French Terror Attack

[gourimoko]

Well, there clearly is "doubt", else nobody would have asked.

I never heard of this publication until this incident, but given typical European sensibilities, I'd find it odd that an openly racist publication would be defended at all. Nor have I read any accusations that it was racist from those you'd usually think would be making that accusation.

Now, I do know that it is a satirical publication, and likely draws a lot of caricatures of people of various races, religions, whatever. But that doesn't make it racist.

You haven't even said anything here. You admittedly don't know anything about the publication.

Go do your own research. It would take you all of 5 minutes to see their characterture of Blacks as monkeys, and Arabs as something less than human.

Again, comedy and satire is not immune to racism.

---quote---
there is already an enormous pressure, in this context, to defend Charlie Hebdo as a forceful exponent of “Western values,” or in some cases even as a brilliantly radical bastion of left-wing anti-clericalism.

Now, I think there’s a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow “legitimate targets,” and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.

I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that — irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes — the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist. If you need to be convinced of this, then I suggest you do your research, beginning with reading Edward Said’s Orientalism, as well as some basic introductory texts on Islamophobia, and then come back to the conversation.
--end quote--

Seriously, if you need to be brought up to speed then you've gotta at least spend a few minutes researching the topic.

To anyone open to the idea, there should be no doubt with regards to whether or not Charlie Hebdo was a racist, bigoted publication.

In any case, the attack apparently was for cartoons that were viewed as disrespectful to Muhammed. Are you say that those particular cartoons were racist?

We don't know what the attack was over specifically or what specific cartoon, if any, the gunmen were offended by. It may not have been one, it may have been many.

Why are you trying to narrow this down to argue minutea?

Because if not, anything else they did really isn't relevant.

....Neither you or I know why the gunmen attacked, so you have no idea what would or wouldn't be relevant. No one is arguing the gunman's position either; least of all me, so I cannot take their point of view in your strawman argument.

Suffice it to say though, the authors at that publication knew what they were doing, and yes, much of it was bigoted, prejudiced, and racist.

 

[DJTJ]

Question to anyone who wants to take a swing at it

Eliminating governments attacking areas for political and self-social furthering (ie, protecting foreign interests, as inhumane as they might sometimes be),if all religions denounce violence and killing, what justifies killing as a religious response?

 

[Sebastian]

Were they aggressively attacked by the countries they have been in and they are just defending themselves? No? Ok, well then why are they there? They didn't like the dictators that were in charge? I guess the situation is better now. The people in those countries have the right to self-determination. If they want to overthrow their dictator they can.

What they don't want is France or the United States to come in and do it, killing numerous innocents, and empowering one group with our weapons and aid, creating enemies out of the rest, and creating civil war. All of the people affected by this will hate the intruders that caused it.

Wars in self defense are justified. Wars to interfere in the affairs of others creates enemies where there were none before.

Well, you're not wrong.

New developments, the brothers are dead, more hostages taken:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...ay-they-want-to-die-as-martyrs/#__federated=1

 

[brownindian]

I doubt that this attack on the French Satire Magazine attack was primarily caused by the French involvement in the prior wars in Islamic countries. The attackers asked for the cartoonists by name - It leads me to believe that this was to kill the people who mocked their prophet.

The questions is how did these people get into France?

 

[kosis]

 

[Sebastian]

I doubt that this attack on the French Satire Magazine attack was primarily caused by the French involvement in the prior wars in Islamic countries. The attackers asked for the cartoonists by name - It leads me to believe that this was to kill the people who mocked their prophet.

The questions is how did these people get into France?

They were French citizens. They were born there. One was an aspiring rapper who was radicalized and trained overseas by Al Qaeda.

 

[gourimoko]

I doubt that this attack on the French Satire Magazine attack was primarily caused by the French involvement in the prior wars in Islamic countries. The attackers asked for the cartoonists by name - It leads me to believe that this was to kill the people who mocked their prophet.

The questions is how did these people get into France?

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?

 

[Sumac13]

When a group fights for a cause (justice, equal rights, right to self-governace, or whatever), it is all to easy to attribute its motives to its religion. Granted, some extremists may exploit their religion to encourage people to take up their cause in a violent manner, but their actions should be taken as indicative of the much broader group. "Religious wars" are much, much more about politics than it is about a religion.

To say it a war between Muslims against Christians/Jews (or any one religious group against another) is grossly guilty of reductionist reasoning. Us/Them. Our religion against theirs. It fails to acknowledge what the underlying causes are, almost all of which have nothing to do with religion.

It's retarded to lump all Muslims into one group and use guilt by association to condemn them all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-hezbollah-idUSKBN0KI1OM20150109

Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons
(Reuters) - The leader of the Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah said on Friday that Islamist terrorists had done more harm to Islam than any cartoon or book, a reference to the attack by suspected Islamist militants on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet."

Takfiri is a term for a Muslim who accuses others, including another Muslim, of apostasy. Hezbollah considers members of ultra-hardline Sunni-dominated groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State to be takfiris.

Twelve people were killed in the presumed Islamist militant attack on Wednesday at the weekly Charlie Hebdo, which has often lampooned Islam and other religions as well as politicians and other public figures.

Cartoons in Charlie Hebdo have provoked angry reactions from some Muslims. Footage of the killings at the paper's offices showed gunmen shouting "we have avenged the Prophet Mohammad".

Nasrallah was speaking to supporters in Beirut's southern suburbs via video link to commemorate the birthday of the Prophet.

Hezbollah, which Washington describes as a terrorist group, functions as a political party that is part of the Lebanese government. It also has a military wing that has sent hundreds of fighters to support President Bashar al-Assad's forces in neighboring Syria.

(Reporting by Laila Bassam and Oliver Holmes; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You haven't even said anything here. You admittedly don't know anything about the publication.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. I said I'd never heard of this publication "until this incident." You can read my post and verify that for yourself.

Go do your own research. It would take you all of 5 minutes to see their characterture of Blacks as monkeys, and Arabs as something less than human.

You're the one making accusations of racism, so the burden is on you to prove it true. The only thing I saw relating to blacks and monkeys is when they made such a portrayal to skewer racists.

In the meantime, there's this:

No, Charlie Hebdo isn't racist

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/01/07/no_charlie_hebdo_isnt_racist.html

On the flip side, I also found this Slate article that said the magazine was both "heroic and racist", although the link they provided in support of the "racism" part didn't show anything of the sort in my opinion. Not even close. As best as I can figure it, Slate believes that simply drawing Mohammed with a dark skin is racist. Or maybe they just believe that criticizing radical Islam is inherently racist because the majority of Muslims are not white.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...satire_cartoons_translated_and_explained.html

I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that — irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes — the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist. If you need to be convinced of this, then I suggest you do your research, beginning with reading Edward Said’s Orientalism, as well as some basic introductory texts on Islamophobia, and then come back to the conversation.

Sorry, but "go read this book so that you agree with my definition of racism" is a crappy response. Specify the cartoon you believe is racist. I linked you to Slate, so pick out which one you believe proves "racism" so we can all see the facts upon which you are basing that allegation. I mean, that's asssuming that you're not just alleging racism second-hand, as I would be surprised to find out you subscribed to Charlie Hebdo before all this happened.

I should add thatI think it is a priori false to equate criticism of a religion with criticism of race. There are dark skinned Christians, Hindus, Jews, and others, and light-skinned Muslims. And I think trying to equate religious and race is just a shoddy attempt to stifle debate.

We don't know what the attack was over specifically or what specific cartoon, if any, the gunmen were offended by. It may not have been one, it may have been many.

Speak for yourself. It seems the intelligence types and journalists who have an interest in this don't have much doubt that the motivation was the alleged blasphemy of depicting Mohammed, especially in an insulting/mocking fashion. If you want to pretend that the attackers weren't motivated by a perceived insult to their religion as they screamed "Allahu Akhbar", but rather by "racism", then I suggest it is you who may need to do some outside reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ublishes-controversial-charlie-hebdo-cartoon/

 

[gourimoko]

...it's tiresome...

What are you trying to debate now? Whether or not, Charlie Hebdo was racist, prejudiced or bigoted?? It's been done, by people who actually read the publication. Why redo it?

Go fucking google it... I'm not going to get into it with you for the simple fact that it would be yet another tired circular argument.

I stated they are racist, I said anyone can go google it on their own and make their own determination. You went and googled it and you found conflicting reports.

Make up your own mind from there. I'm not going to wipe your ass for you.

Jesus Christ, you act like it's outrageous to refer to depictions of Blacks as monkeys as racist. Who would think that's an outlandish thing to say?

It was a racist publication; maybe you don't think so, or you disagree. Great.....

Next...

 

[Nathan S]

Here's an article with some of Hebdo's comics in it, since some people were asking and I haven't seen one posted yet

 

[CodyL1121]

I agree.

 

[Soda]

Here's an article with some of Hebdo's comics in it, since some people were asking and I haven't seen one posted yet

Thanks. Didn't see a monkey on there, but you'd be thick to not understand the metaphor.

What sticks out to me in this whole discussion is how France culture and American culture are being muddled together... In the US, an all-white staffed anything is looked-down upon, let alone a satirical publication poking fun at anyone.. It shows how clearly different American and French culture actually are. Therefore, I can't advocate lumping the two together as the "West". I also wonder why "West" is interchangeably used to refer to some sort of "White agenda"... Just a thought, not question.

So, yeah those cartoons are absolutely offensive as an American looking at them. Absolutely. I'm sure it's offensive to some French people too.. I don't know about as high a percent as America; their culture as it relates to equality is not near the USA, IMO.

What's most disappointing is how the publication reacts to criticism of their stuff... They seem to up the ante.. When pushed against the wall, they go stronger on the offensive. Seems pretty bigoted to me.

 

[JSS2306]

JSS you could replace "Muslim" with anyone and make the same statement. Christian extremists were doing this shit in the 90s in Eastern Europe. Athiests were doing it in Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s.

Catholics in South America in the 80s.

Extremism isn't an Islamic trait.

It's an Islamic trait when the extremism is based on primitive interpretations of the Quran and other Islamic texts.

These are Muslim extremists. Whether or not extremists of other religions (they do exists) did something at some point in time is irrelevant because this is the here and now and the radicalization of Muslims is an ongoing threat facing both the free world and Arab countries alike.

There is obviously extremism in many religions that certainly predates the 60s and 70s and I do not discriminate between the varying religions. You're still trying to politicize something horrible that happened. "Oh but look over here at this point in time".

The history of Islamic extremism is long, well documented, and ongoing. We've gone to war over it, the threat still exists, and the evidence is never-ending. How about we acknowledge the atrocities of this particular sect of extremists instead of turning the tables on someone else.

 

[I.K.W.T]

"View: https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/553734788881076225
"
THIS is why media is so powerful. He owns/runs Fox News.....