French Terror Attack

[Sumac13]

- That was my initial post on this thread - I think the 3rd post on page 1 ... How exactly di you derive race from that? I did not even mention skin color/race in that post? Can you please explain? And to explain the skin tone - Kim Kardashians skin tone has an ethinic tone to it as opposed to say Paris Hilton. Or do you only see the world as Black and White?

You make bigoted comments, yet I am the bigot? Ok.

Fuck. I didn't want to get drawn into this conversation.

I quoted which post I was replying to, so make it out that I was referring to a different one. The post of yours that I referred to dealt with you post stating "If they were white.." To which I replied the majority of Middle Easterners are white. To which you replied, they are of "unique skin tone." [Which is a fucking retarded attempt to justify your comment about "If they were white…".] So, yes, you did mention skin color. Please don't pretend that you never brought it up. You seem to be conveniently ignoring a particular post. "I didn't say it here or there…, and by the way, please don't look at the post where I did so you cannot state that I did."

As for your comment that I see the world as black and white… My comments were to point out your lame attempt to make a differentiation to somehow differentiate Middle Easterners from white folk. It is a bogus attempt.

"I am ethnically white." "I am ethnically unique skin tone." "I am ethnically black." "I am ethnically [fill in your own color]. Skin color is not tantemount to ethnicity. White is not an ethnicity. Unique skin tone is not an ethnicity. Black is not an ethnicity. Treating each as a whole group is dumb. (Yes, your comment about "If they were white…" is such a statement.)

As gourimoko has pointed out, there is a lot of bigotry in this thread. People may feel justified for feeling it, but own up to it, rather than resorting to convoluted logic to state otherwise. Just because one doesn't explicitly state it doesn't meant that he or she implicitly didn't. It isn't hard to discern.

 

[Sebastian]

You make bigoted comments, yet I am the bigot? Ok.

Fuck. I didn't want to get drawn into this conversation.

I quoted which post I was replying to, so make it out that I was referring to a different one. The post of yours that I referred to dealt with you post stating "If they were white.." To which I replied the majority of Middle Easterners are white. To which you replied, they are of "unique skin tone." [Which is a fucking retarded attempt to justify your comment about "If they were white…".] So, yes, you did mention skin color. Please don't pretend that you never brought it up. You seem to be conveniently ignoring a particular post. "I didn't say it here or there…, and by the way, please don't look at the post where I did so you cannot state that I did."

As for your comment that I see the world as black and white… My comments were to point out your lame attempt to make a differentiation to somehow differentiate Middle Easterners from white folk. It is a bogus attempt.

"I am ethnically white." "I am ethnically unique skin tone." "I am ethnically black." "I am ethnically [fill in your own color]. Skin color is not tantemount to ethnicity. White is not an ethnicity. Unique skin tone is not an ethnicity. Black is not an ethnicity. Treating each as a whole group is dumb. (Yes, your comment about "If they were white…" is such a statement.)

As gourimoko has pointed out, there is a lot of bigotry in this thread. People may feel justified for feeling it, but own up to it, rather than resorting to convoluted logic to state otherwise. Just because one doesn't explicitly state it doesn't meant that he or she implicitly didn't. It isn't hard to discern.

Wow. I'm not entirely sure what you two are arguing anymore.

 

[brownindian]

You make bigoted comments, yet I am the bigot? Ok.

Fuck. I didn't want to get drawn into this conversation.

I quoted which post I was replying to, so make it out that I was referring to a different one. The post of yours that I referred to dealt with you post stating "If they were white.." To which I replied the majority of Middle Easterners are white. To which you replied, they are of "unique skin tone." [Which is a fucking retarded attempt to justify your comment about "If they were white…".] So, yes, you did mention skin color. Please don't pretend that you never brought it up. You seem to be conveniently ignoring a particular post. "I didn't say it here or there…, and by the way, please don't look at the post where I did so you cannot state that I did."

As for your comment that I see the world as black and white… My comments were to point out your lame attempt to make a differentiation to somehow differentiate Middle Easterners from white folk. It is a bogus attempt.

"I am ethnically white." "I am ethnically unique skin tone." "I am ethnically black." "I am ethnically [fill in your own color]. Skin color is not tantemount to ethnicity. White is not an ethnicity. Unique skin tone is not an ethnicity. Black is not an ethnicity. Treating each as a whole group is dumb. (Yes, your comment about "If they were white…" is such a statement.)

As gourimoko has pointed out, there is a lot of bigotry in this thread. People may feel justified for feeling it, but own up to it, rather than resorting to convoluted logic to state otherwise. Just because one doesn't explicitly state it doesn't meant that he or she implicitly didn't. It isn't hard to discern.

Of course I did say If they were white cos I was asked a question that was addressed to me:

gourimoko said: ↑
As I said upthread, France has the largest Muslim population in Europe; excluding Turkey obviously.

These men were French nationals. But your question speaks to Pick6's question; how do you assimilate into a country that you were born in when they will never consider you a first class citizen no matter what you do?

Here's an honest question: would you have asked "where are they from, how did they get in the country," had these men been White? Even considering how integrated (nationally) mainland European nations are with one another -- it's just an odd thing, ya know?


The reason I asked this question was I assumed upon looking at their photos that these
terrorists came into France as refugees/slipped in through the border but landed up being Al Quaeda operatives. And from the picture they do like distinctly middle eastern and not like white people. So them being born in France and doing these crimes was not something I equated to. So I assume Gouri asked me this question because he thought what if these people had been white - then will I still assume them to be outsiders or will I ask a different question? Which is a fair question. That is where the skin color entered the discussion.

Was ignoring the question the best option for me? If i am bigoted then I am .. so be it. I am perfectly being fine as being viewed as a bigot if that is what you view me as . But I will stand by my words that the skin tone of a middle eastern is different from the skin tone of a typical Caucasian although their skin color is described as white. If you have trouble accepting it then so be it You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine.

Also initial post would be the first post and you said initially as opposed to the exact post so I asked you where you deduced it from I asked you to quote me where I said that I was bringing in race - and I never brought in race you did - And you are the one who is repeatedly bringing in killings from the KKK and saying that hey terrorism happens in the US too but I am not calling it Christian Terrorism. I am the one asking questions and you are the one attacking me - Till now you have not made one post to say - Hey these French Killings were political or social and not related to an International Terror Organization- Which is what I am interested in finding out and have been asking. Feel free to curse more expletives at me but do please let me know if you know what motivated these attacks and are these local terrorism or a bigger plot cos that is what i am more interested in knowing.

 

[Sebastian]

Of course I did say If they were white cos I was asked a question that was addressed to me:

gourimoko said: ↑
As I said upthread, France has the largest Muslim population in Europe; excluding Turkey obviously.

These men were French nationals. But your question speaks to Pick6's question; how do you assimilate into a country that you were born in when they will never consider you a first class citizen no matter what you do?

Here's an honest question: would you have asked "where are they from, how did they get in the country," had these men been White? Even considering how integrated (nationally) mainland European nations are with one another -- it's just an odd thing, ya know?


The reason I asked this question was I assumed upon looking at their photos that these
terrorists came into France as refugees/slipped in through the border but landed up being Al Quaeda operatives. And from the picture they do like distinctly middle eastern and not like white people. So them being born in France and doing these crimes was not something I equated to. So I assume Gouri asked me this question because he thought what if these people had been white - then will I still assume them to be outsiders or will I ask a different question? Which is a fair question. That is where the skin color entered the discussion.

Was ignoring the question the best option for me? If i am bigoted then I am .. so be it. I am perfectly being fine as being viewed as a bigot if that is what you view me as . But I will stand by my words that the skin tone of a middle eastern is different from the skin tone of a typical Caucasian although their skin color is described as white. If you have trouble accepting it then so be it You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine.

Also initial post would be the first post and you said initially as opposed to the exact post so I asked you where you deduced it from I asked you to quote me where I said that I was bringing in race - and I never brought in race you did - And you are the one who is repeatedly bringing in killings from the KKK and saying that hey terrorism happens in the US too but I am not calling it Christian Terrorism. I am the one asking questions and you are the one attacking me - Till now you have not made one post to say - Hey these French Killings were political or social and not related to an International Terror Organization- Which is what I am interested in finding out and have been asking. Feel free to curse more expletives at me but do please let me know if you know what motivated these attacks and are these local terrorism or a bigger plot cos that is what i am more interested in knowing.

Perhaps I can recommend qualifying "White" in the traditional sense, insofar as what we mean by white in the US, as "Northern European?" And olive toned skin individuals as "Mediterranean?"

 

[gourimoko]

Brownindian (interesting name considering), to Surmac's point, there are many many "White" looking Arabs and Muslims.

My stepfather is a Berber. Yeah X, I forgot to mention the Berbers; sorry.. lol.. Anyway, they are not only White looking, but they are actually "White" people from a genetic standpoint - in that, they are descendants of people who originated in Europe.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say most Arabs are "White," I know most Lebanese have very fair skin though.

Turks can be considered "White," and most consider themselves Europeans (although Europeans don't consider Turks European at all).

But really there is no such thing as "White," and this is one of those areas where that term kinda breaks down.

 

[gourimoko]

Perhaps I can recommend qualifying "White" in the traditional sense, insofar as what we mean by white in the US, as "Northern European?" And olive toned skin individuals as "Mediterranean?"

Again, Berbers are very very fair skinned, as in -- if they didn't say they were Berbers, you'd have no idea.

Many Lebanese are of similar complexion. There are "White" looking Arabs (although Berbers, as previously stated, are not Arabs - in fact, they hate Arabs).

Also, I think the definition of "White" as Northern European is too narrow as to be an accurate representation of what the commonplace categorization really entails. This would exclude people from Spain, Italy, Greece, and all of the Mediterranean, Southwestern Russia, Turkey, and many Slavic peoples from South Eastern Europe (the Hungarian regions of Europe, for example).

It's just too narrow of a definition, and again, exposes the concept of "Whiteness" as being inherently false, self-contradictory, and yes, racist. Same for the concept of "Blackness."

(what do I mean by that? Why is the President considered Black and not White or half/half? -- anyway thats another topic).

 

[brownindian]

Brownindian (interesting name considering), to Surmac's point, there are many many "White" looking Arabs and Muslims.

My stepfather is a Berber. Yeah X, I forgot to mention the Berbers; sorry.. lol.. Anyway, they are not only White looking, but they are actually "White" people from a genetic standpoint - in that, they are descendants of people who originated in Europe.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say most Arabs are "White," I know most Lebanese have very fair skin though.

Turks can be considered "White," and most consider themselves Europeans (although Europeans don't consider Turks European at all).

But really there is no such thing as "White," and this is one of those areas where that term kinda breaks down.

I get what you are saying in that White is not a race by itself. But here is what I am saying. I see this image in the news and In my mind i am thinking middle eastern as they do not match my mental image of what I think would be an average French white guy. Am I completely off base with my profiling ? And what would you profile him as. I am asking this out of curiosity only -You do not have to answer it if you are not comfortable .

 

[The Oi]

Them dudes look middle eastern.

 

[Sebastian]

Maybe some kinda Spanish?

 

[gourimoko]

Brownindian, you're missing one of the guys' faces no? The Black guy...

But anyway, let's talk about the "average French guy." If you put 10 Frenchmen in a room, 2 of them wouldn't be White - but they'd be French.

In America, this would be more like 2 out of 5 and not 2 out of 10, but France is rapidly becoming the same way (at a faster pace than the United States).

There is pushback against this trend, but the exclusionary nature of French nationalism and the desire to preserve "French identity" makes Arabs, Blacks, Muslims, Asians, etc feel ostracized from a culture in which they were born and raised and at one time likely believed to be their own.

 

[Sebastian]

Brownindian, you're missing one of the guys' faces no? The Black guy...

But anyway, let's talk about the "average French guy." If you put 10 Frenchmen in a room, 2 of them wouldn't be White - but they'd be French.

In America, this would be more like 2 out of 5 and not 2 out of 10, but France is rapidly becoming the same way (at a faster pace than the United States).

There is pushback against this trend, but the exclusionary nature of French nationalism and the desire to preserve "French identity" makes Arabs, Blacks, Muslims, Asians, etc feel ostracized from a culture in which they were born and raised and at one time likely believed to be their own.

I find it an interesting phenomenon, particularly with regard to those of Algerian descent considering that Algeria was part of Metropolitan France before independence. Algerians were offered full citizenship rights as far back as Napoleon III provided they renounced the right to Sharia Law. Many of the Algerians in France were so-called Harkis that fought with the French.

Now, the opposite behavior from the French. Short memories I suppose that can't see past skin-color or religion.

 

[brownindian]

Fair statement - But again is this a 'French' problem or is it a bigger problem? If it is caused due France's internal strife then there is nothing much that other countries can do about it. But if this is a new recruitment and attack strategy by Al Quaeda then there is a good chance that this could happen in many other countries as well and while the US & its allies are spending millions on fighting them in middle east that will do nothing against this sort of attack.

Isn't that reason enough to find out the reasoning and the institution behind this attack?

 

[Sebastian]

AQ or ISIS would have claimed responsibility. This may be a lone wolf operation by people with resources and connections to, but not working on the behalf of, larger terror networks.

 

[brownindian]

There is evidence the three dead suspects -- brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi and grocery store gunman Amedy Coulibaly -- knew each other and shared common ties with known terrorists.

But investigators still don't know if their attacks were a coordinated set of strikes, or if Coulibaly carried out his attack as a show of support for the Kouachi brothers.

While Coulibaly claimed allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the brothers had strong connections to al Qaeda.

U.S. officials say Said Kouachi spent time in Yemen in 2011, training with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. On Friday, AQAP posted a video praising the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

A spokesman for the Yemen-based al Qaeda affiliate told CBS News, "The leadership of AQAP directed the operation, and they have chosen their target carefully."

Officials have not verified that. But in a phone interview earlier today with a French television network BFM-TV, a man purporting to be Cherif Kouachi made a similar claim.

"I, Cherif Kouachi," the caller said, "was sent by al Qaeda in Yemen. I had been there (to Yemen) and it's Sheikh Anwar Awlaki who financed me, may Allah have mercy on his soul."

The French prosecutor says Cherif spent time in Yemen during 2011, the same time his brother was there.

It's not clear if the brothers ever met face-to-face with Awlaki, who was AQAP's chief of terror operations until he was killed by a U.S. drone strike in September of 2011.

At the same time, U.S. law enforcement say at this point, there are no co-conspirators or threats here connected to the French suspects.

LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-french-terrorists-were-connected-to-al-qaeda-isis/

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

Ofcourse this proves nothing but an interesting explanation for why the gunmen were so efficient.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Charlie Hebdo being a racist, bigoted and prejudiced publication is not relevant to why they were attacked?

No. They were attacked because they printed cartoons about Mohammed that were deemed blasphemous for religious reasons. Claims otherwise are simply an attempt to whitewash the religious motivation of the attackers, by generalizing it to bland, non-specific "bigotry" or "prejudice". It is the same motivation that led to the threats against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the threats against Comedy Central and others who wanted to run a cartoon depicting Muhammed, etc..

Why do you keep denying this? There were overt, direct threats against them saying they should be killed for insulting Muhammed. The people who commit those acts/make those threats openly claim religious reasons as their motivation. Al Qaeda in Yemen, who have claimed responsibility for this and been linked to it by other sources, say it was because of alleged religious blasphemy.

Europe certainly does have a number of small, overtly racist groups, but they're not being attacked because of those overtly racist beliefs. It's the people/groups who are perceived to have insulted Muhammed who receive the threats and are attacked.

Where has this been "expressed??" You're straight up lying with your "quote" because the attackers made no public statement.

Sure they did -- they screamed "Allahu Akhbar" as they were killing people. We also know that the brothers traveled to and trained with AQ in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Unless you're going to argue that AQAP's focus is anti-racism, their actions in aligning themselves with that group speak pretty fucking clearly about their motivations. And here's part of the statement released by AQAP after the attacks

Soon after the Al Qaeda member claimed responsibility for the Paris attack on Friday, The Associated Press reported that the branch's senior cleric Sheikh Harith al-Nadhari issued a recording on the group's Twitter feed commenting on the "blessed raid on Paris." He denounced the "filthy" French and called them "the heads of infidelity who insult the prophets." He praised the "hero mujahedeen" who he said "taught them a lesson and the limits of freedom of speech." "How can we not fight those who hurt our prophet, slandered our religion and fought the faithful."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...arlie-hebdo-yemen-al-qaeda-pentagon/21520311/

Mocking a religion is indeed a discriminatory and prejudiced action.

Gee, that's interesting...why are you talking about "mocking a religion" if there's no link between that and the attacks on Charlie Hebod? Anyway....

First, do you think it should be illegal to engage in "discriminatory and prejudiced actions", and that it therefore should be illegal to mock religion?

And second, I do not believe that mocking any belief system, including a religion, is prejudiced and discriminatory. Those are terms applicable to attitudes towards people, not belief systems. And as an aside, South Park mocks everything -- I don't see how that can be considered either discriminatory or prejudiced.

More fundamentally, the idea that any belief system should be immune from harsh criticism, including mocking, strikes me as profoundly repressive. Religions are mocked all the time by social commentators, as are other belief systems such as conservatism, feminism, etc.. Shit, you've got some wacko religious-based belief systems out there that have openly racist principles. Should they be immune from being mocked just because they're religions?

This is commonly considered racist. But it doesn't depict a "race" of people does it?

The cartoon image itself is racist. The context in which that image is used may not be, as demonstrated by your use of that image here to make a rhetorical point.

But...that isn't the Charlie Hebdo cartoon that is at the center of all this, is it? I mean, are you seriously claiming that AQAP supports this attack because they were angered at a depiction of a Jew? Because according the WP, I thought this was the cartoon in question:

Which, frankly, I don't see as racist. The physical depiction doesn't suggest anything evil or negative -- all it's got is the normal exaggeration of facial features common to virtually all cartoons, caricatures.

The problem with Charlie Hebdo is they routinely depicted Muslims as savages and barbarians.

From what I've seen, I think they are/were trying to depict the subclass of violent Muslim extremists as savages and barbarians, which I believe is perfectly accurate and fair.

Yes, they also ridiculed the prophet Muhammad. Dehumanizing Muslims is the exact same form of racism as dehumanizing Jews. That's the point.

I do not equate mocking/ridiculing Muhammed with dehumanizing Muslims any more than mocking Catholic priests for child abuse is dehumanizing Catholics.