Charlie Hebdo attack, Paris, FR

Discussion in 'World Events' started by GeoffP, Jan 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    This is a senseless killing of people that did nothing but printed satire against people who are very in need of it. The terrorists only want to kill those who they claim made fun of their religion. Well if they would only read more of all the articles that paper has poked fun at through the years they would find many religions were harpooned. It is not that the paper was only satirizing Islam but also all other religions from time to time.

    If the terrorists are only going to kill people that satirize them then they are not going to ever win because more papers will also join in the fray and do even more satirizing so they won't silence anyone but only get more and more people to poke fun at them. There are hundreds of papers who will now publicize humor about the terrorists and their backwards ways. The only way terrorists can ever stop the presses from saying what they want is to start writing their own paper and try to peacefully show what it can do.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    You are living in a dream world.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,163
    I've had news on in the background as I work and it's reporting that the French have told the US that at least one of the brothers trained with al Quaeda in Yemen. That could explain the apparent professionalism.

    They are still evading a massive manhunt. (The French reportedly have poured tens of thousands of police into this.) There are lots of reports of police movements north of Paris, closer than Reims. A number of separate locations in rural and exurban locations. Photos of long convoys of police vehicles, including armored trucks, with blue lights flashing.

    It isn't clear if the police have a fresh trail or are just checking out any leads and tips they get. The fact that all the activity is concentrated in a shifting area north of Paris suggests the cops are pretty sure that's the general area that the fugitives are in. They must have reasons for thinking that, but they aren't saying much.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    You're probably right. As for where: ME, North Africa.

    It might be trivial, but how did they find out there was an editorial meeting that day?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,143
    One can only ask the question::

    Where are the protest marches by contemporary Muslims in support of freedom of speech and non-violent Jihad?

    The answer can only be that they do not march in protest because they simply can't, as to do so is in contradiction to their fundamental religious values.

    Perhaps a new and modern version of Islam is needed. One that enshrines freedom of speech, questioning and non-violent evangelism for both men and women. That clearly separates itself from the current versions.... and then they can march in solidarity, and clear conscience with the rest of the free world in protest.

    and may be even sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

    An article worth a read perhaps:

    Charlie Hebdo attack: when should we hold a group responsible for a member’s evil?
    http://theconversation.com/charlie-...-a-group-responsible-for-a-members-evil-36012
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    No, I'm living in a real world. I see you didn't comment on the entire post but only a part of it. You don't think that now more satire is going to done than before, your living in a dream world if you think not.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    Did you actually read the article properly?

    Hugh isn't saying that the religion as a whole should be blamed. Far from it. He points out that if we blame the religion, then we, as society who lay the blame, are equally responsible for any violent acts that others who blame the religion might take against followers of Islam (such as the attacks on mosques that occurred after the shooting).

    In other words, your expectation that they all march to denounce what someone did, even though they are not connected to those people except that they are Muslim is completely inconsistent because you are not marching to condemn attacks that violent and racist extremists are committing against innocent Muslims - or more to the point, if you blame the whole religion, then you share the blame and you are equally responsible for violence which others commit against innocent Muslims because of your Islamaphobia.

    So any Islamaphobia spouted by you in this thread would make you responsible and thus, blameworthy, for any violence against Muslims in France, because said violence is caused by Islamaphobia.

    What Hugh did was to prove that we have no cause or reason to blame the whole without accepting responsibility for our role in the violence..

    Also, a religion the Declaration of Human Rights is what countries (ie States) "sign up to" and codify. Not religious organisations.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,143
    Fair comment..
    I am quite happy discussing all views from all perspectives and posting the link was apart of offering a wider discussion.
    The problem that I personally see is that the more moderate, contemporary Muslim is (individually) unable to offer the world the strong assurances needed due to the fundamental conflict with the older and more traditional understandings of Islam.
    This impotency and apparent vexation is the reason I posted my opinion.
    I have many friends who are contemporary Muslim and I feel their discomfort at being unable to "march in protest" to support their particular contemporary view of Islam and denounce the atrocities committed in the name of Islam by extreme traditional elements.

    Am I being Islamaphobic in saying so?

    Regarding the Declaration of Human Rights, one of the greatest problems of this marvelous charter is that it really needs to be "signed" and agreed to by every one, individually, and not just left to the politicians.
    Non-discrimination of human rights starts with the individual's personal philosophy and whilst Governments can encourage it by legislation etc ultimately it comes down to the individual person.

    Ask many young people today what the Declaration is and they go "eh?"
    IMO we would be better served by having it enshrined in the curricula of all primary schools and placed at all war memorials so that people can acknowledge and remember what we are actually fighting and dying for...
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,143
    Bells
    Would you consider the head line in itself:
    Charlie Hebdo attack: when should we hold a group responsible for a member’s evil?

    as islamaphobic?
    I tend to believe the key word is "when".
    as it implies a time or event limit exists to the ability to tolerate

    try/compare:
    Charlie Hebdo attack: should we hold a group responsible for a member’s evil?
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    Moderate Muslims have often commented that they are being attacked from both sides. One side, from the extremists and the other side, by the West for not speaking out against extremists. They are the only group, as a whole, that we expect not just the leaders within the religion, but followers to come out and publicly condemn acts by Islamic extremists. We do not have that expectation from anyone else. Certainly, we expect religious leaders to condemn attacks made in their religion's name, but we do not expect members of said religions to take to the streets to protest. The fact that they are, and are in the crowd of those protesting such acts is apparently not enough. We keep demanding more.

    I commented in a thread about the Catholic Church in the religion sub-section that that when adherents of that religion and within the leadership itself do or say things that go against its teachings, the leadership goes silent. They don't say boo. But we do not expect them to.

    A while ago, I pointed out to another member here, one who is known for his Islamaphobia, that why should moderate Muslims speak out about what someone on the other side of the world to them, different culture, for example, did when they are so busy having to defend themselves for the acts of this unknown, unrelated person on the other side of the world. I'll put it this way, assuming you are Protestant, as an example, and a Protestant in African goes into a village and massacres everyone in it. How would you feel if you were expected to denounce it, because you share the same religion as this person? The thing is, no one would expect you to. To put it into perspective, over 130 children, Muslim children, were massacred in their school less than a month ago. Not a single person complaining about the religion in this thread commented on the religion in the thread about that massacre. Not a one.

    There are a few reasons for that. One is that it is unrelated to them.. Two - is they do not care, after all, it's just Muslims killing their own. Thirdly, why should they comment on it, as it does not affect their way of life. But two Muslims attack a Western organisation and they all come scurrying out of the woodwork and declare that it is a war against the West and that all Muslims must denounce it, that moderates must speak out. But not one of them say this in a discussion about over 130 children massacred by Islamic extremists? The same thing happened when Breivik slaughtered so many children on that island in his protest against what he saw as the Islamification of Europe. It was his hatred of Islam and the community of hating Islam which led him down that path. None of the anti-Islam crowd in this thread spoke out against that either, but no one expected them to. Hugh's point is that if we are to blame the religion or blame the whole for the actions of the few in horrific acts such as the latest terror attack in Paris, then we are equally to blame for our role in Islamaphobia which lead people like Breivik to attack and kill Muslims for their religion. One is just as bad as the other.

    Where were the thousands standing in solidarity with those Muslim children around the world? Where were the demands that the religion must denounce it, that the moderates must take to the street? You won't see it, because the victims were Muslims. Moderates do take to the street to protest. We saw it in droves in Pakistan. It is just never enough, because our own prejudice demands that it cannot be enough.

    When right wing white supremacist Christians bombed buildings and olympic venues in the US for their religious ideology, no one expected Christian moderates to speak out against it and explain why it didn't reflect their religious belief. That expectation was not there. There was certainly no expectation that Christians in Europe take to the street to denounce what happened in the US, so why do we expect Muslims to take to the street to protest around the world? That expectation stems from our own bigotry. Hence why Hugh says that we are prevented by our own bigotry to see what the problem is with blaming the whole. Christians, as a group, know the difference between the bad and the good. So do Muslims. But we do not accept that for Muslims.

    The reality is that the people most in danger of Islamists, of the religious fundamentals within Islam, are Muslims. Our losses to Islamic terror pale in comparison to what they have suffered and continue to suffer. Thousands of moderates have been massacred for not swearing allegiance to the extremists, from Imams to ordinary citizens. And yet this isn't proof enough that all Muslims do not share the same ideology?

    Are there problems in Islam? Of course there are. Does it stem from their religious text? I think it depends on people taking the religious text and twisting it to suit their own needs and focusing on parts of the text that they feel justifies their actions. We can say the same for Christian sects who use the Bible to justify promoting and encouraging people to murder homosexuals. The Islamic protests in the past against the Mohammed cartoons are exactly the same as the Christian pro-lifers who protest, threaten and even kill abortion providers in the US. It is the same sick and twisted understanding of their religious text that leads to that sort of violence. It is fed by the same moronic and stupid adherence to religious ideology that cares naught for morality or for their deity of choice and solely about ones own beliefs and trying to foist personal beliefs on others, even if it means killing to achieve it. One does not have to be a Muslim to suffer from that level of hatred. Should moderates speak out? Should they act to curb the draw of Islamists? As much as Christians are expected to do the same. They do speak out, and they are dying for it. Perhaps we should start listening instead of blaming them. Because how can they tell the younger generations, who are the ones who are becoming radicals and who are drawn to fight in Syria and who are drawn to Islamic extremists to fight what they see as a war against their religion by Islamaphobes and the "evil West", that they should not fight, when they are also busy having to fight for their religion against said Islamaphobes? It becomes an evil and never ending cycle. The West and Western ideology can help by not excluding and isolating Muslims for being Muslims. By decreasing the draw of the extremists. And this is something that moderate Muslims will have to fight in their own homes. And it isn't going to be an easy battle. Especially when their own religion is coming under attack by extremists and 'the west'.

    Hugh's point was brilliant. If we blame the religion or the whole for acts of Islamic terrorism, then we are all equally to blame when Islamaphobia leads to attacks on Muslims.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,143
    Bells,
    Thank you very much for your well written and considered opinion. I find much agreement to it's thrust and intent.
    This whole issue of "collective responsibility vs individual responsibility" has, dare I suggest, plagued the world since the days when mankind first formed collective groupings.
    I could offer further comment to yours but shall leave yours to stand with out my detracting from it's purport.

    Perhaps another thread another day...

    "Is a nation ("collective") responsible for creating it's own "monsters"? could be great thread topic if someone wishes to start it.
    or
    "Are we as a global community responsible for creating our own "monsters"?
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    QQ, the impulse to blame the community for the ills of its members depends essentially on speaker and role, and occasionally on fact. Speakers of one political or cultural stripe or another will take it up al libitum to make social critiques, then virulently attack those who use the same meme: Americans regularly get blamed for the racism of their society, for example. It's a rhetorical thing, but should be an ethical thing.

    When is a society responsible for creating its own monsters?... I suppose when the views of that society express some kind of explicit or tacit support for the actions that their members take. So if a society had overt support for extremism, then yes, presumably you could blame that society as a whole. So as it's permissible to blame American society generally for its ills, and British society for its ills, it's permissible to blame Islamic society for its ills. The Charlie Hebdo attack sprang from the taboo against ridiculing the ridiculous figure of Mohammed of Medina. Well, one can and does ridicule him. If you disagree with that using the social milieu of gunfire, then it's likely you took up your view based on what you've been taught or ideas that you've come to on your own. In this case, since it's clear that the jihadists have their view because of the central Islamic taboo on the representation of Mohammed of Medina, so it would be reasonable to place some of the blame on Islamic society, much as we do for homophobia and misogyny in Catholicism. It would be a touch bigoted or racist to suggest otherwise. Some of our neighbours might take up the above statement as an attack on individual Muslims - no matter how clearly it isn't - but will be surprisingly earnest about a distinction between, say, Catholicism or Americanism and Catholics and Americans so as to justify their social critiques - or might choose simply never to acknowledge it. And so the device becomes rhetorical, rather than logical. It's the assumption of good will by the ego of the speaker: I know what I mean, but you are not the same as me. The causes thereof are probably overriding impulses of prejudice for whatever reason. Meanwhile, the protagonist speaker will attempt to sand away the distinction between individuals of the collective group and the social construct of the group expressed by the other speaker: this presumably will cement the projection of the protagonist as a socially responsible voice while damaging the expression of any other voices critical of memes to which the protagonist speaker is sympathetic. To this end, logic, language and format will be readily suborned. Watch and see; it's only happened a million times.

    But who knows? I might be surprised yet. I won't, but I might.
     
  16. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Turn on your News Channel Geoff.
    It's just got a whole lot worse.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    Did they say if they are connected to the two brothers?

    I have family near there.. And we can't get through.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yeah, saw it. This is nothing. Lebanon will appear like Club Med before it's done.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    I think the answer to that is yes to both and in a way, no to both.

    It's a fucked up situation. Everyone suffers from this.

    There is no need to kill people because of drawings. As an atheist, I find the whole thing to be abhorrent. Then again, I sort of feel that way about all religions. It is never a collective. It's a banner and a way to identify with others within a group, but all are individuals. Killing others, waging war for one's religious ideology is a vile thing to do.

    If people are offended by drawings, then march peacefully, start a petition. There is no place for violence.

    The vicious cycle comes from the fact that such cartoons had to be drawn and others had to protest violently against it, so more cartoons are drawn, more violence results and it goes on and on and on. In that sense, the nation does create its own monsters.

    Are we responsible for it? Yes. We are responsible for pointing out the ills within society and we are responsible for trying to maintain change to fix the ills. But what has happened here is that instead of fixing it, it's gotten worse. The battle lines are drawn. And people respond violently because that is how they are expected to respond. Mostly by others around them, but also by the rest, by those on the outside. Those that responded with violence lived up to the stereotype and as a result, the majority suffered.

    Does Islam need to reform? Yes. In saying that, all religious groups need to reform and leave the dark ages behind. For Islam, it needs to reform for its own survival. For the survival of the hundreds of thousands or so people who are peaceful, who seek what everyone seeks. And who like many Christians, only look at the good of their religious text while ignoring the bad (Christians rely on the New Testament while deploring the Old Testament which frankly, is a genocidal piece of writing). And I think they need help. Guidance. Not abuse and violence.

    Abuse and violence only creates more radicals, more violence. Look at ISIS as a prime example. They have killed thousands of Muslims. From religious leaders who refuse to bow down to their religious ideology, to women and children for simply being the wrong type of Muslim who also refuse to convert to their form of Islam. And people flock to them. From everywhere. Even former Christian white dudes from countries like Australia and New Zealand, who convert and go there to fight. What in the hell is the attraction? Is it the religious ideology? Power? Dominance? Fighting against the 'evil West' and the 'evil Jews'? Reform is needed to combat and exclude ISIS and those of their ilk. But we also need to reform. We need to start working with the moderates and frankly, I think this needs to be a community thing. Embrace the moderates and hopefully, they will embrace us back and not turn radical and go to Yemen for terrorist training camp.

    Is it idealistic? Yes. But shutting them out, yelling and war hasn't worked to force reform. Instead, it's just forced more into the open arms of radicals who live off that hatred. Because it makes them more popular. In that sense, we are also helping create monsters. We do share a small portion of responsibility.. To reform, they will need to fend off the radicals and jihadists and do it from within. It needs to happen. But it needs to happen for them, not just for us.
     
  20. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    I really know nothing about Charlie Hebdo's past cartoons. Do you have an examples of what you regard as their racist cartoons?
     
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,163
    The French anti-terrorist police have assaulted the industrial building where the Charlie Hebdo shooters are holding out. Police were seen laying charges along the walls of the building and police were seen on the roof, inserting what appeared to be surveillance devices about an hour ago. Then explosions (perhaps explosive entry) and lots of gunfire. That ceased and unconfirmed reports are that the brothers are dead. Ambulances and police vehicles are pouring into the site.

    In Paris, the police seem to have simultaneously assaulted the kosher market. Several loud flash-bang explosions and word is that the hostages have been freed. The male terrorist seems to be dead, no word on the woman who may not have been in the market. Ambulances are leaving the grocery will lights and sirens, no word on the condition of the five hostages.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    CNN reporting the magazine terrorist brothers both dead.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    BBC are saying that all 3 of them are dead.
     
    Enmos likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page