Charlie Hebdo attack

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7492
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:52 am UTC

Have you seen the interview with the "terrorism analyst" in MSNBC or even the stories that ran on CNN?

Of course not. I am not in the US, this attack was not in the US, Americans don't seem to have anything to do with the events. Bit weird to make this about US politics.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:02 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Have you seen the interview with the "terrorism analyst" in MSNBC or even the stories that ran on CNN?

Of course not. I am not in the US, this attack was not in the US, Americans don't seem to have anything to do with the events. Bit weird to make this about US politics.


CNN is internationally consumed. They have a large presence in Latin America as well, and it's merely an example, feel free to consult with your local left-leaning media. I certainly have frequented that of Spain, but I mentioned a US entity specifically because our White House gave a tepid response to the event that didn't even acknowledge the motivation behind the attack (i.e. it sanitized it). Is it wrong to comment on how an event in France is being presented to a US consumer from a side of the political spectrum that has a sizable presence and influence on my life?

Why would it be weird to comment on international reactions to what has become an event of international interest?
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Derek
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Derek » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:09 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/01/07/ap-censors-muhammad-cartoons.html

Yes, I agree that this is cowardly. As cliche as "then the terrorists win" is, this is in fact exactly what they're hoping to achieve*. It emboldens them and it leaves those who continue to not censor isolated and vulnerable. I feel the best response to this attack would be to reprint these comics on the front page of every major newspaper, a way of saying "we are not afraid".

*Well, they would probably really like the images not be shown at all, but I'm sure they much prefer censored images to uncensored.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:13 am UTC

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/the-e ... -cartoons/

Sorry in advance for the link to this site, but as much as it pains me to link to this awful site, the article is actually relevant and well done if you can stay away from the right-wing comments.

Associated Press, NBC, MSNBC,CNBC, CNN, New York Daily News, The Telegraph (UK), The Jewish Chronicle (UK), New York Times, CBS, ABC news.

For anyone not in the US, that's pretty much the entirety of news outlets with a large following that aren't Fox News (which is unbearable). At least The Wall Street Journal is willing to do a reprint of the cartoon.

I'll be compiling a list of the news media in Spain as well, since it's another language I can fluently speak and may have time for Italian as well. It's a bit late but I'll update the post when I've got it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/p ... -1.1162737

Image

NYDaily news will blur out the Muhammad character, but leave the Jewish caricature revealed.

BTW the Associated Press will not show "deliberatively provocative images" yet it will show

Image
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:39 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

elasto
Posts: 3563
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby elasto » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:37 am UTC

To play devil's advocate...

Two principles are in opposition here: There's 'freedom of speech' and 'don't be a dick'.

Normally if someone is very offended by something, the polite and civilized course of action is to not to be a dick about it. eg. If homosexual people don't like being referred to as 'fags', and African Americans don't like being referred to as 'n*ggers', then don't be a dick and just use a term that causes less offence.

It happens that even moderate Muslims can be offended by images of Mohammed. The fact that some of them get offended to such a ridiculous degree that they murder over it doesn't alter the fundamental equation that one shouldn't be a dick to the moderates who'd never respond in such crazy fashion.

To act otherwise would be like starting calling all black people we meet 'n*gger' to 'affirm the freedom of speech of' and 'stand in solidarity with' a hypothetical white person unjustly murdered after he called a black person he met a 'n*gger'.

The hypothetical black person overreacting would not justify us being dicks on the basis of 'affirming freedom of speech' - and nor does these Muslims overreacting justify likewise.

Derek
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Derek » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:47 am UTC

elasto wrote:Two principles are in opposition here: There's 'freedom of speech' and 'don't be a dick'.

The difference is that one is a human right, and the other is a principle of social etiquette. If someone is a dick to you, you can complain about it, and that's about it.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:47 am UTC

The examples between calling someone a racial slur and performing blasphemy are not even comparable. How can you possibly live when anything you do can fall under offense to someone's religion? How is a gay couple supposed to respond to a moderate Muslim offended by their kissing? Aren't they being "dicks"?

When you call someone a nigger, you're conjuring up a history of brutal oppression and are hinting at such a relationship between you and that black person. By comparison both Christianity and Islam have been murderous conquerors throughout most of their history.

Religion is not a race and it deserves no respect by comparison to something immutable like race. I mean I can come in this thread and pretend express my deep cultural belief that women are simply unsuited for the STEM field and I doubt you would show me much tolerance or grace. Religion is a mere philosophy, a collection of opinions no more deserving of respect than any other belief system you might show disdain for.

And while I can acknowledge that it is common practice in most of the world for someone to react violently when their religion is perceived to be under attack, I should not shape my actions to avoid the wrath of the ignorant. It's no better than "well, you knew what was going to happen when you went to that frathouse full of hormonal men and consumed alcohol while scantily dressed around them; so, why not avoid doing those things in the first place? You know men can't control themselves".

The obvious answer is that you are condescending to men, just as you're condescending to Muslims when you assume they're some wild beasts who can't control instincts. The answer is not only can they restrain themselves, but they SHOULD and all the social and legal wrath should fall on them like a sack of bricks if they don't. The victims never has an onus fall on them to prevent violence against them.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10212
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:43 pm UTC

I think that the more famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons created by those that died should be out on billboards everywhere, just as a matter of spite. Build makeshift shrines for each of the fallen, with every picture of each cartoon they made, but with hidden cameras to see who defaces them. None of this censorship crap. Change the formula from 'send death threats, we comply' to 'send death threats, we double down'.

Je suis Charlie.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:53 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:I do not know what are the murders' true intentions/perspectives. This is why my thoughts were in the form of questions. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to say they could be psychopaths. People who think "normally" tend not resort to unwarranted violence. You think it is highly unlikely that they're psychopaths in a very specific sense of the word. I think that is a fair point.

And I'm trying to explain that it is is not fair nor reasonable. It is entirely unreasonable to say they are psychopaths as we have no evidence at all to suggest that they are and it is not fair to the victims, the attackers or the discussion to unreasonably assume the motivation of why they were killed.

From what I've read so far, from what people have been able to find out, they were soldiers. This act was not something that they viewed as unwarranted, and that you just said it is is exactly the problem with calling them psychopaths. When you do so you fail to understand the actual problem, you even just excused the actual problem by saying it was unwarranted, which is the same problem that Lucrece is mentioning when he brings up Left Media's reaction (and the reason the left media is saying stupid largely has to do with that is what people want to hear and they need to maintain their ratings). So instead of dismissing this attack as the work of psychopaths please understand it is the work of a culture that believes satire of their beliefs warrants murder.

So please stop, and you should really stop using that word for anything it is a useless word both in its technical and popular usage.

What are "cultures that thrive on irrationality"?

Ones whose beliefs are arrived at without rationality. If population of a culture can't hold onto their beliefs if they start applying reason to them it is a culture that thrives on that population being unable or unwilling to think about their beliefs rationally.

-------------------------

Derek wrote:This attack is particularly upsetting to me because it's an attack directly on freedom of expression. The attackers are saying that they believe their "right" to not be offended supercedes anyone else's right to make fun of their religion, and they believe the penalty for violating their "right" is death. If there is any silver lining to this, I hope it renews people's interest in defending free expression and shows how backwards any "right to not be offended" is.

This is not about their right to not be offended. They didn't kill them because they are offended, they most likely killed them because the believe they sinned against their belief structure. This sin may have offended them but it is the perceived sin not the offense that led to the killing.

---------------------

elasto wrote:To play devil's advocate...

Two principles are in opposition here: There's 'freedom of speech' and 'don't be a dick'.

This has been fairly well responded too, I just wanted to add the dickiness(?) starts when someone teaches someone else to be offended by something that we have no good reason to believe causes harm. To then expect the rest of society to 'not be a dick' to ones ideology when you are actively creating unreasonable beliefs they are the ones being dickish.

------------------

CorruptUser wrote:I think that the more famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons created by those that died should be out on billboards everywhere, just as a matter of spite. Build makeshift shrines for each of the fallen, with every picture of each cartoon they made, but with hidden cameras to see who defaces them. None of this censorship crap. Change the formula from 'send death threats, we comply' to 'send death threats, we double down'.

Je suis Charlie.


The intention shouldn't even be spite, it should be solidarity and support.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby azaethral » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:35 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:The intention shouldn't even be spite, it should be solidarity and support.


Solidarity and support aren't even controversial, since countries like Russia and Iran are on board too.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:43 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Obama's poor response to Benghazi.

...

Seriously, fuck this shit. These people are fucking disgusting. If it were up to me, I would seize every dime of their assets and send them into exile.


For someone obstensibly objecting that others seize every opportunity to turn something into partisan point scoring, you do exactly the same.

Zcorp wrote:
kingofdreams wrote:Then rather than say that they are acting irrationally and immorally, contravening the teaching of islam in a manner that seems devoid of sense. I will say that murder with motive is still murder, and that killing to protect a progenitor, whose visual representation is anathema principally to stop idolatrous worship of him, is so alien an interpretation of a moral schemata that I cannot see the sense of it.

Now we are actually getting off topic, but a lot of the distaste for religion in secular society comes from the unfortunate reality that this is not an alien interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

That such ideas are kind of stated and often interpreted to mean such things lends itself toward immature beliefs such as murdering people because they satire your beliefs. This isn't even irrational or immortal behavior for people who hold such beliefs.


Slight correction that borders on pedantic...immoral, not immortal.

It is...certainly not the only religious interpretation, but it is one, and it's sufficiently common and problematic as to have a large effect. However, I do not think that restricting free speech is the answer.

Terrorists are few. We are many. If everyone's doing the forbidden thing, they can hardly attack us all. If we stop doing it, then, well...they have the power to strike at the few who stand out. Or if nobody stands out, to grow even more extreme, and set another, more restrictive demand. I suggest that we make/distribute a great MANY cartoons similar to those that preceeded this event.

Chen
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Chen » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Terrorists are few. We are many. If everyone's doing the forbidden thing, they can hardly attack us all. If we stop doing it, then, well...they have the power to strike at the few who stand out. Or if nobody stands out, to grow even more extreme, and set another, more restrictive demand. I suggest that we make/distribute a great MANY cartoons similar to those that preceeded this event.


For the next days and weeks perhaps drawing more cartoons to show solidarity is fine. There is a fine line to be drawn here though between showing solidarity and simply encouraging intolerance towards all Muslims. I'm fine with satirical cartoons using whatever it is to make a comedic or otherwise apt point. I'm not ok with making cartoons offensive just because you can. Look at the pictures produced during the whole "Draw Mohammed Day" thing. The vast majority were outlets for intolerance more than trying to make a cogent point about censorship.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:For someone obstensibly objecting that others seize every opportunity to turn something into partisan point scoring, you do exactly the same.


Slight correction that borders on pedantic...immoral, not immortal.

It is...certainly not the only religious interpretation, but it is one, and it's sufficiently common and problematic as to have a large effect. However, I do not think that restricting free speech is the answer.

Ahh here comes the troll, what took you so long?

Thanks for correcting my typo!

Who said anything about restricting free speech? why do you try and destroy every discussion you enter by attempting to change it to something petty, be more creative you are overly repetitive now. You can be a better troll than this, this example of it isn't even as subtle as you normally are. Try again please.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:19 pm UTC

The next issue of Charlie Hebdo will be published with over 10 times its circulation, though it will be half the size.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Vahir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:26 pm UTC

Zcorp, you've put out a lot of rhethoric, but seem to be dancing around the issue with it. People keep mistaking your intent because your answers are ambiguous. What exactly do you propose be done as a result of this attack?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:27 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The obvious answer is that you are condescending to men, just as you're condescending to Muslims when you assume they're some wild beasts who can't control instincts. The answer is not only can they restrain themselves, but they SHOULD and all the social and legal wrath should fall on them like a sack of bricks if they don't. The victims never has an onus fall on them to prevent violence against them.


Except the vast vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and restrained. The actions that happened in the Charlie Hebdo attack were the actions of roughly 3 gunmen (and maybe some of their associates). I don't think it is fair to judge an entire religion on the actions of a few. Islam isn't even a unified religion. Some parts of it are at war with itself. (IE: ISIS and all of that middle east stuff going on).

Besides, comedians are dicks. When Stephen Colbert encourages trolling on Wikipedia, I'm going to call him a dick. Fortunately, no violence has been incited over Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia Trolling. Similarly, I will not deny that Charlie Hebdo were dicks to religious groups (not only Islam either). But such is the nature of comedy and free speech. I don't believe that "comedians should be even BIGGER dicks to everyone" to be the right answer here.

Personally speaking, I'd weigh the actions differently depending on how the investigations go. I'm currently assuming that the event is an international terror attack against Charlie Hebdo. But if this turns out to be domestic terrorism, my opinion on the "solution" will be pretty different.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby leady » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:49 pm UTC

I defer to Sam Harris on the broader problem that its not a minority position to support the outcome of defacto blasphemy protection - this is the problem.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:53 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Besides, comedians are dicks. When Stephen Colbert encourages trolling on Wikipedia, I'm going to call him a dick. Fortunately, no violence has been incited over Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia Trolling. Similarly, I will not deny that Charlie Hebdo were dicks to religious groups (not only Islam either). But such is the nature of comedy and free speech. I don't believe that "comedians should be even BIGGER dicks to everyone" to be the right answer here.

Pointing out the absurdity of Aniconism isn't the comedians being dicks, it is diskish to hold value in something so unreasonable in the first place. Pointing out that someone else is a dick is not being one.

Vahir wrote:Zcorp, you've put out a lot of rhethoric, but seem to be dancing around the issue with it. People keep mistaking your intent because your answers are ambiguous. What exactly do you propose be done as a result of this attack?

Rhetoric and dancing around? I honestly have no clue how you can get that from what I've said, nor are my answers ambiguous, if they were they wouldn't get cleared up by me simply repeating myself.

A show of support for the ideals the victims were killed for is what should be done in the short run. In the long run we need to better educate and provide for the the groups of people that have been continually shat upon. We need to elect leaders that want to help and support the memetic evolution of the middle east instead of bombing and assassinating them for oil. It will probably a fairly bloody process but that's only because we have bloodied them for so long while being apathetic to the suffering we cause them directly and indirectly. The situation we have now comes from entirely destructive foreign policy of America and some of Europe. We need to stand up against absurd beliefs while also supporting the groups surrounding extremists in overcoming the terrible economic and unenlightened reality we have forced upon them.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7492
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:00 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
Ahh here comes the troll, what took you so long?

Thanks for correcting my typo!

Who said anything about restricting free speech? why do you try and destroy every discussion you enter by attempting to change it to something petty, be more creative you are overly repetitive now. You can be a better troll than this, this example of it isn't even as subtle as you normally are. Try again please.

Zcorp, I have warned you before, for exactly this behaviour. I have had enough.

You are now banned from the News and Articles subforum.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:01 pm UTC


As I said, banned.

-- Zamfir

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10212
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:33 pm UTC

I think I should explain radical/extremist Islam for everyone.

So, Ottoman Empire. Quasi-religious, but so was Europe. End of 18th century, a group of Muslim tribesmen near Mecca start the Salafi (ancestors) movement led by Wahhab to "restore" Islam to the good ol' days and dominate the Islamic world, but for the most part they are practically nothing. Some of them happen to be the house of Saud. WWI, Ottoman Empire collapses, bunch of stuff in Europe, WWII. House of Saud seizes its chance, takes over the bulk of the Arabian peninsula, renamed it Saudi Arabia. Forces their interpretation of Sharia on the whole place, turning it Salafi. Massive oil wealth, Saudis spend fortunes funding Salafis throughout the Islamic world. Around the same time, Muslim Brotherhood forms as a parrelell group, though willing to use "western" things like democracy. Saudi Arabia opens dialogue with the west, pretends to end the slave trade, tries to make peace with the Shias, so is accused of being unislamic by the rest of the Salafis and called Wahhabis as insult. Back in Egypt, Qutb advocates more violent means to create one world Islamic state. Egypt executes him as a threat to their authority, his followers form Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:21 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Terrorists are few. We are many. If everyone's doing the forbidden thing, they can hardly attack us all. If we stop doing it, then, well...they have the power to strike at the few who stand out. Or if nobody stands out, to grow even more extreme, and set another, more restrictive demand. I suggest that we make/distribute a great MANY cartoons similar to those that preceeded this event.


For the next days and weeks perhaps drawing more cartoons to show solidarity is fine. There is a fine line to be drawn here though between showing solidarity and simply encouraging intolerance towards all Muslims. I'm fine with satirical cartoons using whatever it is to make a comedic or otherwise apt point. I'm not ok with making cartoons offensive just because you can. Look at the pictures produced during the whole "Draw Mohammed Day" thing. The vast majority were outlets for intolerance more than trying to make a cogent point about censorship.


I'd prefer good cartoons over not. However, even if something is crude or offensive, it certainly doesn't excuse or justify killing.

Why should everyone be ever so tolerant towards religion when religion is so often intolerant of others? Us atheists may, at times, be cynical, superior or even rude in dismissal of religion, or outright mock religious norms. Is there a religion that does not treat nonreligion in this manner? I am a lot more worried about folks killing other folks than folks happening to be rude. The latter problem is not even close to on par with the former.

(just letting the side discussion that headed to a ban be, as I honestly don't even know what I'd be responding to there)

Chen
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Chen » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'd prefer good cartoons over not. However, even if something is crude or offensive, it certainly doesn't excuse or justify killing.

Why should everyone be ever so tolerant towards religion when religion is so often intolerant of others? Us atheists may, at times, be cynical, superior or even rude in dismissal of religion, or outright mock religious norms. Is there a religion that does not treat nonreligion in this manner? I am a lot more worried about folks killing other folks than folks happening to be rude. The latter problem is not even close to on par with the former.


Oh I agree in no way excuses or justifies killing (if that even needed to be said).

People should be tolerant towards other people. Whether it is due to religion or not. You say religion is often intolerant of others, but this becomes similar to the "all Muslim's are terrorists" line of thinking. Yes there are definitely people who use their religions as clubs to dish out intolerance towards others. But there are a good many religious people who are in fact tolerant. But those are the voices that are drowned out by the crazy voices like your Westboro Baptist Church or any of these fantatical, terrorist Muslims. Things like Draw Mohammad Day are people saying "No" to censorship by spitting in the faces of a large number of people who were never even asking for censorship in the first place.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10212
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:07 pm UTC

The problem is the extremists give more support than the non extremists give opposition.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Cradarc » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:30 pm UTC

http://www.newsnet5.com/decodedc/decoding-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting

1. 12 People were killed. Most people (at least Westerners) think it was unwarranted violence.
2. It is very likely that the killers were religiously motivated.
3. People all over are expressing their opposition toward the murderers.

Now what?
The problem is we have groups of people that do not share the same moral standards as the majority. If they do, they are clearly ignoring them in particular situations. Suppose the attack occurred in a predominantly Muslim country, how would the response differ? Would Charlie Hebdo have published the controversial cartoon in the first place?

I think the key point is that the men who committed the attack were French citizens and are expected to follow French laws. French law does not permit killing people for poking fun at a religious figure. If these men thoughtfully decided (I still believe there's a possibility they are just crazy radicals, despite Zcorp's complaints) to break their duty to national law, and instead pursue a moral obligation they believe transcends it, to what extent are they "wrong"?
They will be punished for their actions. However, we can't really prevent these type of things from happening without some form of "appeasement" to their beliefs.
In a Muslim country, such appeasement would be pretty reasonable. A magazine like Charlie Hebdo should be smart enough to not publish something that will offend 99% of the population. In France, not so much.

Free speech is like lighting an oil lamp. It can shed light on many different things and is very useful for the growth and spread of ideas. However, if your oil lamp contains a significant amount of nitroglycerin, there could be an explosive outcome.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby MartianInvader » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:34 pm UTC

I think the actions of the extremists are completely rational here - their ultimate goal isn't tolerance of Islam, it's religious war. Everything they do that stokes the fires of hate, on either side (indeed anything that divides people into "sides" at all), moves them towards their goal.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:53 pm UTC

Is seeking religious war in any context rational (outside of the usual insanity it takes to seek out conflict)? Within the multicultural west or on the world stage in what possible scenario could they win?
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10212
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

Their goal is to establish a theocracy. They won in Iran. They won in Afghanistan (until they attacked the US, sorta). Prior to the bombing campaign they were winning in Iraq/Syria. They nearly won in Egypt. They sorta won in Saudi Arabia. They might win in Turkey.

Sounds like they can indeed win...

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:56 am UTC

Is there any news on the suspects?

I think its a reasonably safe bet that the suspects are Salafi Muslims. But ideally, I'd like this fact confirmed officially. There has been at least one attack in the US where the attackers were assumed to be Muslim but then ended up to be like... a white-supremacist Holocaust denier or something completely unrelated.

Again, I think its a reasonable presumption based on the target and everything, but I'd like an official confirmation just to be sure.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3563
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby elasto » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:43 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I think the actions of the extremists are completely rational here - their ultimate goal isn't tolerance of Islam, it's religious war. Everything they do that stokes the fires of hate, on either side (indeed anything that divides people into "sides" at all), moves them towards their goal.

Exactly.

This is a battle for hearts and minds - but people often misinterpret what that means: It doesn't mean a wishy-washy, touchy-feeling approach is expected to win over the extremists. It means that the battle is over the undecided moderates who dislike the actions of both sides.

Some extremists carry out an extreme act; That provokes extreme responses: For example, in the last day French Muslims have been abused, shot at and (fake) grenades have been thrown into French Mosques at prayer and so on. These extreme responses cause a portion of the undecided to become extremist.

So long as an act causes more moderates to become extremist than vice-versa then the act was 'worth it' from the terrorists' point of view, strategically speaking.

In the battle for hearts and minds, everyone joining in solidarity and having a 'Draw Mohammed Day' (or whatever) just plays into the extremists' hands. No matter how tempting it is to 'stick two fingers up' we need to hold our collective nerve and remember 'don't be a dick' is an important principle in the West for good reason.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10212
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:21 am UTC

And how does that, long term, allow for free speech?

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby azaethral » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:25 am UTC

kingofdreams wrote:Is seeking religious war in any context rational (outside of the usual insanity it takes to seek out conflict)? Within the multicultural west or on the world stage in what possible scenario could they win?


I'm not sure that it applies in any way to the present situation, but to answer your rhetorical in general terms: is it ever rational to seek out the manager of a store, knowing that the result will be a conflict?

zukenft
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:34 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby zukenft » Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:40 am UTC

we're slowly getting there folks. more distrust and revenge attacks against muslims, more people thinking all muslims are inferior and barbaric race. let's hope the western governments start rounding them up and putting them in complete surveillance to stop more terrorism acts.
Welcome back, Fascism!

Derek
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Derek » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:41 am UTC

zukenft wrote:we're slowly getting there folks. more distrust and revenge attacks against muslims, more people thinking all muslims are inferior and barbaric race. let's hope the western governments start rounding them up and putting them in complete surveillance to stop more terrorism acts.
Welcome back, Fascism!

There's a difference between hating Muslims and believing that Islam as a religion has some serious problems. Western countries have been able to discuss the various problems with Christianity for awhile now, why can Islam not be criticized for it's problems?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:49 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And how does that, long term, allow for free speech?


Ideally, various subcultures should have enough respect for each other that free speech doesn't entail insulting everyone. Imagine if a bunch of white comedians just started making "nigger" jokes, while wearing blackface and claiming slavery is the greatest. Non-ironically (so it isn't like Robert Downey Jr's Blackface in Tropic Thunder).

I mean, yeah, its in their right to do that if they really wanted to. But you'd want to reluctantly defend their freedom of speech. You shouldn't encourage such behavior.

Derek wrote:
zukenft wrote:we're slowly getting there folks. more distrust and revenge attacks against muslims, more people thinking all muslims are inferior and barbaric race. let's hope the western governments start rounding them up and putting them in complete surveillance to stop more terrorism acts.
Welcome back, Fascism!

There's a difference between hating Muslims and believing that Islam as a religion has some serious problems. Western countries have been able to discuss the various problems with Christianity for awhile now, why can Islam not be criticized for it's problems?


Because Muslims don't have the same relationship as Christians have with Europe. The first step is to more diplomatically approach the Muslim world, enable cultural exchanges and mend relationships. After that point, after they're more trustful of "The West" and more understanding of what free speech means to us, I think we can go back to cracking jokes about them. But from a diplomatic point of view, I think we need to do more things like how Obama is handling the issue. Focus on denouncing particular viewpoints, criticizing extremism while keeping our language welcoming to the much larger sect of moderate Muslims.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7492
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:37 am UTC

There's a difference between hating Muslims and believing that Islam as a religion has some serious problems. Western countries have been able to discuss the various problems with Christianity for awhile now, why can Islam not be criticized for it's problems?


Thing is, public criticisim of Islam is often the polite face of private racism. Literally. It's very, very common to find people who talk in public about the problems of Islam as a religion, but when you talk to them personally (and you look impeccably native), they'll put on the boys-amongst-each-other face, and talk about the unwashed Morrocans who should go back to their own country where they can practice their lazy thieving ways on each other, instead off scrounging from the taxes paid by hard-working true Dutchmen. They're no shy about it. If you don't say too much, they'll take for granted that share this vision/

This is hardly a secret. Immigrants from muslim countries are very unpopular in most countries in Europe, and the stigma lasts for generations. But it's against the norms (and in certain circumstances against the law) to target people based on their ethnic background. So people, including politicians, use Islam as a proxy.

Sometimes there is a crack in the surface. Last year, the most prominent anti-islam politician in the Netherlands was giddy from an electoral success, and started to rally a crowd: Do we want more, or less Morroccans? Less, less, the crowd shouted. Then I'll arrange that for you, he concluded. Everyone already knew that his party thrives on anti-immigrant sentiment. But it's not supposed to be this open. Officially his party is critical of Islam, a religion, and it's entirely accidental that this religion just happens to coincide with unpopular immigrant groups.

Of course, there are people with honest, non-dog-whistling criticism of Islam. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo had such a history of insulting everyone that they could insult muslims with a pretty clear conscience. But there are quite some publication who care a lot about free speech when it comes to insulting muslims, but don't seem to care one iotta about it in other contexts.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby johnny_7713 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:55 am UTC

Derek wrote:
zukenft wrote:we're slowly getting there folks. more distrust and revenge attacks against muslims, more people thinking all muslims are inferior and barbaric race. let's hope the western governments start rounding them up and putting them in complete surveillance to stop more terrorism acts.
Welcome back, Fascism!

There's a difference between hating Muslims and believing that Islam as a religion has some serious problems. Western countries have been able to discuss the various problems with Christianity for awhile now, why can Islam not be criticized for it's problems?


In the West Christianity is the religion of the majority and those in positions of power (whether that's in terms of media influence or political or economic power). Islam is typically the religion of minorities that reside in a lower social-economic class and that face a bunch of xenophobia / anti-immigrant sentiment. Furthermore for quite a number of those people being muslim is an important part of their identity as they are neither at home in their (or their parents' ) country of origin, nor are they fully accepted as citizens of their new homes.
On an international scale, most of the Islamic world was under Western colonial rule until about half a century ago. Even since then Western foreign policy towards the Islamic world (and in particular the Middle-East) has been focused on extracting maximum economic value, and has included the overthrow of democratically elected governments and active support for dictatorial regimes.

None of this is to say you shouldn't criticise Islam, but it does mean that criticism of Christianity and of Islam are not one-to-one comparable.
There's also a difference between expressing a valid criticism which is painful to hear and thus offensive to some people, and just being a dick.

It's the difference between saying: 'African-Americans are overrepresented in crime statistics, we should find out what the causes are and how we can solve that.' and drawing a bunch of people with black skin, frizzy hair and huge red lips conducting an armed robbery with the caption: 'Who will rid us of black criminals?'

Derek
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Derek » Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:26 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:Of course, there are people with honest, non-dog-whistling criticism of Islam. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo had such a history of insulting everyone that they could insult muslims with a pretty clear conscience. But there are quite some publication who care a lot about free speech when it comes to insulting muslims, but don't seem to care one iotta about it in other contexts.

I'm very much aware of the hypocrisy of many people on this issue. After all, many of the people denouncing these attacks were not long ago lauding the "right to be forgotten", a flagrant violation of free expression. And defending free speech when it's your speech, but remaining quiet or standing for "decency" or "civility" or "the children" when it's your opponent's speech is an age-old tradition of all sides of the political spectrum. Honestly, I don't even know if Charlie Hebdo is one of these hypocrites or not. But that doesn't repudiate free expression, nor does it make this attack any less of an attack on free expression. It just makes those people hypocrites.

In the West Christianity is the religion of the majority and those in positions of power (whether that's in terms of media influence or political or economic power). Islam is typically the religion of minorities that reside in a lower social-economic class and that face a bunch of xenophobia / anti-immigrant sentiment. Furthermore for quite a number of those people being muslim is an important part of their identity as they are neither at home in their (or their parents' ) country of origin, nor are they fully accepted as citizens of their new homes.
On an international scale, most of the Islamic world was under Western colonial rule until about half a century ago. Even since then Western foreign policy towards the Islamic world (and in particular the Middle-East) has been focused on extracting maximum economic value, and has included the overthrow of democratically elected governments and active support for dictatorial regimes.

Being in a minority, being poor, or being from a historically colonized country does not protect you or your religion from criticism, or give you the right to not be offended. At best, these can provide an explanation for your flaws, but it does not make them right.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7492
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:03 am UTC

Derek, you're fighting strawmen. Yes , of course people can criticise Islam. It can be a good thing to do so, in certain circumstances. In other circumstances it can be a bad thing, but it would still be protected speech. No one is disputing any of that. And you don't really need an appeal to free speech to oppose gunning down people.

Just don't pretend that criticism of Islam and of Christianity are completely similar activities in this context. Free speech means you are allowed to be a dick to people, not that you should be. And the context is important to decide when you are a dick.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10212
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:48 pm UTC

And now there is a second set of hostages. The two suspects are holed up with a couple of hostages in a village near Paris, while another gunman has taken some people hostage at a Jewish food store.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pfhorrest, Zohar and 12 guests