi brothers have multiple times said to civilians on their flee "we won't harm you, you're a civilian". These people think they are at war. Then we learn they're financed by Al Qaeda in Yemen. The three terrorists were french, born in France, educated in french school, etc. Sure, the relation between the occident and the middle east play a role, but there is also a specifically french problem in all that. It's true that the religion is a catalyst.
Yes, I'm not denying what you said here :-)
On January 10 2015 06:06 Aveng3r wrote:
How is it that there are already mugshots of these 4? Were they in trouble previously?
Yes, 2 of them were sentenced to prison in the past. Not sure about the 3rd man.
|
On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. 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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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%
There are very compelling arguments that societies which embrace freedom of expression, democracy, civil discourse and pluralism are just objectively better than the failed states which have sunk into oppression, poverty, illiteracy and violence. I would argue we have every right to claim that our ideas are superior to the deranged ideology of ISIS or Al Qaeda, if we are operating in the realm of human flourishing vis-á-vis human suffering.
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.
|
On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. 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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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.
|
Canada13410 Posts
On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. 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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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. Show nested quote +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.
That really is the best way to sum up how I feel about this. Its all terrible, no one deserved it. But the muslim police officer really did uphold the strongest form of values of anyone hurt in the entire situation.
In my opinion.
|
Holy shit, I just stumbled upon the video of the policeman being shot to death on the pavement. What's more shocking to me than the video is the youtube comments. Holy fucking shit is this shit filled with racism and hatred...
|
On January 10 2015 07:10 ZenithM wrote:
Holy shit, I just stumbled upon the video of the policeman being shot to death on the pavement. What's more shocking to me than the video is the youtube comments. Holy fucking shit is this shit filled with racism and hatred...
Yeah, i cry a little for humanity every time i read those.
|
On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. 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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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. Show nested quote +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 saying but Charb, the guy who made the "insulting" caricature of mohammed to begin with, was in couple with a muslim.
The muslim police officer also had the habit to come to Charlie drink a coffee every morning. He didn't felt too "insulted" by them.
|
On January 10 2015 04:03 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:54 SiroKO wrote:
The most revulsing thing to me is the hypocrisy of the French politicians and PC media.
Everytime there's an Islamic terrorist attack, they refer to the perpetrators as "monsters" or "terrorists" to deprive them from their ISLAMIC ideology.
The truth is, these people motivations are based on a particular, but extremly well-spread and well-documented, understanding of Islam.
So absolute respect for the FN (nationalist, economically at the left, societally at the right) politicians who dare to call these bastards by their names : Islamic terrorists.
Not giving a fuck about being boycotted by the PC media, or losing the muslim votes.
Truth against professional political liers.
That's the most revolting thing? Not the, I don't know, 12 people that were murdered in cold blood? You have weird priorities here. While it is important to realise what motivated these monsters, the last thing we need is to alienate the (European) Muslim community as a whole. Not because of fear of reprecussion or some misguided sense of political correctness, but because at the end of the day the only way to get through this current wave of terrorism is us working together. We need to realise that over 99% of Muslims are not the enemy and that they hate what happened as much, and probably more so (because it makes them have to defend themselves) than we do.
I agree with you but there is also another problem.
+ Show Spoiler +According to the study which was funded by the German government, two thirds (65%) of the Muslims interviewed say Islamic Sharia law is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live.Nearly 60% of Muslims believe their community should return to "Islamic roots." Muslims in Austria appear to be more fundamentalist than in other European countries: 69% of Muslims in Austria say they reject homosexuals as friends, 63% say Jews cannot be trusted, and 66% believe the West seeks to destroy Islam. By way of comparison, among European non-Muslim natives interviewed for the study in the six countries, 8% express mistrust against Jews, 10% against homosexuals, 21% against Muslims, and 1.4% against all three. Source: http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf
|
On January 10 2015 07:18 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 04:03 Mikau wrote:On January 10 2015 03:54 SiroKO wrote:
The most revulsing thing to me is the hypocrisy of the French politicians and PC media.
Everytime there's an Islamic terrorist attack, they refer to the perpetrators as "monsters" or "terrorists" to deprive them from their ISLAMIC ideology.
The truth is, these people motivations are based on a particular, but extremly well-spread and well-documented, understanding of Islam.
So absolute respect for the FN (nationalist, economically at the left, societally at the right) politicians who dare to call these bastards by their names : Islamic terrorists.
Not giving a fuck about being boycotted by the PC media, or losing the muslim votes.
Truth against professional political liers.
That's the most revolting thing? Not the, I don't know, 12 people that were murdered in cold blood? You have weird priorities here. While it is important to realise what motivated these monsters, the last thing we need is to alienate the (European) Muslim community as a whole. Not because of fear of reprecussion or some misguided sense of political correctness, but because at the end of the day the only way to get through this current wave of terrorism is us working together. We need to realise that over 99% of Muslims are not the enemy and that they hate what happened as much, and probably more so (because it makes them have to defend themselves) than we do. I agree with you but there is also another problem. + Show Spoiler +According to the study which was funded by the German government, two thirds (65%) of the Muslims interviewed say Islamic Sharia law is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live.Nearly 60% of Muslims believe their community should return to "Islamic roots." Muslims in Austria appear to be more fundamentalist than in other European countries: 69% of Muslims in Austria say they reject homosexuals as friends, 63% say Jews cannot be trusted, and 66% believe the West seeks to destroy Islam. By way of comparison, among European non-Muslim natives interviewed for the study in the six countries, 8% express mistrust against Jews, 10% against homosexuals, 21% against Muslims, and 1.4% against all three. Source: http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf
Identifying that a subgroup does not identify with all the ideas and systems of the populace at large is identifying a problem, but it does not specify who is to blame. It is quite likely that the lack of successful integration is the product of bias, rather than its cause. See, US race relations. (Black people disproportionately distrust the police; they must therefore bring this on themselves! Or maybe its the systemic racism that locks them out of so many social structures that causes this belief.)
|
On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. 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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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. Show nested quote +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.
Using the first name of a good man killed 2 day ago while protecting the people and invent talks from him (like if all the people with a north african or muslim first name would say the same things, because "they are all the same after all" like racists use to say) is irrespectfull and shamefull.
You don't know anything about this man, except he's a hero. At least, respect his memory and his familly. Is it too hard for you?
|
On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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.
He is from Pakistan and lives/works in French Canada. I did meet him in school in the US though. He speaks at least 4 languages fluently and French is one of them.
So, no your assumptions are not accurate.
A Christian example is totally different. The attackers weren't Christian, and there is not a phobia of all Christians wanting to kill anyone who insults their prophet.
|
On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
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. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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.
his "friend" is a copycat, that copied a tweet from some french whatever dude.... This tweet has going around a lot in the past few days, similar to "je suis charlie"
e: and obv even greenhorizons did not notice, that it was just copied, but thought his friend is very brilliant...
|
On January 10 2015 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:
[quote]
Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire? 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. He is from Pakistan and lives/works in French Canada. I did meet him in school in the US though. He speaks at least 4 languages fluently and French is one of them. So, no your assumptions are not accurate. A Christian example is totally different. The attackers weren't Christian, and there is not a phobia of all Christians wanting to kill anyone who insults their prophet.
It remains in poor taste even if he was French and understands the context perfectly. And by what WhiteDog said we can assume that the real, dead Ahmed would not approve of your friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
