|
|
I am sad but not suprised to learn, that the two killers were algerians. Algeria was one of the last colony of france. There is lot algerian living in france, and there is a sleeping tension, link to the suburbs, and some social problem, police discrimination, racism.
The liberty, and the liberty of speech is not the same for everyone in france, lots of rapper tried to describe this tension, sometimes with chocking words (basicly saying fuck france,fuck police, fuck mariane ) , but the only response of officials was to attack them and mute them by justice action for insult, hate incitation.
here is a review of the background of the killers in french : http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/09/ce-que-l-on-sait-sur-la-radicalisation-des-freres-kouachi_4552422_3224.html#6iuEB1sK3Kpf15AE.99
And the last algerian massacre in Paris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961#August_1958_raids
|
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.
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.jpg
http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/51/80/47/38387010.jpg
http://www.ange-noir.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/une-charlie-hebdo-caricature-chrétiens-opus-dei.jpg
Not 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.jpg
Edit: Oh sorry you were actually saying you knew they also made fun of other religions, sorry, I thought I'd just provide examples.
|
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.
|
On January 10 2015 09:04 aXa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 08:44 shell wrote:
Everybody could and might be insulted by Charlie Hebdo and they have the right to do so and they can use the courts, demonstrations, letters, open critizing what they can't do is kill them for it.
That's the problem and this type of events only benefits the extremists, the Islamic radicals and the european right-wing politicians.
The world sucks Actually, I think this could somehow not be beneficial to the right wing in France. This episode has brought people together. This is my hope at least.
I hope you're right.
Here's an opinion piece talking about how this attack is not about outrage against Charlie Hebdo by radical Islamists, but about baiting the French right wing to incite an actually race/religious war in France:
http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html
|
The terrorists that carried out these attacks paid the ultimate price for their crimes.
They threw away their lives and ceased to exist.
They must have had an enormous anger, fed and nourished by the agitators who talk and manipulate.
Being angry about an injustice or a perceived injustice is normal.
What made them angry?
Was it really some lines scribbled on a sheet of paper or a screen?
A terrorist is not born, neither is a saint.
But that can't be an excuse to shift all the blame away from the perpetrators.
That would be to easy. A person is formed by others as he/she is formed by him or herself.
The terrorists surly were angry, but they are angry at what?
France?, the EU?, caricatures?, injustice in the Arab world? Christianity? The ominous West?
Or did they want to be something special? Heroes something important, did they want attention? To break out of their mediocre boring, dull and hard lives?
And did they only find the attention of radical fundamentalists?
Did they just seek a purpose? A purpose in a life that has become meaningless to them?
A purpose that was given to them by radicals?
Did they seek justice for the injustice and war happening in the middle east?
But instead of finding tools for justice they were given the tools for blind vengeance?
Did they knew they were doing something horrible but considered it a necessary evil?
Or were they convinced they were on a righteous path?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did they decided on this path of death and destruction?
Where did we go wrong?
And lost them behind, alone without contact to the rest of us to spin their thoughts of hatred and poison.
Did they have dreams in life? A family? A house? A car? A good job? A girlfriend?
At some point in their lives?
Did they ever look out onto the stars on a clear night, thinking of what is out there and marvelling on the moon?
Did they ever build a snowman? Or threw a snowball in a snowball fight?
And how did three boys throwing snowballs became the men spraying bullets?
Can it be explained by logic why they became terrorists?
Or was it just feelings? Feelings of anger? of hate? of desperation? of fear?
What does a terrorist feel? Does he feel? Or has he become numb?
Isn't just marking a terrorist as a soulless monster without feelings the easy way out?
There are many questions.
And the only answers for us left at the moment are sorrow, pain, fear, anger and hatred.
But also the perspective to learn, to forgive, to change, to build bridges in newly found unity, to stay vigilant and
to extend a hand instead of looking away.
|
On January 10 2015 11:29 Holy_AT wrote:
The terrorists that carried out these attacks paid the ultimate price for their crimes.
They threw away their lives and ceased to exist.
They must have had an enormous anger, fed and nourished by the agitators who talk and manipulate.
Being angry about an injustice or a perceived injustice is normal.
What made them angry?
Was it really some lines scribbled on a sheet of paper or a screen?
A terrorist is not born, neither is a saint.
But that can't be an excuse to shift all the blame away from the perpetrators.
That would be to easy. A person is formed by others as he/she is formed by him or herself.
The terrorists surly were angry, but they are angry at what?
France?, the EU?, caricatures?, injustice in the Arab world? Christianity? The ominous West?
Or did they want to be something special? Heroes something important, did they want attention? To break out of their mediocre boring, dull and hard lives?
And did they only find the attention of radical fundamentalists?
Did they just seek a purpose? A purpose in a life that has become meaningless to them?
A purpose that was given to them by radicals?
Did they seek justice for the injustice and war happening in the middle east?
But instead of finding tools for justice they were given the tools for blind vengeance?
Did they knew they were doing something horrible but considered it a necessary evil?
Or were they convinced they were on a righteous path?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did they decided on this path of death and destruction?
Where did we go wrong?
And lost them behind, alone without contact to the rest of us to spin their thoughts of hatred and poison.
Did they have dreams in life? A family? A house? A car? A good job? A girlfriend?
At some point in their lives?
Did they ever look out onto the stars on a clear night, thinking of what is out there and marvelling on the moon?
Did they ever build a snowman? Or threw a snowball in a snowball fight?
And how did three boys throwing snowballs became the men spraying bullets?
Can it be explained by logic why they became terrorists?
Or was it just feelings? Feelings of anger? of hate? of desperation? of fear?
What does a terrorist feel? Does he feel? Or has he become numb?
Isn't just marking a terrorist as a soulless monster without feelings the easy way out?
There are many questions.
And the only answers for us left at the moment are sorrow, pain, fear, anger and hatred.
But also the perspective to learn, to forgive, to change, to build bridges in newly found unity, to stay vigilant and
to extend a hand instead of looking away.
Or: they're just batshit crazy.
|
On January 10 2015 09:30 ZenithM 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. 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 ?
|
Funny that discussing the ideology that lead these two guys to commit mass murder is shunned here but discussing how the victim's cartoons could provoke someone to such actions seems to be ok.
|
On January 10 2015 11:29 Holy_AT wrote:
The terrorists that carried out these attacks paid the ultimate price for their crimes.
They threw away their lives and ceased to exist.
They must have had an enormous anger, fed and nourished by the agitators who talk and manipulate.
Being angry about an injustice or a perceived injustice is normal.
What made them angry?
Was it really some lines scribbled on a sheet of paper or a screen?
A terrorist is not born, neither is a saint.
But that can't be an excuse to shift all the blame away from the perpetrators.
That would be to easy. A person is formed by others as he/she is formed by him or herself.
The terrorists surly were angry, but they are angry at what?
France?, the EU?, caricatures?, injustice in the Arab world? Christianity? The ominous West?
Or did they want to be something special? Heroes something important, did they want attention? To break out of their mediocre boring, dull and hard lives?
And did they only find the attention of radical fundamentalists?
Did they just seek a purpose? A purpose in a life that has become meaningless to them?
A purpose that was given to them by radicals?
Did they seek justice for the injustice and war happening in the middle east?
But instead of finding tools for justice they were given the tools for blind vengeance?
Did they knew they were doing something horrible but considered it a necessary evil?
Or were they convinced they were on a righteous path?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did they decided on this path of death and destruction?
Where did we go wrong?
And lost them behind, alone without contact to the rest of us to spin their thoughts of hatred and poison.
Did they have dreams in life? A family? A house? A car? A good job? A girlfriend?
At some point in their lives?
Did they ever look out onto the stars on a clear night, thinking of what is out there and marvelling on the moon?
Did they ever build a snowman? Or threw a snowball in a snowball fight?
And how did three boys throwing snowballs became the men spraying bullets?
Can it be explained by logic why they became terrorists?
Or was it just feelings? Feelings of anger? of hate? of desperation? of fear?
What does a terrorist feel? Does he feel? Or has he become numb?
Isn't just marking a terrorist as a soulless monster without feelings the easy way out?
There are many questions.
And the only answers for us left at the moment are sorrow, pain, fear, anger and hatred.
But also the perspective to learn, to forgive, to change, to build bridges in newly found unity, to stay vigilant and
to extend a hand instead of looking away.
Holy_AT, you spew out these words of understanding, but think its ok to put them through psychological brainwashing and 'resoccing' if they don't agree with your way of thinking.
I feel like you are trying to gain sympathy from others, when we have clearly told you that punishing others because of the way they think is just as bad.
And your questions are absurd. Who the fuck cares if they built snowmen? And you are assuming as children they enjoyed playing in the snow.
Perhaps they were just fanatics that believed they needed to defend Islam, Mohammad, and whatever else Charlie Hebdo magazine happened to mock with satire.
Yes its important to recognize these individuals before they escalate to violence and massacre, but your solution after recognition is immoral and inhumane.
We can't squelch their freedom of speech and thought through brainwashing until their beliefs align with your beliefs.
I don't think they are soulless monsters without feelings, because you are right that would be the easy way out, and also what the fundamentalists would want. The fundamentalist leaders don't want us to sympathize with them; they want us to fear them so that we don't use our freedom of speech and thought, or else another incident like this occurs.
Your solution to these problems run parallel to George Orwell's book 1984, and that is a society I don't want to live in.
|
http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=122567&page=10
You can see some pretty up close and clear videos of both the GIGN assault and the RAID one towards the bottom of the page. Didn't post the youtube links b/c the RAID one might be considered NSFW.
However, I suggest you still watch it. The RAID breach is a complete clusterfuck and a case study of how NOT to breach a site like that. It is so amateurish that honestly it makes me question if they couldn't have done A LOT more to save those hostages, or at least the one who didn't die before the breach. Real shame.
GIGN guys are the definition of elite though and did what you'd expect.
|
On January 10 2015 13:12 johnbongham wrote:
Funny that discussing the ideology that lead these two guys to commit mass murder is shunned here but discussing how the victim's cartoons could provoke someone to such actions seems to be ok.
Because we don't need to discuss the ideology that lead these two guys to commit mass murder.
Its not an issue of what their beliefs are, because in any religion, country, or large group of people, you will find a bunch of guys like this.
There will always be a few individuals that feel the need to express themselves through violence, and they are not exclusive to any group of people.
Look to the United States, where that guy killed two cops. His motives were race related, but blood was still shed.
There are radical within any group that will defend their beliefs or people with blood.
Discussing how funny cartoons provoked these individuals to carnage is in fact very important. It speaks largely over their actions and intent. As well, you have to wonder why they attacked Charlie Hedbo, and not other anti-muslim news outlets.
|
On January 10 2015 13:42 On_Slaught wrote:http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=122567&page=10You can see some pretty up close and clear videos of both the GIGN assault and the RAID one towards the bottom of the page. Didn't post the youtube links b/c the RAID one might be considered NSFW. However, I suggest you still watch it. The RAID breach is a complete clusterfuck and a case study of how NOT to breach a site like that. It is so amateurish that honestly it makes me question if they couldn't have done A LOT more to save those hostages, or at least the one who didn't die before the breach. Real shame. GIGN guys are the definition of elite though and did what you'd expect.
Didn't the authorities fear that they could have explosives of some sort? For all we know the doors \ entries could have been booby trapped.
EDIT: Watching the videos i get the feeling that he wasn't supposed to be able to get so close to the police. This could have gone even worse if the dude had some kind of dead man's switch.
|
Wtf Holy_AT, this is really not the most urgent point of view to consider right now. Who the fuck cares if these assholes were loving husbands and liked to play ball with their kids in the driveway...
|
While it isn't surprising that an event such as this occurred it still saddens me; I wish the victim's and their families well and can only hope that this event causes people to come together in solidarity. I am pleased to see that this event has brought the French people together and that almost everyone, including heads of states from Islamic countries have publicly condemned what these 3 crazed individuals have done.
I am surprised but pleased that the consensus in the muslim world seems to be to condemn these attacks. My usual complaint about Islam and the muslim population is that the moderate majority sit idly by and are silent when events like this take place, which isn't quite an endorsement of what the more radical members of their community do but neither is it a condemnation. But again, I am pleased to see that from everything I've heard and read there has been a significant amount of condemnation from within the muslim community.
One thing that does disgust me however, and this always seems to happen when this type of thing occurs, is that people begin discussing the motives, or perhaps better put, the lack of sensitivity or constraint that the publisher had in deciding to print these cartoons. To me this doesn't matter in the slightest. I am sick of listening to people say that the cartoons were needlessly offensive or that they were in poor taste. The entire point of satire is that nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond scrutiny, and everything is open to criticism. The fact that every media outlet in the world doesn't immediately reproduce the images in question seems cowardly to me. If every major publication and news outlet was to decide to show the images, it would be a sign of solidarity with those who lost their lives for simply doing their jobs; whether or not the publications find the cartoons to be offensive or not, or even funny or interesting seems secondary to me. The media has a moral obligation to stand up for the freedom of press and the freedom to express ideas, even those that some would find offensive. The fact that almost every publication that chooses not to reproduce the cartoons in question admits that they won't do so out of fear of backlash and indeed violence from the muslim community is telling. It is a sad state of affairs when the worldwide press is being stifled and are afraid of doing their jobs and reporting the news by showing people what 'all the fuss is about' because they are being intimidated by religious bullies.
It is also impossible to see this as an isolated and unusual incident. Many of my French comrades even in this thread stated that they knew something like this was bound to happen. Is it not telling that once anyone knows that the offices of a satirical publication were attacked and many people were killed, they can immediately tell you who the aggressor's were and what their motivation was? Out of what seems to be political correctness people are trying to avoid saying what seems blatantly obvious. Which is that 'western' civilization is at odds with Islam. You will have heard it said that these attacks and attacks like this do not represent the majority of muslims. This seems to me to be dishonest and is just an attempt to again be politically correct. I suppose I would have to grant that the majority of the muslim population wouldn't do what these men did and wouldn't themselves commit acts of violence, but then you have to also realize that the majority of the muslim population agrees with the premise that depictions of the prophet are highly offensive and should be condemned. Similarly, the majority of the muslim population believes that the punishments for apostasy and homosexuality, among other things, should be death. So I grant that the majority of muslims are not violent and wouldn't commit such disgusting acts of cruelty, but at what point does one have to stop being politically correct and realize that the silent majority is in its own way a validating force and influence for the extremists within the population.
To try and put it simply I think our civilization, or 'western' civilization if you like, is fundamentally at odds with the teachings of Islam. I hold the view that all religions are in fact at odds with western civilization, but that the 'older' religions have gone through their periods of turmoil, or better put, have already underwent their 'growing pains' so to say. The isrealites went through their period of warring with their neighbors and committing atrocities against them, as has christiantly. Islam however is younger than both of these religions, and is in fact the youngest of the major religions, so in a way it should be expected that it should undergo the same growing pains that the other major religions of the world have undergone. What happened in the past and what needs to happen now is that the rest of the world needs to figuratively sit Islam down at the table and politely explain to them that this is not how civilized people behave, that if you continue to behave this way you will force us to do something about it, and that if you want to be a respected part of the global community you have to put aside some of the barbaric teachings of some of your texts and clerics and start behaving like a civilized people.
|
On January 10 2015 14:54 Kickstart wrote:
One thing that does disgust me however, and this always seems to happen when this type of thing occurs, is that people begin discussing the motives, or perhaps better put, the lack of sensitivity or constraint that the publisher had in deciding to print these cartoons. To me this doesn't matter in the slightest. I am sick of listening to people say that the cartoons were needlessly offensive or that they were in poor taste. The entire point of satire is that nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond scrutiny, and everything is open to criticism. The fact that every media outlet in the world doesn't immediately reproduce the images in question seems cowardly to me. If every major publication and news outlet was to decide to show the images, it would be a sign of solidarity with those who lost their lives for simply doing their jobs; whether or not the publications find the cartoons to be offensive or not, or even funny or interesting seems secondary to me. The media has a moral obligation to stand up for the freedom of press and the freedom to express ideas, even those that some would find offensive. The fact that almost every publication that chooses not to reproduce the cartoons in question admits that they won't do so out of fear of backlash and indeed violence from the muslim community is telling. It is a sad state of affairs when the worldwide press is being stifled and are afraid of doing their jobs and reporting the news by showing people what 'all the fuss is about' because they are being intimidated by religious bullies.
I want to focus on this paragraph, more specifically the part in bold. I agree it is a sad state of affairs, but its totally understandable.
If I was the head editor of a newspaper, I have to consider the ramifications of publishing the content that incited this massacre. More innocent people might be in danger if it was published elsewhere internationally.
I would like to see them publish the satirical content, but not at the expense of anymore lives.
|
On January 10 2015 15:07 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 14:54 Kickstart wrote:
One thing that does disgust me however, and this always seems to happen when this type of thing occurs, is that people begin discussing the motives, or perhaps better put, the lack of sensitivity or constraint that the publisher had in deciding to print these cartoons. To me this doesn't matter in the slightest. I am sick of listening to people say that the cartoons were needlessly offensive or that they were in poor taste. The entire point of satire is that nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond scrutiny, and everything is open to criticism. The fact that every media outlet in the world doesn't immediately reproduce the images in question seems cowardly to me. If every major publication and news outlet was to decide to show the images, it would be a sign of solidarity with those who lost their lives for simply doing their jobs; whether or not the publications find the cartoons to be offensive or not, or even funny or interesting seems secondary to me. The media has a moral obligation to stand up for the freedom of press and the freedom to express ideas, even those that some would find offensive. The fact that almost every publication that chooses not to reproduce the cartoons in question admits that they won't do so out of fear of backlash and indeed violence from the muslim community is telling. It is a sad state of affairs when the worldwide press is being stifled and are afraid of doing their jobs and reporting the news by showing people what 'all the fuss is about' because they are being intimidated by religious bullies.
I want to focus on this paragraph, more specifically the part in bold. I agree it is a sad state of affairs, but its totally understandable. If I was the head editor of a newspaper, I have to consider the ramifications of publishing the content that incited this massacre. More innocent people might be in danger if it was published elsewhere internationally. I would like to see them publish the satirical content, but not at the expense of anymore lives.
Yes that is sort of my point. Most people would like to see, and in my mind deserve to see what the satirical content was. I agree that it is a tough decision to make, but the fact that so many publications will not publish the content out of fear shows that the religious bullies, and indeed the perpetrator's of this particular atrocity are, for lack of a better term, 'winning' in their purported cause to stop the publication of depictions of the prophet. If, as I suggested, every publication went ahead and published the content anyways, it would be impossible for them all to be targeted. And again, do the major media outlets not have a moral obligation to stand up to these types of threats to the free expression of ideals, I posit that those that are able are indeed obligated to do so.
|
On January 10 2015 11:29 Holy_AT wrote:
The terrorists that carried out these attacks paid the ultimate price for their crimes.
They threw away their lives and ceased to exist.
They must have had an enormous anger, fed and nourished by the agitators who talk and manipulate.
Being angry about an injustice or a perceived injustice is normal.
What made them angry?
Was it really some lines scribbled on a sheet of paper or a screen?
A terrorist is not born, neither is a saint.
But that can't be an excuse to shift all the blame away from the perpetrators.
That would be to easy. A person is formed by others as he/she is formed by him or herself.
The terrorists surly were angry, but they are angry at what?
France?, the EU?, caricatures?, injustice in the Arab world? Christianity? The ominous West?
Or did they want to be something special? Heroes something important, did they want attention? To break out of their mediocre boring, dull and hard lives?
And did they only find the attention of radical fundamentalists?
Did they just seek a purpose? A purpose in a life that has become meaningless to them?
A purpose that was given to them by radicals?
Did they seek justice for the injustice and war happening in the middle east?
But instead of finding tools for justice they were given the tools for blind vengeance?
Did they knew they were doing something horrible but considered it a necessary evil?
Or were they convinced they were on a righteous path?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did they decided on this path of death and destruction?
Where did we go wrong?
And lost them behind, alone without contact to the rest of us to spin their thoughts of hatred and poison.
Did they have dreams in life? A family? A house? A car? A good job? A girlfriend?
At some point in their lives?
Did they ever look out onto the stars on a clear night, thinking of what is out there and marvelling on the moon?
Did they ever build a snowman? Or threw a snowball in a snowball fight?
And how did three boys throwing snowballs became the men spraying bullets?
Can it be explained by logic why they became terrorists?
Or was it just feelings? Feelings of anger? of hate? of desperation? of fear?
What does a terrorist feel? Does he feel? Or has he become numb?
Isn't just marking a terrorist as a soulless monster without feelings the easy way out?
There are many questions.
And the only answers for us left at the moment are sorrow, pain, fear, anger and hatred.
But also the perspective to learn, to forgive, to change, to build bridges in newly found unity, to stay vigilant and
to extend a hand instead of looking away.
You have got to cut the bullshit.
Yes they were people like the rest of us. Yes they stood for something like the rest of us.
But unlike the rest of us, they took to shooting innocent and uninvolved civilians to prove a point. This is entirely unforgivable.
In today's world, there are ways to express oneself or to argue a point without resorting to violence.
|
On January 10 2015 13:12 johnbongham wrote:
Funny that discussing the ideology that lead these two guys to commit mass murder is shunned here but discussing how the victim's cartoons could provoke someone to such actions seems to be ok.
Everything is said.
On January 10 2015 13:42 On_Slaught wrote:http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=122567&page=10You can see some pretty up close and clear videos of both the GIGN assault and the RAID one towards the bottom of the page. Didn't post the youtube links b/c the RAID one might be considered NSFW. However, I suggest you still watch it. The RAID breach is a complete clusterfuck and a case study of how NOT to breach a site like that. It is so amateurish that honestly it makes me question if they couldn't have done A LOT more to save those hostages, or at least the one who didn't die before the breach. Real shame. GIGN guys are the definition of elite though and did what you'd expect.
The two situation are really different tho.
Apparently, in the grocery a guy who was beneaf first floor took the elevator and got out through the security exit. He had the key of the gate with so he gave that to the police but, at the same time, Coulibaly started to make a prayer, and the police thought that he was doing that just before killing all the hostages. So they decided to charge in a rush.
Also, when they charged, Coulibaly rushed at them shooting.
|
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 ?
Absolutely all the time
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
