Join the discussion about Charlie Hebdo - closed

796 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

If no one in the west ever disrespected Islam would that stop the terrorist attacks?

Do I really need to point out again why that is a loaded, misleading and alarming statement?

 

voice of the damned

^^I suspect it's probably both. I am not overly familiar with Sunni eschatology, but my guess would be that these guys have some idaa that they will inspire a lot of young men to go off and fight, in a war in which Islam will eventually be victorious, thus leading to exponentially more respect for Islam.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If no one in the west ever disrespected Islam would that stop the terrorist attacks?

Do I really need to point out again why that is a loaded, misleading and alarming statement?

Sorry but yes, I genuinely don't understand why you would think so.

bekayne

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I thought the proof was that they were able to shoot straight, acted calmly and knew what they were doing. That's the expert, not at all racist rationale Greta Berlin used for claiming it was MOSSAD and not someone from the Arab community.

 

Don't forget the fact that they spoke perfect French.

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

 

Turning Right (and vid)

http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/223211-paris-tragedy-immigration-policies/

"In the wake of the tragedy in Paris, what are the prospects for Europe's right wing populist political parties?

CrossTalking with Stephen Haseler, John Laughland and John Weeks

Kind of ironic considering the relationship those right wing populist parties have with Russia

NDPP

@ bk: No irony, pragmatic statecraft. They could be elected. National Front, for instance would take France out of NATO.

 

French Websites Hit By Cyber Attacks (and vid)

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/15/technology/security/french-websites-hack...

"19,000 French civilian websites are under attack by hackers, according to France's head of cyber-defense. 'The scope of attacks is unprecedented,' Rear Admiral Arnaud Coustilliere said at a press conference Thursday."

 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
If no one in the west ever disrespected Islam would that stop the terrorist attacks?

Maybe there'd still be terrorist attacks, but they'd be directed at something other than newspapers.

Conversely, though, if the U.S. hadn't invaded Afghanistan, hadn't invaded Iraq, if there'd been no Gulf War, no Abu Ghraib, no Guantanamo Bay, would extremists still lose their shit over "blasphemy"?

Ask Salman Rushdie.  A heavenly bounty was offered for his murder well before any of these things even happened.  The reason given has always been "blasphemy", but perhaps you or someone else can enlighten us with the "real" reason?

6079_Smith_W

@ bekayne

Yeah, right. Thanks!

Gee, they're teaching kinds of people to speak proper now, aren't they?

and @ Pondering

Well (and again, I have said all this before)

Let's start with the fact that not all people who have run afoul of blasphemy laws are white, or from the so-called west. I posted one upthread who is in Indonesia, and plenty are Arab, and Muslim.

And it also implies that Muslims and Arabs, some of whom lived in parts of Europe like Spain for as long or longer than some so-called "westerners" AREN'T part of our society.

Secondly, it is not so much a matter of insulting Islam, but insulting some people's idea of what that means. In this case, it is printing a picture of the prophet. It can also be expressing the opinion that religion is nonsense, that some interpretations are wrong, or that you as a woman have an education, or a driver's license, or show anything other than your eyes. In Saudi Arabia, many of us are considered terrorists simply because we are atheist.

(and never mind that there are plenty of Muslims who disagree with those things)

Third, it implies that in a secular society we are in any way compelled to respect religion, to not point out its abuses and inconsistencies, or that expressing that opinion is in any way an insult to someone's freedom to practice their religion. Or that it is de facto racism, or just an arm of imperialism.

(and never mind that there are plenty of Muslims who disagree with that, and who support the separation of church and state, and freedom of belief)

Lastly, the statement is based on the false premise that anyone is saying blasphemy is the only reason why terrorist attacks occur. No one has said that.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

What Magoo said.

Sometimes the best explanation is the most direct one. Surprisingly often, in fact.

6079_Smith_W

And on Rushdie, it bears reminding that the Academy of Islamic Jurisprudence in Mecca condemned the fatwa against him as illegal.

 Just because some theocrat does it doesnt make it the final Islamic word on it. Same thing here. Kind of surprising that some here are talking as if the opinion of murderers is the final word.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
The principle of secularism is key to democracy, yet can also be used as a weapon against the marginalised. So can the value of free speech. And as important as it is to criticise, question and even satirise Islam, as it is for all religions, these are also acts that are inextricably associated with bigotry, regardless of their original intent. How then do we proceed from here?

Regardless of the true nature of Charlie Hebdo’s racial politics, we can certainly distinguish between its cartoons lampooning ordinary Muslims, and those which stand as a political statement defiantly declaring that even Islam is a topic that is not above satire or reproach. And while we may not necessarily join in or adopt this same take-no-prisoners approach in our personal lives, we can recognise that this is nonetheless one of the vital mechanisms for the functioning of a free society.

We can also try and avoid getting caught up in easy narratives, and look at the wider context. Although it may seem impossible in today’s world to hold off from instant, kneejerk reactions, it may be our only way of navigating through thorny subjects – and avoiding saying something we regret.


Some food for thought and a good exploration of much of the issues in this thread. http://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_lefts_charlie_hebdo_dilemma_how_to_f...

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Conversely, though, if the U.S. hadn't invaded Afghanistan, hadn't invaded Iraq, if there'd been no Gulf War, no Abu Ghraib, no Guantanamo Bay, would extremists still lose their shit over "blasphemy"? 

I don't agree that these particular shooters lost their shit over "blasphemy".

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Ask Salman Rushdie.  A heavenly bounty was offered for his murder well before any of these things even happened.  The reason given has always been "blasphemy", but perhaps you or someone else can enlighten us with the "real" reason?

The reason in his case was just "blasphemy". He is still alive. If an extremist came across him and recognized him they would probably want to act but I don't think ISIL or Al Qaeda consider him a strategically important target.

Charlie Hebdo only had a circulation of 60K. The attacks made them and their cartoons much more famous worldwide. Now, religious or not, even more will be inspired to go to Syria for training or to become jihadi wives to flee their meaningless lives of grinding poverty from which they have no other means of escape.

While extremist Imams may care deeply about these targets I think to ISIL and Al Qaeda they are primarily good strategic targets. Getting Salman Rusdie wouldn't be nearly as effective. It would be a blib in the news cycle.

Charlie Hebdo was perfect because the editor had two guards and police were assigned to protect the office yet it was easy to breach. Defeating security sent the message that a known target defended by police could still be hit. Even being on a watch list didn't stop them. Police couldn't prevent a known target from being hit by known extremists. It also illustrated that the police aren't just up against no nothing punks with hand guns or backpack bombs.

It enhanced the reputations of the French jihadis who had trained in Syria and returned. It's true they were caught later and killed but this was no suicide mission. This is like volunteering to be special ops. The shooters looked like they were straight out of a James Bond movie. They could still die but it wouldn't be anonymously on a battlefield. Going to train in Syria just became way more alluring.

Dounia Bouzar, a French anthropologist …

“A fundamentalist discourse is more easily latched on to by people who don’t feel important … It’s about transferring a feeling of malaise into a feeling of being all powerful. They become someone important,” she said.

 Pasted from <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/-sp-charlie-hebdo-attackers-kids-france-radicalised-paris>

 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I don't agree that these particular shooters lost their shit over "blasphemy".

Quote:
The reason in his case was just "blasphemy".

So, "One time, very long ago, a man was targetted for death over blasphemy.  But it was only ever that one time, and it was so very long ago..."

It's all different now.  "Blasphemy"?  LOLZ!  It's all about something totally different... something that extremists must never just say out loud, though North American keyboard warriors are free to, over and over again.

Quote:
Charlie Hebdo was perfect because the editor had two guards and police were assigned to protect the office yet it was easy to breach. Defeating security sent the message that a known target defended by police could still be hit. Even being on a watch list didn't stop them. Police couldn't prevent a known target from being hit by known extremists. It also illustrated that the police aren't just up against no nothing punks with hand guns or backpack bombs.

And popping a cap in Rushdie, after all these years and so much protection and hiding wouldn't be EVEN BETTER?  That could send the message that no one can ever be safe.  Ever.

Pondering

First, Smith, thank-you for taking my question seriously and not just dismissing me as ignorant. Same goes to others.

For reference I am adding my question: If no one in the west ever disrespected Islam would that stop the terrorist attacks?

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Let's start with the fact that not all people who have run afoul of blasphemy laws are white, or from the so-called west. I posted one upthread who is in Indonesia, and plenty are Arab, and Muslim. 

I meant terrorist accounts in the west not terrorist attacks in general.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And it also implies that Muslims and Arabs, some of whom lived in parts of Europe like Spain for as long or longer than some so-called "westerners" AREN'T part of our society.

I don't understand how my question implies that. Everyone in the west is affected by terrorism in the west regardless of race or religion.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Secondly, it is not so much a matter of insulting Islam, but insulting some people's idea of what that means.

I think that the cartoons insulted Islam in general is a given. That doesn't mean Muslims in general would support a fatwa over it or would not place freedom of speech above it. The shooters were not religious until after they became radicalized. They were petty criminals.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Third, it implies that in a secular society we are in any way compelled to respect religion, to not point out its abuses and inconsistencies, or that expressing that opinion is in any way an insult to someone's freedom to practice their religion. Or that it is de facto racism, or just an arm of imperialism.

No I am not saying any of that. We couldn't prevent all insults to Islam or Mohamed even if we tried. I'm posing a hypothetical. I think that these specific three shooters would still have acted because they were not personally religiously motivated. They may never have even heard of Charlie Hebdo before being assigned their target.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Lastly, the statement is based on the false premise that anyone is saying blasphemy is the only reason why terrorist attacks occur. No one has said that. 

Valid point.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Just because some theocrat does it doesnt make it the final Islamic word on it. Same thing here. Kind of surprising that some here  are talking as if the opinion of murderers is the final word.

What opinion is it of the murderers you think I or anyone else is accepting?

Pondering

 

 All three gunmen were French, from the Paris area, raised and radicalised there. The daily Libération called them “kids of France”. One lawyer on the case of the “Buttes-Chaumont” cell called them the “lost children of the Republic”.

Chérif Kouachi … He was one of five children of Algerian immigrant parents…. “He was abandoned very young; it’s not clear if his parents couldn’t look after the children or if his parents died. But he was put in care homes early – before the age of 10.” …. When he became involved in the Buttes-Chaumont group of friends he was back in Paris but living precariously.

“He was living almost like a homeless person, staying with someone but it was more of a mattress on the floor than a real home. He was very clearly marginalised. He was immature, just out of adolescence. He wasn’t vindictive … He went to the mosque, but went clubbing, made rap music, smoked hash, drank. He wasn’t a hermit,” the source said.

…..

 It seemed at the time that Benyettou, the young guru figure by whom Kouachi was enthralled, used methods similar to those of a sect.

“He made him feel important, he listened to him, recognised him as an individual … Chérif Kouachi was fragile, looking for a family … he didn’t have a family he could turn to for support.”

At that point, the young Kouachi, known as Abou Issen in the group, didn’t seem structured in his thinking. “He couldn’t differentiate between Islam and Catholicism” and wasn’t well educated, said the source….

…They would sit in apartments watching footage of the US-led invasion. “Everything I saw on TV, the torture in Abu Ghraib prison, all that, that’s what motivated me,” one of Kouachi’s friends told their trial.

…..

“This was a group of kids with very little education, without a political project, inexperienced, de-socialised, on the margins, delinquent, unemployed. In their mentor, who was their own age, they had a manipulator. They were looking for identity.”

… “If the Butte-Chaumonts was an informal school of jihad, prison was the superior diploma.”

 But at the time Kouachi was placed there pending the legal investigation, it was suffering over 150% over-crowding and Victorian conditions. …

Space in overcrowded cells was less than animals were usually afforded, the report warned, complaining of no windows or views, just skylights and lack of fresh air…

In 2008, prisoners smuggled out video footage of the conditions, showing violence between inmates in the exercise yard, leaking ceilings, moss on walls, fetid toilets, birds nesting in the decaying walls, stagnant water and freezing conditions. “We’re freezing like homeless people. Even homeless people are better off than us,” one said.

One of the prisoners involved in publicising the terrible conditions was Amédy Coulibaly. He was an armed robber on his third sentence, this time for robbery, receiving stolen goods and using false number plates. Coulibaly met Kouachi inside the prison and they became close during seven months on the same wing – prisoners from similar backgrounds and affinity were kept together on the same blocks, which allowed them to convene. Less than a decade later, Coulibaly joined the Kouachis in last week’s terrorist attacks, killing a police officer and four hostages in a kosher supermarket…

 …..

 In prison together, Kouachi and Coulibaly found not only friendship but a mentor who radicalised them, Djamel Beghal . The portly Beghal, serving a 10-year sentence for a plot to bomb the US embassy in Paris, …. He came to be seen by UK and French intelligence as one of al-Qaida’s leading recruiters in Europe…..

An earlier courtroom psychiatric report on Coulibaly cited by Libération found “no pathology” but an “immature and psychopathic personality”. The psychologist had pointed to “his poor powers of introspection” and the “rudimentary” nature of the motivation of his actions, as well as sense of morality that was lacking and a wish to be “all powerful”.

Pasted from <http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/these-crimes-will-never-be-purged-away.html

The Kouachi's and Coulibaly were radicalized long before they got religion. The Imams have no one to send to western countries. If they were unable to radicalize western youth they would be unable to strike. These men were deeply alienated but university students have been radicalized too. What is common to both is their front row seats on the devastation being visited on the middle east.

Pondering

Timebandit wrote:
Quote:
">http://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_lefts_charlie_hebdo_dilemma_how_to_f...

We can also try and avoid getting caught up in easy narratives, and look at the wider context. Although it may seem impossible in today’s world to hold off from instant, kneejerk reactions, it may be our only way of navigating through thorny subjects – and avoiding saying something we regret.

Whether or not Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were actually racist is an interesting intellectual debate but not for everyone.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/pakistan-police-clash-anti-...

In Niger, a former French colony, a protest turned violent as demonstrators set fire to churches and raided shops run by Christians. A French cultural centre was set ablaze in the southern town of Zinder, and one security officer and three demonstrators were killed in the melee, said interior minister Hassoumi Massaoudou. Another 20 security officers and 23 civilians were injured, he said.

.....

In Pakistan, Friday had been declared as a nationwide protest against terrorism to mark the passing of one month since the attack on Peshawar’s Army Public School, and to demand action against extremists.

Citizens held vigils in cities around the country, including outside parliament in Islamabad, voicing demands that included the arrest of a notorious Taliban-sympathising mullah in the capital, the regulation of religious seminaries and the end of the misuse of Pakistan’s much-criticised blasphemy laws.

However, scenes from the far larger demonstrations arranged by a coalition of 20 religious parties against the perceived blasphemy committed by Charlie Hebdo dominated coverage on Pakistan’s rolling news channels.

While the civil-society protests were overwhelmingly polite and attended by many women, the mullah-led protests were angry, overwhelmingly male, and, in Karachi, violent.

In the southern port city police battled with activists from the Jamaat-e-Islami party who attempted to approach the French consulate. Television cameras caught glimpses of guns brandished by some of the men. Police resorted to firing in the air and dousing the crowd with a water cannon.

At least three people were wounded in the clashes. Asif Hassan, a photographer working for the French news agency AFP, was seriously injured by a shot to the chest.

Across the country protesters burned French flags and demanded an international law banning blasphemy against Islam.

Defending free speech is important but our freedom of speech is not at risk.  Since the murders we have done the work of terrorists on their behalf for the satisfaction of thumbing our noses at them.

We should be mindful of who pays the price.

NDPP

 The Murders in Paris and Those Rubbing Their Hands  -  by Kemal Okuyan

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/16/the-murders-in-paris-and-those-ru...

"...I don't and can't know the details of the Paris massacre. But I can easily say that there has been a very well planned perception operation, carried out for quite a while.

Some sections of the Left in the world are already manipulated by the imperialist centres, Some others lost their Russian revolution.."

6079_Smith_W

That "far larger" demonstration at the French consulate was 350 people. In Niger, 50 people.

Who is paying what price again?

How exactly are we doing the work of terrorists? By thumbing our noses at what?

(I haven't forgotten the question you just asked me)

And free speech is not at risk? I understand that some here think killing a newspaper staff, firebombing another, and having third too scared to publish material aren't threats to free speech, but what about the arrests that have happened in France in recent days?

Pondering

I've posted so many in a row that I will wait 24hrs before adding to this thread again but then I will respond to you.

6079_Smith_W

No problem if you are done. It's not that big a deal. I will add that "hypothetical" is just one word for your trying to distance these murders from their religious motivation. Baseless and contrary to all the evidence also come to mind (the declaration that the prophet was avenged, for instance).

Are there other reasons why terrorist groups commit attacks? Sure. But the main reason for this one (and the fact that someone immediately bombed another paper for doing the same things is a pretty strong case for that) is actually a bit more than the notion of free speech which no one here seems to care about too much. It is the freedom to call religious abuses and inconsistencies - including taking dogma to the point of murder -  for what they are. Also to suggest that people have the freedom to live without religion if we want, and to call it nonsense.

That's what CH was criticizing in going after dogmatic religion (as well as the criticism of racism, hypocrisy, political abuse and imperialism many here seem to be studiously ignoring). And while I might not do things in exactly the same style, the notion that it is imperialist or racist to pull any punches on fair criticism against Islam that one would let fly against any other religion is ridiculous.  And, I would add, insulting to the intelligence of reasonable people.

Again, these pictures might be the flash point, but they are certainly not the only fair criticism or action that has been called blasphemous and attacked by the overzealous. Where's the line? I have thrown that question to the room a few times, and still not gotten an answer. If some religious zealot says women should not receive an education should countries stop building schools so as to not "offend Islam"? They seem to be paying more attention to attacking schools and educators, if we are to follow the advice some have offered in this case we should probably stop imposing that form of western imperialism on them first, no?

There might be plenty that we "don't understand" but that doesn't make this right:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/turkeys-president-recep-tay...

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Pondering, you're making a lot of assumptions and extrapolations from anything I've seen as to the inner workings of the Kouachi brothers.  From what I've read, Said Kouachi didn't go to jail until he was arrested for terrorism - he'd been recruited to fight as a jihadi in Syria.  That sounds rather like like he was "radicalized" before he went into the correctional system.  If we're going to assign blame, let's go to the Muslim street preacher who indoctrinated the kid into fundamentalist Islam first.

I also have an issue with terms like "radicalize" - it's passive voice, removing agency fromt he individual who adopts radical beliefs.  It's an infantilization.  These men were not just poor little lambs who'd lost their way.  They were grown men who made decisions about what they were going to do.  This is not to say that they were unaffected by racism or poverty or any number of other environmental and social factors - but so are millions of other French Muslims, and they don't go around shooting people. 

I understand why this narrative is comforting, though.  It makes everything make sense.  It all happened for a reason.  It makes us feel like there's something concrete to be done about it.  Ultimately, though, religious extremism - of any kind, not just Islam - is an irrational, reactionary and violent force in our world.  And until we're as willing to curb religion as we are free speech, I don't see this kind of violence going away.

NDPP

Charlie Hebdo Fallout: Belgian Deploys Troops, UK Raises Terror Alert to 'Severe' (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/223659-charlie-fallout-europe-alert/

"Europe is in a state of high alert after anti-terror raids..."

 

'Je Suis CIA'  -  by Larry Chin

http://www.globalresearch.ca/je-suis-cia/5425118/

"Since 9/11, the imperial playback has consisted of a favorite and time-tested tactic. The false flag operation.

Here we go again..."

 

Guardian: Paris Is A Warning: There Is No Insulation From Our Wars  -  by Seumas Milne

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40718.htm

"In an echo of Bush's rhetoric, the former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, declared a 'war of civilization' in respone to attacks on our freedoms.

Instead of simply standing with the victims - and, say, the vastly larger numbers killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria - the satirical magazine and its depictions of the prophet Muhammad have been elevated into a sacred principle of western liberty.

The production on Wednesday of a state-sponsored edition of Charlie Hebdo became the latest test of a 'with us or against' commitment to 'our values' - as French MPs voted by 488 votes to one to press on with the military campaign in Iraq.

To judge by the record of the last 13 years, it will prove a poisonous combination and not just for France.

NDPP

Charlie Hebdo: Report From Europe  -  by Paul Craig Roberts (and vid)

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/17/charlie-hebdo-report-europe/

"Here is a video of the execution of Amedy Coulibably. It is a German website with the actual live French video of the police assault on the deli. There are three videos. The first one repeatedly shows Coulibaly with tied hands containing no weapon shot down and killed, although he could easily have been captured. It is as if the order was to make sure that there is no live suspect whose story might have to be explained away..."

NDPP

"Yes: Muslims Are Shocked and Appalled at the Charlie Hebdo Killings  -  by Ramin Mazaher

No. They Do Not Support the Killing of Innocent People

There. That will be the last time I ever make these declarations. I am usually tolerant of stupid questions and do try to help people, but it was three very long days covering the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris.

So I am simply tired of wasting my breath trying to explain that I do not support murder and repression simply because of my ethnic and religious heritage.

And I believe that asking such questions is also a diversion from other issues, such as France's policies (totally unrelated to any religion) of invading foreign countries and fomenting instability for their own economic and political gains...."

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/17/393468/Charlie-Hebdo-abusing-fr...

 

 

In the Charlie Hebdo Psyop, Double Standards, Logical Fallacies and Crass Ignorance are Everywhere; The Saker

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/01/in-charlie-hebdo-psyop-double-s...

"...So who are we kidding here? Do I need to bring further examples to make my point everybody in the West already knows, that caricatures like the ones published by Charlie Hebdo really bring on real pain to Muslims We are not talking about ruffled feathers or irritation, we are talking about real moral and psychological distress here, the kind which normally western civilizational and legal norms try to protect people from.

The truth which others dare not speak but which I will spell out for you here is simple: western elites have the same attitude towards Muslims as Victoria Nuland has for the EU: F**k Them! That is the real message not only Charlie Hebdo but the entire teary circus around the Paris massacre sends to Muslims worldwide:

bleep you, your religion and your Prophet, bleep you and your victims - thousands and even millions of your dead. Muslims (Iraq anybody?) are not worth 12 of our guys, and we get to limit your speech but don't you dare limit ours!..."

 

Don't believe in supreme beings. (if I did 'invisible' is best) The two above do. Worth a read anyway..

as is this one

 

Waving in the Front Row  -  by Uri Avnery

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Waving-in-the-first-Row-by-Uri-Avnery-A...

"The THREE Islamic terrorists could have been very proud of this, if they had lived to see it...And if three youngsters without any qualifications  can do that, imagine what 30 could do, or 300!

Frankly, I did not like the huge demonstration. I have been in many demonstrations in my time, maybe more than 500, but always against the powers that be. I have never participated in a demonstration called by the government, even when the purpose was good.

They remind me too much of the late Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and worse. Not for me, thank you...

AND WHO marched in the first row, beaming like a victor?

Our own and only Bibi..."

 

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

Are we finally going to stop devising learned semantic expressions describing equally assassins and their victims?

In recent years, we have felt rather lonely, trying to push back with our pencils straightforward bullshit and pseudo-intellectual subtleties that they were throwing at our faces and that of our friends who were strongly defending secularism: Islamophobes, Christianophobes, troublemakers, people assuming no responsibility, those who throw oil on the fire, racists, you-asked-for-it ... yes we condemn terrorism, but. Yes it is not good to threaten cartoonists with death, but. Yes, setting fire to a magazine's headquarters is wrong, but...

We've heard it all, as have our friends. We've often tried to laugh it off, because that's what we're best at.

But now, really, we'd like to laugh at something else. Because it's already starting again.

... their blood was not yet dry and Thierry Meyssan was explaining to his Facebook fans that this was obviously a Judeo-western-American conspiracy

Pushing for universal rights, it alone, allows for equality, liberty, brotherhood and sisterhood. It alone allows for total freedom of conscience which all religions, as soon as they move from the arena of the strictly intimate into the political arena, deny, more or less openly according to their marketing position. Oddly enough, it alone allows believers and others to live in peace. All those who claim to defend Muslims, while accepting the totalitarian religious rhetoric, are in fact defending their executioners. The first victims of Islamic fascism are the Muslims.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-editorial--je-su...

NDPP

Washington Post: European Countries Seek Sweeping New Powers to Curb Terrorism

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/01/17/1410207/european-countries-s...

"...As a result of the events in Paris, combined with what happened yesterday in Belgium, the political unanimity is quite great,' said Rik Coolsaet, a terrorism expert at Ghent University. 'It is a bit of 9/11 syndrome.'

NDPP

From Paris to Palestine: George Galloway MP: 7th January, 2015 (and vid)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwHNFeP-Bb4

lagatta

Someone sent me this by Cenk Uygur, about Faux News and its "no-go zones" in Paris. I'm familiar with almost all those places; when in Paris, I always stay in the East End, which has remained somewhat populaire and multicultural, though gentrification pressures are strong throughout the city and even the adjacent suburbs (proche banlieue).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfLf6tO7vSA

A banlieue simply means a suburb; it can be poor, rich or in-between. It does not mean a slum or a dodgy area (that would be "la zone" in French). Sarkozy was mayor of Neuilly, a posh western Paris banlieue which is the wealthiest city in France. But all the places shown here are in Paris proper. La banlieue means suburbia.

6079_Smith_W

By Sadikur Rahman

https://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/the-cowardly-brit...

Quote:

If there was ever a day when British newspapers and TV stations should have shown courage and defiance and published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, it was today.

Instead, not one single British newspaper or TV channel has chosen to do so. It is a monumentally cowardly response which shows the attackers have won.

What we had were the usual “debates” condemning only the act itself, but not unequivocally defending the right to free expression. On BBC’s Newsnight yesterday evening, Sir Iqbal Sacranie suggested the prophet of Islam shouldn’t be mocked because he was like a member of his family.

We had the now inevitable debates about “alienation”, “marginalisation”, “provocation”, and foreign policy, and the things the French state had supposedly done to cause grievances amongst Muslims, thereby implicitly providing justification for the attackers’ grievances, if not for the act itself.

Sky TV apologized for showing a glimpse of the CH cover:
https://news.yahoo.com/sky-news-apologizes-showing-glimpse-charlie-hebdo...

Unionist

From the above link:

Quote:

If there was ever a day when British newspapers and TV stations should have shown courage and defiance and published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, it was today.

Instead, not one single British newspaper or TV channel has chosen to do so. It is a monumentally cowardly response which shows the attackers have won.

The courageous defiant author seems unable to distinguish between free speech and free publicity.

 

6079_Smith_W

If you say so.

Points for originality though, I haven't seen that one on the  bingo sheet. I think they called it free recruitment there.

Besides, to hear all the chatter it isn't free. It's all bought and paid for by the Israelis and the CIA.

Unionist

There is no excuse for reprinting puerile, xenophobic, provocative cartoons, no matter who kills whom - unless you think the cartoons are worth reprinting even in the absence of a savage crime like this one. I don't really need to see the serialization of Mein Kampf either, just because the coward who wrote it killed himself before he could face justice. That ain't news.

"The attackers have won." What a monumental asshole comment.

6079_Smith_W

"All is forgiven" is "Mein Kampf"?

Again, if you say so.

But the "there is no excuse... " line? That one is on the bingo sheet. Right next the the one about "satire is only meant to be used against the powerful" and "they were all white/westerners".

I have to say though, I am a bit surprised you threw provocative in there.

 

 

Unionist

More assholery from Smith's linked lawyer above:

Quote:
To suggest that the murders have nothing to do with Islam or that the attackers did not find any justification from within Islam for their actions is false, because as we know many Muslim majority states criminalise blasphemy with the death penalty as punishment.

He sounds like the Tarek Fatah of the U.K. He has read the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and he loves them. And he condemns those who won't re-publish them as "cowards". His Islamophobia sounds very home-grown, indeed.

He should change his name to "Charlie" - name his first-born "Charlie" - put up some lawn signs at his home mocking the Prophet.

If he doesn't, then the attackers have won, and he's a coward.

Come on, Sadikur Rahman, put your money where your mouth is. Someone has to defend the West in the clash of civilizations. How about you?

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

He should change his name to "Charlie" - name his first-born "Charlie" - put up some lawn signs at his home mocking the Prophet.

No need to go that far, Unionist. We're doing the very same thing here in this thread. The cover is reprinted here. Are we xenophobic? Giving free advertising? Defending the west in the clash of civilizations?

To be honest, I find this new-found respect for the prophet a bit of a reversal. As I said, I am not so thick that I don't get, or don't agree with some of the arguments about those in power exploiting this (I think I mentioned the hypocrites, le Pen, the French government, and right wing Christians myself). But if we are to accept blasphemy law as something we should enforce or at least protest in favour of, again, we get back to where that line is. Promoting eucation? Access to abortion? Spreadin g gay propaganda?

Or maybe President Erdogan is right and we just don't understand the real role of women.

And as I have already said, personally I don't think media have to reprint (thogh again, it has been done here without protest). Even so, the fact that one would apologize for showing that cover (why?) and that none of the major media would show it (even though one DID show the Netanyahu as bricklayer pic) is enough that I take Rahman's point.

(edit)

And I have to say, nice little bit of provocative satire, too.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

He should change his name to "Charlie" - name his first-born "Charlie" - put up some lawn signs at his home mocking the Prophet.

No need to go that far, Unionist. We're doing the very same thing here in this thread. The cover is reprinted here. Are we xenophobic? Giving free advertising? Defending the west in the clash of civilizations?

No - because as near as I can see, we're not reprinting anything here as a political statement, as a mark of defiance or courage, or any of that other racist pro-Western supremacist trash that this British Tarek Fatah is churning out. See the difference?

Quote:
To be honest, I find this new-found respect for the prophet a bit of a reversal.

I think Islam, like most other religious doctrines, is obscurantist, divisive, anti-scientific, anti-women, anti-LGBTQ, and on a par with fairy tales - harmful ones, bad for the human spirit and the planet. I'm not about to change my mind about that any time soon. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize neo-colonial racist hypocrisy and warmongering when I see it either. Or that I approve of slaughtering Afghans so that "women and girls" can go to school. Get the distinction?

Quote:
As I said, I am not so thick that I don't get, or don't agree with some of the arguments about those in power exploiting this (I think I mentioned the hypocrites, le Pen, the French government, and right wing Christians myself). But if we are to accept blasphemy law as something we should enforce or at least protest in favour of, again, we get back to where that line is.

"Blasphemy law"? Anyone who tries to impose it in Canada should be imprisoned. Clear? As for other countries, we should stop short of invading and killing people who adopt blasphemy laws.

Quote:
Even so, the fact that one would apologize for showing that cover (why?) and that none of the major media would show it (even though one DID show the Netanyahu as bricklayer pic) is enough that I take Rahman's point.

Media have the right to reprint such puerile cartoons. They also have the right to apologize when they believe they have offended some of their readers. But anyone who calls them "cowards" for refusing to reprint? Asshole.

Quote:

And I have to say, nice little bit of provocative satire, too.

Nothing wrong with provocation or satire - as long as I agree with it. I will defend to the death my right to defend my rights to the death.

By the way, here's my reply to Mr. Rahman, who's obviously looking for a knighthood:

The minute millions took to the streets declaring "Je Suis Charlie" - "the attackers had won".

 

Unionist

Oh, and in case the home-grown Islamophobe Rahman didn't get it, here's a Jew who can 'splain it better (thanks laine lowe, who linked this in the Israel thread!):

[url=https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/reflections-on-the-recent-paris-massacre-a... Avnery:[/url]

Quote:

The three Islamic terrorists could have been very proud of themselves, if they had lived to see it.

By committing two attacks (quite ordinary ones by Israeli standards) they spread panic throughout France, brought millions of people onto the streets, gathered more than 40 heads of states in Paris. They changed the landscape of the French capital and other French cities by mobilizing thousands of soldiers and police officers to guard Jewish and other potential targets. For several days they dominated the news throughout the world.

Three terrorists, probably acting alone. Three!!!

For other potential Islamic terrorists throughout Europe and America, this must look like a huge achievement. It is an invitation for individuals and tiny groups to do the same again, everywhere.

Terrorism means striking fear. The three in Paris certainly succeeded in doing that. They terrorized the French population. And if three youngsters without any qualifications can do that, imagine what 30 could do, or 300!

 

6079_Smith_W

No, I don't see the difference. Not pretending to be stupid. I don't see the difference, since a number of people were offended anyway. And I seriously doubt that played all that much into the killer's actions.

And the distinction you are asking me about had nothing to do with my actual question, whch was what you think the problem is with printing a picture of Mohammed. But if you think those other political stands aren't cause for offense against Islam and murderous reaction, you might want to open a newspaper. In fact, you might want to review some of the things posted in this thread.  Should Kamel Daoud apologize for offending Muslims by writing a book that got him branded an enemy of religion?

If the line is supposed to be obvious, I'm afraidn I don't get it.

And what do press standards and freedom of speech in France and England have to do with invasion? I am talking about the argument that religious laws (sharia) should sway media decisions. Should we also expect them to start apologizing for perceived insults against Jesus too?

(edit)

Yup. Good point. Forgot to mention that they cowed a huge swath of the supposed secular left into toeing the line and shouting down anyone who might want to insult the prophet too.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And the distinction you are asking me about had nothing to do with my actual question, whch was what you think the problem is with printing a picture of Mohammed.

There is no problem. The "problem" I mentioned, if you re-read, was an asshole that says anyone who declines to do so is a "coward" who has essentially allowed "the attackers to win".

Get what I said?

Quote:
And what do press standards and freedom of speech in France and England have to do with invasion? I am talking about the argument that religious laws (sharia) should sway media decisions. Should we also expect them to start apologizing for perceived insults against Jesus too?

I don't actually give much of a damn about freedom of speech or the press in France and England. That's a problem for the people there to sort out.

Most of their media are craven lackeys that don't thoroughly condemn French and British imperialism - i.e., interference in the rest of the world. That's what I think is important, for me. As well as their relegation of certain minority populations to the status of second-class citizens. That bothers me too.

 

6079_Smith_W

Hm. And I said I take his point even though I don't care if some media don't want to publish. Some of the cases here - the Danish paper not doing so out of fear, the German paper firebombed, and Sky News apologizing for showing a newspaper cover -are a bit beyond that, for me anyway.

The "coward" thing? hardly the strongest charge made in this thread.

It's more your easy references to insulting some fellow who has been dead over a millennium, and the honorifics, and accepting of apologies for the same,  as if they mean anything at all, that have me smiling and scratching my head.

And if we're making a list, I don't like global warming either, or those cheap knockoffs of Hawkins Cheesies.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if we're making a list, I don't like global warming either, or those cheap knockoffs of Hawkins Cheesies.

I wasn't making a list of stuff I don't like. I was saying how (in my opinion) the media in France and the U.K., just like here, excuse and ignore oppression at home and abroad, which helps stoke the desperation and opportunism that results in terror attacks like these.

As opposed to Sir Rahman, who believes their origin is in the Qu'ran somewhere.

 

6079_Smith_W

This is getting a bit circular, but how do you think that printing an image of the prophet stokes that "desparation and opportunism"?

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

Oh, and in case the home-grown Islamophobe Rahman didn't get it, here's a Jew who can 'splain it better (thanks laine lowe, who linked this in the Israel thread!):

[url=https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/reflections-on-the-recent-paris-massacre-a... Avnery:[/url]

Quote:

The three Islamic terrorists could have been very proud of themselves, if they had lived to see it.

By committing two attacks (quite ordinary ones by Israeli standards) they spread panic throughout France, brought millions of people onto the streets, gathered more than 40 heads of states in Paris. They changed the landscape of the French capital and other French cities by mobilizing thousands of soldiers and police officers to guard Jewish and other potential targets. For several days they dominated the news throughout the world.

Three terrorists, probably acting alone. Three!!!

For other potential Islamic terrorists throughout Europe and America, this must look like a huge achievement. It is an invitation for individuals and tiny groups to do the same again, everywhere.

Terrorism means striking fear. The three in Paris certainly succeeded in doing that. They terrorized the French population. And if three youngsters without any qualifications can do that, imagine what 30 could do, or 300!

 

yes excellent, which is why I also linked to it @ 674

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is getting a bit circular, but how do you think that printing an image of the prophet stokes that "desparation and opportunism"?

Look, what appears to be your problem? I said that the media ignoring and excusing oppression at home and abroad is what stokes desperation and opportunism.

I did NOT say that "printing an image of the prophet" does anything of the sort.

I have NO PROBLEM with printing images of the Prophet, may Allah bless him forever and ever. My problem is with those who scream "COWARDS! APPEASERS!!" against those who refuse to turn Charlie Hebdo's third-rate adolescent satire into a new religion.

Do I have to post everything twice and in big fonts so that it gets read properly?

6079_Smith_W

No Unionist, you don't have to repeat. I'm just trying to square that with what you said at #682, and a few other things here. Are you saying you don't consider the pictures of Mohammed one of those puerile xenophobic, provocative cartoons? Why mention it?

The media ignores oppression? Yes, I know that.  How does that have anything more to do with this specific question - media tailoring their publishing to fit religious dogma - than those Hawkin's Cheesies I really like? In fact, how is printing those images creating a new religion?

And he's an islamophobe? On what basis do you say that? Or that because he holds certain opinions he must be lobbying for a knighthood? In this little "get to know you" piece he actually points out that he feels secularism isn't the same as atheism.

https://lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/meet-the-lss-sadi...

Pondering

Maybe we need to step back and accept it's about multiple issues not just free speech but including free speech.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/paris-attacks-part-of-battle-th...

The attack on journalists in Paris today isn’t an isolated incident but part of a broader attempt to muzzle the press. At least 158 reporters and photographers have been killed while doing their jobs since 2011, the worst three-year period on record.

“There is a global battle over the freedom of expression,” said Joel Simon, executive director of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, which has been tracking press killings since 1992. “Journalists are unquestionably under greater threat than ever.”

Newspapers and magazines across Europe and the Middle East are bracing for violence in the aftermath of today’s shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly, that left 12 dead. Other newspapers in Paris have stepped up security, as did Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen, the publisher of controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005. In Madrid, the offices of the El Pais newspaper were evacuated after security guards detected a suspicious package. The Financial Times said it was raising security levels.

“After a terrible year in 2014, it’s a terrible start for press freedom in the world,” said Vincent Peyregne, chief executive officer of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, based in Paris.

While the attacks in Paris were unusual because the victims were satirists, they were also typical because they were murdered for their work, Simon said.

Challenging Power

“It is journalistic entities that challenge power structures in their societies that are attacked,” Simon said. Today’s shooting “conforms to that form of attack, but in this case it happened in Paris, so it was shocking.”

I think those of us saying it isn't about free speech are saying so because this hoopla didn't occur over all the other journalists that have been dying. It it was really about the principle of free speech those deaths would have caused demonstrations too.

Our own government is more of a threat to free speech than terrorists are yet the public isn't excited about that.

Even with the threats that we are under from our own government the principle of free speech over all is not under threat in the west. The proof of that is in the massive reprinting of the cartoons with so little impact in the western world.

I accept that some individuals and publications did not reprint out of fear of reprisals so their free speech was curtailed but free speech in general has not been seriously curtailed by these attacks.

NDPP

How will they 'defend our freedoms' against 'Radical Islam'? 'Just watch me'...

 

Terror as Wedge Issue: Anticipating PM Stephen Harper's 'Anti-Terror' Legislation   -  by David Climenhaga

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2015/01/terror-wedge-issue-...

"...the legislation is likely still to be stitched together from a surveillance state wish list concocted by various players in the security services, the corporate sector and the political executives.

Care will have to be taken by the drafters to ensure provisions designed to intimidate and spy on designated enemies of the Conservative Party of Canada, environmentalists, [ALWAYS Indigenous activists] or union members for example, will not unduly trouble friends of the government who might warrant surveillance, say radical gun ownership advocates, [or radical JDL zios].

No, the real targets are far more likely to be unions, environmentalists, uppity scientists, pipeline opponents, reproductive rights advocates, social media commentators and others in the PM's ever-lengthening Enemies list. In addition I'm sure Harper's corporate friends would like nothing more than for the state to label, say, anti-pipeline advocacy as 'supporting terrorism.'

 

'Go Home & Take Obama!' : Rival Crowds at Anti-Islamophobic Event in Texas (and vid)

http://rt.com/usa/223787-texas-islam-conference-protest/

"The event was titled, 'Stand with the Prophet Against Terror and Hate' and was aimed at disproving negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the US, according to organizers.

Probably the crowd waving American flags and holding placards, some of them referring to recent terrorist attacks on Paris, France, are among those this message is aimed at.

'This is yet another manifestation of 'Islamophobia - phobia', national security reporter Patrick Poole told the Conservative website Washington Free Beacon. 'The conference organisers invoke an 'Islamophobia hate machine' based in the US that is responsible for defaming Muslims worldwide but the evils of the past week and other recent attacks have done more to damage the image of Islam than any other factor.'

NDPP

With respect to the raft of 'anti-terror' legislation and further police state intrusion which awaits us, make no mistake that 'experts' from Harper's Israeli 'best friends' will most certainly be 'consulted'.

The Canada-Israel 'Public Safety Agreement'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-canada-israel-public-safety-agreement/8530

 

This agreement, now much more developed and enhanced, was signed by then minister Stockwell Day, who now sits on CIJA's Board.

The Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) - Canada's little AIPAC

http://www.cija.ca/about-us/board-of-directors/

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Maybe we need to step back and accept it's about multiple issues not just free speech but including free speech.

I accept that some individuals and publications did not reprint out of fear of reprisals so their free speech was curtailed but free speech in general has not been seriously curtailed by these attacks.

No one has said that free speech is the only issue here. And if it was just these attacks it would be no problem, since the murderers aren't in any position to kill anyone any more.

But there have been media - the Danish paper, for one - which admitted to fear, and another apologizing. And while I support papers making whatever decision they would ordinarily, when you have an entire country's media declining to do so, I'd say Rahman has a compelling case for calling out the cowards.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Maybe we need to step back and accept it's about multiple issues not just free speech but including free speech.

I accept that some individuals and publications did not reprint out of fear of reprisals so their free speech was curtailed but free speech in general has not been seriously curtailed by these attacks.

No one has said that free speech is the only issue here. And if it was just these attacks it would be no problem, since the murderers aren't in any position to kill anyone any more.

But there have been media - the Danish paper, for one - which admitted to fear, and another apologizing. And while I support papers making whatever decision they would ordinarily, when you have an entire country's media declining to do so, I'd say Rahman has a compelling case for calling out the cowards.

Pages

Topic locked